For those that think an Airline Passenger bill of rights is a good thing:

Greg Bockelman

Greg Bockelman

Touchdown! Greaser!
PoA Supporter
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
11,186
Location
Lone Jack, MO
Display Name
Display name:
Greg Bockelman
This pretty much sums it up.

Top Five Reasons A Congressional Passenger Bill of Rights
Would Be A Dishonest Sham

It's taken on a Crusade-like atmosphere.

The evil airline industry must be tamed, punished, and shown the will of the people. Those that disagree or who dare question the Crusade are infidels, who incur righteous anger from those who have joined the Great Cause.

"You are anti-consumer!" a few outraged, if mentally-unburdened, radio talk show hosts have blurted out when views alternative to the Doctrine of the Crusade are mentioned. Editorial Boards across the nation have joined the movement, demanding that "something" be done about the on-going nightmare of airlines trapping passengers on airplanes for hours. To read some of the tomes coming out of the print media, one might conclude that an airline ticket is immediate entry to a winged Gitmo.

The Righteous Din Is Really An Uneducated Mob. Now for something that a few folks in the media, and it seems just about everybody in the consumerist world, want to ignore. It's called reality.

The top five reasons that a Congressional passenger rights bill would be a dishonest sham:

Reason # 5: What happened at JFK with jetBlue on February 14th was not necessarily completely avoidable, as congressional-panderers maintain. jetBlue launched flights that subsequently could not take off due to weather, and could not be safely deplaned due to that weather. A Congressional mandate as proposed won't change this in the future. Those that blindly maintain that "there's always a set of stairs" or "get a bus" some other lame-brained comment have never seen the complexity of running a ramp operation. If the plane is a half a mile from the terminal, trapped by sudden ice for example, those options don't exist.

To be sure, for aircraft close to the terminal, a better job might have been done, and it will be done by jetBlue in the future. They don't need the sudden blowfish outrage of Sen. Barbara Boxer to fix it.

Reason # 4: These are NOT common occurrences. As noted last week, do a news search to find any major such events since 1999. True, the American flight at Austin on Dec 29 was apparently a case study in screw-up, but despite the dishonest implications by some self-appointed protectors of the consumer, it was not an epidemic across the nation. It was one flight out of thousands operated by AA, and NOT an indication of a systemic failure.

And, please, for the media out there that bring up the 1999 incident in Detroit, note that that was eight years ago, and there was a major one-off and fast-moving snowstorm that simply overwhelmed the airport and the airlines. Glance at the calendar - enough time has passed since then to experience two Presidential campaigns, a war in Iraq, and to gestate three generations of Indian elephants. It cannot be used as a dot on the continuum of airline consumer outrages.

Reason # 3: Simply mandating that passengers have the right to get off an airplane in three hours (or whatever other arbitrary time) does not concurrently provide the means to do so. What Senator Boxer and her no-need-to-check-reality buddies don't understand is that there may not be facilities or equipment or the ability to get people off airplanes, get food, and other things they may congressionally-mandate. And in some cases, it may be really bad customer service to do so.

See, passengers can find themselves on an airplane for hours, and not be at the same airport they departed from.

When Denver's all-weather airport shuts down due to weather, sometimes a dozen or more flights can get diverted to Colorado Springs. All gates may be already occupied. Some of the carriers may not have staff at that airport. Furthermore, there may not be the ability to off-load passengers safely due to the volume of aircraft at the diversion airport - or to get them back on the plane again. Then it may be the case that there are no sterile areas available to off-load passengers, which could mean once they're off, they stay off, particularly if there is no TSA staff on duty.

The point is that the "problem" of folks stuck on airplanes is not one that congress can wave a wand and fix, nor is is a one-solution fits all, nor is is one that is endemic to the airline industry.

Reason #2: These situations, particularly the jetBlue 14 February event, are UNIQUE. That day the weather appeared to allow operations, but turned nasty unexpectedly, trapping airplanes on the ramp at JFK. To paint this as a systematic industry-wide problem that the airlines are not addressing is simply dishonest.

Reason #1: Airline consumers do deserve better. And that means they do not deserve the thousands of hours of delays encountered every year because the FAA's air traffic control system has been incompetently managed over the last 20 years. Unlike the jetBlue incident, flights are routinely trapped on ramps, diverted, or cancelled simply because the ATC system upgrades needed to handle the nation's air transportation system have been negligently mis-managed by the FAA. If Barbara Boxer and some consumer vigilantes really cared about passengers, it's the ATC system they'd focus on, instead of playing cowardly soapbox politics.

Going forward, we'll be hearing more on how Congress must save consumers from the evil clutches of the airline industry. The airport industry best not conclude that they're going to be immune from this stupidity, either. It's not above these oh-so-outraged Senators from demanding that airports have the facilities ready and in place to handle such situations. Stairs. Ramps. Jetways. Food concessions open and ready. Whatever fantasy Congress can dream up to look like stars. And moral cowards.

What these incidents have illuminated is not how bad the airline industry is, but instead how shallow and unconcerned Congress is.

(c) 2007, The Boyd Group/ASRC, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Click to expand...
 
Greg,

With all due respect:

The thing that horrifies me is being trapped in a coach seat on what was supposed to be a 3 hr flight for 8 or 10 hours waiting to take off with overflowing toilets, no food or water and God only knows how many screaming infants (behavior wise that is).

Why on earth does that happen? It is not something I want to experience.

Now I grant you that this barbaric inhumane treatment has happened less than fatal crashes in the last 10 years (which I want to experience even less) but it is something the PIC can control, is it not?

I do not believe airlines are evil entities that need to be punished but this is something I don't believe needs to be tolerated.

Joe

ps. Last Saturday my sister and brother in law were holding on the taxi way to take off from Dallas when the American captain came on and said, "after the Jet Blue debacle we decided to let you wait in the terminal instead of the taxiway". All flights were eventually cancelled and they left the next morning.
 
Last edited:
Frustration may not always have a viable solution but imagine how frustrated the folks were who sat for hours at a diversion airport until the plane could continue to its original destination. Their diversion airport was actually their final destination but they couldn't get off.
 
Greg - you, and the author are missing the point. You'll notice, btw, that the only ones that are making the argument that you are making are associated with the airline industry in some way.

I mean no disrespect, but here's the long and short of it: There are ways off the plane, and I know I would rather walk a mile from a plane to the terminal than spend any more time than 3 hours sitting in a seat waiting to takeoff.

The argument that there are no gates is also bunk, because many times, there are gates, but they are not operated by the airline in question. A congressional mandate will hopefully solve the issue of competing airlines skunking the process.

Anytime an airline holds a plan on the ramp for hours while its normal operations run as planned is a bad thing. It would be better to delay 2 planes by even 30 minutes than to let one sit for hours on end. When one plane is supposed to board, it would be better for that plane to hold off boarding until the stuck plane can deplane.

The ladders and truck thing that I guess I am lame-brained in mentioning? They exist, and years ago, its how airline operations worked.

I'm sure, as an airline pilot, you've seen how they load the meals on board even the biggest planes....that little truck thing that has a platform that rises up to the door? Yeah, that's a truck, with wheels on it, and since it has wheels, it has the option of driving to a plane stuck far away from the ramp to help passengers deplane.

There are options, and the airline industry is so stuck mismanaging themselves into the ground to see them. And if it turns out there are no options, then the airline needs to make options. There is no excuse for these incidents.

They may happen only once every few years, but that doesn't make it ok, ever.
 
Graueradler said:
Frustration may not always have a viable solution but imagine how frustrated the folks were who sat for hours at a diversion airport until the plane could continue to its original destination. Their diversion airport was actually their final destination but they couldn't get off.
Click to expand...

Is that a post-9/11 thing? I remember once in the 80's my mom was on a very large plane (can't remember what), bigger than normally ever came to MSN, bound for ORD on the way home. They ended up diverting to MSN, and the four or so pax whose final destination was MSN were able to get off the plane.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Is that a post-9/11 thing? I remember once in the 80's my mom was on a very large plane (can't remember what), bigger than normally ever came to MSN, bound for ORD on the way home. They ended up diverting to MSN, and the four or so pax whose final destination was MSN were able to get off the plane.
Click to expand...


No, Kent, it's usually a duty hours thing; deplaning pax means a flight has terminated, and a flight crew which would be legal to complete a flight would not be legal to start a new one (even a short one), meaning they'd need to find a new crew to complete the flight for all the pax who are not terminating at the diversion city.

Sucks, don't it?
 
SCCutler said:
No, Kent, it's usually a duty hours thing; deplaning pax means a flight has terminated, and a flight crew which would be legal to complete a flight would not be legal to start a new one (even a short one), meaning they'd need to find a new crew to complete the flight for all the pax who are not terminating at the diversion city.

Sucks, don't it?
Click to expand...

wow only the FAA would come up with something as stupid as that
 
My personal feeling is that if an airline can't figure out how to keep these kinds of extreme incidents (which, to be fair, are relatively isolated) to a minimum, Congress most certainly can't. The last thing I want to ever hear on a flight taxiing to the runway is, "Folks, this is the Captain. I know we pushed back from the gate very late, but we have enough fuel, the weather is no factor, and we're #3 for takeoff, but Federal Law dictates that since our departure is now too late, we now have to return to the gate. Sorry for the inconvenience."

That said, I do take issue with the general tone of that quote, and have a serious problem with #5. Being stuck on the tarmac for as long as the folks were on that JetBlue flight or that AA flight is inexcusable. Period. Any company -- airline or whatever -- that can't or won't find a way to fix a problem that is that blatantly and egregiously wrong doesn't deserve my or anyone's business. And that's all there is to it. The notion that "getting a bus" is "lame-brained" exemplifies the undeserved arrogance and ignorance of the basic tenets of customer service that have come to typify the type of experience many of us have with major airlines. With the kind of attitude displayed in the quoted note, what do the airlines expect? That the public will just say, "Oh well, you suck at what you do, but who do I make out a check to?" Obviously, from the ignorance of the notion of "service" present in that note, they do, and if they continue to operate and act in such a pitifully incompetent and aloof manner, they'll bring the scourge of legislation on themselves.

Ultimately, I do think that the market will provide forces that will correct these and the (many?) other problems that exist in the industry. JetBlue, to its credit, seems to be leading the push, and other airlines that don't follow their lead will cease to exist or declare bankruptcy -- again. In the end, the power to avoid Congressional involvement in the issue isn't the media's or "Barbara Boxer's" or anybody else's: it's squarely in the hands of the airlines, and it's up to them to live up to even the most basic responsibilities of what they wish us to believe is a "service" company.
 
Not every wrong has a legislative fix. Congressional meddling is not likely to promote any benefit.

Allow the market to work its unique magic.
 
SCCutler said:
Not every wrong has a legislative fix. Congressional meddling is not likely to promote any benefit.

Allow the market to work its unique magic.
Click to expand...

Here, here. Sure don't need a another law. Implementation would be a nightmare. Tort lawyers would love it.
 
I travel on airlines a lot. Not as bad as some, but I am Premier Executive on United and just went off MVP status on Alaska. Airline service varies from carrier to carrier, and from crew to crew. What does not vary, with a few notable exceptions (thank you United for E+!) is a lack of legroom for anyone with reasonably long legs. I rant about Lufthansa and their lack of legroom. Well, last month Delta demonstrated that they're just as bad. It's bad enough being cooped up in cattle car class for the scheduled length of a flight including taxi time, but add a few hours on the ground not knowing when (or if) you care even taking the active and it can get downright unbearable. Especially if you know you have 10-12 hours in the air to look forward to once you do take off. That's why passengers (CUSTOMERS) get bent.

Now, is Congressional action the answer? Not only NO, but H E double hocky sticks NO! Pro is to con as progress is to Congress. They need to keep their miserable hands out of this. They'll only make it worse. 200+ years of American history proves this to be true. Doesn't matter what party, either.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
This pretty much sums it up.
Click to expand...

It really does doesn't it. Once again, the airlines accept no responsability for their innept actions and calous attitude towards their passengers. FoR a service sector business, they suck. If they would act properly, RULES wouldn't have to be written. I can't count how many times I have been sitting for hours in the plane at the gate waiting for maint to fix something on the plane. In this aspect, the airlines are their own worst enemy. Sorry, there is NO excuse for the way passengers are treated these days. Captains need to start remembering that their PRIMARY duty is to their passengers, not the airline, that would go a long way to solving these problems.
 
Every single facet of airline travel--and general aviation travel--is regulated by the federal government. They're talking about a regulation to let people off the damned airliners after sitting on a ramp for three hours! Is that so outrageous? Of course a rule could be crafted with an exception in case it was truly unsafe to let passengers deplane (perhaps in the midst of a tornado), but if it takes regulation to force carriers to provide an alternative egress besides their limited number of gates, then I'm all for it.

Current "security" procedures make it impossible for passengers to protest any action by a flight crew. You are readily threatened with arrest and can be summarily executed just for acting in a way perceived as strange on an airliner. Passengers must have protection within the law since they cannot under our current system, voice their disagreement to a flight crew.

The airlines have created this mess, and I want my legislators to protect me from them, even if it's inconvenient for the airlines.

Jon
 
ReverendSlappy said:
The last thing I want to ever hear on a flight taxiing to the runway is, "Folks, this is the Captain. I know we pushed back from the gate very late, but we have enough fuel, the weather is no factor, and we're #3 for takeoff, but Federal Law dictates that since our departure is now too late, we now have to return to the gate. Sorry for the inconvenience."
Click to expand...

I have, in fact, heard close to those words. "Folks, this is the Captian. I know we pushed back very late, we were in a line of 90 aircraft waiting to depart, the weather is fine for ths short flight between here and Washington. We're now #2 for takeoff, but due to the delay and long line of aircraft, we've hit our minimum fuel level. We will be returning to the gate, and the gate agents will have more information for you. Sorry for the inconvenience."

There really isn't much worse for passengers to hear after a 2+ hour ground delay and another 2 waiting in line for takeoff... especially after taking a 10 hour trip back from Europe.

A pox on KJFK.
 
I think that JetBlue is doing the right thing by offering their own Passenger Bill of Rights, although, it does seem watered down. I'm not sure they are really getting the point.

SCCutler said:
No, Kent, it's usually a duty hours thing; deplaning pax means a flight has terminated, and a flight crew which would be legal to complete a flight would not be legal to start a new one (even a short one), meaning they'd need to find a new crew to complete the flight for all the pax who are not terminating at the diversion city.

Sucks, don't it?
Click to expand...

If this is the real problem, then that is where the fix should go.
 
AuntPeggy said:
(referring to duty hours)
If this is the real problem, then that is where the fix should go.
Click to expand...

Ahhhhh!!!! How? that's the issue. Do you eliminate the extension clause so they keep more crews ready on staff, or do you eliminate the hours restrictions and allow flight crews to work into deep fatigue? Check through the 121 and 135 duty time rules and propose a fix there.
 
While it's only tangentially related, I absolutely love this story:

----------------------

Ted Stevens: In Shape but 'Out of Luck'

Yes, that was Sen. Ted Stevens at National Airport on Sunday taking charge and flinging bags off a stalled conveyor belt to help other passengers and, of course, find his own bag. "He looked quite good and in shape for a man of 83 in the middle of the night lifting bags," said fellow traveler Joe Mendelson, who worked alongside Stevens.

When the music stopped, however, neither man had a bag. "Well, I guess we're [expletive] out of luck," the senator said.

----------------------

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/28/AR2007022801924_2.html
 
AuntPeggy said:
I think that JetBlue is doing the right thing by offering their own Passenger Bill of Rights, although, it does seem watered down. I'm not sure they are really getting the point.
Click to expand...

But as with anything else, there is a human element that cannot be beaten with more and more regulations and corporate policies.

Witness this article:
http://www.wptv.com/News/022807_WomanSayJetBlue.cfm
 
SCCutler said:
Not every wrong has a legislative fix. Congressional meddling is not likely to promote any benefit.

Allow the market to work its unique magic.
Click to expand...

Then we need another legislative fix from the side the airlines like: "You are required by law to fly with us and like it," maybe even if you aren't planning to travel anywhere.
 
Yeah. It's such a rare thing:

No flight fared worse in that storm than UA907. The Boeing 757 languished on the tarmac for seven hours before the pilots finally canceled the flight. It took another agonizing hour to get the plane back to the gate, where exhausted and frustrated passengers stumbled off the jet after midnight.
...
But despite the recent rash of airline horror stories, "they are extremely rare situations," said David Castelveter, spokesman for the Air Transport Association, a Washington, D.C.-based trade group for the major U.S. carriers.
...
Flight 907's icy purgatory was the result of bad luck, extreme weather and the pilots' determination to stick it out on the tarmac, say people familiar with the events. To passengers, the experience was torture because every time departure seemed possible, the plane would need to be de-iced again.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel/chi-070301bad-flight,1,5898109.story?coll=chi-news-hed
Click to expand...

No chance for customer prevention escapes UAL.
 
Last edited:
ReverendSlappy said:
My personal feeling is that if an airline can't figure out how to keep these kinds of extreme incidents (which, to be fair, are relatively isolated) to a minimum,
Click to expand...

Minimum? Hell, it has happened just FOUR TIMES in the last 8 years, that has made the news, that I know of. According to a quote I saw
recently, and I can't source it, United has had only 5 flights in the last, what, 5 years? that was more than 3 hours delayed. Not exactly a systemic problem, IMO.

That said, I do take issue with the general tone of that quote, and have a serious problem with #5. Being stuck on the tarmac for as long as the folks were on that JetBlue flight or that AA flight is inexcusable. Period.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree.

Any company -- airline or whatever -- that can't or won't find a way to fix a problem that is that blatantly and egregiously wrong doesn't deserve my or anyone's business.
Click to expand...

Well, do what you want. And I agree that there are times when an acceptable solution can be found. But I also know there are times when this stuff happens and there isn't much that can be done. BTDT.
 
mikea said:
Then we need another legislative fix from the side the airlines like: "You are required by law to fly with us and like it," maybe even if you aren't planning to travel anywhere.
Click to expand...

You can't be serious. You're kidding. Right?
 
mikea said:
Yeah. It's such a rare thing:



No chance for customer prevention escapes UAL.
Click to expand...

Mike, what is your point? For what it is worth, this article places more authority with the pilots than they actually have. It is very rare that a pilot can cancel a flight. He can delay it for safty reasons, but it is not normal for him to be able to outright cancel it.

BTW, you beat me to the punch. I am going to post that link again. Please point out the inconsistencies in the article. There are some blatant errors in it.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/trave...09.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true
 
Greg Bockelman said:
But I also know there are times when this stuff happens and there isn't much that can be done. BTDT.
Click to expand...

I'm not really trying to bash the airlines here; when put in perspective, they really do a pretty amazing thing every day, and of course, you-know-what happens occasionally. I think we all understand that. But it just seems that there are far too many cases like the ones that have precipitated this debate, and that they're increasing in number. And when I say "far too many cases", I mean, you know, more than one: Those four examples are just absolutely senseless, and the fact that it happened once is enough to make me believe that there may be some kind of deeper-seeded, systemic problem, and makes me very skeptical that we as the flying public should just shrug these incidents off as mere happenstance.

For situations like the JetBlue, AA and other "intercontinental-length flights to nowhere", and other similar though less extreme mishaps, I don't know that I buy the notion that nothing can be done. To me it seems that it's not that something can't be done, it's that it can't be done cheaply or easily, neither of which are the concern of a paying customer stuck on a stationary plane for hours and hours on end. I just don't believe that anybody who says that those passengers couldn't possibly have been deplaned in some way is being honest: A company that's truly interested in serving its customers would find a freaking way to make something happen to ameliorate the ridiculousness of those situations. JetBlue, AA, and the others either couldn't find a way, or just wouldn't, and either way -- whether it were incompetence or simple disregard -- it's unacceptable.

Again, the power to avoid Congress's involvement is in the airlines' hands. They can choose to fix these problems or not, and if they don't, the public will have only the airlines to blame for the inevitable disaster that would be legislative restriction.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Minimum? Hell, it has happened just FOUR TIMES in the last 8 years, that has made the news, that I know of. According to a quote I saw
recently, and I can't source it, United has had only 5 flights in the last, what, 5 years? that was more than 3 hours delayed. Not exactly a systemic problem, IMO.

Well, do what you want. And I agree that there are times when an acceptable solution can be found. But I also know there are times when this stuff happens and there isn't much that can be done. BTDT.
Click to expand...

While these extreme delays are rare, two an three hour delays in the plane, at the gate with the door open delays are not. Mechanical and ATC delays of over an hour are not rare in the slightest in my experience, and to me, once you know the delay is going over an hour, passengers should have the option of disembarking.
 
It appears to me as if the airlines are constrained by so many regulations and procedures that it is impossible for individual employees to think outside the box, except in a true emergency, for fear of their jobs. I can see how this kind of gridlock would occur, especially if you have airplanes from multiple airlines in the mix. I don't know enough about airline operations to propose any kind of solution but I don't think more legislation is the answer.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
It isn't stupid if you have to live it, Tony.
Click to expand...

Ready to put a tow hook on the Taylorcraft? I'll get a nice Grob 103 and quit school. We'll have fun flying and maybe make enough to buy Ramen. :yes:
 
Do y'all really think in this day and age that the TSA/Airport Auth is going to let people walk a mile across runways, etc at JFK on an ICY ramp?

I can see it now. 200 people sue Jet Blue for slip & falls on a icy ramp.....Layers say "They never should have left those people off the safe warm dry plane"

How well do you think the ground equipment was moving on solid ice?

Sometimes the safest place is on the plane.

The media blew the food & bathroom thing WAY out. No one staved to death and no blue goo ran out of any toilets.
 
Eamon said:
Do y'all really think in this day and age that the TSA/Airport Auth is going to let people walk a mile across runways, etc at JFK on an ICY ramp?
Click to expand...

Again, a company that's really interested in providing quality service to its customers will find a way. Were there tons of hurdles to jump? Of course. But outside of something like 9/11, I can't envision a single scenario in which eight freaking hours on a stranded plane is anywhere even close to understandable. And we're not talking about some kind of crazy, unforeseeable circumstances: Did somebody at JetBlue forget that it might -- that it just possibly could -- get cold and icy in New York during the wintertime? Come on... It shouldn't have gotten to the point that it did in the first place, and once the wheels got rolling with the whole situation, nobody did anything that stopped it. And that's all there is to it.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
I wonder what the other side to that story was. If I know the press at all, they are going to spin it to make the point THEY want to make.
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree.... unfortunately, we may never know.
 
Henning said:
Ahhhhh!!!! How? that's the issue. Do you eliminate the extension clause so they keep more crews ready on staff
Click to expand...

Yes!

Or at least make exceptions in the extension clause that allow for some common sense in these types of situations.
 
SCCutler said:
Not every wrong has a legislative fix. Congressional meddling is not likely to promote any benefit.

Allow the market to work its unique magic.
Click to expand...


Spike. Oh thank you, thank you, reason at last. A lawyer not recommending more laws? Hmmm, cats and dogs must be sleeping together!
 
Anthony said:
Spike. Oh thank you, thank you, reason at last. A lawyer not recommending more laws? Hmmm, cats and dogs must be sleeping together!
Click to expand...


My clients are hard-working, wage- and tax-paying businesses. I have seen, too often and in way too stark detail, the harm excessive and intrusive government intervention wreaks.

There is precious little that government, especially at the federal level, does well.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Yes!

Or at least make exceptions in the extension clause that allow for some common sense in these types of situations.
Click to expand...

Never combine the words Common Sense and Aviation Management in the same sentence.

Next, we get rid of the extension clause... are you willing to pay the extra in fares that the extra crews on location will cost? Is everyone? Remember, airlines operate on very small margins. Any increase in cost requires an increase in fare. Maybe limit airline executive salaries to $200k a year with bonuses based on profit and performance... Now, how does one go about effecting that change?
 
Last edited:
mikea said:
If a passenger at the security checkpoint decides they don't want to be subjected further to whims of the TSA maroons and chose to not fly, are they allowed to leave the airport? I have checked and have been told that they cannot.

You are always subject to spending a night in jail for carrying a rubber band ball.
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/11/tsa_security_ro_1.html
Click to expand...

That would be a TSA thing, not an airline thing, so I don't see the point.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
That would be a TSA thing, not an airline thing, so I don't see the point.
Click to expand...

No real dog in this hunt, but the link is, Airline p***es off customer, customer voices, TSA gets called, customer is now under arrest. Customer who steps off plane at gate while on an interminable push back hold, goes directly to jail.... Stuff like that directly links TSA to airlines in the mind of the consumer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top