Slashdot Mirror
Man Booted From Southwest Flight and Threatened With Arrest After Critical Tweet
CanHasDIY writes The old saying goes, "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all." A man learned the consequences Sunday, after Tweeting about his experience with a rude Southwest gate attendant: "A Minnesota man and his two sons were asked to leave a Southwest Airlines flight after the man sent a tweet complaining about being treated rudely by a gate agent. Duff Watson said he was flying from Denver to Minneapolis on Sunday and tried to board in a spot for frequent flyer privileges he held and take his sons, ages 6 and 9, with him, even though they had a later spot to board the plane. The agent told him that he would have to wait if he wanted to board with his children. Watson replied that he had boarded early with them before and then sent out a tweet that read 'RUDEST AGENT IN DENVER. KIMBERLY S. GATE C39. NOT HAPPY @SWA.' Watson told TV broadcaster KARE in Minneapolis on Wednesday that after he boarded, an announcement came over the plane asking his family to exit the aircraft. Once at the gate, the agent said that unless the tweet was deleted, police would be called and the family would not be allowed back onboard." He gave into the threat, deleted the Tweet, and was allowed to board a later flight. Southwest, as one could have predicted, offered a boilerplate "apology" and vouchers.
Kimberly sure sounds like a cunt.
Using publically visible information (nametag & gate sign) to state an opinion constitutes harassment?
God help the reviewers on Yelp or Angie'sList who give their opinions on different businesses.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
LOL, "American Freedom"!
So any online criticism of any company has to be a "happy" criticism? The "truth" is no longer welcome? What a screwed up world.
Pulling a family off a flight and threatening to summon the police seems pretty intense. They must have done something very bad. What? One of them tweeted about poor customer service before entering the aircraft? That's it?
Did the SWA agent seriously think that threatening the family with not being able to fly and reporting the man to the police (for what?) unless he deleted the tweet would be the end of it? Did the agent think the whole thing would be erased from everyone's memory and it would be as if nobody complained? That's not the way it works. Now everyone in her management chain knows who she is, and not in a good way. Creating a PR incident like this will not go without notice. It's a variant of the Streisand effect.
It's not important to the story, but at least one airline I've flown has figured out that it's good customer service to allow people who spend a lot of money travelling on their airline have their children treated to the same boarding privilege - especially as it costs the airline nothing to do so.
How did Southwest find out about this tweet?
Do they have a team of people sitting around watching a Twitter feed, so that if anyone mentions Southwest they can pounce?
If so, good job guys! You really saved the day here. SWA stock is going to go up tomorrow for sure! :^)
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
The passenger is to blame because the airline threatened legal action over something that wasn't illegal?
Passenger is an idiot, SWA was criminal.
Why do you assume her consent would be required?
The airport is a public place and there is little right to privacy or anonymity when in public... doubly so when you are wearing a name tag.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Asking customers or others to leave a business has put way too much power in the hands of people unable to handle it. Situations like this deserve a court hearing. At times it may even be in opposition to the Americans With Disabilities Act. For example a stroke victim or a person suffering a mental condition may exhibit unpopular behaviors as a direct consequence of their condition just a Turret's syndrome might cause cursing or obscene utterances. Businesses as well as individuals have to suffer the effects just as the person who bears the illness suffers the effects. Depending upon who is doing the looking even drunken or drug induced behaviors may be a disability. We can not have a pretense that the behavior of an ill person is somehow not part of that person as control is often beyond any abilities that they may have to resist the behaviors. As long as they are non violent I can't see any business denying them access.
Maybe it happened, maybe it didn't. But this immediate rush to blame/defend lets rumors fly around while the truth takes its time.
Doesn't matter. Not harrassment.
harassment/hrasm()nt,harsm()nt/
noun
aggressive pressure or intimidation.
What kind of sycophant would label this tweet as harassment?
Also, what type of asshole employee would separate a man from his two young children?
Finally, it would be great to see the 180 degree flip in reaction if the airline attendant had been male and the passenger had been female with her two young children.
For those not familiar with southwest: There is no assigned seating. People board in three groups, A (frequent flyers, people paying extra for early boarding), B and C (everyone else, numbered by check in order). Long story short, he bought the cheap tickets for his kids and wanted a free upgrade. He then threw a fit when he didn't get his way.
"(He) tried to board in a spot for frequent flyer privileges he held and take his sons, ages 6 and 9, with him, even though they had a later spot to board the plane" =/ "Rape victim".
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
Police were going to be called if he didn't delete the tweet? What were they going to do, arrest him on grounds of slander?
After all, he committed several unforgivable sins in a police state:
1. Being critical of authority
2. Having an opinion about authority, instead of accepting it as god-like
3. Communicating said opinion
I see sedition, inciting violence and refusing to let proper authority mishandle him. Of course, if he let them call the police, he would probably have been shot.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
You mean the kids? That would be overly drastic IMO.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
For those who don't know, boarding order is critical on Southwest. You don't get a seat assignment, its first-come-first-serve, like riding a bus, once you get on the plane.
You get a boarding pass with A 1 thru 60, B 1 thru 60, or C 1 thru 60 and everyone boards in that order. The A people get great seats and C people get crap (center seats, back of the plane, no seats together for people traveling together, etc).
Frequent fliers get to skip ahead board between A and B groups (assuming they didn't have and A anyway) which still has lots of good seats free. Families traveling with children 4 or under also get to board before the B group (so they can get seats together).
This guy probably had high number B or C tickets and wanted to use his "A-list" frequent flier status to board early and get 3 seats together with his kids. But his kids didn't have "A-list" status and where too old to qualify for family boarding so they would have wait for their high boarding number to get on the plane.
SWA is negligent to their stockholders for not keeping up with the times. They should know all about twitter and the effects 1 annoyed passenger can have. It is a matter of training and putting procedures in place. The Gate attendant was in the right, and could have just made the point that she would be annoying the other priority passengers by giving him priority when he was not due it. SWA management completely mishandled it and blew it out of all proportion by stopping the flight and yanking the passengers thereby making a newsworthy story and giving themselves a very expensive case of bad publicity. It could have been handled by just a tweet explaining the policy and why putting him ahead of others would have been bad for other passengers. Then it would not have been a news story.
I would have made a 2nd tweet that Southwest threatened police intervention due to the 1st tweet then asked for the city police (not the airport police)
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
Not disagreeing, but clarifying
The way I read it, he had a 1st class ticket, but his kids were traveling economy. So he was trying to board them at the same time as first class, even though they were not.
On his other leg, the boarding agent allowed it. But on this portion the boarding agents disagreed.
So, rather than recognizing that the other agent had been extra nice granting him a privilege, he disparaged the one who followed the rules.
I'm sure there is more to the story, but the whole thing won't come out cause SW and the agent won't say anything else.
I also don't doubt that someone went a little excessive, but I suspect both sides overreacted.
The less people who fly SWA, especially with kids, the more attractive it becomes to those who don't care or don't have kids.
hee hee...
Every time I fly Southwest, their people are energetic and happy. They are probably the best in the business, probably a class unto themselves. This guy however, with what information has been let out, had to be extreme. I'd "luv" to hear what other passengers thought of his behavior!
... isn't that extortion?
my guess is that things were not as one sided as this story leads to believe.
just because a passenger is a customer that should be treated with respect does NOT mean that the passenger doesn't have to follow crewmember instructions. if the passenger was being particularly difficult because he had his two snowflakes in tow and did not want to abide by Southwest's procedures, he should not be allowed on the plane.
given what's happened recently in aviation, one would think safety is important. safety shouldn't be shrugged off merely because a passenger whines when he doesn't get out of the ordinary preferential treatment.
depends. Are they backseat chair kickers?
airports are reduced rights zones after 9/11
Apparently anything involving twitter is (checks top again) transportation related??? Huh?
True they are owned by the airport and not the same as public sidewalk, but there is no expectation of privacy at the gate.
No, you wouldn't have. You cannot win an argument with a flight crew; if they say "get off", you're getting off. There's absolutely no way to appeal that decision in the moment.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Awesome would have been if he went all dirty harry on "Kimberly".
"Go ahead, make my day..."
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
to tweet her rudeness after you land.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
This. As a father with kids, there is a serious double standard. Particularly with women. When my wife goes places with my daughter, she gets helped out, and treated like a parent. When I do the same, it only seems to be other fathers who give me a hand.
Men really need to start to stand up for equal rights.
ie. their boarding system is utter shit to begin with.
A matter of opinion. It works very well if you pre-print your boarding passes 24 hours before departure time. I have *NEVER* had anything but A or B.
Southwest (who still does not charge for 2 checked bags) has always treated my wife and I well. We have traveled with our grand children many times.
If you know and follow the well established and well know rules for obtaining your boarding pass and boarding the jet, it's a very smooth process.
But on the other hand, if you're an "entitled power flyer", your asshole attitude will get you nowhere.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
story. Don't all of you sheep realize that stories like this are posted in this fashion just to get your panties in a bunch so that you'll post irate comments and then keep coming back for more? You're being manipulated here and you're oh so willing to take it because you just enjoy being outraged/offended..
Yes, you are correct.
:-)
But I point out that you are grazing here too, in the role of "observer too clever to take the bait, who then takes the meta-bait so he can make his observation and feel superior."
I would fall into that category too, except I preemptively offer that I'm no better than you.
Somebody did something on the interwebs (or intertubes or whatever those new-fangled contraptions are called). This is a tech site, so we've gotta cover it!
(Actually, if you're serious -- it's here because seating processes on airplanes make everyone bitchy for some reason, and everyone thinks it's inefficient and thinks they could plan it better. So, somebody complaining about some aspect of that is bound to get all the anal retentive wackos here worked up and spouting their favorite ideas about what's wrong with planes and boarding and kids on planes and snakes on planes and whatever. That and... FREE SPEECH, LIBERTARIAN MUMBO-JUMBO, AYN RAND IS A GODDESS!!!! etc. P.S. I'm NOT saying Southwest was in the right here -- just why this story will get everyone worked up.)
Also, to be clear -- I was joking. Realize this is a parody before I get flamed with responses from the libertarian squad or the Society for Boarding in Awesome, Really Reliable Order (or SBARRO for short -- ever wonder why they are in so many airports?) yammering onto me about how I insulted them.
How does "sycophant" work here?
Trolling is a art,
I guess it gets trumped by corporate rights and power.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
The way I read it, he had a 1st class ticket, but his kids were traveling economy. So he was trying to board them at the same time as first class, even though they were not.
There is only one class on Southwest: Cattle Class. When you check in prior to your flight, you are assigned a boarding group and number. Groups are A, B, and C from 1 through 60. A1 through A15 are reserved for Business Select and other special privileges (including frequent flier miles). Other than getting to board earlier and have a wider selection of seats, they are all the same.
According to Southwest's policy, people travelling together but with different boarding positions have the option to board together, provided the person higher up in line waits with the people further back. How this applies to families, I'm fuzzy on, but I would assume if you have a business select or other pass that allows boarding in the A1 through A15 group, it would make sense to have young children (say, under 10 years old) board with you. It seems like this is what the guy had done on several flights previously.
What the gate agent did was apply the boarding policy in the strictest possible terms, which IMO was an asshole move. But it was still technically according to policy. Did he get lucky, or was this particular agent just being overly strict? Could be either or. Pulling them off the flight for a tweet, however, was completely uncalled for. Threatening to call the police unless he deleted said tweet was harassment, plain and simple. Plus, how in the hell did she figure out who it was so quickly? Was she on twitter while she was supposed to be working, or did some corporate wonk call the gate?
I've been a customer of Southwest for a while, but how they handle this in the long run will determine wether or not I continue to be.
"So after all this, you make my case for me. To end this stalemate, you must die..."
+3
I see this and experience this often. So much so that when out with my wife and kids I'll get her to ask for things or handle certain things because she will get much better treatment than I despite the fact that I'm usually a lot more polite than my wife.
This really does need fixing but these days I think most men feel like they can't even mention it because they have lost before they start. Women's rights have done a lot for them but eventually they will pass the goal and go too far. I even read recently I can't remember her name but she is supposedly the founder of the woman's rights movement and she wrote that she made a mistake and regrets it and that men should be men and that we each have unique roles to play.
Anyway, this was off topic but it's one of those things that needs attention.
http://definitions.uslegal.com...
"A public place is generally an indoor or outdoor area, whether privately or publicly owned, to which the public have access by right or by invitation, expressed or implied, whether by payment of money or not, but not a place when used exclusively by one or more individuals for a private gathering or other personal purpose."
US airports are public places. Just because it is private property doesn't automatically mean it's not a public space. If you turn your home into a B&B, it becomes a public space, even though it is your private property. You can have private clubhouses and private airports but the moment you leave the door unlocked and put up a sign that you're open to the public, the presumption of privacy is gone.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
I guess that's one way to silence your critics.
I (an American) just went on a vacation where I entered Russia, then France, then Russia, then the US on my way home. It went like this:
Russia: "What plane did you get off of?" "OK, [stamp]"
France: "Welcome! [stamp]"
Russia: "Welcome back, Tovarish! [stamp]"
US: "Spread 'em, Cocksucker. What's this in your bag? Get in this line - no, the other line! Papers, please! Is this your family? Who packed your suitcase? Look into the camera. Make your wife look into the camera. Submit to bacterial scanning. Put your bags in the X-Ray machine and leave them there until they start to smoke. OK, Meatwad, we'll let you in, but consider this a warning!"
This place has gotten so xenophobic it's silly.
Its actually written in the rules: if you, the person with the medallion status, are the one booking the flight and are also traveling then everyone in your booking gets the same privileges as you would traveling alone. Early boarding, upgrade eligibility, etc. Its a normal rule with all airlines.
Which is his legally protected right. She's acting with government authority (which she doesn't actually have) in demanding he remove the comment. She doesn't have to authority to remove him from the plane -- once he's allowed past the gate, he's allowed. She can lie to TSA or the pilots and claim he's a threat to get them (who do have the authority) to remove him -- but doing so is a very big no-no (felony.) (not that anyone in their circle would do jack about it. just like the PR hand wave SWA is doing now.)
Intercom: "You are now free to get the fuck off mah plane."
We also would have accepted:
Intercom: "You are not free to tweet about our customer service."
If there was any good chance of a reasoning being on the other end of her call to the police, it would have been worth it to let her call and then have the LEO "explain" to her the (unfortunately rare) consequences of filing a false complaint, then watching HER be arrested for disrupting the flight. As it is, of course, ...
Airports are NOT public places, particularly the Gates at airports.
They are called places of public accommodation just like restaurants. There is zero expectation of privacy for the employees in areas where there is customer access. Members of the public have access to them. Specifically... any members of the public who have paid a fee and obtained a ticket.
Sadly if the police were called they may have actually tried to find something to charge somebody with to avoid it being booked as a total waste of time, and that somebody is far more likely to be the passenger than the airline employee due to less likely consequences on the police involved.
Don't lie.
You'll pick the most convenient time or cheapest price, regardless of the airline company.
Yes, cause rocking the boat in an airport is a good idea.
Do you want to give the TSA more reason to be even more ridiculous?
No, you wouldn't have. You cannot win an argument with a flight crew; if they say "get off", you're getting off. There's absolutely no way to appeal that decision in the moment.
You're right, which is why they have total control once you are in the airport. However, if you're willing to give up your first amendment rights in order to save a few hundred bucks on flights, well you've just put a price tag on your freedom.
And you deserve what you get sacrificing that.
Kimberly did not volunteer the information for internet signage. Harassment.
Nor do businesses and people reported to the better business bureau, angie's list, amazon.com, ebay and similar rating services. While the tweet seems harsh based on the given information, the father didn't do anything but report tweet her name that was visible on her publicly displayed name badge. Airlines, just like stores, have employees where such badges so the public knows who has done them wrong or right and can report to management the actions.
While the tweet seems harsh given the limited information presented and probably foolish, it isn't harassment. Likewise, over-reacting to an airline employee normally will get you removed from a plane and possibly arrested, so he should be happy that he was only delayed in his trip.
Also, what type of asshole employee would separate a man from his two young children?
The employee suggested no such thing. She said that the man would have to wait until his children were able to board, and then they could board together.
by my reading of TFA, the customer in this case is a noisy tool who tried to blackmail the check in woman into breaking company rules for him by trying to line jump his kids, then had a temper tantrum when he was denied and threatend to get the staff member fired. staff member refuses to roll over for the guy acting like an asshole and gets abused on the internet for following the rules and telling him he's not special.
It is also not stated if his children are infants or teenagers.
I'm guessing if the guy was not a complete prick and asked nicely he may have gotten his way. Yelling at the minimum wage checkin person may be satisfying, but there are much easier ways to get the upgrade.
I guess the empolyee can be happy that this guy probably gets his hamburgers spit in every time he goes out for one.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
And once he's been asked to leave, he is trespassing if he does not peacefully comply. Companies can refuse service to anyone for practically any reason they want... presumably,. however, if the reason is not actually a good one, the bad publicity that could easily follow will tend to keep companies from being entirely *too* arbitrary about such reasons.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It very easily could have been a huge PR problem if they had called the police... but in all likelihood, he still wouldn't be allowed on the plane before they arrived, and by then the plane could have already left. Oh, and his luggage would be flying off without him.
Sounds like a good recipe for a migraine from bowels of hell.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
So someone at swa is monitoring @swa mentions in realtime actively looking for disparaging tweets and also with a passenger list AND their twitter handle and when said tweets come in has the authority to hotline a gate to hold a plane based on said tweet alone? i mean how else did this plane not already take off? I just dont get the whole timing - good to know i can ground some random plane in california from my couch in missouri
What the fuck does the 1st amendement have to do with this? The airline is a business and they have every right to decline to do business with you and refuse to fly you anywhere. The airline is obligated by FAA rules to disallow disruptive passengers on their planes, so yelling at the agent or refusing to comply with their reasonable instructions means they are legally require to remove you from the plane. If you yell at the McDonalds counter jockey, don't be surprised when they refuse to sell you a burger and ask you to leave.
lol welcome to the internet. if you're a douchebag people will flame you online. grow a pair.
what is really interesting is how fast Sh!tWest A!r was able to intercept a message from one of its passengers and direct an action against that person. If it's fair to wire tap a customers communications, then it's ok to wire tap the wire tapper?
I can see this as a valid post on Angies List, and Yelp.
Who the hell would have seen this tweet other than Southwest Airlines and whatever motley crew actually follows the perp / victim's account? Is there any chance at all this would have impacted SWA if they hadn't decided to take this into meatspace? Like "man criticizes SWA on twitter, picked up by wire services and Daily Show, stock price in freefall (no pun intended)."?
.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
It works as well as harassment does here.
I'm wondering a little differently. I wonder how plugged in that gate representative must of been to find and successfully identify the source of the tweet and call the family off the plane before it left.
I say this because I don't see some SWA social media monitoring department demanding the tweet be removed in that fashion. I figure it was the 'dissed' gate rep herself that did it.
I don't read AC A human right
That was my knee-jerk reaction as well. Thinking it though, SouthWest must have a group dedicated to monitoring social media postings in order to respond that quickly. Surely this group is familiar with the Streisand Effect, and would not take such action against the passenger. Rather, I suspect the punitive action came from the same gate attendant that the passenger complained about.
Gate attendant gets pissy with passenger -> passenger posts complaint -> SW social media group reads complaint -> SW calls gate attendant and tells her to fix it (i.e. apologize) or it will come up at her performance review -> pissy gate attendant calls passenger back to the gate and threatens him.
I find it interesting that everyone defending the airline thinks the issue is that the guy didn't get upgraded.
The actual issue is how they responded to his criticism.
From what I understand, the agent effectively offered to let the minors on as unaccompanied minors. This was obviously not ideal for the person accompanying them but he was almost as resistant to boarding at the time that he paid for.
He's a frequent flier and wanted to board his kids as such. Also, his kids were old enough that they didn't qualify as small kids.
Did he tweet her full name, or just Kimberly S, as the article says?
Kept waiting for the punch line until I realized there wasn't one. Anyone who abuses their position to pull a stunt like this deserves to be fired.
I'm a frequent business traveller. It's interesting to note how fewer and fewer airline staff wear name tags, or if they do they just say "Flight Attendant."
Compare that with the tags in hotels, where they usually state the name, and often the staffer's home town.
A tweet and (I presume) some heated words and you get them off the airplane and threaten to call the cops? If this were about his behavior, that'd be one thing, but no: he was allowed to board the plane after removing the tweet. This is purely the SWA personnel not wanting to look bad, and doing an absolutely inexcusable thing in the process.
Not an option in the mathematically challenged US of A where explaining "every other", even numbers, odd numbers would take all the allotted time.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
The US was still reeling from the Great Depression and people of color were lynched for refusing to ride in the back of the bus.c
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
I don't give a shit about "bad publicity" or either of these two idiots -- the gate agent or the passenger.
Next time, guy could just try doing as he's told by those in charge of the situation.
Perhaps once an idiot gate agent plays the "safety threat" card against you for an equally nonsensical reason you might come to develop a slightly different outlook on the situation.
Not really likely, right?
So logically, the agent had to be informed that the passenger was making his angry tweet, which, as you imply, the passenger was actually using the tweet to blackmail the agent into bending the rules for him.
I think it is very key, and very telling that this is not addressed in the story. There is no way for Southwest employees at that gate to have known this guy tweeted anything, without the passenger informing of it, and once we get to that obvious fact, to what end was he doing this? The obvious reason is to intimidate the agent he felt was "rude" - which seems rather petulant.
Now it gets more interesting if you start to wonder if there was a reason why the agent threatened to call the police on this guy... was it an overreaction, or was this passenger just being such an incredibly overbearing, pompous ass in his blackmail attempt, that the agent felt threatened? It might be that they never requested him to remove the tweet, but were instead responding to his petulant tantrum.
I can easily see it playing out that he was informed he needed to calm down and back off or they would call security. We only have his word that they threatened to have him arrested, and that he had to remove the tweet... it seems more reasonable, knowing this passenger intended to intimidate the agents, that he was in a threatening posture, and realizing he was about to get a royal TSA probing, "calmed down" and offered to remove his tweet as a gesture - all the while plotting to tell the story we see presented here, in all of its one-sided glory.
I hate to side either way on this story, but I'm more inclined, given this key missing item of the story, to believe that the "more to this story" involved the passenger being a LOT more in the wrong than the gate agent.
Yeah. Plenty of faulty reasoning here...
No it's private property.
Indeed.
It doesn't change your ownership just because you let people in.
No, it doesn't. But no one said that.
What I'm confused about, though, is why people think that others can't post their names online?
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Yeah had this out once. My wife took one or two of the kids into a store. I have the other two or three. Some lady started ranting at me about lazy etc not going in.
I said so should I wake up the younger two or leave them in the van by themselves. Shut her the hell up very quickly. Its amazing the BS dad's get in public.
Of course SW's reaction shouldn't have been what it was (full-out spiteful), but the thought of calling someone out by name on the internet makes me cringe. To me--though I concede I might have spent too much time on a certain imageboard--you should only post somebody's full name or any other personal information if you're prepared to see that person burn in digital fire. We shouldn't underestimate how harmful it can be to have something critical said about someone on the internet. While Mr. Duff's complaint was valid and the reaction by the airline was wrong, I don't think he went through the proper channels to file a personal grievance. Employees have supervisors and managers for just this reason. I'm fine with complaining about whole companies online, or but sniping individuals can be incredibly injurious to their careers and lives. It's just not something I'd do, maybe I'm in the wrong.
I agree with you, but there's one possible other circumstance. Apparently Southwest rewards his type of behavior, so long as one of his kids is under four years old. If he's flown with his kids on Southwest a lot, and his youngest kid recently turned five, he could have been trained to expect something that was no longer the case.
Personally, I think Southwest should train their people encountering this request (if there's children who look to have single digit ages) to say "We only do that for families traveling with children under four, however, if you want to swipe your payment plastic right now, we'll charge you the difference and you can go ahead and board together early." Everyone will hate him for slowing down the boarding process, but I don't think they'd hate Southwest for making an allowance for busy parents who forgot.
Actually, most states have laws that allow for a reasonable expectation of privacy in public places. Just because you step outside your front door doesn't give people the right to be an asshole to you.
Especially if you're at work, where there actually are much stronger laws protecting your privacy.
Because the woman was at work. People working, even out in the open with a nametag on, have different protections that the average joe in the same place. I'm sure her union had something to say about Southwest and hostile work environments.
What first amendment rights were violated? I'm absolutely serious about this; please point to any violation of first amendment rights anywhere in here.
While you do so, remember that the first amendment restricts the actions of the *government* - that is, it prohibits the making of laws that do certain things - and has absolutely nothing to do with the private sector. Here, let me quote it for you (emphasis mine):
So, which law did SWAirlines cause Congress to pass that violated these people's first amendment rights? Go on, point it out please.
Or were you just mouthing off about stuff you don't understand, trying to get people riled up about an issue that doesn't even exist? Because that... well, let's just say it speaks volumes about your intelligence (and that of the person who modded you up). Volumes that I doubt you would ever read, since apparently you can't be bothered to read (or at least, understand) one of the most important *sentences* ever committed to text in the history of this nation...
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
Entitled jerk-face acts like a whiny bitch and gets tossed from a flight? I'm not sure I see the problem here.
Oh wait, I do. It's that we as a people have become so uppity that if we don't get our way we act like petulant children, and cry and moan and stomp our feet so the whole world can see.
I applaud SWA for being so in tune with Twitter that they could take action so quickly. They should go all the way an ban this crybaby from all future flights.
One thing that was included in the article was that he named the gate agent in the tweet. That pretty much proves your theory that his intent was intimidation. Given how easy it is to convince stupid assholes on the internet to stalk some random stranger with death threats, I'm not all that sure it was an overreaction.
If it was as he described, his best reaction would be to tell them to go ahead and call the cops, which would have proved that the gate agent doesn't have the authority to do so, and determine whether or not their supervisor was an idiot.
Because the woman was at work.
And? Someone knew her name, and voluntarily decided to write a Twitter post about her. She might not like it, but I don't think she has any right at all to prevent someone from using their own property (or others' property, with their permission) to write such a post.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Any way you want it to; you're soooo awesome.
Requiem for the American Dream
Using publically visible information (nametag & gate sign) to state an opinion constitutes harassment?
Depends on what he tweets with it. Or threatens to. Anybody who reads Slashdot should know how easy it is to get a lynch mob stalking some random stranger with death threats with lies.
First World Problem
This isn't police state stuff, because Southwest Airlines is not a police organization but a private corporation. It was not the TSA that pulled them off the plane either. If the police had been called and arrived I don't think they would have done anything or could have done anything based on the tweets alone.
Doubtful. More plausible is that the guy bragged to the flight attendand that he sent the tweet.
Denver International Airport is owned and operated by the City and County of Denver Department of Aviation. It's public land. That aside, your comment doesn't make sense. Privately owned property can be operated as a public place, without affecting the ownership of the property. If I owned a restaurant, it would be my private property. By opening it for business and inviting customers in, it remains my privately-owned property, but it also becomes a public place, since I'm admitting the public to it. At night, when I close for the evening, I'm denying access to the public, and it's no longer a public place. That changes in the morning when I open the restaurant again.
None of that has anything to do with privacy, government regulation, government taxation, etc. Further, if you've let someone into your house, you haven't lost ownership of anything. You haven't even lost ownership if you open your house to the public; you've just made it a public space, until you say otherwise. If you invite specific friends in (rather than the public at large), not only does it stay in your possession, but it's also still a private place.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Breaking with tradition, I've read TFA...
Requiem for the American Dream
I've used South West Airlines for more than 3 decades. Unless the people responsible for kicking off an unhappy passenger are corrected in public, I will no longer include South West Airlines in my travel plans, nor will I authorize use of their services for my employees.
When I have an unhappy customer, I don't demand they delete their rant, I ask them how I can fix it for them. Sometimes it's not what I'd like to do, but it is what I must do to make my customer happy. I never have, and I never will ask a customer to remove a negative comment. I will ask what can I do to make this right, and if there is any way I can meet the expectation, I will.
#Eyes on YOU SWA
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
What gives you the impression he was yelling?
Requiem for the American Dream
IANAL, but from a layman's perspective it looks like a breach of contract. A more sue-happy person might have taken that incident to court.
C - the footgun of programming languages
"Companies can refuse service to anyone for practically any reason they want..."
Really? Why? I'm as ignorant of the relevant law as you seem to be, but it certainly doesn't sound reasonable that an airline should be able to tell a passenger who has paid his fare and boarded the plane with his children that he has to get off. Would they then be allowed on a later plane? If so, why not leave them on the originally booked plane which they had already boarded? If not, isn't the airline breaking a contract and committing something resembling theft?
The other issue is whether the passenger did anything wrong by tweeting. It seems possible that he broke some regulation, but if so what a terrible situation when a citizen is not allowed to express his opinion of someone who has treated him badly. Slander has been mentioned, but that is properly dealt with by bringing a civil lawsuit - not high-handedly refusing a customer service for which payment has been accepted and on which he is counting.
Lastly, reading these comments I can't help sensing a constant underlying ferment of resentment, entitlement, and contention for respect. It's as if, in a society where we are all expected to take it as axiomatic that we are strictly equal, every tiny difference in treatment becomes immensely magnified.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
It should be very clear from portions of my post such as "To be frank, none of us here really know enough about the situation" that I was discussing things in general terms.
Did I need it to put in it red bold blinking script to avoid being used as your strawman?
" I think he made a huge mistake in calling out the agent by name on the internet".
So can we all agree that it's wrong, dangerous, and ill-advised to criticize anyone by name on the Internet?
Mr Putin will be very relieved.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Airlines can't leave a minor unattended on a flight through upgrades or moving the seating allocations around, but there's nothing requiring them to allow minors with different ticketing groups to their parents to board with the highest ticketing group on flights with non-allocated seating. Boarding priority is all down to the airline, so in this case the airline was correct - the bloke could board with the lower ticketing group because that would be his choice, but he couldn't bump the lower ticketing group members up to his group.
So in other words, the airline already allows for the minors to be attended by their parents, its the parents choice as to whether they accept it or not.
1. Jumped the queue - this is a mortal sin in England. He had a higher priority ticket, but his kids did not, yet he thought his kids could jump the queue;
2. Blamed another for failing to satisfy his sense of entitlement - in particular, used "rudest" to describe the person who corrected his bad behaviour, rather than apologising for himself being rude;
3. Let the world know just how much he was projecting his own guilt. Twitter is not a group of friends or even the local chapter of a gun club - it is a worldwide publishing platform. It doesn't matter how easy it is to use - that's still what it is;
4. Using this global publishing platform, directly name the target of your projection - which, for the irrational way he's been behaving so far, could have been you or me;
5. Has an entirely parochial understanding of labour relationships. Any decent employer is highly protective of its employees and will terminate a business relationship if it finds that a customer is mistreating them. Sensible service providers even include specific wording in contracts to this effect. Yet he's surprised when arbitrarily bad-mouthing specific employees by name on a global publishing platform is regarded as grounds to refuse service;
6. Not content with all of the above, he then whines to mainstream media that his "right" to be an ass and spout nonsense in public was called into question.
I would love to know what the story of the SW Airlines employees/agents would be. Most people here appear to have judged based on one side of the argument, and ought never to sit on a jury (IAALS, fwiw). The furore was such that SW's best bet would be to cut their losses and fold, as the Angry Fat Middle Age White Family Guy always wins in the court of American public opinion.
> Using publically visible information (nametag & gate sign) to state an opinion constitutes harassment?
YES! Because "public" is not a binary function.
Her nametag was only visible to people in her immediate vicinity, not the entire internet.
What he did was threatening. It was "I'm going to try to get thousands of people to hate you personally. If I'm lucky they will dox you and make your life suck for a year or more."
Lol. You realize women get helped out because men want to get into their pants right? Even if it means just a 0.0001% chance, that's still more than 0% so men play the lottery.
Its just that women are biologically conditioned not to realize that - instead they think guys are being "sweet" and "kind."
If they did recognize it for what it was, they would be so creeped out that they would never talk to a guy again and that would be the end of the human race in one generation.
It isn't a privilege, it just looks like one to someone who can't see the big picture.
It wouldn't take that long. The tweet was directed at SWA so they would have access immediately. It mentions the city, gate and name of the employee, so it would probably be very quick to get in touch with the gate crew and get the other details from them - I doubt that there were many people on the flight with small kids who got arsey because they couldn't jump the queue
What kind of asshole doesn't pay for a premium service then tries to demand it anyway? He could board with his kids as normal or he could have paid for his kids to have priority boarding, nobody was separating him. Any more than a strip club is separating a parent from a child if they don't let children in and the parent goes in anyway.
Obviously doesn't mean he shouldn't be allowed to treat his opinion, or that it is remotely appropriate for the agent to respond to the tweet in that way.
So he could take a picture of her and post it on the internet, but can't say "Samantha at Gate X provided bad service"? Yeah, bullshit.
> I think he made a huge mistake in calling out the agent by name on the internet.
What's the point of saying so-and-so is rude if it doesn't warn anyone she's rude? He wanted Southwest and everyone else to know who he was talking about.
She denied non-frequent fliers frequent fliers perks. This is anything but rude. So publishing a statement that someone is rude (on those grounds) is libel. So there's something here that would justify letting the lawyers from their leash.
On the other hand, this is nothing that couldn't have been handled well AFTER the flight.
bickerdyke
And exactly THAT is why it is not as "harmless" to call out names on the public internet as some posters here claimed it was.
Thank you for the demonstration.
bickerdyke
I rather like the idea of an incompetent ideologically driven gaggle of idiots in government outsourcing the Gestapo to private industry. Has MSNBC blamed Bush yet?
Exactly, though I probably would have re-tweeted both the original and the SWA legal threat immediately upon landing.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Probably not. This isn't a place of business in the traditional sense - it's a purchased seat on an airplane. It would be more akin to selling you an item, posting a poor review, and then the shop owner taking it back unless you deleted the review.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
That's it folks. Enjoy the way the future unfolds for you. And remember, you asked for it.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
You're a really sorry loser, posting ad hominem attacks against people you know nothing about as an AC. 20 years of online experience tell me one thing: There's a 95% chance that you are in fact the exact opposite of the man you pretend to be if you act like that.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Southwest doesn't have first class. It's an all coach discount airline. But, they board "A-list" members first and then the rest of the passengers in the order in which they checked in. Everybody lines up in numerical order based on a code on their boarding passes. This guy should have known better if he was indeed an "A-list" frequent flier of Southwest. He should have known to check-in right at 24 hours and there would be no issue.
-Ted http://www.freemathhelp.com/
Southwest's Facebook page is filled with people bickering about the incident - one side calling SW bad names and the other defending the agent's actions.
I'm sure that is not the sort of traffic SW wants filling their page. I expect this guy will get some kind of free lifetime perk, the agent will be sent for niceness training, and SW corporate will apologize profusely.
I also wouldn't be surprised if some sleazy lawyers reach out to the guy to go after SW.
Also, what type of asshole employee would separate a man from his two young children?
Here's the part most stories won't include about this incident. The father was an A passenger meaning he gets to board first. Southwest also has B and C classifications.
Someone called in to the talk show I was listening who was also an A passenger and explained the complete process. A passengers board first, then B and C. However, since the person had children, despite his A status, he would have boarded between the A and B groups. That is Southwest policy and has been since whenever.
This person attempted to circumvent the established policy by trying to pull a "Do you know who I am?" deal. All he had to do was wait for the A group to board then he could have boarded with his children.
Instead, he was an ass and publicly gave the name of a worker who was doing what company policy was, though she probably should have explained the policy since obviously this guy didn't know, or didn't care, what it was.
So there you have it. Asshole thinks they're someone important and tries to jump the line ends up being shown the door for his stupidity and whininess.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
My issue is when they want to say that they deserve to be treated equally and then complain when they aren't treated to a higher standard than men. Not all women do that. I would say most women do not do that. But a lot of the most vocal women I know expect ridiculous double standards between how men treat them versus how men treat each other. I don't believe double standards help anyone. Well, unless the double standard is in my benefit. Then it's the best standard one can apply. ;)
For those not familiar with southwest: There is no assigned seating. People board in three groups, A (frequent flyers, people paying extra for early boarding), B and C (everyone else, numbered by check in order). Long story short, he bought the cheap tickets for his kids and wanted a free upgrade. He then threw a fit when he didn't get his way.
No you're wrong. A1-15 are the only spots you can pay extra for. A15-30 are for frequent flyers with certain status. If A15-30 do not fill up by the time you can check in at the gate, those spots come up for sale also. Anyone can get A31-60. It's the people who have nothing better to do but camp out at their phones and check in exactly 24 hours early that get spots A31-60. Believe me, I used to fly Southwest ALL the time (not by choice), and I hate their boarding policy.
The guy has two kids. The odds are good that, even if he wanted to, he was too busy to check in 24 hours in advance to get an A spot. I've checked in 23:30 hours in advance and gotten a B50 spot on busy routes with a lot of business travelers. Cut the poor guy some slack. It's not like he was trying to bring his business partner or coworker with him. They were two young kids that should not be waiting in line alone anyway. They should be sitting together and its much easier for them to do so if they board in the A group. I would be willing to bet that none of the passengers around him would have complained about him bringing the kids on earlier. Not at that age, anyway.
Where are the pictures of Kimberly?
Southwest allows families with children aged 4 or under to board between the 'A' and 'B' groups, or during the 'A' group if the parent is in the 'A' group.
http://www.southwest.com/html/...
He must have been shocked when he found out that there someone even more of an asshole than himself in existence.
well she did tag their twitter so as long as someone gets the DMs on twitter they would have it with a quickness
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Nowhere in TFA did it say he had a "temper tantrum" nor did it say he yelled at the agent. True it only tells one side of the story, but you're applying your own imagination as to how things really went down.
And the slashdot summary states the children were age 6 and 9.
Only he did not complain about her wanting to "separate" them. He said she was rude, and that's what he tweeted - he didn't put anything sensationalist in his tweet.
Airports are NOT public places, particularly the Gates at airports.
They are called places of public accommodation just like restaurants. There is zero expectation of privacy for the employees in areas where there is customer access. Members of the public have access to them. Specifically... any members of the public who have paid a fee and obtained a ticket.
This isn't really about privacy, though - it's about SouthWest's perogative to refuse service to someone they feel was being abusive. They could just have easily refused to board this guy if he had been rude to the person't face. Airlines have complete control over access to their planes.
well to be fair in america at most places if an adult pays for an upgrade a child is allowed to join them. (kids eat free with the purchase of an adult meal for example) Its just the way things work here. Now if they told him no he shouldnt have thrown a fit about it but it is understandable to be upset, especially if the airline has allowed it in the past.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
I happen to be the executive who works at Southwest and made the decision, upon seeing the tweet, to call the gate and have him kicked off. Please allow me to explain my decision.
I work in the PR department, and managing publicity is my job. When I saw the tweet, I realized it was bad publicity. I don't like my company getting bad publicity, and I seek to avoid it, or replace it with good publicity.
So I threw our tweeting customer off, thereby solving the bad publicity problem! See? Now do you get it?
...
(Why is everyone looking at me like I'm a idiot?)
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I went to tag this nerdrage story as slashdot's daily 2minutesofhate and couldn't find where to tag it anymore. Is that something they broke for slashdot beta?!!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Did he tweet her full name, or just Kimberly S, as the article says?
Just Kimberly S, like the article says as that was the only information he had.
Southwest policy appears to restrict entrance in this very specific case to JUST after all A-list passengers and before others. This is because his kids were older than 4 and NOT entitled to A-list boarding. If they were younger than 4, the hostess would be infringing policy. But she was actually enforcing policy strictly, doing her job as she is told to.
The real problem here is a conflict between the freedom of speech right and the defamation civil wrong (for which she can sue actually). I personally don't think there is real libel here, but some might argue that using the hostess's name on the tweet is reason enough for her to sue. What is impressive is the fact the guy had to go to the news after the incident to whine even more, and that gets me thinking he is a little more butthurt than he should for nothing important. He pretty much wanted the hostess fired from her job, which is her source of income. I think everybody gets defensive when their job is at stake. And all this for not indulging him in something he didn't have the right to, despite being "used to" have.
She wanted to avoided having defamation about her and the company wanted to avoid bad publicity. If the tweet was still up, he would have been left on the ground and he could be sued. If they let him fly without deleting the tweet, hostess would have been fired and both hostess and company could sue. This was the best scenario for both... Until he decided to strike back like a little girl. He could have never used the company again for the lack of poise but he just had to make the issue bigger. These are my two cents about it,
Seems they're covered. Publicly calling them out as rude, by specific name and location, seems to meet that criteria as intimidating.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
But are you actually proposing that a carrier of human cargo not be allowed to refuse service?
The idea isn't nearly as absurd as you make it sound. Regulated taxicabs in many cities are not allowed to refuse service - they must pick you up and take you where you want to go.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
They are 6 and 9. It is in the summary and the article.
I looked for it too, and was unable to find it. I was however frightened by the TSA Blog page about kids traveling, where they so gleefully talk about how much fun getting searched, probed and poked is going to be.
No, he did not. The flight agent was being a dick by asking him to leave... if the passenger really doubted that the agent had the authority to do ask that question, then he should have immediately asked to speak to that agent's manager or supervisor instead of complying with the request.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
the great thing is, even if he tweeted her full name the article would be responsible enough to not print it...
Regardless of his 'tool' status or not, he was aboard the plane when these extra actions by the gate agent took place. Removing a paying customer who is no longer even interacting with you, over an online complaint they made is just terrible terrible idea.
If the flight attendants lodged the complaint because he was being disruptive while seated then it would be a clear cut case of the customer being in the wrong but from all accounts it was the gate agent that took action AFTER he was already boarded. That's a pretty clear cut case of a spiteful abuse of power.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
And keep his money for the ticket, I presume? Or would they really offer him a refund for services not rendered?
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...
College gender gap remains stable: 57% women
Just how much longer are we going to keep our foot on the back of young men's necks?
Free money, education, assistance to females even tho they are closing on 60% of the degrees.
Yes- from the beginning of time until about 50 years ago, men were in control of most societies. But things have changed rapidly.
At my last job, the supervisors and managers were 70% female. And they did things which would have resulted in lawsuits if a male did the same thing.
Are you shooting for fairness or retribution?
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Airport terminals are public spaces
The airport itself MAY be private property, do not conflate "property" with "space"
Examples of private property, public space:
The customer areas of a shopping mall
Airport terminals
Rockefeller center square
Your unfenced front yard
Examples of private property, private space
The manager's office of the mall
Airport security offices, any area marked "secure" or "private"
The executive offices of the building
Your home
Examples of public property, public space:
Your local library
State Park
Example of public property, private space:
The police station
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
Bah, this happens to men in general.Try being a single adult man. If you even smile when some random kid does something funny in public, the parents glare at you and shuffle their kids off like you're wearing a shirt labelled "child molester". You're not allowed to think kids are OK.
... and have never had a problem. It's almost as if there is a part of this story missing. The part about the passenger's actions before this occurred. Just like most humans, treat a gate agent politely, be respectful, and don't be a jerk and it is amazing how it can be reciprocated.
There are terms and conditions for purchasing a ticket. Unless one of those terms was "We can kick you off the plane for sending a tweet" then they are in violation of contract and should be taken to small claims court. Of course it's more of a PITA than it's worth, but it would be fun to see SWA's lawyers have to defend such absurd behavior.
But that has little if nothing to do with law about "public spaces".
Defaria's comment, which I was replying to, seemed to badly confuse ownership, privacy, public access, etc, and was basically verging on being a conspiracy theory rant. I was trying to bring them back down to earth and temporarily ignoring the question of who, if anyone, was behaving reasonably in the situation.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
No, they would still be obligated to refund his ticket purchase, since the decision would have been theirs to refuse service.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
> from the beginning of time until about 50 years ago, men were in control of most societies There are two categories of men here: 1. the rulers and 2. the ruled. The first category ruled over the second and women. The second category of men (which were 99.99% of them, anyway) were doing all the worst jobs: wars, hunting, dangerous work. Women were more or less protected. Thus, men had it best and worst at the same time.
> Instead, he was an ass and publicly gave the name of a worker who was doing what company policy was
Good. That means he was doing a public service. Someone has to point out rude behavior. If the airline would have responded to the tweet with some sensible information, I might have bought your argument, but the airline was 100x more rude by taking him off the flight. Good thing someone had enough sense to stop this power-tripping airline employee and damaging the image of the company even further.
Because the guy's argument was not with her personally.
I'm still not seeing why he can't Tweet her name.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Here's a picture of a feminist:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/ph...
It doesn't mean what you think it means.
(Women are nowhere near equal globally yet or even in western nations in a lot of ways, pay for the same work as a man, safety walking alone at night to name two, if you think that battle has been won you're deluded, there's still a lot to do.)
What would a ruler want with an entire population of peasant women?
And yet we always here how it's women's genitalia that has the power.
I think men's power were in their arms, backs, and their greater aggression.
Dicks really had little to do with it.
Cultures which didn't procreate quickly got wiped out for most of history. If you had 3 baby boys and they had 1 baby boy, then in 20 years, your culture took over (either peacefully or violently).
Any kind of culture that supported a low birth rate wasn't really practical until the invention of guns and machines.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Well since when does buying a ticket require a non-disclosure agreement. Maybe it does, I haven't read the fine print lately. Still, heavy handed behaviour! Does Putin own a piece of Southwest?
This case aside, it's probably bad form to post info about airport operations in real time. Leaking crew names and current locations could compromise security.
I think the take-away from this story is this guy had the gaul to try and board ahead of time with his kids who were clearly not allowed to board early and then threw a temper tantrum when he couldn't have his way.
I don't think anybody helping customers out expects to be laid at all. It could be a leftover from when that might work, so guys are genetically programmed to be nicer to women than to men.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
To be fair, Southwest caters to a different demographic than most other airlines.
The guy was already on the plane and the situation was over. Would you really act out some sort of revenge fantasy because you the guy hurt your feelings?
You're right, I suppose the agent would probably have been willing to let them preboard as unaccompanied minors if he had been willing to pay the extra $50 apiece, slightly more than upgrading their tickets for early boarding would cost.
This isn't really about privacy, though - it's about SouthWest's perogative to refuse service to someone they feel was being abusive.
Their perogative to arbitrarily refuse service ends when they accept your money and enter into an agreement to render service; they essentially can't back out without cause, or they risk being sued for breach of contract and discriminatory actions.
Also, there is this matter of coercing a customer to remove a public message under threat of arrest, that the customer had a right to post.
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.
Anyone heard this one before? What is that from?
Sadly, a Libertarian cannot force his views on another, and freedom cannot spread as does the cancer known as religion.
Here in Utah, somebody complained about their "service" on Yelp. Then, he received a billing notice on his account because the fine print in his contract included a anti-disparagement clause as well as the usual "arbitration" crap. He refused to pay and the next step by the contracting agency was to place adverse entries on his credit record and the fight was on. This story is now about four years old but there was a recent update story about it in the local newspapers.
unfenced front yards are not public spaces the way all the other ones are. you don't have a right to expect privacy (telescopic lenses, etc) but people can't come on your yard freely in many places. There is no implied invitation to the public to my front yard just because I don't have a fence on it (at least in the states I grew up in).
the wage gap is almost completely gone, and most economics research puts it around 95 cents on the dollar for women today. Sure, we need to close those last 5 cents, but there are bigger gaps that are far more important to deal with right now (especially when it comes to minorities). I"m not saying you ignore women's rights, but in the realm of pay, it is far far less meaningful than it was 20 years ago.
Walking safely at night is not a women's rights issue.
so what you are saying is millions and millions of years of evolution have conditioned us to be a male dominated society, and in fact evolutionary forces have probably perfected the social structure that best secures our species' future, and women's rights is basically unnatural.
got it. at least now I can reply the reason I'm against equal rights is it is unnatural and has no basis on a fundamental level....
and
His children were 6 and 9. He was also a frequent traveler of SouthWest and a "Line Leader"
What he was trying to do is to get his children (who had tickets in the B group) to board with him as part of the A1-A15 group. What he could have done was pay an additional amount on their fares to board with him:
That's not how you should correct issues.
What the fuck does the 1st amendement have to do with this? The airline is a business and they have every right to decline to do business with you and refuse to fly you anywhere. The airline is obligated by FAA rules to disallow disruptive passengers on their planes, so yelling at the agent or refusing to comply with their reasonable instructions means they are legally require to remove you from the plane. If you yell at the McDonalds counter jockey, don't be surprised when they refuse to sell you a burger and ask you to leave.
He was detained for making a tweet. If he had made an actual threat (such as a bomb threat), then yes, that would be defined as disruptive. Saying someone was RUDE is not, even if you do TYPE IT LIKE THIS, and not a single one of the other passengers had a damn clue about this issue, which concretes my point further that this was not disruptive by FAA or TSA guidelines.
This has everything to do with 1st Amendment rights. If you can't see that, then it's clear why we won't have those protections much longer. The very definition has obviously been lost. Enjoy your definition of "freedom" when you're gagged and bound.
And if it wasn't for the current "security paranoia", periodically the guy next to you would be traveling terrorist class with Kalashnikov and grenades in his carry-on. Deal with it.
Bags still went through X-Rays then, and a determined person can still get weapons through security *now*. I'm more worried about someone coming into a school with an AK and grenades than I am the same thing on an airplane. Before, the assumption if someone showed up armed on a plane was that they were going to have it flown somewhere to ransom the passengers, and that you'd be best off staying quiet and giving the hijacker what they wanted. Now, you'd have a crowd of people tackling the guy, and there'd be no chance of a hijacking anyhow with the reinforced cockpit bulkheads. Those changes alone would mean that there are many more-attractive targets in the country.
You can believe what you want, but a tiger-repelling rock is still a tiger-repelling rock.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Trespassing is illegal. Without a valid boarding pass, it is illegal for them to be in the secure area of an airport.
If SWA canceled their boarding pass, they would not only be guilty of simple trespass upon airport property, but also in violation of DHS regulations for being in the secure area without a boarding pass.
I doubt the gate attendant was actually rude to him, too, in which case he would probably be found liable for slander and/or defamation as well.
All that happened here was that he got pissed because he didn't get to break the rules. I have no sympathy for him at all, whatsoever.
Except there are good arguments to suggest the TSA does a pretty poor job of catching weapons, and in truth, you are safe thanks to the fact that very few people out there are set on killing you on a plane.
thats what i thought. the guy sounds like a dick. probably even tried to leverage the threat of the tweet to get what he wanted.
This and there is probably alot more to the story. It was probably either because he was making a scene or the flight attendant
was also being a dick.
I flew southwest less than a week ago (July 26th to be exact) with chidren the exact same age (6 and 8).
A flight attendant saw me queueing up to wait my turn and freely offered to let me board early so I could sit with my kids.
They announce free pre-boarding for parents with children under 4 but this isn't the first time they unofficially also allowed me
to board early with kids older than that. I didn't even have to ask. They just happened to notice me.
As a side note, it seems strange that they don't just have a computer quickly assign seats 5 seconds before boarding.
A simple algorithm would be alot more efficient at keeping groups together than the free-for-all they currently have.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You Sir have just encapsulated the entire purpose of the Internet.
If it's fair to wire tap a customers communications,
I'm fascinated by the interpretation that reading a publicly posted tweet is now "wiretapping".
What I've yet to hear explained is how Southwest was able to connect someone's twitter name with their real name so quickly.
So can we all agree that it's wrong, dangerous, and ill-advised to criticize anyone by name on the Internet?
We might be able to agree that there is criticism, and then there is intimidation and harassment, and without having the exact tweet text we don't know which one happened. If you are seeking agreement that a tweet could never be intimidating or harassing, well, that's not going to happen.
We've got one side of the story. Of course this fellow has no reason to lie about any of the incident, none at all. It's not like it would be good for his own image to leave out important details or anything.
and by then the plane could have already left.
The plane did leave without him. He left on a later flight.
Oh, and his luggage would be flying off without him.
Current flight regulations require the removal of any baggage of a passenger who has left a flight or does not show up. If your bags are delayed then they will be carried on a later flight, but that assumes you did not cause the delay and you were on the original flight. This is to prevent someone from getting a bomb onto a plane in a checked bag and then not being a suicide bomber.
If he was pulled from the flight, so were his bags. He might not get access to them, but they weren't going without him.