bocastephen

Their policy is moot and unenforceable at airport owned property and public spaces such as check-in counters and gates...as well as taking pictures of UA aircraft from public spaces.

If they don't like it, too bad.

saulblum

However, such a policy is only applicable when you are inside property owned by United, for example, inside a United plane. The ticketing concourse is likely not owned by United, and you could argue that if the ticketing concourse is public property, then any internal United policy has no bearing. It would be no different than a United employee attempting to stop a photographer from taking pics of a United plane from an adjacent gate operated by Delta or JetBlue, where it would have no bearing either.

EDIT: I see that the above posted said the exact same thing five minutes earlier!

cordelli

While the policy is totally unenforceable, the police have been kicking people out of airports and deleting pictures for years. Nobody has won that challenge yet, not people here, not the Daily News when they were kicked out of the Jet Blue Terminal at JFK for picture taking, etc.

It's fine for people to post over and over and over and over again how unenforceable it is, but out of all the threads that start out the same way, they always end the same way, people stop taking pictures, people delete pictures, and come here to post about how evil the TSA, the airport, or the employees are.

It's too bad nobody is willing to force the issue with the Port Authority or whatever the airport police is that is forcing them to delete or be arrested.

It really doesn't matter what anybody here posts about it being enforceable or not. In the real world, where it matters, it's being enforced, and has been for years. They don't care that it's public property, they don't care what posts on flyertalk say.

saulblum

And that about sums up every thread on this forum.

(Did the Daily News ever end up suing either JetBlue or the Port Authority over the December incident?)

cordelli

Their story ended with the line


But like every threat like that, it just was forgotten.

The National Press Photographers sent a letter to the TSA and heard back from them a couple weeks ago saying

Which is what they have said time and time again, but they never get the word to the people in the field.

Boggie Dog

You'll have to explain that to the youngsters.

jkhuggins

Nah. That's what them YouTubes is for.

bocastephen

This might change due to another poster's interaction with PA goons last week...let's wait and see what their lawyer does with that case.

BadgerBoi

Granted they handled it in an appalling manner. But how would you feel if someone came into your workplace and started taking pictures? I wouldn't be too happy.

If you want to do this, there's maybe a sneaky little work-around. Take a friend and make like you are taking his or her picture.

Pesky Monkey

If I worked out in a public area I couldn't give a rat's butt. Does a terrorist really need names of ticket agents to make an attack?

BadgerBoi

Is it a public area? In many airports that space is either owned or leased by the airline, so it's not public. Don't know what the situation is at the airport in question.

And no, a terrorist probably doesn't need names of ticket agents; I've never given a moment's thought (nor your "rat's butt", whatever that might be) to what they want. Why does everything seem to come down to "...does a terrorist really...?" yada yada. Irrelevant to the issue here.

Pesky Monkey

Yes it is a public area. You can walk into the airport without a ticket and take all the photos you want. The terrorist part was brought up by the ticket agents with all the 9/11 b.s. Perhaps you didn't read the original post.

DeafBlonde

It seems to me that the TSA suffers the same malady as the UA personnel...

PhoenixRev

PHX is wholly owned by the City of Phoenix and space is leased.

However, if I am standing in the common walkway, lounge, or seating area and use a telephoto lens to take photos of an airline's staff, gates, signs, etc., that airline (or anyone else for that matter) has no authority to stop me from shooting photos (as long as I am not a acting on behalf of a commercial entity).

Likewise, when I am standing on the concourse with the shops on both sides, I can stop and take photos of the Cold Stone Creamery or the Nathan's Hot Dogs or the souvenir shop. While they certainly can prevent me from entering the shop and taking photos, they cannot prevent me from taking photos of them or their shops or their customers or their merchandise if I am located on a commons.

DeafBlonde

Bolding mine: Personally, I wouldn't mind as long as I had on my make-up and was not having a bad hair day!