The word "explosion" is not a good word to use on an airplane, especially in relation to the airplane itself. Saying (airplane component) and "explosion" in the same sentence is behavior that risks getting you unwanted attention, regardless of your skin color. Even if what you're actually saying is completely innocuous, you have no idea what someone in the row behind you on a noisy airplane is going to think you said. So I'm not in any way objecting to a party having such a conversation being deplaned for some investigation.
But, once they figured out it was just a bad choice of words, it's inexcusable that the travelers could not be reaccomodated on a later flight.
The incident began about 1 pm yesterday when Atif Irfan, his wife, Sobia Ijaz, 21, and Kashif Irfan’s wife, Inayet Sahin, 33, took their seats at the rear of the plane.
Officials said two teenage girls sitting nearby became alarmed when they heard Sahin remark that sitting near the engines would not be safe in the event of an accident or an explosion. The girls told their parents, who told a flight attendant, AirTran officials said.
I'm taking neither sides in this case, but here's my 2 cents:
I bet the remark that she made about "sitting near the engines" and "accident or an explosion" came from CO1404 accident that had just happened not too long ago. I fly quite frequently and sure, after CO1404 accident, I had the same thought in my mind.
However ... I would just keep that thought to myself. The fact that somebody sitting "nearby" could hear the comment, it must have been said clearly and pretty audible I would think. As a 33 year old, and furthermore, a lawyer's wife, she should have known better.
It is posted conspicuously throughout all airports, that "unnecessary comments" may result in removal from the airport/aircraft, or something like that. Therefore I would probably be careful about what comes out from my mouth. Not only these Moslem family, but everybody could be detained or removed from the aircraft for making unnecessary comments like that.
My opinion: Over-reactive action from AirTran/TSA? Yes. Unnecessary remarks being made? Yes.
yeah you're right...we should just start reporting everything we see involving people with darker skin and women who wear headdresses...you can never be too sure. (if you don't sense the sarcasm, then you are truly king of the bigots)
Sure, the sarcasm is noted, but there's no reason to take the logic to the extreme. We ALL cherish our freedoms, but at the same time, there sometimes have to be tough measures taken to protect them. However, I feel there must be a way to check out these things without mistreating passengers.
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.
AirTran can deny service on a whim or a vague instinct - or take the word of a pair of teenaged girls over adults in non-Western garb. Treating paying passengers as guilty until proven innocent is well within the contract of carriage.
But such incidents won't happen with my blessing when trained federal agents responsible for evaluating threats declare their remarks innocuous, and the airline STILL refuses them service.
The word "explosion" is not a good word to use on an airplane, especially in relation to the airplane itself. Saying (airplane component) and "explosion" in the same sentence is behavior that risks getting you unwanted attention, regardless of your skin color. Even if what you're actually saying is completely innocuous, you have no idea what someone in the row behind you on a noisy airplane is going to think you said.
We should not be intimidated into not discussing current events (e.g. CO crash at DEN) or the safety of different areas of a plane just because some narrow-minded, ignorant fool who is listening in might misinterpret something we've said. If we were to take your suggestion seriously, we would have to not read out sections of the newspaper to our travel companions, nor read flyertalk, nor just about anything else travel related.
What really disgusts me is the "you can't go into an airport and say certain things and expect to get away with it" bunch. Why are they not applying the same standards to those who make reports out of nothing of substance? Those who interfere with someone's freedom by letting their own fantasy/racism/stupidity guide what they report to authorities should not be able to do so and get away with it. When what is said is innocuous, those who reported it should be arrested for harassment and be held liable for any costs to the individuals concerned.
Since WHEN is inquiring about the safest place on an aircraft, or commenting on how close you are to the engines out of the usual (especially soon after CO1404), something that SHOULDN'T be commented on (), and warranting such blatant over-reaction? Since when is it EVER comparable to shouting fire in a movie theater? What FEASABLE THREAT can it actually pose?
People, seriously, we need to get a ****ing grip here.
Programs: WN CP, A-List; CO Plats; NW Golds (ex Plats); Hilton Diamond; Marriott Silver; Club Cholula™ Plat
Posts: 18,984
Quote:
Originally Posted by MereMin
Boy, I wonder how much Airtran is going to have to write a check for.
Jet Blue just cut one for $240K.
Now that the legal system is starting to wrap up some of these cases, the airlines can start putting a price tag on this sort of illegal discrimination.
Now that the legal system is starting to wrap up some of these cases, the airlines can start putting a price tag on this sort of illegal discrimination.
... and that was 1 passenger who did get to travel on the airline while this would be 9 passengers who were denied travel on the airline.
I am not so sure (yet) that these 9 passengers (or at least the adults amongst or on behalf of them in the case of the children) are all fully committed to a lawsuit, but the outcome of litigation if so pursued would be interesting.
__________________
This game is not as much fun as it used to be: 2008/2009 Frequent Flyer Program Fleecing Award goes to Delta Airlines
AirTran can deny service on a whim or a vague instinct - or take the word of a pair of teenaged girls over adults in non-Western garb. Treating paying passengers as guilty until proven innocent is well within the contract of carriage.
But such incidents won't happen with my blessing when trained federal agents responsible for evaluating threats declare their remarks innocuous, and the airline STILL refuses them service.
More vindictiveness than paranoia, as I see it.
I dont blame the crew for having them Off-loaded, nor do I blame the crew on That flight if they didnt want them to fly on That flight even after The Feds cleared them.
But AirTrans as a carrier shouldnt have prohibited them from flying on any other FL flight that day, once they were cleared unless they repeated the same line of questioning on the new flight.
Why not? They were absolutely no danger whatsoever. In fact, I'd say the dimwits who tattled on them were more of a danger than the innocent people who got kicked off.
), and warranting such blatant over-reaction? Since when is it EVER comparable to shouting fire in a movie theater? What FEASABLE THREAT can it actually pose?
