Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Baby, 18 months old, ordered off plane at Fort Lauderdale

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) writes | more than 2 years ago

United States 13

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Actually, I support this (1)

rk (6314) | more than 2 years ago | (#39960829)

Can we put everyone below the age of 2 on no-fly lists?

Re:Actually, I support this (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39961703)

Are you a parent? ;-)

Re:Actually, I support this (1)

rk (6314) | more than 2 years ago | (#39962255)

Actually, yes I am, but my one and only turns 20 this year (holy shit, I'm old!), so nyah!

Re:Actually, I support this (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#39966349)

I am also a parent, and I absolutely support putting everyone under 2 on a no-fly list.

There have been babies that I wanted to see on a "fly-out-the-door-at-18,000 ft" list.

When I had to fly with my baby daughter, now 23, I used to put her in a crate on the roof of the airplane. She liked it up there! The wind in her face and all. One time, I had a few too many cocktails on the airplane (they used to give them out free back then) and I forgot her on the roof of the plane when I made a connecting flight. I had to pick her up at O'Hare 4 days later.

God, they grow up so fast...

At every turn... (1)

GeckoFood (585211) | more than 2 years ago | (#39962535)

...we demonstrate a complete lack of common sense in this country. *sigh*

Re:At every turn... (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#39965359)

We? You're in the Federal government? WE don't demonstrate a lack of common sense, bureaucrats do (whether government bureaucrats, airline company bureaucrats, phone company bureaucrats... I think one of the requirements of working for any large organization in any position of power requires a complete and utter lack of common sense, or at least the ability to disregard it.

Let's see, should I pat down this elderly cancer patient or risk losing my job? Hmm...

Re:At every turn... (1)

GeckoFood (585211) | more than 2 years ago | (#39968445)

WE don't demonstrate a lack of common sense, bureaucrats do

I agree, but only to a point. By we I mean more than just governmental types. We've got zero-tolerance policies that are rigidly enforced and opportunistic people that go looking for the smallest of reasons to stir the pot (and look for the support of bureaucracy to justify their motives which many times are based only on feelings rather than a sense of doing the right things - the story that prompted the original JE being a case in point). We have lawsuits for every conceivable situation where often it's a case of people being stupid and are just unwilling to take responsibility (sorry, you should not get a dime from me or my insurance company because you got drunk and did a faceplant on the sidewalk in front of my house while walking home). We have a society where the entertainers are the most revered (I hope I never hear "news" about Paris Hilton ever again) and the real important people are often either ignored or villainized. The list goes on.

Your point is well-made, though. Bureaucracies are a wonderful breeding ground for the mindless. My homeowner's association is a fine example of this. I suspect it drives the market for red tape in our county.

Ahem (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 2 years ago | (#39964843)

TFA: "They believe they were profiled"
Potentially there is more to the story, eh?

Re:Ahem (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#39965695)

It was on the network news this morning. That report said that the airline made a mistake and it was caused by a "computer glitch".

Re:Ahem (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39967033)

Right.

Pull the other one. "Glitch".

The scarf and the surnames were not involved.

Re:Ahem (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#39969325)

I've found that "computer glitch" means "somebody fucked up and we're blaming the computer."

Re:Ahem (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 2 years ago | (#40026323)

This is JetBlue we're talking about.

Re:Ahem (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#40027105)

Because that's how you feel, after flying them...

They ARE the "GoDaddy" of airlines.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?