Delta pax with apple issue at customs wins case w/ help from rep
#31
#32
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Orlando, FL Area
Programs: Delta SkySponge ExtraAbsorbent, SPG Gold
Posts: 29,988
So is the Chik fil A employee. As far as I know Chik fil A isn't allowed to pick and choose who they serve. But I always get a smile and "my pleasure" when I go there. And I'm guessing CBP agents are much better paid than a Chik fil A employee.
#33
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2017
Programs: Rapid Rewards, AAdvantage, SkyMiles
Posts: 2,931
Agreed, they are public servants, they work for us. There is nothing wrong with them enforcing laws but still being nice/using common sense. Unfortunately just like with law enforcement some of them let a little power go to their head.
#34
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2010
Programs: DL PM, Bonvoy Gold
Posts: 8,414
But here you are just using the other and opposite tired old FT trope, which is that if a airline (customs) agent is acting rudely, the only possibility is that the pax was being rude. Neither of these views are useful or truthful. Obviously what is true is that sometimes pax are rude, and sometimes employees are rude. I don't see how it's ever productive to assume either when we don't know.
#35
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: SEA
Programs: UA Silver, BA Gold, DL Gold
Posts: 9,779
But here you are just using the other and opposite tired old FT trope, which is that if a airline (customs) agent is acting rudely, the only possibility is that the pax was being rude. Neither of these views are useful or truthful. Obviously what is true is that sometimes pax are rude, and sometimes employees are rude. I don't see how it's ever productive to assume either when we don't know.
#36
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: MSP
Programs: DL PM, MM, NR; HH Diamond, Bonvoy LT Gold, Hyatt Explorist, IHG Diamond, others
Posts: 12,159
I don't think there's any such penalty if you declare them. They'll get confiscated, that's all.
#37
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2010
Programs: DL PM, Bonvoy Gold
Posts: 8,414
Oh you're right, I did totally misread what you wrote. Sorry about that. I still stand by my point, but not in relation to your comment. Apologies/all my best.
#38
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: DCA
Programs: DL DM, AA EXP, various hotel
Posts: 2,227
A huge part of the job description of law enforcement is dealing with a--holes without acting like one yourself. If fines are being doled out as punishment for snarky comments to the officer, that's just not the rule of law.
#39
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Yiron, Israel
Programs: Bates Motel Plat
Posts: 68,927
I must have flown into the States at least 60 times in the past 40 years, do not have GE, and only once was asked to have my baggage inspected -- and that was just an x-ray of my hand luggage. Before the passport scanners were installed at JFK I had to stand in line to show CBP my passport and the sole question I was asked was if my trip was business or pleasure, and most times I was not asked even that.
#40
#41
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: SEA
Programs: UA Silver, BA Gold, DL Gold
Posts: 9,779
Who said fines are being doled out as punishment for rudeness? But, if you are rude, I think it only natural that you aren’t going to get the benefit of the doubt and I don’t have the problem with that. Heck, the entire thread is about someone expecting CBP to bend the rules in their favor! The rule of law says the woman should have to pay the $500.
#43
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: MEM
Programs: Starbucks Green Card
Posts: 5,431
But here you are just using the other and opposite tired old FT trope, which is that if a airline (customs) agent is acting rudely, the only possibility is that the pax was being rude. Neither of these views are useful or truthful. Obviously what is true is that sometimes pax are rude, and sometimes employees are rude. I don't see how it's ever productive to assume either when we don't know.
#44
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: ATL
Programs: Delta PlM, 1M
Posts: 6,363
I disagree with reversing the fine and revocation.
There is a legit reason why fruits and veggies and some other items are prohibited. CBP could never possible enforce even a checkpoint screening that prevents all. So the threat of a fine is needed to reduce the flow of these.
The Global Entry issue makes this even worse. The point of the program is that these people should be allowed to pass with less inspection because they will abide by the rules. Obviously this passenger does not. Global Entry can be denied to somebody for almost any reason. I would think the inability to comply with Customs regulations would be an obvious reason.
That it was an apple provided by DL matters not at all.
There is a legit reason why fruits and veggies and some other items are prohibited. CBP could never possible enforce even a checkpoint screening that prevents all. So the threat of a fine is needed to reduce the flow of these.
The Global Entry issue makes this even worse. The point of the program is that these people should be allowed to pass with less inspection because they will abide by the rules. Obviously this passenger does not. Global Entry can be denied to somebody for almost any reason. I would think the inability to comply with Customs regulations would be an obvious reason.
That it was an apple provided by DL matters not at all.
#45
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Orlando, FL Area
Programs: Delta SkySponge ExtraAbsorbent, SPG Gold
Posts: 29,988