• Join FlightAware (Why Join?)
  • Login
  • US Flag 
06:18PM EDT


 

Airport Tracker/Info


-or-


 

Squawks & HeadlinesSouthwest Airlines unhappy with ‘leaked’ photo of airport worker

Back to Squawk list

Southwest Airlines unhappy with ‘leaked’ photo of airport worker

Submitted
Here’s the controversial photo that seems to have upset Southwest Airlines in the United States. Actually, it’s not the image as such, it's the article published by The New York Post about the image. According to the newspaper, a worker from La Guardia Airport drove from his workplace to a nearby pizza restaurant in a terminal stair car… (www.theaviationwriter.com) More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


AccessAir
AccessAir 5
I guess someone got bored with all the Paula Deen stories and decided to create a new one!!
cullather
cullather 3
Ck Google Maps - The driver appears to simply be returning on a direct route to LGA from Allied Aviation's 4304 19th Ave office. The picture was snapped as the stair car approached Hazen St heading Southeast - approx address 66 19th Ave, NY.
There is a pizza shop sign to the immediate left of the Western Union sign, which probably gave the NY Post the (bad) idea to make up the Pizza story.
It is terribly irresponsible journalism, which seems the norm these days. It caused undeserved hassle of an employee just doing his job, and a tremendous waste of time for Southwest and all of us - just because of some jerk trying to get his declining circulation numbers up.
preacher1
preacher1 3
Why is this even a story? Probably happens all the time.
sparkie624
sparkie624 -1
Even so... Why did he have a RAMP only vehicle on a public road...
sparkie624
sparkie624 0
LOL, I see you have just as much faith in SWA that I do... LOL
btweston
btweston 2
I say get over it.
bishops90
Brian Bishop 3
"It (the stair car) had all the proper plates and tags they need to do so. He certainly was not going to get pizza."
If this is the case, there is no story here even if he stopped for pizza, just an interesting photo.
sparkie624
sparkie624 0
The tags were for operating on Airport property only... Not legal to drive on the open road.
bishops90
Brian Bishop 1
Just going by what the story says.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
All airport only vehicles are equiped that way. Some have plates, some are painted on. Still there. But will not have a tag to drive this on the streets.
cconfa
Charles Conerity 2
Actually, if you read the regs here:

http://www.panynj.gov/airports/pdf/rr-appendix-b.pdf

this is a Type 4 vehicle which can be used outside the Airport with the terminal manager's approval. So, it is perfectly legal for him to drive it from the airport to the maintenance facility.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Do you really think his manager would approve this... Not MANAGER's approval, not supervisor approval. Further more, it is not a street legal vehicle.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Read A little Close.. A PA License Tag (PORT AUTHORITY). He did not have a License PLATE do drive it on public roads...
NF2G
David Stark 1
The terms "license plate" and "tag" are interchangeable. Some people want SWA to be at fault so badly that they will happily misread the law to suit their desires.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
It was PORT AUTHORITY TAG, not a LICENSE TAG... No mis reading that here. That vehicle is not ROAD LEGAL ANYWHERE IN THE US. Not saying SWA is at fault, but the employee certainly is.
NF2G
David Stark 1
Prove it.

Where is the photographic evidence that this vehicle lacks a valid "tag" or has not been inspected or insured so as to be operable on public highways?

Port Authority Regulations classify this as a Type 4 vehicle, which may be operated on off-airport public highways provided it has valid inspection, insurance coverage, and registration according to the laws of the state in which the highway is located.

The "news" article and accompanying photograph prove absolutely nothing about the legality of the activity being portrayed. Nor has any participant in this discussion.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
The Article stated that it had a PA tag meaning (PORT AUTHORITY) all the proof required, not to mention the cops are charging the person with driving an unlicensed vehicle on public roads. Not other proof required.
preacher1
preacher1 1
ya'll need to look at CULLATHER'S post above from yesterday and you will see that it gives credence to the story about the contractor's office. As he said, slow news day that the reporter snapped the pizza shop sign and tried to make something out it. And By the way, WHO CARES???????
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 1
I'm not sure I remember another story that brought out so much vitriol. I have a pretty good working knowledge of the motor vehicle statutes of both New York and New Jersey, but I am not tat familiar with the exceptions made for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and unless I was handling equipment owned or operated by them I really don't care. What difference does it make in the long or short run.

I was driving a tank trailer in NYC one day and a uniformed traffic cop told me to run over the trunk of a car illegally parked and blocking the roadway. After a brief argument I tossed him the key and said "have at it." He threatened to run me in and again I said "have at it". He didn't the driver appeared after a while, and I went on. New York City is a unique place.
NF2G
David Stark 1
Was a citation actually issued, or did the reporter make that up, too?

Is the roadway within the statutorily defined Port Authority AOA? If so, then they get to make their own rules. Again, let's see some facts. (News reporting has not counted as facts since at least 2008.)
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Give me a break and read the article... The basic answer is YES!

"Steve Coleman, a Port Authority spokesman told the newspaper. “We will immediately begin to identify the offending vehicle and driver and will take appropriate action.”

If they have not found him they will. They have a great photo to start with.
NF2G
David Stark 1
I read the article. Give ME a break and stop insisting that this National Enquirer wannabe paper is a source of reliable facts.

Even the quoted PA statement does not indicate that any action had been taken against the driver. They said they "will immediately begin" looking into it - future tense.
enmpsl
Thomas Black 1
Hey... When Hunger Strikes....
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
LOL, I love it.... Would it not be easier to take a TUG or something a bit les conspicuous.
TorstenHoff
Torsten Hoff 1
Reminds me of "Arrested Development".
JD345
JD345 1
There aren't enough half ton trucks and vans on the tarmac to pick from?
Moviela
Ric Wernicke 1
The driver is a practical guy. He knew the entrance to the pizza place was on the second floor.
sounddoc
peter kemble 1
you'll have to watch out for hop-ons....you're gonna get hop-ons.
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 1
98% bull sh*t 2%rain water. April fools!
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
So, going for pizza or lube job, which seems reasonable, which do you choose?
jollyroger23
Robert Preston 1
do people in NYC really believe the crap their local papers print? you guys are suckers. City people need to get real.
gillie62
Bob Gilbert 1
I think he was being very conscientious trying to return those lost bags to the owner of the pizza joint.
tufiremn
Jonathan Brandt 1
Texas. Any Ag trucks or equipment. Plus the driver doesn't even need a license.
JaTexas
Jake Angelo 1
Very slow news day in NY!
sparkie624
sparkie624 3
It could develop into an Arrest :)
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 1
No pizza man in NY/NJ worth his gravy would put his joint on the second floor... It's gotta be on the ground floor with 2 chairs, 1 table, and pie boxes stacked around you all the way to the ceiling...
preacher1
preacher1 1
I doubt we'll ever hear it, but either one could be true.LOL
JaTexas
Jake Angelo 1
I am So sorry for saying this but.."The news reporter must have been from out of town...a True New Yorker would never have noticed the stair car or even an airplane driving down the street as long as it was NOT holding up traffic". ONLY Kidding my NY friends!!!
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
Less conspicuous, unless they forgot to unhook that 737. LOL
btweston
btweston 1
I bet if you read the article it would really remind you of Arrested Development. Because it mentions Arrested Development.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
I like your way of thinking
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 1
He He, I'm glad you said NY/NJ. I used to stop in a 2nd floor joint in Crisfield, Md. Good Pizza, a nice bar and close to the marina
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Not by far.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
The way the New Yorkers drive, he was probably noticed due to low speed. Those vehicles have Governors on them that do not allow them to move too fast. With the RAMP SMASHERS, helps to minimize damage
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 1
WIDE LOAD
Av8nut
Michael Fuquay -1
If it wouldn't pass a state inspection, it's not allowed on a state road. Period.
Moviela
Ric Wernicke 2
In California implements of husbandry may be incidentally operated on a highway and require no special permits or plates.

I content these steps are used for herding cattle and are therefor exempt!
Kairho
Kairho Carroll 1
Florida, too. I can and do take my tractor on the highway several times a year. Legal.
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal -4
The unhappiness should be aimed at the defaulter . And there should be a severe punishment for defying the safety rules the way this guy did , for what ever reasons . Even if it is for repairs or emergency purposes , there should be board or a plate fixed on the vehicle declaring such special purpose . Like we see many a time , a vehicle under test on regular road carries a board/plate distinctively placed declaring " under test " and so on . This is the law . For public safety .
Bernie20910
Bernie Behling 1
Might be the law where you're from, but as a former NYS motor vehicle inspector I'll tell you flat out there isn't any such thing in NYS. Oh, and Mr. Fuquay? That's not a state road.
Kairho
Kairho Carroll 1
...and for The Children.
NF2G
David Stark 0
Can you please cite the section of the New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law that contains these requirements?
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Name one state that allows vehicles with NO tags to drive on a public road.
NF2G
David Stark 1
Someone already has - California.

My point is that Mr. Mittal, who claims to be a lawyer, has not mentioned yet which foreign country his is posting from (your spelling gives you away). An attorney should know better than to make broad statements about what "is the law" in places where he does not actually know the law.

Nobody said that the vehicle had "NO tags." It has Port Authority tags. Can someone cite a reference for the assertion that airport vehicles with NYNJPA tags may not ever be operated on a roadway for any reason?
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 1
I'm not sure I've ever seen a State Trooper in NYC who was on duty
Squigish
Squigish 1
California, if it's a farm vehicle.
Kairho
Kairho Carroll 1
Florida permits highway usage of unregistered farm vehicles on public roads under certain circumstances. Per FL Statutes §320.51
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
What would a farmer need an Airstair unit for... To assist in getting Bananas out of Trees :)
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
Did you mean on duty, or working? 8-)
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 1
There ya go. NJNYPA has it's own set of rules. I'm not sure that NYC doesn't have it's owm traffic laws :-)
NF2G
David Stark 1
Actually, NYC does in fact have its own additional traffic laws. So does the Port Authority.