“It’s not illegal, but we’re gonna detain a teenager and treat him like a security threat, anyway.”

  • AA (probably)
  • PoopingCough@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    In the article it says airlines dont like this tactic because it cuts in to their profits. But that could only be true if their prices weren’t actually based on the costs of a flight but were instead just designed to basically scam people. Why would a flight from FL to NC cost more than a flight from FL to NY that happens to stop in NC? Airlines are a fucking cartel.

    • pete_the_cat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think it’s a supply and demand (for pilots) sort of thing. There are less pilots than there are available flights. Pilots are pretty limited regarding their available flying hours (at least in the US):

      An airline transport pilot can fly up to 8 hours per 24 hour period and up to 10 hours if a second pilot is aboard. Pilots are required to rest a minimum of 16 hours postflight. Some variances to these regulations exist depending on the company’s operations specifications.

      I agree about the cartel bit though, the prices for a lot of things are outrageous.

  • nandeEbisu@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    I already know the answer, but why are what I presume are gate agents employed by a private corporation allowed to detain a citizen who is not a physical threat to anyone over a contract dispute?

    Refund his ticket and don’t let him on the plane if you’re that concerned, or otherwise handle it in civil court after the fact. Using physical force to detain him over a contract dispute should be illegal.

    • DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Refund his ticket and don’t let him on the plane

      They probably have a duty of care given that he’s a minor.

      Who knows what “detained” really means in this circumstance.

      For all we know the kid could’ve asked the officials how to skip lag. “I need to go home to x but this ticket says y and I don’t want to go there”.

      • nandeEbisu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I get where you’re coming from as the article is told from a specific perspective, but they were perfectly happy to maroon the kid in a strange city by making him do the full flight, so I don’t think they were looking out for him.

        I don’t remember the specific age for domestic flights, but if he was travelling on his own without needing what is essentially a chaperone, then he was at least 15 or so. So a minor, but old enough to take care of himself. I don’t think they had a duty of care any more than a McDonalds cashier does when a group of teenagers go there on their own to order food. I’ve done those kinds of flights when I was younger and its actually not trivial to just leave at the wrong airport when you get that kind of chaperone treatment.

        These were security agents who pulled him out of line unprompted and took him into a secure room. Even if he admitted he wanted to skip-lag, that’s not illegal so why bring him to a back room if not to intimidate him and get his parents to pay up?

  • flyoverstate@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    So it’s not illegal but they were still able to force his parents to buy him another ticket? To my untrained eye that feels like an easy lawsuit?

    • fische_stix@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      They didn’t force them to technically. They voided the original and left them with a choice of finding alternative means of transportation or buying an inflated ticket. If you violate the TOS of your transit ticket they can terminate the ticket agreement. It’s totally a scumbag move, but probably not a slam dunk lawsuit.

      It would be like if you used a hack to get a cheaper uber and they refused to take you the rest of your ride until you paid without the hack. The hack may be totally legal, but within a private contract it constitutes a violation of your user agreement. Now you can walk, take the bus, hitchhike, rent a U-Haul, or whatever you want to continue the trip. But uber can say you aren’t going anywhere in an uber until you comply with their TOS. Again, scumbag Mr. Burns capitalism, but legal and unlikely to be worth civil litigation.

    • J.M.@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Did the airline detain him or did the security of the airport detain him. Two different companies in my mind. Does the airline have security and a security room in every airport? Opens up a shift load of extra liability.

    • PoopingCough@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Sounds like they stopped him before he even got on the first flight because they suspected he might leave the next airport. It’s fucking criminal.

  • NoRodent@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Oh, it’s skip-lagging, not ski-plagging. I was trying to figure out why it would be “ski” instead of “sky” and what “plagging” means… I should go to bed.

  • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Parents should have called the police and charged the airline with kidnapping/ human trafficking. Jim Caviezal would show up and the sound of freedom would release the teen.