No Dogs! No Drinks! Or, No Service!

pO157.

Posted to Business on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 10:39:52 AM EST (promoted by 1fastdog). RSS.

The Metropolitan Airport Commission, in charge of Minneapolis-St. Paul International, is currently embroiled in a sticky situation with its taxi drivers. Recently, some drivers servicing the airport have begun refusing passengers who have alcohol among their baggage, or are traveling with dogs.

The taxi service operating from the airport generally refuses to take about 100 travelers a month. However, the percentage of those refusals that have originated from religious objections to the fare's belongings (alcohol) or traveling companions (pets and service animals) has shot up. The problem is that many of the drivers are recent immigrants from Somalia, some of whom believe transporting these items in their cab is a violation of their faith and standards.

This was not a major problem until recently when the local chapter of the Muslim American Society filed a fatwa on the airport, stating that "Islamic jurisprudence prohibits taxi drivers from carrying passengers with alcohol, because it involves cooperating in sin according to Islam." Dogs are also problematic because they are considered unclean by the religion and are to be avoided.

Airport commissioners are holding hearings and will have a vote on Jan 16th to a new plan that imparts license suspensions and revocations should cabbies deny service for non-safety reasons:

Drivers who refuse to accept passengers transporting alcohol or service dogs would have their airport licenses suspended 30 days for the first offense and revoked two years for the second offense, according to a proposed taxi ordinance revision.

Other actions considered, such as promoting a two-tiered system that included specifically colored lights on taxis that wouldn't transport alcohol or dogs were scrapped because officials feared such a system would lead to "Chapter Two" situations in which drivers could add to their list other conditions where they could refuse fares. Previously, the only action taken was to send a taxi to the back of the line if the driver refused to take a fare for believing that passengers were in possession of alcohol, or writing the driver up for a 30 day suspension for violating the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 if they failed to take somebody with a service animal (eg seeing eye dog).

< Keep Your ID Handy to Fly

Brits: As The USA Stands Up, We Will Stand Down >

Tags: written by pO157, edited by 1fastdog, MSP, airport, taxi, fatwa, Islam, alcohol, seeing eye dog (all tags)

Add this story to:

This story: 11 comments (2 from subqueue)

Post a Comment

2	No brainer port1080. Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 07:54:29 PM EST 5.00

If you are providing a licensed public service (which taxi drivers are) then you should be required to serve the entire public, period, end of story. We limit and regulate the number and amount of taxi drivers to make sure that they are providing a safe service; in exchange, licensed hacks get a monopoly on service (not just anyone can stick a light on their car and say it's a taxi). The trade-off they make to get that monopoly is an agreement to serve anyone who wants to take a ride in their cab. If they can't accept that, then they should get another job.

3 2	Re: No brainer profwhat. Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 08:23:17 PM EST none

The atheist in me wants to tell these drivers to go to hell, but the libertarian in me wants to tell them to enter into only contracts that they choose.

So here is how I will satisfy both: Rather than force Muslim cab drivers to do something they don't want to do, scrap the whole system of licensed taxicabs and let the free market take care of it. Get rid of the artificial market constraints, and I guarantee there will be someone at that airport willing to give a tourist a ride home with their duty-free Jamaican rum. The fare will probably be cheaper, too.

4 3	Re: No brainer port1080. Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 09:36:28 PM EST 5.00 (astute)

scrap the whole system of licensed taxicabs and let the free market take care of it...

The problem, of course, is that there's a good reason we license taxi drivers. As a customer looking for a cab, you have no idea if the taxi is well maintained, if the driver has a record of safety, or a guarantee that the driver isn't a crook looking to rip you off. Would you really be willing to just hop into the cheapest cab that pulled up to the curb?

5 4	Re: No brainer profwhat. Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 10:56:57 PM EST none

Licensing drivers is different from restricting supply. If you give any qualified driver a license, fine; but if you artificially lower the number of drivers to keep fares high with a "medallion" system or a system that restricts which taxi companies can pick up passengers at airports, you are screwing passengers.

Also, I don't ride in taxis often, but from what I've seen the regulation of taxi cabs has not been a huge success in producing clean, safe, taxi rides at fair prices.

7 5	Don't travel much? AI. Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 12:06:01 PM EST none

Also, I don't ride in taxis often, but from what I've seen the regulation of taxi cabs has not been a huge success in producing clean, safe, taxi rides at fair prices.

Trying going to Lima, Peru and just hopping in one of the available cabs. We have it so good here we often forget.

The regulation of taxis is a huge success. Most internation travel books have a section on traveling safely by taxi. In the USA you can pretty much hop in any taxi anywhere and know you will arrive safe.

10 3	Re: No brainer thefadd. Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 03:02:28 PM EST none

In theory (and maybe even in practice) I like your concept. But even the free market isn't always so simple. I don't know if the practice still exists or they managed to clean it up somehow but there was some taxi controversy at the Los Cabos airport in the southern tip of baja. There were three basic methods of getting to the tourist spot, cabo san lucas, from the airport: bus, taxi and rental car. It was highly recommended to travellers that they simple rent cars because the taxis frequently surrounded the busses forcing them to get out and take cabs instead. So, as port said, maybe they won't be so quick to give up their monopoly.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

1	How would they know? Lou. Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 01:19:46 PM EST none

Ok...it's kind of hard to hide a dog or a cat...unless you have one of those Paris Hilton Rat Dogs that can ride around in your purse. But what about alcohol? Do people get into cabs and loudly say, "Hey Abu! I have a fifth of JD in my carry-on...I hope you don't mind".

As as far as our cabbie friend asking what's in our bags, can't we simply say, "none of your fucking business, now to the hotel, toot sweet"?

Also, by extension, does this mean that LDS cabbies can't carry folks around if the fare is carrying a cup of coffee?

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

6 1	Re: How would they know? wetkarma. Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 11:43:54 AM EST 4.00 (astute)

If they are being picked up at the airport the odds are we're talking about duty free alcohol. Dutry free alcohol comes in well labeled boxes/bags that are easy to identify.

The issue is a problem primarily because most cab drivers at this airport are Somali -- and thereby muslim. The problem could easily be solved if the Somali cab drivers gave up their airport monopoly and allowed other cab companies to serve the airport.

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

8 6	Can you expand on that? AI. Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 12:09:53 PM EST none

I wasn't aware that Somali's had a monopoly on servicing the airport.

And also I don't see why they would willing give up such a monopoly.

9 8	Re: Can you expand on that? wetkarma. Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 12:29:01 PM EST none

I wasn't aware that Somali's had a monopoly on servicing the airport.

According to the Star Tribune roughly 3/4 of the 900 taxi cab drivers at the airport are Somali.

And also I don't see why they would willing give up such a monopoly.

Running a cab is a licensed service. If the somali muslim cab drivers (for whatever reason) can't meet the inherent equal service requirements that comes with being licensed, they should surrender their license (or have it revoked).

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

11	Re: No Dogs! No Drinks! Or, No Service! lovehate. Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 06:31:53 PM EST none

I'm in favor of the proposal to flag the cars that won't serve passengers with animals or alcohol. That way, in the event that I ever travel to the Twin Cities, I can avoid these cabs whether or not I'm carrying something they object to. The idea of handing my money over to religious wingnuts pisses me off when the government does it on my behalf (faith-based initiatives, etc.), but to do so myself out of ignorance is even worse.

This story: 11 comments (2 from subqueue)

Post a Comment

pO157.

Posted to Business on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 10:39:52 AM EST (promoted by 1fastdog). RSS.

No brainer

port1080.

Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 07:54:29 PM EST

2

Re: No brainer

profwhat.

Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 08:23:17 PM EST

3

Re: No brainer

port1080.

Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 09:36:28 PM EST

5.00 (astute)

4

Re: No brainer

profwhat.

Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 10:56:57 PM EST

5

Don't travel much?

AI.

Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 12:06:01 PM EST

3

Re: No brainer

thefadd.

Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 03:02:28 PM EST

How would they know?

Lou.

Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 01:19:46 PM EST

1

Re: How would they know?

wetkarma.

Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 11:43:54 AM EST

4.00 (astute)

6

Can you expand on that?

AI.

Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 12:09:53 PM EST

8

Re: Can you expand on that?

wetkarma.

Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 12:29:01 PM EST

Re: No Dogs! No Drinks! Or, No Service!

lovehate.

Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 06:31:53 PM EST