[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".

[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

[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.

[Butch Cassidy Slept Here]

There is no credible "safety" argument the TSA or the airlines can mount to support denial of boarding because somebody is wearing a t-shirt, or wrote something on a boarding pass, they didn't like. Sorry, but contrary to the assertions of some TSA Officers, the First Amendent DOES apply on airport property and aboard US registered aircraft. The airlines, might, be able to make "defacement" of a boarding pass a reason for denial of boarding--provided such a rule was incorporated into a Contract of Carriage. However, if the airline starts distinguishing between "correct" defacement, and "incorrect" defacement, then they're headed for trouble.

The IRS has tried, unsuccessfully, prosecuting people who have put nasty notes on their income tax forms.

[Butch Cassidy Slept Here]

Of those shopping malls who have tried to stop demonstrations, only to lose on First Amendment grounds in the Courts, have probably, likewise, cited "safety," and objections from other patrons, as a reason for their efforts.

[Silent Bob]

Butch, please re-read the OPs statement once more and don't be fooled by the opening statement. The OP was not denied boarding because he wrote "Southwest sucks" on his boarding pass. In fact he stated he was able to speak with a supervisor, was given a 200 dollar voucher, allowed to board the plane, after talking about his problem with the supervisor. The OP was denied boarding because "OTHER PASSENGERS" didn't feel comfortable flying with him:

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.

Wanna go to the airport angry? That's fine, but you shouldn't take that anger out on people else who have nothing to do with your past situation.

Also Butch don't let someone else do your dirty work, put together this t-shirt protest yourself and make it happen. I'll be at home waiting for that "breaking" news. hehehehe

[Butch Cassidy Slept Here]

That's how much it costs when you decide you want to be a "t-shirt policeman." The OP should take note. In the case described in the link "uncomfortable passengers" was an excuse that, ultimately, did not fly. See...

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=21087

[abutterfinger25]

Originally Posted by Butch Cassidy Slept Here

There is no credible "safety" argument the TSA or the airlines can mount to support denial of boarding because somebody is wearing a t-shirt, or wrote something on a boarding pass, they didn't like. Sorry, but contrary to the assertions of some TSA Officers, the First Amendent DOES apply on airport property and aboard US registered aircraft. .

First Amendment aside, any business can deny a potential customer sevice if they feel that the person's attire is not appropriate.

However, the "appropriate-ness" of the clothing is very subjective.

[Butch Cassidy Slept Here]

As Jet Blue found-out, begining a justification of denied boarding with that phrase can be very expensive. See above: "A $240,000 Denied Boarding." As I've indicated in other posts, an airline's status as a common carrier does NOT allow them to "pick and choose" their customers. Walmart, on the other hand, might have such a luxury. Common carriers DO have the right to refuse transport for anyone who is “disorderly.” Being drunk is a textbook example of disorderly behavior. When one tries to argue obscenity as "disorderly behavior" you get into the matter of "local community standards." The "obscenity," in this case, would be the word "sucks." The OP only identified his point of origin as being somewhere in California. The intended destination was stated as "LI" and his airline was Southwest. Thus it can be said he was travelling to Islip, New York. If the OP's point of origin was any major city in California I think it can be safely said that, outside of church bulletins, the word "sucks," as in "Southwest Sucks," has gained enough currency in the major cities of California, and in the Islip/New York City area, that "local community standards," in this instance, have NOT been offended. Absent a solid "obscenity" ground, "uncomfortable passengers" is, by no means, a basis to scream “disorderly” within the context of common carrier case law and statutes. Nor can “uncomfortable passengers” be an excuse to cancel-out someone's First Amendment right which, based on the OP's story, is exactly what happened.

[Silent Bob]

If you didn't read the article butch posted, you will see there is a big difference between what the op posted from that situation. In short TSA and JetBlue took it upon themselves to deny an iraqi from boarding due to him wearing a shirt which stated "we will not be silent" in english and in arabic. eventually they allowed him to board, but he had to sit at the back of the plane. TSA and Jetblue settled on 240,000.

Actually this article makes the situation clearer, noting that the suit had gone on for 2 1/2 years before the airlines and TSA simply "gave up"

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/01/07/jet...ent/index.html

Now to quote butch:

[qoute] In the case described in the link "uncomfortable passengers" was an excuse that, ultimately, did not fly. See...[/quote]
There was nothing in either article that states anything about "uncomfortable passengers", he was denied by TSA, jetblue simply put him at the back of the plane. I also don't think that guy should claim victory, I would think with a 2 year lawsuit, the ACLU lawyers took a good chunk of that money, not to mention the tax man.

Last time butch, because you don't seem to get it... actually i don't care if you do or don't get it, you will probably go into some long speech about the first amendment blah, blah blah, getting arrested blah blah blah, call the cops blah blah blah, next time take an amtrak blah blah blah.

The OP was not denied boarding because he wrote "Southwest Sucks", he was denied boarding because his behavior made other passengers "uncomfortable" (as stated in his complaint).

[Butch Cassidy Slept Here]

Silent:

The OP was not denied boarding because he wrote "Southwest Sucks", he was denied boarding because his behavior made other passengers "uncomfortable"

OP:

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

the customer relations supervisor had said ABOUT WHAT??? Now I'm starting to feel doing "Church Lady" might help. ABOUT WHAT?? Could it be the weather? No. Could it be the menu item on the flight? No. Or, could it be the written comment: SOUTHWEST SUCKS! Or, put another way, I guess Silent would have us all believe if the OP had NEVER written that phrase, he would have been banned anyway!

Silent, you and your airline handlers will never understand this but, under our system of government:
"SOUTHWESTS SUCKS" + "UNCOMFORTABLE PASSENGERS" does NOT equal a denial of boarding!

The airline shills on here, Silent included, think a lot like **** Cheney or a TSA Officer at Milwaukee Airport: If the Constitution is suspended only on the "airside" of the security check point, that's ok. That's also insignificant. Just like an "insignificant" pregnancy. If this country violates rules prohibiting torture, but it takes place on a US military reservation in Cuba, that's ok.

Silent, I don't know what line of bull your airline masters are feeding you. But it's, obviously, a doosey! Clearly you would be more at home, or even happier, in a place like Iran or North Korea.

[PHXFlyer]

Originally Posted by Butch Cassidy Slept Here

Silent, you and your airline handlers will never understand this but, under our system of government:
"SOUTHWESTS SUCKS" + "UNCOMFORTABLE PASSENGERS" does NOT equal a denial of boarding!

Perhaps that doesn't "equate." but I feel you are over-simplifying it. How's this equation:

Disgruntled passenger approaches gate agent about issues that happened in the past and about which said agent could do absolutely nothing but advise passenger he needs to contact customer service.

+ Reasonable concern by a supervisor assessing the situation that said disgruntled passenger may be a disruption during the flight should behavior continue.

+ "Southwest Sucks" written on the boarding pass.

+ Uncomfortable passenger(s) who also witnessed behavior as well.

+ Concerned crew member who was not only informed by another passenger but was probably informed by gate staff of passenger's demeanor.

= We'd rather not have you on this flight. Perhaps you should cool off and fly later or fly someone else.

[Silent Bob]

No Butch I would like to believe if the OP had not gone into the airport with a chip on his shoulder, not gotten into an argument with a gate agent about incidents in the past, not written southwest sucks on a boarding pass, not had a discussion with a supervisor, then he would not be denied boarding. Notice how I used the proper terminology. I think using banned is a bit extreme since he wasn't thrown off the flight or escorted off the premises to never face the likes of southwest again.

It took me a minute to figure out just what you are butch and I realize you're a puffer fish. You know, small, meek, weak little fish in a big ocean, but when you come across bigger fish you like to blow up to try to make people think you are a bigger fish, but you will always be little puffer, when the big fish turn their backs. Me in iraq or north korea? No sir I think you belong there more than me, that way you will always have reason to get up on your soapbox and try to make people believe you are standing up for their rights, when in fact your nothing more than Al Sharpton (another puffer fish), a guy who just wants to be heard. So he runs when he sees smokes and rather than help put out the flames, just jumps in with little speeches, fanning the fire, making it bigger than it should be.

So to you little puffer butch sharpton I say... get some common sense, we need more people with it in this country, which we are sorely lacking. Come puffer, we will wait.