Four Brooklyn men claim they were kicked off flight for looking too Muslim
Jan 19, 2016, 11:00 am
#31
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,110
Agree 100%. That's a non-starter - partly because of potential delays, mostly because no one at that level wants to take direct responsibility.
Perhaps the FAs need to sit down with TSA and explain why they still think bad guys equipped with the necessary to do bad things are likely to show up on a flight - in groups, even!
I would like to ask one of these FAs what it would take to make him/her feel safe flying with these passengers. Do they believe these guys got the necessary components of something bad through the checkpoint? Really?
What would TSA's response to that fear be?
Perhaps the FAs need to sit down with TSA and explain why they still think bad guys equipped with the necessary to do bad things are likely to show up on a flight - in groups, even!
I would like to ask one of these FAs what it would take to make him/her feel safe flying with these passengers. Do they believe these guys got the necessary components of something bad through the checkpoint? Really?
What would TSA's response to that fear be?
Jan 19, 2016, 11:12 am
#32
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,681
Do the FAs not trust TSA screening? If not, why not?
Obviously, if their concerns are valid, TSA should address them. If their concerns are not valid, TSA should be able to convince the FAs that the six pax could not have gotten dangerous contraband into the secure area.
In this particular incident, I wonder what the FA reaction would have been if the captain had requested another TSA screening of the pax and their belongings. If TSA had rescreened the pax and their belongings at the gate, would that have been enough to satisfy the FAs?
If not, then we all need to know why not.
Now airport workers and TSOs...well, that's a different story. But to date, I'm not aware of a single incident where FAs expressed security concerns about unscreened TSOs and airport workers.
Jan 19, 2016, 1:18 pm
#33
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
Do the FAs not trust TSA screening? If not, why not?
Obviously, if their concerns are valid, TSA should address them. If their concerns are not valid, TSA should be able to convince the FAs that the six pax could not have gotten dangerous contraband into the secure area.
Obviously, if their concerns are valid, TSA should address them. If their concerns are not valid, TSA should be able to convince the FAs that the six pax could not have gotten dangerous contraband into the secure area.
Recall that, a couple of years ago, TSA announced that it was going to ease up on its ban of pocket knives. Security experts say that small knives are not a substantial threat (especially in light of The Only Two Changes That Mattered(TM) in airline security). TSA said that easing up on the ban of pocket knives would allow them to focus on other threats.
And then the flight attendants' unions rose up and complained loudly that they would be put at risk, and TSA quietly gave up the change.
It's not clear to me that flight attendants' evaluation of TSA's effectiveness will be any sounder than the general public's evaluation of TSA's effectiveness.
Jan 19, 2016, 1:32 pm
#34
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,681
That's a little different. The FAs were objecting to items TSA was proposing to allow on the plane.
(Slight OT, but that whole episode was fishy. IIRC, Pistole proposed several relaxed rules, only one of which the FAs objected to: the knives. However, after the FAs squawked about the knives, TSA pulled back all of the proposed changes - why? I was particularly interested in being allowed to take ski poles (actually, trekking poles) on board, because I was hoping if they were allowed, some TSO might figure out there was no reason to ban aluminum tent poles.)
TSOs and airport workers, of course, have unfettered access to the sterile area with these items, but they could never find their way onto a plane.
In this instance, the FAs are making it clear that they do not trust TSA's screening. Why not? Do they believe that one or more of these guys got into the sterile area with contraband that could threaten their safety?
That would suggest that it isn't TSA's rules they have an issue with, it's TSA's performance they don't trust.
(Slight OT, but that whole episode was fishy. IIRC, Pistole proposed several relaxed rules, only one of which the FAs objected to: the knives. However, after the FAs squawked about the knives, TSA pulled back all of the proposed changes - why? I was particularly interested in being allowed to take ski poles (actually, trekking poles) on board, because I was hoping if they were allowed, some TSO might figure out there was no reason to ban aluminum tent poles.)
TSOs and airport workers, of course, have unfettered access to the sterile area with these items, but they could never find their way onto a plane.
In this instance, the FAs are making it clear that they do not trust TSA's screening. Why not? Do they believe that one or more of these guys got into the sterile area with contraband that could threaten their safety?
That would suggest that it isn't TSA's rules they have an issue with, it's TSA's performance they don't trust.
Jan 19, 2016, 3:49 pm
#35
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: gggrrrovvveee (ORD)
Programs: UA Pt, Marriott Ti, Hertz PC
Posts: 6,091
Were they being loud, boisterous? Drunk? (although you wouldn't expect that from a devout Muslim or Sikh)
Looking bad for the airline if what the news reports are suggesting is true.
Looking bad for the airline if what the news reports are suggesting is true.
Jan 19, 2016, 4:02 pm
#36
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: MEL CHC
Posts: 21,022
Jan 19, 2016, 7:25 pm
#38
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 962
a) I had brought with me a 1.75L jug of Odwalla Superfood (cleared by TSA), and
b) I asked the FA whether the channel I was listening to, the cockpit radio channel, was the only non-music channel.
That's it.
The FA made up a claim that I had asked about the tail number (nothing even close, and what kind of idiot thinks that the tail number isn't visible from the window and posted online for everyone to look up anyway?) and was causing a disturbance somehow (that question was the only sentence I said to anyone after I got on other than to answer, when asked, to say that my juice was… get this… juice, and otherwise I was just chilling in my seat).
So yes, stupid paranoia.
And I ain't even brown. ><
Jan 20, 2016, 12:47 am
#39
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
US carriers' paranoid (even xenophobic) and power-tripping flight crew members indeed don't limit their questionable actions against just perceived ethnic and religious minorities, but perceived ethnic and religious minorities of some sort are more likely than other passengers to be hassled for reasons of xenophobic prejudice. And that just means that some perceived minorities are subject to more kinds of questionable actions by flight crew members than others. And not just that, but some perceived minorities are subject to more questionable actions by fellow passengers than others.
"Flying while brown" has its own dynamic.
"Flying while brown" has its own dynamic.
Jan 20, 2016, 8:19 am
#40
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: YOW
Posts: 1,024
Jan 20, 2016, 8:37 am
#41
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
If they drink alcohol without getting intoxicated, well, then that may be in line with orthodox compliance with regards to alcohol restrictions.
Jan 21, 2016, 5:31 am
#42
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 36
This the reason as a Sikh I have stopped flying AA and flying to the USA. I now prefer to spend my money where it is wanted.
However, I did see in the comments of an American newspaper that the commentator was a passenger on the flight and these guys were drunk and boisterous.
Looking at the Sikh guys pics - may not be too shocked by that.
Guess the real truth will not come out unless there really is a trial.
However, I did see in the comments of an American newspaper that the commentator was a passenger on the flight and these guys were drunk and boisterous.
Looking at the Sikh guys pics - may not be too shocked by that.
Guess the real truth will not come out unless there really is a trial.
Jan 21, 2016, 5:42 am
#43
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
This the reason as a Sikh I have stopped flying AA and flying to the USA. I now prefer to spend my money where it is wanted.
However, I did see in the comments of an American newspaper that the commentator was a passenger on the flight and these guys were drunk and boisterous.
Looking at the Sikh guys pics - may not be too shocked by that.
Guess the real truth will not come out unless there really is a trial.
However, I did see in the comments of an American newspaper that the commentator was a passenger on the flight and these guys were drunk and boisterous.
Looking at the Sikh guys pics - may not be too shocked by that.
Guess the real truth will not come out unless there really is a trial.
While it's well possible that the travel party may have had members who were drunk and boisterous, it would seem to make for a poor case if there is proof that they were drunk and obnoxious while boarding the flight or on board the plane.
Jan 21, 2016, 9:57 am
#44
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Finally back in Boston after escaping from New York
Posts: 13,644
umm please do not under any circumstance think I am agreeing with you or the actions of a ignorant flight crew.
They were kicked off the flight because they were "dark skinned" which clearly in the picture was not accurate. They were kicked off because an ignorant flight crew associates darker skin tones with Islam.
There are Muslims of all hues of skin tones/hair colours, just like there are Catholics of all skin tones and hair colours
They were kicked off the flight because they were "dark skinned" which clearly in the picture was not accurate. They were kicked off because an ignorant flight crew associates darker skin tones with Islam.
There are Muslims of all hues of skin tones/hair colours, just like there are Catholics of all skin tones and hair colours
Mike
Jan 21, 2016, 10:30 am
#45
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,110
From the American Airlines Contract of Carriage:
INAL but seems like American, and I would think other airlines use similar language, can remove a person for just about any reason or no reason.
Maybe flyer groups need to challenge the validity of these one sided contracts.
Acceptance of passengers
American may refuse to transport you, or may remove you from your flight at any point, for one or several reasons, including but not limited to:
Compliance with government requisition of space.
Action necessary or advisable due to weather, or other conditions beyond American's control.
Refusal to permit a search of person or property for explosives or for deadly, controlled, or dangerous weapons, articles or substances.
Refusal to produce positive identification upon request.
Your physical or mental condition is such that in American's sole opinion, you are rendered or likely to be rendered incapable of comprehending or complying with safety instructions without the assistance of an attendant.
Your conduct is disorderly, abusive or violent.
Appear to be intoxicated or under the influence of drugs.
Attempt to interfere with any member of the flight crew.
Have a communicable disease that has been determined by a federal public health authority to be transmissible to other persons in the normal course of flight.
Refuse to obey instructions from any flight crew member.
Have an offensive odor not caused by a disability or illness.
Are clothed in a manner that would cause discomfort or offense to other passengers or are barefoot.
Engage in any action, voluntary or involuntary, that might jeopardize the safety of the aircraft or any of its occupants.
American may refuse to transport you, or may remove you from your flight at any point, for one or several reasons, including but not limited to:
Compliance with government requisition of space.
Action necessary or advisable due to weather, or other conditions beyond American's control.
Refusal to permit a search of person or property for explosives or for deadly, controlled, or dangerous weapons, articles or substances.
Refusal to produce positive identification upon request.
Your physical or mental condition is such that in American's sole opinion, you are rendered or likely to be rendered incapable of comprehending or complying with safety instructions without the assistance of an attendant.
Your conduct is disorderly, abusive or violent.
Appear to be intoxicated or under the influence of drugs.
Attempt to interfere with any member of the flight crew.
Have a communicable disease that has been determined by a federal public health authority to be transmissible to other persons in the normal course of flight.
Refuse to obey instructions from any flight crew member.
Have an offensive odor not caused by a disability or illness.
Are clothed in a manner that would cause discomfort or offense to other passengers or are barefoot.
Engage in any action, voluntary or involuntary, that might jeopardize the safety of the aircraft or any of its occupants.
Maybe flyer groups need to challenge the validity of these one sided contracts.