Clearly there are several issues here. Additionally we presently have only a few facts to go on.

Human nature is pretty predictable and even understandable so I have no problem believing that both the agent and the AA pilot ruffled each other’s feathers (the pissing contest as mentioned here by others). Let me also say upfront that I have absolutely nothing against AA (or any other airline) or pilots as a group. Neither do I have any particular affinity (or dislike) for the U.S. Treasury Department.

Fist we have the agent’s and AA captain’s own statements. As one might imagine they contradict each other, so lets call that a draw for now. Then we have the statements from the agent’s attorneys and AA’s SOC. Regardless of what one thinks of the validity of the statements from the attorneys we all know what they are based on; their clients version of the story. The AA SOC’s statements however must be completely dismissed at this time, as they are nothing more than unsubstantiated second and third-hand accounts of what others supposedly told him/her. If one chooses to accept this as gospel, well what can you do?

Secondly we have the statements of two passengers. While neither apparently witnessed the more important exchanges between the pilot and the agent they do provide some very important observations.

The passenger seated next to the agent states that the agent was not acting in a nervous and suspicious way and left the aircraft only after AA personnel asked him to (very important point). Also he has said that the flight attendant began to "rifle[ing]" through his personal belongings (a blatantly illegal act by the way, even on an aircraft, even after 9/11) and was distressed to find a book on Middle Eastern history. Before someone chimes in to suggest that his/her illegal acts were outweighed by security concerns I would ask what concerns? That there might be a bomb in his jacket? If that is the case then is the FA a trained explosives expert? If not why was she "riffling" through his belongings? If the FA had a valid concern AA should have evacuated the plane and called in the bomb squad.

The passenger in the gate area witnessed the post-denial boarding exchanges between the pilot, agent, and law enforcement officials. She states that the agent was calm and polite, just as the passenger seated next to him said of the agent when he was asked to leave the plane. It seems reasonable to me that if someone was going to truly "lose it" in a situation like this (as AA claims) there would be visible signs of it both before and after. According to two witnesses there was none. In this regard their statements are important and relevant.

Thirdly we have a statement by the AA pilot (through an AA spokesperson) that "he" was the one who was initially uncomfortable with the identity of this agent and his paperwork.

"The captain saw an inconsistency in the way the paperwork was filled out and so he wanted to deny passage to this customer until the situation could be resolved." said American Airlines spokesman Todd Burke

Well, we in fact know from statements made by the passenger seated next to the agent, the AA FA, and the pilot himself that this is not true as the pilot already knew that there was an armed agent onboard and was just fine with his identity and his paperwork as he was preparing the aircraft for departure. Here is where it gets interesting. AA originally tried to tell us that the agent left the plane on his own accord and this is what made the FA suspicious, as she then brought her concerns to the pilot.

"1 flt attendant brought to my attention that she and other flt att were concerned about the actions of one of the pax. This pax left the aircraft with carryon bags still in his seat. He told the flt att. Please don't leave without him." Pilot statement as released by AA

We know this is not true as the passenger seated next to the agent confirms that it was AA’s own personnel who asked the agent to deplane.

...the agent's seatmate watched a flight attendant search the agent's jacket after he was pulled off the plane. CNN

This is where the real issue of potential profiling/racism/authoritarianism or whatever comes into play.

From the time the pilot first began walking down the jetway he knew there was an armed LEO on his plane. When the pilot was apparently unaware of the agent’s race/ethnicity he was comfortable enough with an armed agent onboard as well as the validity of his paperwork that he began preparing the aircraft for departure. It wasn’t until after the FA brought her concerns for the [Arab looking?] passenger to the pilot that "...I then decided to stop my pre-flt". The lead FA apparently (I say apparently because it is the only reasonable assumption that jibes with the facts) asked AA ground personnel to re-check the agent because he made her nervous for whatever reasons (which was not his paperwork by the way as that was in the possession of the pilot). The agent’s seatmate confirms that AA personnel pulled him off the plane (he didn’t just get up and de-plane on his own because he left something behind as AA originally claimed). At this point the pilot was still doing his pre-flight. The FA then began going through the agent’s personal belongings and found a book on Middle Eastern history written in English (not Arabic as originally claimed by AA). This, again apparently, made the FA even more nervous as she took her concerns directly to the pilot. You can almost hear how this exchange must have gone,

FA: Hey captain Bob, there is this Arab looking guy that I had pulled off for more screening, when I riffled through his jacket I found this book written in Arabic.
Captain Bob: Hmm, yeah. That’s our armed LEO. Let’s have a closer look at his paper work
FA: I am really uncomfortable with this Middle Eastern guy on the plane.
Captain Bob: Hmm, me too.

Some relevant facts (always subject to change I suppose ) to date:

-Properly filled out original paperwork altered by AA personnel

-Pilot knew armed LEO was onboard and had his paperwork as he began his departure procedures

-AA FA asked to have agent re-screened

-FA brought agents ethnicity to the attention of the pilot during pre-flight

-AA personnel asked the agent to deplane; he did not do it on his own

-Two impartial witnesses observed the agent’s demeanor as calm, polite, and professional both before and after the primary exchanges between the pilot and agent.

-There is currently no lawsuit on the part of the agent

-If there is a future lawsuit, proceeds will go to charity as stated by the agent (kinda hard for the agent to back out of this) so no financial incentives

I suppose that much of this is all subject to change as new facts/reports emerge. To be sure none of us has the entire story yet (or maybe we do?). And while AA is not an evil corporation bent on discriminating against groups they do not like, their pilot and at least one FA here seem to be clearly guilty of a combination of irrational fear and bad judgment (if not out-right racism, though extremely hard to prove). After reading all of the reports and seeing the clear inconsistencies and contradictions in statements from AA’s personnel I have no doubt that the agent was profiled because of his appearance and not his behavior, and that the captain ultimately denied the agent boarding in an effort to out-piss the agent (I also have no problem believing that the agent became at least a little upset somewhere along the way).

I suppose that this policy of the captain having the last word should stand, but only as long as the flight crew is willing to accept the responsibility and consequences of their actions when they choose to make less-than-honest mistakes. The argument that not using draconian and totalitarian procedures will result in downed planes is completely specious. Unless a policy of "no Arabs" on U.S. commercial aircraft were in effect on 9/11 Atta et al would have passed any security check then in place and still accomplished their plans as it was the willingness of the passengers and flight crews to comply with the terrorists demands that brought the planes down. That won’t happen again. In this case it is not unreasonable to suggest that this pilot and lead (?) FA be suspended for a period of time.

As Lex and others have said the captain ultimately has the last word on whom he can deny boarding to. I understand that principal in theory, but it only works in actual practice when combined with clear-headed common sense, something severely lacking here, IMHO, on the part of this AA flight crew. Allowing draconian and totalitarian behavior from flight crews while giving them total immunity all in the name of security is unreasonable and truly not worth the cost. Want to make the highways safer? Set the maximum speed limit to fifteen MPH. Better yet only allow golf carts on freeways.




[This message has been edited by anrkitec (edited 01-05-2002).]