Generally, if you want to defuse tensions, you do not threaten to sue a passenger, especially when you have no valid claim. But that did not stop a Spirit Airlines gate agent in Las Vegas from threatening to sue a passenger…for having the audacity to film him. Not that the tool in the jogging suit was without blame…
Spirit Airlines Gate Agent In Las Vegas: I Will Sue You For Filming Me
We don’t know what prompted the incident and for our purposes it really does not matter. What we do see is an angry passenger in a 1995 jogging suit who pulls out his phone and seemingly in desperation, begins recording his interactions with the gate agent while also threatening to call Spirit Airlines corporate office (after asking for a supervisor and being told he is speaking to the supervisor).
The Spirit Airlines gate agent ups the ante by threatening to sue the passenger for filming him without permission. The passenger retorts that is merely exercising his 1st Amendment right (both are wrong).
Ultimately, he is denied boarding, which seems to be on the basis that he filmed the gate agent, not for whatever led to the interaction. If you listen carefully to the video, it does appear that the issue was over payment for excess baggage. At one point in the filmed conversation, Mr. Jogging Suit says, “Are you going to accept our payment?” which to me suggests that a personal item too big to fit under the seat probably led to this argument in the first place.
@karen_everywhere
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place like an airport. Even though entry is controlled, you have no reasonable right not to be filmed (in Las Vegas of all places, where if you look up you see hundreds of cameras in so many indoor settings).
Mr. Jogging Suit may have been a jerk, but it fell upon the Spirit Airlines gate agent to de-escalate the conflict and instead he escalated it. But this I know: I could never be a Spirit Airlines gate agent in Las Vegas.
CONCLUSION
A man and a Spirit Airlines gate agent bickered over photography in Las Vegas. The man and his wife were denied boarding. While there is no doubt Spirit Airlines gate agents put up with a lot of bad passengers, my advice would be to not make the situation worse by threatening to sue passengers when you have no reasonable grounds to do so.
Nevada prohibits recording, accessing, sharing, or using oral conversations without the approval of at least one party involved in the communication. Just saying.
Which further shows how crazy the gate agent was.
And if Nevada wants to come after me, they are more than welcome.
Definitely.
If this were California or Florida, the gate agent would have been correct because those states require both parties for any type of recording.
That applies to phone calls and similar situations, not public spaces.
This is not true in public. Repeat after net-there is no expectation of privacy in public. Full stop….
More evidence that this once cool page has gone full dumpster fire. Let the comments roll on.
for ref, i used to work with this tool. He was and still is such.
You referring to me or the passenger or the gate agent?
Could you provide a name of whom you’re referring to? My family had a horrible Spirit customer svc experience with a supervisor at LAS recently. My kids were especially appalled by how we were treated!
How does this work when there is a fight or attack in the terminal or on a jet? Does the criminal act void the requirement of approval of one or more individuals being recorded.
The foundation of Social Media is to record every intimate/private moment in the surrounding environment sans consent of those involved.
It’s all in number of clicks you garner in relation to your web page sponsor , not the privacy of others….privacy is out the window.
Definitely not in the window in a public space, which is outside the window of privacy.
I feel like there’s more window references to be made here but I’ll abstain.
There are details missing outside the camera situation. It does appear that there was a excess baggage situation. Jogging suit says “are you going to accept my payment or not”. Okay. What’s the lead up? Spirit charges $100 at the gate for an unpaid carry on. The website is clear at booking, and there are announcements made prior to boarding. In fact, I have heard them as an automated announcement played by the agents. So what was the issue then. An unpaid carryon? Okay pay the $100. Was jogging suit refusing to pay the full $100? Spirit doesn’t accept cash. Again, there are announcements to this effect and that there are “cash to card” machines with a $4.95 service charge (I’ve heard the announcement).
Further, it’s very important to point out that Spirit gate agents in every location except FLL are contractors. LAS was handled by DGS, which is now known as Unifi. Contracts change, so this may no longer be the case. However, there are Spirit employee managers on site who oversee the contractor. Where was this manager? What kind of training does Spirit provide their contractors in order to de-escalate the situation?
So a story was posted in which so many important facts weren’t investigated. I do fly Spirit (Unifi is the contractor at DTW), and I’m well aware of how they operate. If a customer thinks they are going to bully their way into getting something they didn’t pay for, its not going to end well. Spirit will hold the contractor accountable for the fee not collected. Was the agent in the wrong? Yeah, it spiraled out of control. But I get the feeling had jogging suit not tried to get something they hadn’t paid for, and then decided to push the issue, none of this would’ve happened.
Spirit is a Greyhound bus with wings and those that choose to use it make that choice knowing full well that what the ramifications of their choice are…… You pay less up front, but for EVERYTHING extra later, period. My Jogging Suit is a perfect example of those that believe they know better. You can see how that worked out for him…. Hahahaha!
You’re assumptions regarding a right to film in an airport may not be correct. While it has never been testing in court PDX takes the position that airlines control whether it’s permissible to take picture or film from inside the areas the airline rent from the Port of Portland. While those aren’t marked they would be gate area.
Like I said this hasn’t been tested, at least that I know of, but there have been a number similar cases and what is and isn’t a public space is not something it’s possible to know in many setting, such as an airport, until a court has ruled on the specific situation and if one side appeals, those have been concluded.
Jesda also isn’t necessarily correct either. While I don’t know about California or Florida in Oregon its illegal to record people without their knowledge. That obviously doesn’t apply here but Jesda’s assertion that recording in a public place is always permissible is not correct. Some states place restriction on this the most common being that both parties are aware they are being recorded. So you can’t use record video unless it’s clear you are doing so. Same for audio only recording.
Since in most cases these are criminal statutes the consequences can be serious.