Consumerist: Rules

Police Dispatch Log: Taco Bell "Steal A Taco" Promotion Turns Ugly

Meg Marco — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 10:59:13 EDT

Reader Kevin sent us the following entry from his town's police dispatch log. It seems that the "Steal A Taco" promotion was causing some problems at the drive-thru window of his local Taco Bell.

I was looking through my towns Police Dispatch log for today — killing time, and noticed an odd insert that read the following ...

Police Response: Incident Desc: Disorderly Subject OFC:[redacted] Received: 10/28/2008 4:13:52 PM
Disp: ADVI Location: [redacted]
Event Number: [redacted] ID: [redacted] Priority: 3 Case No:
Comments**
10/28/2008 4:19:17 PM SB CUBIT, UNK IF TURNED ON BARGER OR CONTINUED TO ECHO HOLLOW
10/28/2008 4:19:17 PM *** MGR REQ T/
10/28/2008 4:17:51 PM BLOCKING DRIVEUP FOR LAST 6 MIN, STILL REFUSING TO LEAVE
10/28/2008 4:17:51 PM DRIVER/ WM, 20'S, RED JKT
10/28/2008 4:18:53 PM NOW LEAVING DRIVEUP - DOT/ THRU PARKING LOT TOWARD CUBIT,
10/28/2008 4:16:48 PM LV/ 598BLV, OR COMPACT, TAN SUBJS STILL AT DRIVEUP WINDOW
10/28/2008 4:16:48 PM UPSET BECAUSE THEY WANT FREE TACO'S FOR ALL OCCUPANTS OF THE VE
10/28/2008 4:16:48 PM H (SPECIAL IS FOR ONE PER VEH THRU DRIVEUP )
10/28/2008 4:15:27 PM LV/ UNK PLATE, COMPACT 4D TAN IN DRIVE THRU, REFUSING TO LEAVE,
10/28/2008 4:15:27 PM YELLING AT EMPS OCC X 4 WILLING TO SIGN FOR TRESPASS

Then looking at Consumerist, I made the Taco Bell connection ... what a connection it was.

Oh, my. For what it's worth, the official rules don't say anything about "one taco per vehicle." Here they are:

Limit one (1) Free Crunchy Seasoned Beef Taco per person. Participating Taco Bell restaurant manager reserves the right to deny Free Taco to any person he/she reasonably believes has already received a Free Taco or has engaged in any other fraudulent activity. All eligible consumers: Everyone in line at a participating Taco Bell restaurant before 6:00 p.m. local time will receive a Free Taco, even if it is provided after 6:00 p.m.

Airlines Have Bumped 343,000 Passengers This Year

Carey — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 19:30:56 EDT

Over a quarter-million passengers were bumped from flights in the past eight months, a number that is set to grow as airlines try to boost anemic profits by slashing fleets. The Department of Transportation requires airlines to compensate bumped passengers with cash or vouchers, but savvy passengers can leverage their situation to negotiate heftier payments...

Travelers can now receive up to $400 if they are involuntarily bumped and rebooked on another flight within two hours after their original domestic flight time and within four hours for international. They are eligible for up to $800 in cash if they are not rerouted by then. The final amount depends on the length of the flight and the price paid for the ticket.

Even stricter rules apply in Europe, where compensation ranges from 125 euros (about $185) to 600 euros (about $888), depending on the length of the flight and the amount of time the passenger will be delayed.

Compensation must be paid immediately in cash, or with a voucher if the passenger accepts it, and the airline must offer a choice of a refund, a return flight to their departure city or an alternative flight. Volunteers also receive compensation, which they negotiate with the airline.

Passengers are learning, however, that if an airline does not get enough volunteers at a lower figure, they might be able to bid up the offer, and also obtain sweeteners that include vouchers for meals, hotels, transportation and even plane tickets.

Baiting the bump is a proud tradition for many thrifty travelers. If negotiating provides a cathartic prelude to vacation, read our guide for getting bumped.

If your trip can't wait for vouchers and cash, we also have a handy guide for holding onto your seat.

As Overbooked Flights Rise, So Do Payoffs for Those Who Are Bumped [The New York Times]
(Photo: Getty)

Delta: Sorry Your Lung Collapsed, But You Should Have Used Your Voucher Sooner

Carey — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 20:45:02 EDT

Trevor's lung collapsed last year, flummoxing his plans to travel with Delta from New York to Toronto. Delta issued a voucher and promised Trevor that it could be redeemed anytime within one year. What they didn't tell him, at any point, was that they started counting not from the date of his planned travel, or from the date he requested the refund, but from the date they issued the original ticket.

Trevor sent us his exchanges with Delta. His initial letter:

Dear Delta,

In June of 2007, I experienced a collapsed lung. At the recommendation of my thoracic surgeon to avoid flight for three to six months from the time of my operation, I was unable to use tickets booked on June 11, for a flight from NY JFK to Toronto—flight XXXXXXXX.

After being made aware I would not be able to use the tickets, I called a Delta representative who informed me that once receiving a signed letter from my physician, I would be given full cred ($365.58) for the flight. The credit would be available for one year. On both occasions I spoke with Delta representatives—when canceling the flight and when confirming my letter was received—I was not made aware that the credit expired on the date the flight was booked (June 11) and not the date of departure (Aug. 3). This information was only relayed when I attempted to use the credit on June 24, 2008. No email or letter acknowledging the restriction was ever offered, just the instruction to call when I wished to apply the credit. On top of that, nowhere in the confirmation information given to me by Travelocity is the booking date listed, only the flight date and I’m sure you can imagine, given my health circumstances, how that is unsatisfactory if you expect me to consider June 11, the key date in this situation.

I understand Delta must have restrictions and expiration dates for credit; however, I feel my medical condition was taken advantage of by inadequate customer care that neglected to communicate the central piece of information. I am using the credit in a window well within a year of the flight date. This is the first time I’ve booked a flight since my injury and am dismayed by a lack of sensitivity by Delta’s policies and customer care representatives.

I appreciate your consideration and understanding.

Delta's response:

Thank you for your correspondence to Delta Air Lines.

We realize you expect to receive accurate information when you call us. Our Reservation Sales representatives are carefully trained in all our procedures, including providing a positive experience for our valued customers.

Please be advised most unused international tickets can be applied towards new travel, domestic or international, to commence within one year from issue date of the original ticket.

Delta tickets and other travel-related documents are valid for one year from the date of issue. Once a ticket or other document has expired, it has no further value and cannot be refunded, extended, or exchanged.

While we would like to offer special consideration in cases such as yours, we are unable to honor the many requests that we receive from others in similar situations. We follow a consistent policy to ensure that Delta is fair to everyone who travels with us. Accordingly, we must respectfully decline your request.

Again, thank you for writing. We recognize this was not the response you expected to receive and trust you will understand our position. We value your business and hope you will continue to choose Delta. Should you need to contact us in the future, or find information about our service or operations, please visit us at delta.com.

Sincerely,

Irene M. Roberts
Manager
Customer Care

Can't you feel the love and care of their velvet-covered sickle?

Trevor responded:

Dear Ms. Roberts,

I’m sure it comes as no surprise that your response is completely unsatisfactory and no, I do not in any way understand your position. Due to human error, Delta has stolen—that may sound like a strong word, but is in fact the ONLY way to refer to it—almost five hundred dollars from me.

You can claim your “Reservation Sales representatives are carefully trained”; however, all experience in this situation points to quite the opposite. Just one example, it took two hours and the escalation of the issue to a supervisor before anyone could even figure out how to locate my reservation. I understand the challenges of staffing qualified people to low-paying positions, but don’t screw your customers when they slip up. If you have many requests from “others in similar situations” than you have an institutional problem that needs to be fixed and I do not feel I should pay the price for that failure. It is certainly not Delta being “fair to everyone who travels” with you. Quite the opposite in fact.

In a business whose success and failure hinges on the ability to create customer loyalty—one ticket, just one, bought by me could erase any loss you’d take from giving me MY MONEY back—it’s shocking to me that you’ve decided to give me the middle finger and I'm sure, a contributing factor to Delta's struggles. I will NOT “continue to choose Delta.” In the internet age, I’m just shocked Delta doesn’t understand this costs more than it saves. You have no right to this money and with poor customer service from top to bottom, have taken advantage of my illness.

Attached you’ll find signed statements from just a few of the people who’ve heard my story and agree that Delta has abused its corporate powers and hidden behind policies that avoid accountability. This will be just the beginning as I feel it’s important people hear how your company approaches its customers.

I will be happy to forgive and forget if you decide it’s worth actually considering my case individually and realize the importance of respecting your customers especially when they are confronted with life and death health challenges.

We've shown that a well-crafted, reasonable Executive Email Carpet Bomb can decimate arbitrary airline deadlines. Send an EECB to Delta's executives using previously published contact information, and don't forget to cc the Department of Transportation.

PREVIOUSLY: EECB Scores Direct Hit On Delta's $25 Extra Bag Fee
(AP Photo/David Kohl)

USPS Security Rule On 13-Ounce Packages Makes No Sense

Chris Walters — Sun, 11 May 2008 11:45:37 EDT

Geoff's wife tried to mail a padded envelope full of love to his mom for Mother's Day, but the post office returned it to Geoff's house the next day with the above label, which says the item could not be delivered due to "heightened security requirements." That's all well and good, but what Geoff wants to know is, if this envelope is potentially dangerous, why would you bring it to the person named on the return address?

By Geoff's estimate (and ours), either it's a huge flaw in their security plan, or the USPS doesn't really believe in their own rules.

The whole process makes no sense to me. In fact, I'm so confused why the Postal Service is doing this, I asked them to comment.

The rule actually predates 9/11, going back to the mid-90s. The weight limit, recently lowered to 13-ounces, complies with the weight limits for Priority Mail.

In an email response response, Doug Bem from the US Postal Inspection Service included this all purpose line:

"Unfortunately I won’t be able to get into the specifics of those security issues because someone who could misuse that information might be a reader of your blog; all I can say is that the issues still exist today."

When he posted this story on his blog, it got picked up by a USPS-related website and he received several comments from possible postal service insiders. This morning, someone calling himself "VaguelyPostal" (which is a troubling name in itself) wrote:

I believe your basic concern is why if your wife's package was considered suspicious or dangerous was it returned with the carrier as a regular piece of mail.

I agree, the explanations you are getting are not logical. But, to make it logical to you would require revealing information that would detract from postal security.
Being intentionally vague, I will tell you that your package was returned through normal delivery channels only because it violated the 13 oz. rule, not because it was deemed suspicious, dangerous, or hazardous. If the package had been classified as those latter categories it would not be entered into mailstream.

So the final, vague summary seems to be: if you get an item returned to your address for violating security rules, odds are high the USPS doesn't really think it's dangerous, but rules are rules and they can't accept it.

If you don't have a scale at home, an unopened can of soda weighs between 13 and 14 ounces, so you can use that as a rough guide.

"My 13-Ounce Dilemma" [GeoffFox.com]

Student Stripped Of Title, Suspended Over Contraband Candy Purchase

Chris Walters — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:03:20 EDT

As some schools districts whore themselves out to corporate sponsors in a desperate attempt to raise funds (hey, we sympathize with them, but it's still whoring), others are enforcing a zero-tolerance policy against unwelcome intrusions. In New Haven, Connecticut, the school district banned candy sales in 2003 "as part of a districtwide school wellness policy," and when an 8th grade honors student was caught buying a bag of Skittles from a classmate two weeks ago, he was stripped of his title as class Vice President and suspended for a day.

Reports CNN, "He says he didn't realize his candy purchase was against the rules — although he did notice the student selling the Skittles on February 26 was being secretive."

New Haven sounds sort of like that little town in Footloose, only against candy instead of dancing. Also, candy will make you chubby and give you Ren and Stimpy teeth, whereas we know from television that dancing will bring you fame and make you live forever.

(Thanks to MissBrooke!)

"Student suspended for buying Skittles at school" [CNN]

A Big List Of Foods That You Can Bring Through Airport Security

Meg Marco — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 10:42:53 EST

The Transportation Security Administration is very clear on what types of foods you can and can not bring onto an airplane, but most people think that the "liquid" ban extends to cheeseburgers. Not so.

The TSA's only restrictions are that any food items brought through security must be either be whole, natural foods (like an orange), or be in placed in a container or otherwise wrapped up. All food must be x-rayed.

The food items that are specifically prohibited are as follows:

Gravy
Salad dressing
Oils and vinegars

Jams
Jellies
Soups
Creamy dips
Wine, liquor and beer
Cranberry sauce
Salsa
Sauces
Maple syrup

Other beverages

Here's a big list of food you can bring through airport security:

Cakes (subject to additional inspection)
Pies (subject to additional inspection)
Sandwiches (wrapped)
Bananas
Apples
Oranges
Sliced fruit (wrapped or in a container)
Firm Cheese (wrapped)
Meat (wrapped)
Candy
Gum
Granola Bars
Pretzels
Chips
Cookies
Pastries

...and more!

For example:

An unwrapped cheeseburger with fries and a big container of ketchup would not be allowed past security because a) The food is not wrapped. b) Ketchup is a gel.
A wrapped turkey sandwich with a small bag of potato chips would pass security because a) the food is wrapped b) there are no gels in large quantities.

Pies and cakes are allowed, but are subject "additional screening." This might be TSA code for "we will harass you, then eat your delicious pie."

We can't guarantee that some rogue TSA agent won't give you a hard time for trying to bring your apples and pretzels to the gate, but according to the letter of the law, you're allowed.

Food & Beverages [TSA]
Permitted Prohibited Items [TSA]
Traveling For The Holidays? [TSA]
(Photo:stobist)

FCC Says Comcast Can't Buy More Cable Companies, But Murdoch Can Own Everything

Chris Walters — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:45:52 EST

Today, in an attempt to anger fans of both regulation and deregulation, the FCC approved two new rules. The first one restricts cable companies to owning no more than 30% of a market; the second one "gives owners of newspapers more leeway to buy radio and television stations in the largest cities." One nice thing about the first rule is that Comcast can't buy any more cable companies. One bad thing about the second one is that it will likely mean that Rupert Murdoch will win "permanent waivers to control two television stations in New York, as well as The New York Post and The Wall Street Journal."

The New York Times describes the passing of the rules as a victory for FCC chairman Kevin J. Martin, but then goes on to point out that in the process, "he has expended significant political capital and made political enemies of powerful industry groups and influential lawmakers." Both rules are expected to be challenged considerably in the coming weeks, so they may not last long into 2008.

"F.C.C. Reshapes Rules Limiting Media Industry" [New York Times]
(Photos: Getty)

Californians Hoping Raiders Game Stays Blacked Out So They Can Watch Colts And Pats

Meg Marco — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 14:53:15 EDT

Here's an odd situation. There are only two markets that will not be able to see the much-anticipated Colts/Pats game on Sunday, Houston and Cleveland—unless the Raiders manage to sell out their game and lift the NFL blackout. If they do, San Francisco will have to watch the Raiders. And they're not real happy about it.

The Raiders have until 1:15 p.m today to sell the tickets. Will they do it? If they do, many Bay Area pro football fans will be "crying in their beer," according to the SF Chronicle.

Which would you rather watch? Raiders (2-5) vs Texans (3-5) or the ultimate Brady/Manning showdown?

"We are always interested in showing the Raiders' game because that's mainly what people want to see," said local station spokesperson Akilah Monifa said. "But at this time, it doesn't look like that will happen. It doesn't look like it's going to sell out, although that could change."

The Chronicle does a really excellent job trying to explain the "Byzentine" NFL blackout rules, so if you're ready for a headache, head on over. Patriots match ups are drawing a lot of eyes this year, and stations that don't show the big ones are besieged with angry phone calls.

Although it was not aired by a Bay Area station, the Patriots-Cowboys game was the most watched TV show in the nation that week. Its audience of 29.1 million viewers dwarfed that of the second-most watched show, "CSI," by 9 million viewers.
It also was the most-watched regular-season Sunday NFL game in a decade, drawing slightly fewer than the 29.7 million who watched the Cowboys-49ers game on Nov. 10, 1996.

The Patriots-Colts telecast should beat those numbers. Even without the Bay Area, it will be available to 94 percent of the country. The only markets that definitely won't get it are Houston and Cleveland.

"The regular-season average for a Sunday NFL game was 16.3 million last year," league spokesman Seth Palansky said. "This game is likely to come in around double the average."

IS BLACKOUT A BOON ON SUNDAY? [SF Chronicle]
(Photo:minds-eye)

How Old Should Your Pilot Be?

Meg Marco — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 12:55:13 EDT

What if you're 59 years old and you're not ready to retire? It's no big deal for most professions, but for airline pilots it means you're applying for a Canadian pilots license so you can fly with Air India, like Mike Ballard:

Ballard said he needs a Canadian license to land a job with Air India that would help offset the pension he lost during United's bankruptcy. While India allows pilots to fly until age 65, authorities there are balking at certifying U.S.-licensed pilots who are no longer eligible to fly for their home airlines.
"It's so frustrating that you almost have to laugh," said Ballard, who retired Sept. 1 and is among thousands of pilots whose careers are in limbo as legislation that would raise the retirement age moves through Congress. The FAA, which also has authority to change the regulation, has yet to propose new retirement rules, much less implement them. That process could take two years.

Some pilots think the age requirement is just fine:

...David Aldrich, 55, an American Airlines captain, advocates keeping the current rules. "How many guys who want to stay [on the job] are on to their third wife with a 7-year-old at home, and 'Oops, I got to 60'? That's your problem, not the traveling public's," said Aldrich

David Aldrich is hilarious. We wonder if he says that sort of stuff over the speaker. Anyway, does a 65 year old pilot freak you out? We think 60 is the new 50, bring on the old pilots.

U.S. pilots landing in age limbo [Chicago Tribune]
(Photo:MalcolmAlmeida)

Should Alcoholic Beverages Have Nutrition Labels?

Carey — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 19:17:21 EDT

Our alcoholic uncle always swore that booze was healthy, and if the Treasury Department has its way, nutrition labels on alcoholic beverages may soon have people thinking he was right. A rule issued last week by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau would require all alcoholic beverages to sport a panel listing traditional information like serving size and alcohol content, along with data on calorie, carbohydrate, fat, and protein content. The alcoholic beverage industry vigorously supports the rule, but some advocacy organizations are concerned that the nutrition labels might imply that alcoholic beverages have some nutritional value. Tell us what you think of the proposed rule in our poll, after the jump.

Nutrition Labels Proposed for Alcohol [NYT]
27 CFR Parts 4, 5, 7, and 24 [Notice No. 73; Ref: Notice No. 41] Labeling and Advertising of Wines, Distilled Spirits and Malt Beverages; Proposed Rule (PDF) [Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau]
(Photo: Irish Typepad)

Department Of Education Busts Student Loan Party Once And For All

Carey — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 12:52:10 EDT

The Department of Education has issued new rules to keep financial aid officers on the straight and narrow. The rules were issued after students, loan companies, and colleges failed to agree on a compromise measure. The rules will ban several practices:

Colleges will be required to recommend at least three preferred loan companies to students;
Colleges will need to explain how and why they chose their preferred lenders;
Colleges can no longer accept computers or reimbursement for printed materials from loan companies at less than market rate;
Loan companies would be banned from giving gifts or cash to financial aid officers;
Loan companies cannot contribute to school-affiliated groups, like alumni associations.
The proposed rules only apply to federally guaranteed student loans. If a loan company violates any of the rules, the federal government will no longer guarantee their loans. If approved, the rules will take affect next summer. — CAREY GREENBERG-BERGER

U.S. Puts Limits on Lenders' Ties to Universities [NYT]
(Photo: Rob Lee)

Greed Floats: Carnival Cruise Line Bans Liquids

Meg Marco — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:58:01 EDT

Rather bring a case of Coca-Cola on board than pay $36 for a single can (or whatever they charge now-a-days). Well, too bad. If you're cruising with Carnival you may not bring liquids on board, even if they're non-alcoholic liquids. From Upgrade: Travel Better:

The reason is economics, pure and simple. The cruise ships weren't selling as many drinks on board as they wanted.
"Carnival spokesman Vance Gulliksen said guests had been bringing on too many nonalcoholic beverages. "There had been some abuse of the previous policy which is why the new policy is more restrictive," he said."

Other cruise lines don't seem to have any such policy. You'd think Carnival would be more worried about the drunk people who are always falling off the ships.—MEGHANN MARCO

Carnival Cruise Lines bans liquids, extorts passengers [Upgrade: Travel Better]
(Photo: Hank Leclair)