SWCPHX

The reason WN would care about this is that they have an employee who is clearly exhibiting questionable judgment by allowing another person on a buddy pass who would knowingly take a photo of another person's boarding pass to board an aircraft. If the employee and their "buddy" are willing to do stupid things like this, what else are they willing to do?

flyerCO

How would enplyoee know that? As long as the buddy attempt to board (wait at gate) WN flight, nothing wrong happened as far as WN.

wrp96

I think WN would care about the publicity they are getting from this. I know at our company if you got the name in the press for anything but good reasons, it would definitely mean at the very least a discussion with HR. I think having your buddy pass use it to access an airport and then sneak aboard any plane, even if not their own, would be something that would at least warrant a reminder about the rules for buddy pass use.

chipbennett

The person using the buddy pass is a representative/agent/proxy of the WN employee who gave that person the buddy pass, whether or not the WN employee knew how that person would behave.

If I let a guest into our community pool, I'm responsible for the behavior of that person, whether or not I know how that person will behave. Similar concept.

jetsfan92588

I don't think this debate is going anywhere. People are making assumptions about what WN cares about with (seemingly) no basis for those assumptions other than "my employer would care" or "if I was running the airline I would care" etc.

We all understand the reason why WN may care. But without specific knowledge of WN's policies, or at the very least, policies of buddy passes for other airlines, we don't know.

MSPeconomist

This is why I've never felt comfortable about guesting strangers into lounges, etc.

flyerCO

The problem is the buddy did nothing wrong in regards to WN. The communit pool is the business both you guested to and who was effected.

The buddy didn't try and sneak onto a WN plane. The fact that DL and WN both operate in the same building doesn't change anything.

Let's use an example of two hotels (separate owners) but in same building, sharing a lobby. (Happens at airports/convention centers, etc)

Employee A of hotel Abooks a standby room reservation for buddy. Hotel A has no room. Buddy goes to lobby and tries to sneak into an unlocked room in hotel B. Employee A did nothing wrong. Now they might be on notice that shouldn't offer buddy reservation in future. (If they do something at Hotel A, hotel A can now say you had notice they weren't trustworthy)

The Situation

The buddy passes are a very unique circumstance in that they are a contract. For most airlines (as far as I am aware), in exchange for such benefit, the user generally is required to behave with a certain level of decorum (including appropriate attire, attitude, etc.) and the sponsor is responsible for this. I do not know the specific policies of WN, but people I have known who have used buddy passes have often complained about such restrictions and while WN may be looser in some of their policies, I would still expect there to be a certain level of behavior that is required per contract.

flyerCO

I don't disagree about decorum. What seems to be missing is that buddy did nothing wrong decorum wise in regards to WN.

If they had buddy pass issued solely to clear TSA, intending to board DL, then yes I could see issue. However they intended to fly WN, but flight was full. There's no TSA or WN rule that requires you then exit if fail to clear.

I do see WN saying this person is untrustworthy, don't issue him a buddy pass in future. However that's it. The employee did nothing wrong, they had no knowledge that was "untrustworthy " and the buddy did nothing wrong involving WN. Under the circumstances some are trying to make out, employee would be in trouble if buddy exited airport and assaulted someone in the parking lot.

chipbennett

Straw men are fun!

jiburi

This incident may encourage DL to move toward mobile boarding pass (with changing barcode) sooner than later to minimize multiple boarding. Paper boarding could still be used but might need to present an ID if they want tighter security.

Jiburi.

MCO Flyer

Well ironically according to the security camera footage it looks like the stowaway pax was taking pictures of paper boarding passes. But I agree moving towards changing barcode BPs (and NFC for mobile wallet passes) would be the way to go.

The Situation

There are some pretty broad rules in those buddy passes that allow such slippery slopes and conduct is judged in the airport and onboard. The stowaway would definitely fall into the "in the airport" conduct category. In your example, if the "buddy" got drunk on the flight and then assaulted someone in the parking lot or got a DUI, that might be one of the items that could get the employee in trouble since it could be determine that the incident involved conduct onboard.

I remember when my friend became a pilot and he told me that the only person he would ever let use his flight privileges was his wife. It was not worth jeopardizing his career over and he figured if his wife screwed up his career for him, he would have a lot bigger issues to be dealing with than a career. Totally agreed with him at the time and still do.