Programs: US Plat, DL Gold, WN when needed, PC Plat, SPG Gold, National Exec
Posts: 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by jep8821
dgwright99,
You may want to be the one that goes back to school on this subject. You have either forgotten and didn't know that there are limitations on free speech. In 5th grade we were taught that you can't go into a movie theater and yell "FIRE". I would equate that with you can't go into an airport and say certain things and expect to get away with it. I was also taught that there can be consequences for what you say. Also, free speech doesn't even apply in the private secture, but only public areas. This forum is a perfect example. The mod's can edit, delete, and even ban users from this site for any reason. The same goes for Airtran. They are a private business and thus can ban a person from flying for whatever reason they want, minus a few exceptions under the law. Look at Southwest kicking off the woman that was not dressed in acceptible attire. Also, when southwest kicked off the family that couldn't control their kids. Know if you want to argue that the airline broke the law based on discrimination, that's different. I still don't think that argument works eithier though because the airline would use what the passonager said as a reason to deny service. Too many people are misinformed on free speech and the constitution. You can say anything you want in PUBLIC but the Constitution DOESN"T GRANT YOU IMMUNITY EITHER. You can and will be held responsible for what you say.
You joined in 2005 and this is your second post? That is the epitome of lurking. Anyway, you make a good point about free speech. It is a good concept, but it does not exist without some restrictions. However, talking about the proximity of the engines on the wing should not be one of those censured statements.
Restrictions of free speech are put into place to prevent things detrimental to the good of the overall public or a specific individual, and they should never be installed without much thought and deliberation. It is a shame that an individual can make a careless statement that someone else then weighs with possible bigotry and paranoia.
In this case, it was the reaction to the statement about the engines that was detrimental to the public, not the statement itself.
I just took a flight this past week with my family. I remarked to my 8 year old daughter about how close the propellers were to our seats on a Dash-8. Nobody cleared the plane and interrogated us, nor should they.
I actually kinda agree with you in some ways. My main point earlier was to point out 2 things, that free speech doesn't include immunity and secondly, that the private sector has no free speech. In regards to what the passenger said, we only got one side of it. That may be what he said, but without knowing what the other passenger's heard and the context and the way it was said, I can't say if I agree with what Airtran did or not. My personal opinion is that since the FBI cleared them to fly, then Airtran probably should have let them flown but I don't run airtran and neither does the FBI. It was well within airtran's right to refund them their money and refuse service. If people here feel that airtran made a stupid decison, start making new reservations on a different airline. Hit airtran where it hurts. If you feel airtran did the right thing, then continue to fly with them. Either way free speech is not speech without consequences.
Programs: US Plat, DL Gold, WN when needed, PC Plat, SPG Gold, National Exec
Posts: 338
My only issue with AirTran is that they clearly had a no intention of admitting they were wrong, and had no intention of letting those 9 individuals make that flight, even with the FBI saying there should be no danger to the rest of the world.
I think it is a sad state of affairs that decisions can not be reversed, no matter what is at stake. It cleary speaks to the fact that employees at the local level have no ability or confidence in acting against company policies. The inertia of the recent TSA and safety policies is incredible. Once put into motion, it can't be stopped, lest someone get blamed for a disaster.
The negative publicity from this, and the anticipated lawsuit will not be worth be it for AirTran. I don't fly them, and never will. Just another company will everything to lose and nothing to gain.
Programs: Midwest Miles, Northwest World Perks, Alaska Air Mileage Plan, VX eleVAte, Airtran A+Reward
Posts: 1,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthsideJAX
My only issue with AirTran is that they clearly had a no intention of admitting they were wrong, and had no intention of letting those 9 individuals make that flight, even with the FBI saying there should be no danger to the rest of the world.
I think it is a sad state of affairs that decisions can not be reversed, no matter what is at stake. It cleary speaks to the fact that employees at the local level have no ability or confidence in acting against company policies. The inertia of the recent TSA and safety policies is incredible. Once put into motion, it can't be stopped, lest someone get blamed for a disaster.
The negative publicity from this, and the anticipated lawsuit will not be worth be it for AirTran. I don't fly them, and never will. Just another company will everything to lose and nothing to gain.
While airtran is at fault here and should be dealt with, this could have happened on any airline. The system is the problem. You could have substituted airtran for any airline.
Airlines are horrible with P.R.
Discussing some aspect of airport security theater is in no way comparable to yelling fire in a theater, and to suggest that it would be might be considered by many to be rather insulting to the founding fathers. A more reasonable simile might be dicussion of visible spinkler heads in the ceiling of a theater.
You have no idea what was said. They obviously said something that was alarming not only to passengers in ear shot but to the Air Marshalls as well. I'd be willing to bet it was more than which part of the aircraft is the safest.
Better yet, how about you tell us exactly what they did say since you're apparently the expert.
It's not obvious at all. Since it's established that there no was threat from these passengers, it is obvious that the people reporting the incident misunderstood what was said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doug93063
You have no idea what was said. They obviously said something that was alarming not only to passengers in ear shot but to the Air Marshalls as well. I'd be willing to bet it was more than which part of the aircraft is the safest.
Better yet, how about you tell us exactly what they did say since you're apparently the expert.
They shouldn't have been discussing airport security anyways, what did they expect to happen.
If someone wonders aloud where the safest place to sit on an airplane is, they're not discussing "airport security." They're discussing airplane safety.
Programs: US Plat, DL Gold, WN when needed, PC Plat, SPG Gold, National Exec
Posts: 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by doug93063
You have no idea what was said. They obviously said something that was alarming not only to passengers in ear shot but to the Air Marshalls as well. I'd be willing to bet it was more than which part of the aircraft is the safest.
Better yet, how about you tell us exactly what they did say since you're apparently the expert.
Check the news today. That family is doing interviews with everyone. AirTran even issued another statement. Apparently, national security was not at stake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeantownDisneyFan
I think Air Tran reacted appropriately by removing these people from their aircraft.
Is the threat level of our Nation not orange?
I'm hoping that Air Tran is taking seriously the need to weed out those who are a threat to the traveling public.
What kind of logic are you applying here? Threat to the traveling public? This is clearly a case of profiling on the part of the people that reported them, and on the part of the airline. They were discussing which part of the airplane is the safest, and most likely to survive a crash. Given that such an incident just happened in Colorado not too long ago, it is on the public's mind. Having such a conversation on a airplane is inconsiderate and insensitive at best, but such a conversation does not automatically mean the plane is in danger.
Again, AirTran's major mistake is how it handled the situation after the FBI cleared them. They were wrong to boot them off in the first place, but that is the Orange level world we live in today. They were absolutely wrong not to allow that family to fly another flight.
I wonder how the people that reported them feel about the whole thing. If they knew that everyone would be deplaned, and run through security again, would they still report them? I bet they wouldn't. They probably figured that the Muslim family would be removed, and all would continue as planned.
At least US had the common sense to allow them on their airline, especially given their ugly past with Muslim travelers. I bet their is some hand-wringing going on today at AirTran's corporate HQ.
