[Jkarris]

Short story: I was denied boarding because I had written "Southwest Sucks" on the back of my boarding pass. The explanation given was that Southwest does not want unhappy persons on their flights.

Background
After having experienced a 3 hour delay on my flight to LI on Sunday (which involved a diversion to another airport and unprofessional service), and I had given up on my flight back to SF on Wednesday (due to another 3 hour delay), I was upset when I got to the terminal on Thursday for another shot at going home.

What happened: I was the only person on line at the gate and I wanted to talk to the agent about the problems I had on Sunday and Wednesday. She did not want to listen and said to send a letter to customer relations. So, I sat down and wrote "Southwest Sucks" on the back of my boarding pass. The agent saw it and said "That's not nice." I replied "Southwest's customer service sucks." That appeared to be the end of it. Nothing happened for over one hour while I waited. During this time, I was not speaking to anyone or gesturing or doing anything but waiting silently. Suddenly, a customer service supervisor came over and said to put away the note. I asked her whether I was allowed to have an opinion about the quality of Southwest's service. She said yes, but if I didn't put away the note, it would be evidence that I would be uncooperative if I were allowed on the plane. So, I put away the note. She then said to go talk to her. So, I left and talked to her and she gave me a $200 travel voucher as a gesture of good will. By that time, the flight was boarding. I went to the agent collecting the boarding passes and he said there was a problem with my boarding pass and to go back to the ticket counter. I went back and the customer relations supervisor issued me another boarding pass. So, I went back to the agent collecting the boarding passes and was allowed into the stairway leading to the plane. About halfway there, the stewardess said to stop. I stopped. This time I was told that I would not be allowed to board the plane because some passenger had heard what the customer relations supervisor had said and was concerned that I would pose a safety threat if allowed on the plane. The pilot came out, looked at me, did not ask any questions, and said he would tell the passenger that I did not pose any threat. The customer relations supervisor agreed that I was no problem at all. However, the stewardess said she did not want me on the plane. She was laughing. The flight was only about half full. The customer relations supervisor told me that if the stewardess did not want me on the plane, there was nothing she could do other than book me on another flight. She also said that the flight crew does not want unhappy passengers on the plane.

[azstar]

This doesn't surprise me one bit. Southwest does suck! I'm surprised they're allowed to get away with some of the crap they try. It can't be legal to deny boarding to a passenger simply because they don't seem "happy".

[Silent Bob]

You can't exactly blame SW for his denied boarding

This time I was told that I would not be allowed to board the plane because some passenger had heard what the customer relations supervisor had said and was concerned that I would pose a safety threat if allowed on the plane.

The thing is this guy went to the airport with a chip on his shoulder,

I was upset when I got to the terminal on Thursday for another shot at going home.

I mean you have every right to be upset, believe me I've been there with the delays and such, it happens. But the first strike was going in to talk about his past problem with a current agent, who has absolutely nothing to do with what happened in the past. Why would you need to do that? And the agent is correct, why not take it up with customer relations? She (or he) is a Gate Agent, what were you expecting? Second, so rather than having a seat somewhere you stay in front of said agent who again has nothing to do with your past problems, not only writing Southwest sucks, but also exclaiming "Southwest Customer service sucks".

lastly I think this is one of those "there's more to it than this" stories because it would seem that the note wasn't what caused you to be denied boarding at all. Now about the flight attendent laughing at you when she said she didn't want you on the plane, THAT would make me more angry.

[Butch Cassidy Slept Here]

Silent: The only thing in this story that's "...more to it than this" is that Southwest knows, as do the other US-based airlines, that the government won't enforce (or doesn't have the resources to) the laws relating to an airline's status as a common carrier. Southwest could have, and should have, just ignored the writing. But, obviously, one or more egos were bruised. So, once again, "bruised egos" are a reason for denial of boarding. This incident is basically similiar to the cases where someone is wearing a t-shirt with a political or social commentary, with NO four-letter words and no dirty pictures, and they are denied boarding because they won't turn their t-shirt inside-out.

Silent this is a prime example of what I've referred to in my other posts about police state tactics on the part of US-based airlines. Obviously, Silent, you and your airline friends on here support this kind of behavior.

I talk about this topic, in detail, at:

http://www.airlinecomplaints.org/sho...0276#post10276

[Butch Cassidy Slept Here]

What is, really, needed here is for someone to organize a re-run of the Civil Rights era lunch counter, or bus depot, protests. About a dozen people should all show-up, with an attorney and a private investigator to monitor, wearing t-shirts with the word "Southwest" in a circle with a diagonal line through the circle. Everyone goes to the gate, with a ticket, and waits to see if they will be allowed to board. The return trip is surface transportation in case the airline decides to pull a fast one.

Some of the airline stooges on here are begining to look more and more like **** Cheney: "9-11" justifies a police state and suspension of the Constitution.

[PHXFlyer]

Originally Posted by Butch Cassidy Slept Here

Silent: The only thing in this story that's "...more to it than this" is that Southwest knows, as do the other US-based airlines, that the government won't enforce (or doesn't have the resources to) the laws relating to an airline's status as a common carrier. Southwest could have, and should have, just ignored the writing. But, obviously, one or more egos were bruised. So, once again, "bruised egos" are a reason for denial of boarding. This incident is basically similiar to the cases where someone is wearing a t-shirt with a political or social commentary, with NO four-letter words and no dirty pictures, and they are denied boarding because they won't turn their t-shirt inside-out.

Silent this is a prime example of what I've referred to in my other posts about police state tactics on the part of US-based airlines. Obviously, Silent, you and your airline friends on here support this kind of behavior.

I talk about this topic, in detail, at:

So you support the behavior of someone who writes "Southwest Sucks" on a boarding pass? He obviously was trying to **** someone off and he succeeded. Southwest was simply concerned that if someone is so disgruntled as to deface a boarding pass what might be his behavior when he's sealed inside of an aluminum tube at 35,000 feet?

Originally Posted by Butch Cassidy Slept Here

What is, really, needed here is for someone to organize a re-run of the Civil Rights era lunch counter, or bus depot, protests. About a dozen people should all show-up, with an attorney and a private investigator to monitor, wearing t-shirts with the word "Southwest" in a circle with a diagonal line through the circle. Everyone goes to the gate, with a ticket, and waits to see if they will be allowed to board. The return trip is surface transportation in case the airline decides to pull a fast one.

Some of the airline stooges on here are begining to look more and more like **** Cheney: "9-11" justifies a police state and suspension of the Constitution.

A little over the top but any airline can refuse transportation to anyone they feel might disrupt the operation or threaten the safety of their aircraft. If I was on a plane and a group of people boarded that plane with the airline's name crossed out like a "do not enter" sign I would expect the crew to take some action. (Actually I would be questioning why they were allowed to get that far.) If allowed to board I would de-plane myself and request to be put on a later flight.

[Corbel]

it seems a bit childish to write that anyway. couldnt you just have sent a letter or email when you got home to tell them how much they suck? southwest isn't my favorite carrier either, i would rather not fly them (boarding sucks and its not professional, but whatever) but i dont think they should have removed you from flight. if that other passenger felt unsafe with you but nobody else, THEY should have been removed. especially since the captain thought you were ok to fly. i