Northwest Airlines Refuses Gay Couple's Award Tickets

[MrsSpringsteen]

Sounds to me like they are in clear violation of the law, I don't know the CA law but just based on what is stated here. How could the airline not know that is discrimination?

PlanetOut Network Sat Feb 11, 8:01 PM ET


Northwest Airlines took heat from the ACLU on Thursday for refusing to honor award tickets that a gay couple in Los Angeles tried to use for a trip to Florida.

In a letter to Northwest, the legal advocacy group said the airline's action violated California's nondiscrimination laws.

Rob Anders, a longtime airline industry employee, won the tickets at a holiday party in December. When he tried to redeem the tickets for a trip with his registered domestic partner, the airline refused, saying it would only recognize a spouse, another airline employee or a dependent child as a suitable "companion" for the award ticket.

"What happened to Mr. Anders and his partner violates California law and is clearly discriminatory," said Christine P. Sun, ACLU of Southern California staff attorney. "We are asking that the company not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or marital status and honor Mr. Anders' ticket for him and a companion."

The ACLU cited the Unruh Civil Rights Act, which mandates "full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever" without regard to sexual orientation or marital status.

Anders, 60, said he had been planning to use the tickets to see his 89-year-old mother in Florida until Northwest's refusal.

"I felt terrible," he said. "I thought what they were doing was unfair."

 

[nbcrusader]

California's law is very broad - I bet they get their tickets shortly.

 

[verte76]

That's a really rotten thing to do.

 

[nbcrusader]

I guess you need to look at such programs and ask whether it is reasonable for a company to put any restriction of the award of a companion ticket.

 

[one4u2]

 

[Utoo]

Crikey...I would interpret a "companion ticket" as something you can even use for a friend.

 

[joyfulgirl]

Crikey...I would interpret a "companion ticket" as something you can even use for a friend.

I have used many companion tickets from other airlines for friends. I don't recall ever even being asked what the relationship was with the companion.

 

[melon]

I guess you need to look at such programs and ask whether it is reasonable for a company to put any restriction of the award of a companion ticket.

I don't think there's any reasonable restriction on companion tickets. If they don't want a second person to go at all, then make it single-only.

Melon

 

[indra]

Crikey...I would interpret a "companion ticket" as something you can even use for a friend.

Yeah. I would too. If they want it to be spouse of child only it should clearly state spouse of child only and not state companion.

I pulled up this definition of companion:

com·pan·ion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (km-pnyn)
n.

A person who accompanies or associates with another; a comrade.
A domestic partner.
A person employed to assist, live with, or travel with another.
One of a pair or set of things; a mate.

 

[BrownEyedBoy]

I think they tried to use that as an excuse not to award the ticket and ended up looking like idiots.

 

[Lila64]

 

[Carek1230]

This is preposterous! I cannot believe an airline would do this. I too have used "companion" tickets from friends and my Ex, so this is just total crap. I hope the couple gets compensated and then some. Stupid airlines!

 

[the rockin edge]

NWA

 

[U2democrat]

 

[zoney!]

Funny.

I think only ONE person remotely understands the issue here. The article HARDLY describes the whole issue here. This is NOT a sexual orientation issue.

Those of you who know me outside the walls of the blue crack know that I would know A LOT about this particular company. I am VERY close to two gay individuals that work for this airline, and know hundreds of others...and I can ASSURE you that this company does NOT discriminate against their employees concerning sexual orientation. IF YOU ARE AN EMPLOYEE of NWA, you can designate your Domestic Partner as either a Registered Travel Companion or your Domestic Partner in order to allow them to take advantage of your pass privledges. that's why I find this aricle/claim so absurd.

HERE is the issue: I am pretty sure (as indicated by the article above) that he is an employee of another airline. Airlines often "trade" passes for holiday parties. These passes have restrictions (this is consistent with ALL airlines). His significant other may be registered with his airline...but, unfortunately, that doesn't often carry over to other airlines. This is not an NWA specific thing.

As an airline employee (a male), if I was domestically recognized as being a partner with Joyfulgirl (a female), and received a pass from another airline at a holiday party...she would NOT be able to use the pass. Simple rules.

Now, if our society/state governments would recognize gay marriage...this little, fairly un-newsworthy piece would not be an issue.

Further, because of this guy bitching, NO airline will give out "holiday employee passes" next year!

 

[WildHoneyAlways]

Just for clarification, if this guy won 2 passes, they could only be used by him, on 2 separate occasions, right?

 

[zoney!]

Just for clarification, if this guy won 2 passes, they could only be used by him, on 2 separate occasions, right?

It is hard to clarify when it comes to employee specific passes on other airlines.

He won EMPLOYEE PASSES (not award tickets as typed by the starter of this thread or the article that was posted here). WHOLE different story.

I am sure the airline will allow his Domestic Partner travel....but airline employees will not see passes at next year's holiday party.

What company wants negative publicity when in reality they thought they were being nice by giving passes to another airline as "good will"?

 

[melon]

I don't know why they have to make these goofy passes so complicated. If he wants to take a complete stranger with him on an airline, I don't see why NWA or any airline has to give a flying fuck.

Melon

 

[zoney!]

I don't know why they have to make these goofy passes so complicated. If he wants to take a complete stranger with him on an airline, I don't see why NWA or any airline has to give a flying fuck.

Melon

I could not agree with you more. I would love nothing more than to be able to take whoever I want, anywhere I want using the benefits I have.

BUT, there are policies in place because of YEARS of abuse by employees and now, very tight tax laws.

As a single male working for an airline...I have two sets of 16 opportunities to take "companions" (friends) on trips. For example, I have registered my young lady friend as my official "Registered Travel Comp"

When she travels, I get taxes taken out of my paycheck for her "free travel." A recent trip from Boston to Indianapolis and back, I was "taxed" $128. Still cheaper than buying a ticket...but not much these days.

The airlines get the taxes taken from THEM if they are not collected. Maybe if he is willing to pay for these taxes, they will let his Domestic partner go! ?

 

[BAW]

What took you so long Jeff?



http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid26232.asp

 

[melon]

What took you so long Jeff?

http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid26232.asp

Good to see it makes sense. It would be difficult for me to boycott NWA, since it's the most convenient airline where I live.

Melon

 

[zoney!]

What took you so long Jeff?



http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid26232.asp

Thanks for posting this...hopefully this will teach all the naysayers a lesson.

Don't beLIEve everything you read.

As for "where have I been": I try to avoid FYM because of the bullshit threads posted here like this one where people post articles without fact checking...and then the sheep blindly follow. And things are busy and I am living in a hotel four nights a week right now without Interference access!

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I posted this thread a couple of weeks ago, it was a link on Yahoo from a gay web site. I just thought it was an interesting subject for discussion and obviously the other info was not known at the time. It's not my job to be a "fact checker", this isn't a newspaper or TV station. So there's no need to insult me or other people here either.

 

[yolland]

^ Ditto...

 

[dandy]

MrsS

 

[nbcrusader]

Thanks for posting this...hopefully this will teach all the naysayers a lesson.

Don't beLIEve everything you read.

As for "where have I been": I try to avoid FYM because of the bullshit threads posted here like this one where people post articles without fact checking...and then the sheep blindly follow. And things are busy and I am living in a hotel four nights a week right now without Interference access!

The thread was started based on a news article from a generally reputable source. There was nothing to suggest that the article was "bullshit" in any way, and the collective active membership of FYM does a fairly good job of keeping the real bullshit out.

FYM is not the judge and jury to decide issues of fact. Rarely do we wait for all available facts before presenting opinions on a subject. If we did wait for all available facts, I doubt we would have 10% of the discussion we have today.

The post, even if the article did not include all the facts, presented a framework of issues for discussion - and remains valid even if the specific facts of the case in question have changed.

 

[BonosSaint]

^

 

[zoney!]

The post, even if the article did not include all the facts, presented a framework of issues for discussion - and remains valid even if the specific facts of the case in question have changed.

Framework for WHAT discussion?

How the ACLU files false claims before they research the claim?

I do not see ANYONE questioning the ACLU in this thread...or even the guy who made the claim (except me). I see a bunch of uninformed "barking" towards a company who followed a simple policy - and that actually provides quite a bit for THEIR employees who are gay or lesbian.

I felt insulted by this post - especially knowing that the person who wrote the article for this "reliable" source did not even have an airline representative quoted in the article. I journalism school, we were taught to cover both sides of the story equally. Fair and balanced. That was CLEARLY not the case here.

 

[zoney!]

Don't get me wrong...I appreciate when people post articles, state their opinions, and get involved in fairly good debates/conversations of issues.

But articles that are posted...and then not discussed beyond the first post or a few uninformed opinions? I KNOW we (as U2 fans) are more intelligent than that.

Strive!

 

[dandy]

perhaps if you went about expressing your discontentment with the original article by simply contradicting the information given, you wouldn't be running into problems here. MrsSpringsteen posted an article she thought would generate some interesting discussion, and your comments about how the information in the article is wrong are relevant and definitely welcome. however, i do think you could have made your point without getting personal and insulting her for posting the article and the people who responded to it.