Go Back   FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Safety/Security > Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate
Sign in using an external account

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 11, 12, 7:54 am   #46
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: LGA, JFK
Posts: 859
Quote:
Originally Posted by InkUnderNails View Post
My suspicion with no evidence or proof beyond human nature: Another passenger panicked upon seeing in a Muslim and said something to the FA. FA has TSA reclear just to be sure. Whatever happened, there is likely a lot of fault to go around, none of it on the family (my guess, but I would bet on this one).
Sure. But what's interesting is, it appears the TSA itself is not at fault this time. No indication that their inquiry, if any, was slow.

"Another passenger" may be partially "at fault," but much more important is jetBlue's reaction to what he or she theoretically said. The FA's reaction at that point would be jetBlue's first fail.

FA behaves badly, but is not only excused by jetBlue, but their press arm issues falsehoods (incriminating the hated TSA) to cover up that bad behavior. Fail exponentialized (sp? a real word?).

No, not a lot of fault to go around. Pretty much all one place. It would appear.
GaryD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 12, 8:18 am   #47
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Programs: WN A+ w/CP, Hilton Diamond, Hyatt Platinum
Posts: 7,487
Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryD View Post
Sure. But what's interesting is, it appears the TSA itself is not at fault this time. No indication that their inquiry, if any, was slow.

"Another passenger" may be partially "at fault," but much more important is jetBlue's reaction to what he or she theoretically said. The FA's reaction at that point would be jetBlue's first fail.

FA behaves badly, but is not only excused by jetBlue, but their press arm issues falsehoods (incriminating the hated TSA) to cover up that bad behavior. Fail exponentialized (sp? a real word?).

No, not a lot of fault to go around. Pretty much all one place. It would appear.
I count possibly two, the original complainer (which could have been the FA) and Jet Blue. I agree that in this case the TSA responded and the TSA cleared. Both of these actions are part of what they should have done. When I said a lot of fault to spread around, much if not all of it, may end up spread around various Jet Blue actions.
__________________
The Consultant's Dilemma: You can't tell a man he has an ugly baby.
InkUnderNails is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 12, 8:47 am   #48
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: LGA, JFK
Posts: 859
Quote:
Originally Posted by InkUnderNails View Post
I count possibly two, the original complainer (which could have been the FA) and Jet Blue. I agree that in this case the TSA responded and the TSA cleared. Both of these actions are part of what they should have done. When I said a lot of fault to spread around, much if not all of it, may end up spread around various Jet Blue actions.
Absolutely. Because, corporations are not really people, after all.
GaryD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 12, 9:18 am   #49
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,286
Quote:
Originally Posted by InkUnderNails View Post
Whatever happened, there is likely a lot of fault to go around, none of it on the family (my guess, but I would bet on this one).
Someone will still end up putting fault on the family for not re-boarding the aircraft after they'd been re-cleared, and turning this into a media circus.

Let me be clear: I absolutely disagree with that line of reasoning. But the argument will be made. (Sigh.)
jkhuggins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 12, 9:51 am   #50
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,974
I find much of this discussion misguided because it relies on assuming that details in press reports are correct, but in fact the opposite is true: most details in press reports are wrong. As to infant procedures, I'm not sure what it is on B6, but for other airlines, there is no BP for infants, but rather "infant in arms" is added to one of the parent's BP at the gate.
RichardKenner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 12, 10:38 am   #51
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: LGA, JFK
Posts: 859
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkhuggins View Post
Someone will still end up putting fault on the family for not re-boarding the aircraft after they'd been re-cleared, and turning this into a media circus.

Let me be clear: I absolutely disagree with that line of reasoning. But the argument will be made. (Sigh.)
I thank the family for doing that. Now we know something interesting and valuable about jetBlue, and now it is more likely that thing will change in the future, for the better.

If it doesn't change, it will be even worse for jetBlue next time. Thanks Riyanna's family, for inconveniencing yourselves for the sake of the rest of us.
GaryD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 12, 11:04 am   #52
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BNA
Programs: UA PP, PC Plat, HH Diamond
Posts: 5,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldGoat View Post
Doesn't Secure Flight use the birthday in addition to the name?
That's why a child-in-arms, who's Secure Flight information is not entered into the computer, is more likely to run into this situation.

Birthdate is likely how they quickly determined that the child was not a match to the no-fly or watch list.
LarryJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 12, 11:07 am   #53
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: Delta GM; United Gold
Posts: 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by LarryJ View Post
That's why a child-in-arms, who's Secure Flight information is not entered into the computer, is more likely to run into this situation.

Birthdate is likely how they quickly determined that the child was not a match to the no-fly or watch list.
Couldn't somebody with some common sense have maybe taken 2 seconds to eye-ball it and see that they were dealing with a damn baby? Somebody screwed up and, sadly, others went along with it.
Mad_Max_Esq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 12, 11:33 am   #54
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: SEA/YVR/BLI
Programs: UA1K BIS Million Mile Flyer, AS MVPG75K, HH Diamond, IC Plat, SPG Gold, Marriott Gold, Hertz 5*
Posts: 8,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad_Max_Esq View Post
Couldn't somebody with some common sense have maybe taken 2 seconds to eye-ball it and see that they were dealing with a damn baby? Somebody screwed up and, sadly, others went along with it.
From JetBlue's statement:

Quote:
"Our crewmembers followed the appropriate protocols..."

"We notified and collaborated with TSA"
Just a group of collaborators following orders. What could possibly be wrong with that?
Fredd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 12, 11:50 am   #55
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: LGA, JFK
Posts: 859
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardKenner View Post
I find much of this discussion misguided because it relies on assuming that details in press reports are correct, but in fact the opposite is true: most details in press reports are wrong. As to infant procedures, I'm not sure what it is on B6, but for other airlines, there is no BP for infants, but rather "infant in arms" is added to one of the parent's BP at the gate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LarryJ View Post
That's why a child-in-arms, who's Secure Flight information is not entered into the computer, is more likely to run into this situation.

Birthdate is likely how they quickly determined that the child was not a match to the no-fly or watch list.
Whom do you mean by "they"?

The press reports include written statements by both jetBlue and TSA, which I doubt are "wrong," meaning, we can safely assume they are accurate. (Truthful is another matter ...)

Riyanna's family let us know the infant's unusual first name. I suggest that "Riyanna <whatever>" is not on the no-fly or watch list, I suggest not even close. JetBlue knows that TSA will not call them on this, but TSA has hinted by publicly indicating it is "not investigating." So it is up to us to connect the dots. Unlike most people, I decline to give jetBlue the benefit of the doubt, under all the circumstances (such as, their claim of a "computer glitch").

Last edited by GaryD; May 11, 12 at 12:02 pm. Reason: added remark about "glitch"
GaryD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 12, 11:55 am   #56
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 2,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by InkUnderNails View Post
My suspicion with no evidence or proof beyond human nature: Another passenger panicked upon seeing in a Muslim and said something to the FA. FA has TSA reclear just to be sure. Whatever happened, there is likely a lot of fault to go around, none of it on the family (my guess, but I would bet on this one).
That was my thought on this situation, as well. I guess I can see JetBlue's story as being true, but that's only because I don't know enough hard facts about the way things work.

* Did the infant, as a lap baby, have her own bording pass with her full name, just like an adult? If not, this invalidates JetBlue's story.

* Does JetBlue's computer system actually compare names on the BPs against the entire US No-Fly or Watch List instantly at the moment they are scanned at the gate? If not, this invalidates JetBlue's story.

* If the infant did, in fact, have her own individual BP with her full name on it, did that BP also have SSSS on it to flag her for additional screening at the c/p? If not, something is seriously wrong with JetBlue's reservation system, which is supposed to check all passengers' names against the No-Fly and Watch Lists at time of reservation, and flag those on the Watch List with an SSSS for additional screening.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jkhuggins View Post
Someone will still end up putting fault on the family for not re-boarding the aircraft after they'd been re-cleared, and turning this into a media circus.

Let me be clear: I absolutely disagree with that line of reasoning. But the argument will be made. (Sigh.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryD View Post
I thank the family for doing that. Now we know something interesting and valuable about jetBlue, and now it is more likely that thing will change in the future, for the better.

If it doesn't change, it will be even worse for jetBlue next time. Thanks Riyanna's family, for inconveniencing yourselves for the sake of the rest of us.
I disagree.

This incident was not the family's fault. They are victims in this entire mess.

But I think it was a mistake for them to not board the plane and take the flight. Their rights were violated - they should have stood up for themselves and asserted their rights. Is that not what most FTers encourage people to do when flying? Assert your rights, don't knuckle under and allow violations to go unchallenged.

By not taking the flight, the Nervous Nellies who made the false report - be they flight crew or other pax - got exactly what they wanted: they didn't have to take a flight with Evil Brown Terr'ist People. As with so many things in life, this reminds me of a movie quote:

"Don't give the pr**k the satisfaction." - Clint Eastwood as GySgt Tom Highway in "Heartbreak Ridge"

They did themselves, and anyone else who is victimized like this in the futute, a disservice by not re-boarding and proving to the rest of the people on board the plane that they were never a threat, and had been treated with gross unfairness by the airline and the TSA.

What if Rosa Parks had decided to simply get off the bus and wait for another one?
__________________
Flying is a RIGHT, not a privilege. Anyone who says otherwise, just because the right to fly isn't enumerated in the Constitution, is full of beans.
WillCAD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 12, 3:22 pm   #57
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: LGA, JFK
Posts: 859
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillCAD View Post
That was my thought on this situation, as well. I guess I can see JetBlue's story as being true, but that's only because I don't know enough hard facts about the way things work.

* Did the infant, as a lap baby, have her own bording pass with her full name, just like an adult? If not, this invalidates JetBlue's story.

* Does JetBlue's computer system actually compare names on the BPs against the entire US No-Fly or Watch List instantly at the moment they are scanned at the gate? If not, this invalidates JetBlue's story.

* If the infant did, in fact, have her own individual BP with her full name on it, did that BP also have SSSS on it to flag her for additional screening at the c/p? If not, something is seriously wrong with JetBlue's reservation system, which is supposed to check all passengers' names against the No-Fly and Watch Lists at time of reservation, and flag those on the Watch List with an SSSS for additional screening.
It should be simple enough to get answers to these questions, from B6 frequent flyers. There may not be many of them on this particular list, though.

Quote:
I disagree.

This incident was not the family's fault. They are victims in this entire mess.

But I think it was a mistake for them to not board the plane and take the flight. Their rights were violated - they should have stood up for themselves and asserted their rights. Is that not what most FTers encourage people to do when flying? Assert your rights, don't knuckle under and allow violations to go unchallenged.

By not taking the flight, the Nervous Nellies who made the false report - be they flight crew or other pax - got exactly what they wanted: they didn't have to take a flight with Evil Brown Terr'ist People. As with so many things in life, this reminds me of a movie quote:

"Don't give the pr**k the satisfaction." - Clint Eastwood as GySgt Tom Highway in "Heartbreak Ridge"

They did themselves, and anyone else who is victimized like this in the futute, a disservice by not re-boarding and proving to the rest of the people on board the plane that they were never a threat, and had been treated with gross unfairness by the airline and the TSA.

What if Rosa Parks had decided to simply get off the bus and wait for another one?
I see your point, but I think in this case, they made a calculated decision to publicize the problem, by voluntarily giving up even more rights than had already been taken from them. The point, and the "proof," has been far more widely publicized now, than it would have been I think, including JetBlue's public apology and implied public assurance that they were never a threat.

Maybe Riyanna should have refused to get off the plane. Honestly. But, meekly returning after the humiliation of her whole family was not clearly the best course to take here. YMMD
GaryD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 12, 3:52 pm   #58
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Finally back in Boston after escaping from New York
Posts: 12,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by InkUnderNails View Post
My suspicion with no evidence or proof beyond human nature: Another passenger panicked upon seeing in a Muslim and said something to the FA. FA has TSA reclear just to be sure. Whatever happened, there is likely a lot of fault to go around, none of it on the family (my guess, but I would bet on this one).
My suspicions (with the same lack of evidence) are that your suspicions are correct.

That is one freakin' cute toddler, by the way.

Mike
__________________
My new blog for frequent flyer novices. Come learn the basics (and a few intermediate tips) with me here!.
mikeef is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 12, 4:07 pm   #59
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,286
JetBlue is now blaming the incident on computer error:

Quote:
Upon boarding Flight 510 at Fort Lauderdale International Airport on Tuesday evening, a customer’s boarding pass was flagged in our system as being on the No Fly list. We notified and collaborated with TSA. TSA cleared the customers to travel on JetBlue.

We are investigating this particular incident. We believe this was a computer glitch. Our crewmembers followed the appropriate protocols, and we apologize to the family involved in this unfortunate circumstance.

JetBlue takes all security concerns very seriously and the safety of all of our customers and crewmembers is our number one priority. There are layers of security checkpoints in place — from booking a flight to checking-in, clearing security and boarding an aircraft – that are enforced by the airline in collaboration with airport authorities and the Transportation Security Administration to ensure all customers enjoy a safe and secure travel experience. Our crewmembers are trained to address each situation discreetly, treating every customer with dignity and respect.

http://blog.jetblue.com/index.php/20...10/flight-510/
My initial reactions:

(a) As apologies go, I've seen a lot worse than this ... at least it wasn't a half-hearted "we're sorry if they were inconvenienced".

(b) I'm not sure this situation was handled "discreetly" ...
jkhuggins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 12, 6:37 pm   #60
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Programs: DL Gold Medallion, AA
Posts: 1,394
How could anyone think a baby would be on the no fly or watch lists? Hard to believe there wasn't even ONE person who questioned this? I guess common sense is against the rules.
Georgia Peach is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Bookmarks


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 6:09 am.