I will make this bit of comment. I worked a brief while as a police officer in the U.S in the arly 1970′s, then a much longer period in what amounted to a “private polcie department” — a security company — for considerably longer.

Even way back then, my colleagues far too often didn’t take the “Protect and Serve” motto with the slightest degree of seriousness. Their attitudes, most of the time, was more akin to “Control and Convict.”

And I have absolutely no beef with anyone willing to take up a badge and gun then hit the streets — except when they forget what they’re there for in the first place.

Law enforcement personnel in this case don’t need counseling. They need firing, and for a big news event to surround it.

Like one TSA official said, “This is not about security. This is about teaching the American public to stand in line and obey their government!”

My Continental flight, last Continental flight from the airport out to Newark, was canceled today and all I got from Continental’s Customer Care was – “You get nothing because it was canceled due to weather – tough luck” not even empathy. Funny enough FAA did not report any weather problems for Newark or my departure airport. I believe that they didn’t have enough customers and made a decision to cancel rather spending fuel on not enough passengers to cover the cost for the flight. How about my hotel cost or offering to pay for a rental car?

I want rights for all travelers. I have a tough time that have to accept the transportation terms dictated by the carriers.

But according to an article posted on ABC News on 08-14-2007:
“Continental Airlines said because Flight 1669 was international, federal law prohibited it from allowing passengers off the plane.”

(See http://news.aol.com/story/ar/_a/irate-airline-passengers-threaten-to-sue/20070814133609990001).

So either the government was just being contrary at the passengers’ expense or, maybe, somebody was lying somewhere?? (Boy, wouldn’t THAT be a surprise!)

Mystery.

The real fault was with the government, which did not want people to get off an international flight at a non-international airport, where there were no passport checking officers and machines.

This government policy may not be not bad per se (who knows how many known terrorists might otherwise take random flights in the hope they’d end up being diverted to non-international airports where they could slip into the country undetected?).

However, the policy works badly when it’s combined with the government’s apparent complete lack of concern about what happens to the hundreds of human beings who then end up being stuck when planes are diverted.

I say “lack of concern” because the government pursues its policy knowing that occasional forced diversions inevitably happen but it makes no provision whatsoever for the very predictable negative consequences of these diversions. It’s all just kind of “Oh, well…”

I’ve endured one myself, in Orlando several years ago, and it’s really that. Plus a guy with a big gun just outside the plane in the jetway, with the implicit threat that that carries for anyone dumb enough to care about liberty. (Orlando’s an international facility, but our diverted plane landed at a time of day when the passport guys weren’t on duty.)

I’m not saying it would be cheap to provide proper facilities to accommodate the affected travelers in these situations, but these expenses are properly part of the cost of the government’s current policy–and the costs should not be foisted off on members of the travelling public without warning.

At very least they could provide a notice “If your flight cannot for some reason land as scheduled at an international airport, you may be held in captivity on the aircraft or elsewhere for an indefinite period of time, possibly without food, proper toilet facilities, sleeping accommodations, or other normal human amentities, and you will be subject to arrest, prosecution and imprisonment for a term of several years if you try to escape.”

B.

“I am in the process of booking flights between Dublin and the New York area for after Christmas. I was considering using Continental but after reading about what happened to the passengers of flight 1669Y from Caracas to Newark on July 29 , I refuse to allow any chance of my family of four being held hostage in that manner and treated so horribly.”

So it is with airlines, where the bottom line has become simple: Passengers are cargo. Thus, airlines view customer service, at least implicitly, as something to get around or, at best, put up with, and as seldom as possible. The goal of an airline is to move as much cargo (i.e. us) for the lowest possible cost and highest possible revenue. Most airlines still lose money doing so.

An airline (indeed, any business) misses an opportunity with this shortsighted view. As a customer, I will change plans and pay more if I can truly depend on getting service that is pleasant, effortful, polite, and competent. I look for chances to do so. As consumers we all should. We should say what we want, politely but clearly and assertively. We should vote with our pocketbook where we can.

In the meantime, when you do dare to travel, be pragmatic: Do not predict that you are going to be treated well.

If we all agree to do this, what airline will take the risk to not allow someone to disembark due to a heart attack? I think we got them beat now.