[Butch Cassidy Slept Here]

Silent Bob said of me: Come puffer (fish), we will wait.

Hey, I aim to please!! Lets start with Silent. If anyone doubted his blind allegiance to the airlines (and his lesser-known affinity to neo-Facism) check-out this post (scroll-down to the bottom.)

http://www.airlinecomplaints.org/sho...0361#post10361

Now, to the larger issue: The matter of all the other airline shills on here who are posing as “being helpful.” We’ll set aside the question of whether said shills think a police state is the greatest thing since sliced bread was invented. Lets get onto the matter of passenger rights, or responsible behavior on the part of US-based airlines. As I recall, at least, one of the airline shills on here, with a straight face, suggested passenger rights was an irrelevant topic for this board! In referring to the advocates for passenger rights I’ll use a pet phrase of Silent’s: “puffer fish.” Silent defines this term in his post as contained in the above link.

Silent, and other airline shills: Meet MORE “puffer fish!” Now, I bet you thought I was the only one!

USA Today

Looks like this paper has gone over to the “puffer fish” side. They recently ran an editorial in support of a limit on the amount of time passengers can be held hostage on the tarmac. See:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/...ac.html?csp=34

In this piece you’ll note a statistic the Air Transport Association (“ATA”) (the propaganda, and politician pay-off, unit of the major US-based airlines) does not want you to know: Since 2007, 200,000 domestic (US) passengers have been held hostage in tarmac incidents of three hours in duration or more! The ATA would have you believe, rather than 200,000, the real figure is no more than a few dozen.


DIANA FAIRECHILD

Ms. Fairechild calls herself an “airline cabin environmentalist.” Her speciality of passenger rights is to advocate against pesticide use aboard aircraft, while passengers are present, and air quality in flight. In commenting on the air quality issue Ms. Fairechild makes reference to pilots trying to dismiss her as mentally ill, or “hallucinating,” when she complained of poor cabin air quality. Again, you’ll note the similiarity to some of the airline shills on this board who, likewise, try to dismiss “pro-consumer” comment as that of someone who is mentally ill.

Silent, and his friends, probably classify Ms. Fairechild as a “turncoat;” someone who went over to the “puffer fish” camp. Ms. Fairechild worked, as a flight attendant, for Pan Am, then, after Pan Am was dissolved, for United. During her career she flew around 300 non-stops between Los Angeles and London, eventually racking-up around ten million miles of flying.

Ms. Fairechild’s website, with the headline, WARNING; AIRLINE CABINS MAY BE DANGEROUS TO YOUR HEALTH can be found at the following link:

http://www.flyana.com/


KATE HANNI

Founder of COALLITION FOR AIRLINE PASSENGERS’ BILL OF RIGHTS (“CAPBOR”). See the following link:

http://www.flyersrights.com/3c.html

CAPBOR is, officially, a generic passenger rights organization. However, a lot of their time is spent promoting the passage of legislation limiting the amount of time one can be held hostage in a tarmac delay to 3 hours.

If one of the airline shills on this board had their way, this woman’s name would be banned from this board. “This isn’t Kate Hanni’s site” was my admonishment from one of these distinguished individuals!

Soooo, in conclusion…

Silent I await your response. Specifically does the above, in your view, represent nothing more than, yet another, school of “puffer fish?” Don’t be shy now. You were such a big man before. Certainly you can do the same again. Here kitty, here kitty!

Naturally, the comments of Silent’s co-conspirators (the other airline shills on here) would be most welcome. After all, you’ve got to earn what ever you’re being paid from the airlines or the ATA. Maybe some of you guys earn promotions on the basis of your posts! Oh, I forgot, almost none of you are airline employees!

[Silent Bob]

Wow little puffer, you actually proved my point by missing my point completely. Way to go! You just droned on for two plus pages on something that had absolutely nothing to do with what was discussed. Good job! All I did was propose you to come on the side of common sense, this only proves you have selective vision and read what you choose to read and once again blow it out of proportion... waaaaaaay out of proportion (aka al sharpton).

But for now this entire thread is a joke, and your an even bigger joke for posting it. I can't speak for others but I can speak for myself in stating, on numerous occasions I have stated that "I am completely, absolutely, 100 percently for a passenger bill of rights", something that is consistent across the airlines to deter being held hostage, being victims of overbooking, or being "stranded" when misconnected. it may not happen in my life time since both sides will never completely agree, but it will one day happen.

So in conclusion puffer, you basically posted a bunch of articles that after reading them, I actually agree with the. I mean who wants to be held on a plane for 10 hours? I don't! Who doesn't care about the quality of air? I care! and the passenger bill of rights? I've already addressed that and I'm in agreeance with it.... sooooo...... what was your point again? Oh yea you just want people to think your a big fish. Sad..... just sad....

[Jetliner]

Dude, all you need to do is go to that google page that he has listed. In fact, his biggest soapbox issue is the so called police state. Check this out:

Arrests

The statistics are for San Francisco airport in 2005. It was used as an example here. It shows there were 32,802,363 passengers that left SFO that year, and in that whole year only 1,559 police calls that could even remotely be for calls on passengers. So in other words, some of those may not have been calls for unruly passengers.

That meant that a whopping 0.000049% of the passengers in SFO in 2005 got the cops called on them. He's right, it's just a police state.

But, he never would admit he was wrong, even though he got shot down on a lot of things. That board sure makes for some interesting reading.

But BOB, you have to remember the old saying that if you say the same lie long enough, others will start to believe it. That seems to be his slogan, because he sure does live by it.

[Butch Cassidy Slept Here]

Since Jetliner, conveniently, omitted comment on the passenger rights issues raised in the original post, I thought I'd make comment for him.

What follows are some of Jetliner's "supportive" views on the passenger vs. airline issue:


06-03-08---UNHELPFUL COMMENT:
Dismissal of concerns relating to delayed/lost baggage:


irene

Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1

JetBlue - baggage/rudeness/failure to disclose

Jetblue damaged a new bag. Had to force rude employee to file claim. After 3 weeks learned that a voucher for future travel would be issued. Since I am not satisified with this resolution, I asked 6 times for the regulatory agency I need to contact regarding filing a complaint. The first 5 times they responded, but did not answer the question. The last time they did not respond at all. I have since found out the information I need. Not properly addressing the problem and avoiding questions regarding taking the issure further is terrible customer service. Their customer service is all talk, no show!
Will not fly their airline again and will tell everyone I know to bring a roll of duct tape with them to repair their bag if they plan to fly JetBlue.
06-04-2008, 02:13 AM

Jetliner
Former Airline Employee

Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 285



The should have given you that info to start with, but let's be adults on this - they obviously don't damage every piece of luggage that they get. Nor does any airline, yet they all have a baggage service office.


06-03-08---UNHELPFUL COMMENT:
What some would regard as a shirked airline responsibility is defended by Jetliner:

AirTran Airways - reschedule

Non notification of schedule change led to missed flight. Arrived 5:15pm for 7pm flight. Waited in line for 40 minutes to find that flight had been closed out. It had been rescheduled to depart at 6.25pm. They would not issue boarding pass or check luggage because flight was overbooked. No need to compensate me because it took so long to arrive at counter that I was within 40 minute cutoff for flight. Had to get in alternate line in excess of 40 minutes to rebook. Decided to purchase $600 ticket on alternate carrier to get home. Low fares mean poor service and no support. Follow up with customer relations led to references to contracts and websites. What ever happened to customer service and loyalty. My business goes elsewhere.

Jetliner

Former Airline Employee

Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 285



What ever happened to calling and reconfirming your flights 24 hours prior? If there was a schedule change, then you bought your tickets weeks ahead. Did you never think to check back on this?


Jetliner
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Jetliner
Find all posts by Jetliner
#3
08-24-2008, 08:45 PM
sandyr

Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 3



How is it that the airline can change the flight schedule and not be responsible for the inconvenience it has caused the customer? Whatever happened to the customer being first?!?!?!?! HOWEVER, if the customer wants to change their flight schedule the airline will charge them for that.


07-18-08---UNHELPFUL COMMENT:
Unquestioning defense of airline employees. Was Jetliner THERE when the alleged comment was made??

Sure, blame the consumer.

Airtran Airways is EXTREMELY unprofessional. The STATION MANAGER in San FranciscoCA referred to my mother and I "B*!@#es" because we wanted to know why they wouldn't accept our bags to be checked.

I have absolutely no reason to doubt onus for this mishap belongs on Airtrans.

http://www.airtranisawful.info
#6

07-18-2008, 02:09 AM
Jetliner
Former Airline Employee

Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 285



Hey Airtranisawful - I have posted this on your other post, but just to be complete - I personally know the station manager in SFO and I can tell you that she did not use that word (or any other profanity) to a passenger.


If Jetliner holds true to his "mo," the next post will be some free advertising relating to my political activities in my home town.

Jetliner: Your postings, and that of your friends on here, reflect the widely held view, by airline employees, of passengers as "the enemy," "self-loading cargo," etc.

[dumbassairlines]

some airlines are dumb. most a teenager can fly alone but other some can't why? it is ridiculous. I can not go to a certain location beacuse the connecting flight location the airline does not let anyone under 18 fly alone.

[Butch Cassidy Slept Here]

First, I'm assuming you're talking about travel within the USA.

Having a parent, or someone else acceptable to the airline, pay an "unaccompanied minor" fee to the airline is the easiest way to "legitimize" your travel. However, if your travel involves more than one airline, a fee must be paid, in advance, to EACH airline. Also, it's possible the "second" airline might, in addition to the payment of the fee, require a parent to be present when you check-in for your first flight with the "second" airline. Otherwise, I suspect if you're less than 15 years of age you probably should, at least, be carrying some documentation with you such as a notarized statement from, ideally, both parents or a legal guardian.

What an airline tells you on the phone is, almost, worthless. This board is full of stories of people being told one thing on the phone, then they get to the airport. The agent looks at them like they just landed from Mars! Getting the airline to quote you an age in an E-MAIL is more effective. Now you have something in writing. Make extra photocopies of that e-mail. Airline agents will, sometimes, tear-up something that is contrary to their (anti-customer)purpose.

For what it's worth the youngest age I can recall travelling "unaccompanied" at was 14. At the time, no fee was paid or anything not required of an adult was asked for. HOWEVER! That was 1963. Accordingly, with all the changes in regulations and laws since, it might as well have been two centuries ago!

Amtrak may be more leniant than the airlines as to unaccompanied travel by those under 18. However, if your trip involves only one train you may be on safe ground. Otherwise, if you're making a change of trains in Chicago, you will need to clarify what the laws in Illinois and Chicago say about unaccompanied travel. I once observed a young girl being taken into custody at the Washington, DC Greyhound terminal for no reason other than that she was a minor and travelling alone.

So, if you’ve found an airline that will give you hassle-free travel up to a certain point you might consider ground travel beyond the point you are able to travel by air. That is, of course, as long the law enforcement authorities at your “transfer” city don’t object as I’ve described above.

Whether it's the airlines, Amtrak, or the bus: If you're under age (a minor) it's very important to be nice to the airline staff and crew--no matter how obnoxiously they treat you. Your age could allow them to play the "minor travelling alone" card and have you taken into custody, again as described above. Likewise the same would apply to any form of ground travel--Amtrak or bus.

[Jetliner]

OK, anyone here can go back and pull up quite a few of your posts that are truly unhelpful.

I'm sorry that you think giving someone a dose of reality is unhelpful, but there are too many cases here where people are as much to blame for their situation as the airline, or more so.

Let's just look at the three posts you have. The one about the schedule change is what it is. I said my piece then.

As to the JetBlue baggage issue, I told her that they should have given her the info first time around. And it's true that no airline damages 100% of every bag they get. Making the comment that you need to take duct tape with you if you fly them is her way of saying they WILL damage your luggage. The fact is every airline has some degree of damaged bags.

Now let's get to the AirTran claim. No I was not there when this happened, however as I said then, I know the manager, and I know that she would not have said this.

What's interesting is you didn't post any of her original post, but whatever.

I had responded back to her later with a couple of questions, and she never would answer those. Those questions were did they offer to let her separate form her bags, and did they have to call the cops on her. What I didn't post then was that I had talked to someone in SFO who was there (other than Danielle). The posters version of events is not quite accurate.

Here's what she wrote in her very first post (in fact this is the very first paragraph): First Post

"When we arrived at the Airtran Airways podium 41 minutes before the departure of our flight we were informed they would not take our checked luggage. They did not tell us why"

Wrong on both accounts. She was a good 10-15 minutes after the bag cutoff time. The agents advised her of this, and offered to let her still checkin, but she would have to sign a voluntary separation. This is a standard deal on the bag tag simply stating that they would accept the bags, and that the bags may or may not make the flight. If they don't make the flight, she simply has to go back and pick them up later. The airline won't deliver them.

But she wouldn't do that. Instead she went ballistic on the agents to the point the really and truly felt threatened by her. All she had to do was simply sign the little black line, get her boarding pass and be on her way. But she didn't do that.

And that's the issue here. She instead wants to come on here and smear that airline and the agent. And read her post again. She just has no idea why she couldn't check the bag. The reality is #1 she was late and #2 she WAS able to check her bag.

[Jetliner]

I really only have one more thing to say on this. (I had to go before I really finished the other post).

I find it interesting that everytime you get called out on something, and you are shown to be wrong you just abandon ship on the thread in question.

I also find it interesting that you seem to have nothing better to do than to sit there and go through how many posts just to dig up pretty much nothing. And since you claim that my posts were unhelpful posts, then let's just look no further than right here at yours. This whole thread is not addressing one single person's complaints.

I will stand behind every single post that I've put on this board, and I nor anyone else here owes you any explanation of anything. You can go ahead and post whatever you want here about my posts, but I'm not playing your game anymore. Have fun with this thread. I'm not checking it any further, because I really don't care what you have to say when it's an attack on others of this board.

[Butch Cassidy Slept Here]

Jetliner wrote...

This whole thread is not addressing one single person's complaints.

With regard to my original post:
I guess we shouldn't be surprised that a shill for the airlines is unable to see the connection between passenger complaints and passenger rights. This oversight kind of says it all.

Based on Jetliner's other comment it looks like he's going to have to get one of his co-conspirators to respond for him. Silent, are you here? Anyone else?