Here’s the controversial photo that seems to have upset Southwest Airlines in the United States. Actually, it’s not the image as such, it's the article published by The New York Post about the image. According to the newspaper, a worker from La Guardia Airport drove from his workplace to a nearby pizza restaurant in a terminal stair car… (www.theaviationwriter.com) 更多...
Ck Google Maps - The driver appears to simply be returning on a direct route to LGA from Allied Aviation's 4304 19th Ave office. The picture was snapped as the stair car approached Hazen St heading Southeast - approx address 66 19th Ave, NY. There is a pizza shop sign to the immediate left of the Western Union sign, which probably gave the NY Post the (bad) idea to make up the Pizza story. It is terribly irresponsible journalism, which seems the norm these days. It caused undeserved hassle of an employee just doing his job, and a tremendous waste of time for Southwest and all of us - just because of some jerk trying to get his declining circulation numbers up.
"It (the stair car) had all the proper plates and tags they need to do so. He certainly was not going to get pizza." If this is the case, there is no story here even if he stopped for pizza, just an interesting photo.
All airport only vehicles are equiped that way. Some have plates, some are painted on. Still there. But will not have a tag to drive this on the streets.
this is a Type 4 vehicle which can be used outside the Airport with the terminal manager's approval. So, it is perfectly legal for him to drive it from the airport to the maintenance facility.
The terms "license plate" and "tag" are interchangeable. Some people want SWA to be at fault so badly that they will happily misread the law to suit their desires.
It was PORT AUTHORITY TAG, not a LICENSE TAG... No mis reading that here. That vehicle is not ROAD LEGAL ANYWHERE IN THE US. Not saying SWA is at fault, but the employee certainly is.
Where is the photographic evidence that this vehicle lacks a valid "tag" or has not been inspected or insured so as to be operable on public highways?
Port Authority Regulations classify this as a Type 4 vehicle, which may be operated on off-airport public highways provided it has valid inspection, insurance coverage, and registration according to the laws of the state in which the highway is located.
The "news" article and accompanying photograph prove absolutely nothing about the legality of the activity being portrayed. Nor has any participant in this discussion.
ya'll need to look at CULLATHER'S post above from yesterday and you will see that it gives credence to the story about the contractor's office. As he said, slow news day that the reporter snapped the pizza shop sign and tried to make something out it. And By the way, WHO CARES???????
I'm not sure I remember another story that brought out so much vitriol. I have a pretty good working knowledge of the motor vehicle statutes of both New York and New Jersey, but I am not tat familiar with the exceptions made for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and unless I was handling equipment owned or operated by them I really don't care. What difference does it make in the long or short run.
I was driving a tank trailer in NYC one day and a uniformed traffic cop told me to run over the trunk of a car illegally parked and blocking the roadway. After a brief argument I tossed him the key and said "have at it." He threatened to run me in and again I said "have at it". He didn't the driver appeared after a while, and I went on. New York City is a unique place.
The Article stated that it had a PA tag meaning (PORT AUTHORITY) all the proof required, not to mention the cops are charging the person with driving an unlicensed vehicle on public roads. Not other proof required.
Was a citation actually issued, or did the reporter make that up, too?
Is the roadway within the statutorily defined Port Authority AOA? If so, then they get to make their own rules. Again, let's see some facts. (News reporting has not counted as facts since at least 2008.)
Give me a break and read the article... The basic answer is YES!
"Steve Coleman, a Port Authority spokesman told the newspaper. “We will immediately begin to identify the offending vehicle and driver and will take appropriate action.”
If they have not found him they will. They have a great photo to start with.
I read the article. Give ME a break and stop insisting that this National Enquirer wannabe paper is a source of reliable facts.
Even the quoted PA statement does not indicate that any action had been taken against the driver. They said they "will immediately begin" looking into it - future tense.
No pizza man in NY/NJ worth his gravy would put his joint on the second floor... It's gotta be on the ground floor with 2 chairs, 1 table, and pie boxes stacked around you all the way to the ceiling...
I am So sorry for saying this but.."The news reporter must have been from out of town...a True New Yorker would never have noticed the stair car or even an airplane driving down the street as long as it was NOT holding up traffic". ONLY Kidding my NY friends!!!
The way the New Yorkers drive, he was probably noticed due to low speed. Those vehicles have Governors on them that do not allow them to move too fast. With the RAMP SMASHERS, helps to minimize damage
The unhappiness should be aimed at the defaulter . And there should be a severe punishment for defying the safety rules the way this guy did , for what ever reasons . Even if it is for repairs or emergency purposes , there should be board or a plate fixed on the vehicle declaring such special purpose . Like we see many a time , a vehicle under test on regular road carries a board/plate distinctively placed declaring " under test " and so on . This is the law . For public safety .
Might be the law where you're from, but as a former NYS motor vehicle inspector I'll tell you flat out there isn't any such thing in NYS. Oh, and Mr. Fuquay? That's not a state road.
My point is that Mr. Mittal, who claims to be a lawyer, has not mentioned yet which foreign country his is posting from (your spelling gives you away). An attorney should know better than to make broad statements about what "is the law" in places where he does not actually know the law.
Nobody said that the vehicle had "NO tags." It has Port Authority tags. Can someone cite a reference for the assertion that airport vehicles with NYNJPA tags may not ever be operated on a roadway for any reason?