TSA Orders Toddler Off of Plane
May 10, 2012, 6:41 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: DTW
Programs: Dirt Status w/ All
Posts: 5,040
TSA Orders Toddler Off of Plane
Just when you think the TSA can't do anything more stupid then they already have the last couple weeks...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1505648.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1505648.html
Toddler Kicked Off Plane
An 18-month-old girl and her parents were pulled off a JetBlue flight Tuesday because the child was on the no-fly list, reports WPBF 25 West Palm Beach.
Riyanna and her parents had just boarded the flight at the Ft. Lauderdale airport, when they were approached by an airline employee telling them the TSA wanted to speak with them.
Her parents, who asked to remain anonymous, think their little girl was singled out because the family is of Middle Eastern descent. Both parents were born and raised in New Jersey.
After 30 minutes of waiting in the terminal, the family was told they could re-board, but refused to do so out of embarrassment. "We were put on display like a circus act because my wife wears a hijab [head scarf]," Riyanna's father told Bay News 9.
According to Bay News 9, JetBlue issued a statement that both the airline and the TSA would investigate the incident. But, in a follow-up, WPBF reports that the TSA said it would not investigate.
An 18-month-old girl and her parents were pulled off a JetBlue flight Tuesday because the child was on the no-fly list, reports WPBF 25 West Palm Beach.
Riyanna and her parents had just boarded the flight at the Ft. Lauderdale airport, when they were approached by an airline employee telling them the TSA wanted to speak with them.
Her parents, who asked to remain anonymous, think their little girl was singled out because the family is of Middle Eastern descent. Both parents were born and raised in New Jersey.
After 30 minutes of waiting in the terminal, the family was told they could re-board, but refused to do so out of embarrassment. "We were put on display like a circus act because my wife wears a hijab [head scarf]," Riyanna's father told Bay News 9.
According to Bay News 9, JetBlue issued a statement that both the airline and the TSA would investigate the incident. But, in a follow-up, WPBF reports that the TSA said it would not investigate.
May 10, 2012, 7:13 am
#4
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,676
It's entirely possible that if the family had reboarded, someone on the plane would have refused to fly with them on the plane - out of an abundance of caution and because if they were pulled from the plane, well, then they must have been guilty of something, right?
Very poor reporting.
TSA is putting the blame on JetBlue. If that's true, and someone on the flight (pax or crew) just got nervous about a woman traveling with a headscarf (possible), then I don't understand where the story about the child being on the watch list came from.
TSA allegedly says that if the child and her parents were issued boarding passes, they were clearly not on the no-fly list. Wonder how that works if the 18-month-old was a lap child and not issued her own boarding pass or even 'declared' until the gate? I don't know how this works - does the lap child's name get supplied at the gate, entered into the system and then get checked against the no-fly list? I often hear gate agents announcing that if you have a lap child and he/she isn't shown on your boarding pass, approach the podium to take care of it.
The husband's comment seemed ill-advised to me (based on the story), because the child seemed to be the 'problem', not him or his wife, although I can certainly understand his irritation.
Also an interesting time table - they had 'just boarded', are deplaned and held for 30 minutes and the plane still hasn't closed the door. Quite possible, but they must have been in a fairly early boarding (or pre-boarding) group for this to be the case.
Last edited by chollie; May 10, 2012 at 7:26 am
May 10, 2012, 7:20 am
#5
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Houston
Programs: CO Platinum
Posts: 283
Well...it's obvious because according to TSA:
Baby = terrorist
Baby with hijab wearing mommy = even more dangerous terrorist
Child hugging grandma = suspect
Diabetic child = artfully concealing suspect
Baby = terrorist
Baby with hijab wearing mommy = even more dangerous terrorist
Child hugging grandma = suspect
Diabetic child = artfully concealing suspect
May 10, 2012, 7:37 am
#6
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 616
I'm confused why it took 30 minutes to determine that an 18 month old shouldn't be on the no fly list. How did someone on the no fly list get on the plane anyway? Isn't that what the Secure Flight or whatever it's called program for? I thought that data was checked against the no fly list.
May 10, 2012, 7:40 am
#7
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,676
I'm confused why it took 30 minutes to determine that an 18 month old shouldn't be on the no fly list. How did someone on the no fly list get on the plane anyway? Isn't that what the Secure Flight or whatever it's called program for? I thought that data was checked against the no fly list.
The child was young enough to be a lap child. AFAIK, that means she wouldn't be required to have her own boarding pass. I've heard announcements at the gate telling people travelling with lap infants to check their boarding passes to see if the infant was declared or not - if not, to go to the podium for a new BP. That may be what happened here.
May 10, 2012, 8:11 am
#8
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 2,403
It is particularly offensive to say, "We're not looking into it."
The appropriate PR answer is always "We are already looking into this incident."
The TSA's astounding hubris and pathetic PR tactics are mind-blowing. If something hits national news, you always say, "We'll look into it," "We are looking into it," "We are already talking to people involved in the incident..."
But they're the TSA. They have a carte blanche to steal, humiliate, and irradiate.
The appropriate PR answer is always "We are already looking into this incident."
The TSA's astounding hubris and pathetic PR tactics are mind-blowing. If something hits national news, you always say, "We'll look into it," "We are looking into it," "We are already talking to people involved in the incident..."
But they're the TSA. They have a carte blanche to steal, humiliate, and irradiate.
May 10, 2012, 8:44 am
#9
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: DTW
Programs: Dirt Status w/ All
Posts: 5,040
See my post above.
The child was young enough to be a lap child. AFAIK, that means she wouldn't be required to have her own boarding pass. I've heard announcements at the gate telling people travelling with lap infants to check their boarding passes to see if the infant was declared or not - if not, to go to the podium for a new BP. That may be what happened here.
The child was young enough to be a lap child. AFAIK, that means she wouldn't be required to have her own boarding pass. I've heard announcements at the gate telling people travelling with lap infants to check their boarding passes to see if the infant was declared or not - if not, to go to the podium for a new BP. That may be what happened here.
May 10, 2012, 9:21 am
#10
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: BOS and vicinity
Programs: Former UA 1P
Posts: 3,725
The solution to this he-said-she-said between JetBlue and TSA is simple: fire everyone involved on both sides and name and shame them in the press.
Any B6 employee who allowed this incident to continue after seeing that the target was a toddler should be fired. B6 employee should have got his or her manager rather than caving to the alleged TSA demand to speak with the pax.
Any TSA employee who allowed this incident to continue after seeing that the target was a toddler should be fired. (stripped of pension benefits and barred from public service for life too) The TSA employee should have exercised one or two brain cells, recognized that 1) this was a toddler, and 2) the passenger was already screened by TSA, and let these people go instead of harassing them for half an hour.
While we're at it, let's fire the B6 and TSA spokesholes who keep deflecting blame onto the other. The only acceptable PR response to this incident is "we deeply apologize to the family and are looking into what compensation is appropriate for them."
And to be thorough, let's fire the first level and perhaps second level managers of all the people above.
I'm not joking. I think doing this after one or two of these incidents would put a permanent stop to them. We should make these abusive incidents so toxic that no employee--airline, TSA, airport, or LEO--wants to go anywhere near them other than to defuse them.
Any B6 employee who allowed this incident to continue after seeing that the target was a toddler should be fired. B6 employee should have got his or her manager rather than caving to the alleged TSA demand to speak with the pax.
Any TSA employee who allowed this incident to continue after seeing that the target was a toddler should be fired. (stripped of pension benefits and barred from public service for life too) The TSA employee should have exercised one or two brain cells, recognized that 1) this was a toddler, and 2) the passenger was already screened by TSA, and let these people go instead of harassing them for half an hour.
While we're at it, let's fire the B6 and TSA spokesholes who keep deflecting blame onto the other. The only acceptable PR response to this incident is "we deeply apologize to the family and are looking into what compensation is appropriate for them."
And to be thorough, let's fire the first level and perhaps second level managers of all the people above.
I'm not joking. I think doing this after one or two of these incidents would put a permanent stop to them. We should make these abusive incidents so toxic that no employee--airline, TSA, airport, or LEO--wants to go anywhere near them other than to defuse them.
May 10, 2012, 9:36 am
#11
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Orlando
Programs: DL 4MM/PM, UA 1MM/Gold, AA Paper
Posts: 1,386
The solution to this he-said-she-said between JetBlue and TSA is simple: fire everyone involved on both sides and name and shame them in the press.
Any B6 employee who allowed this incident to continue after seeing that the target was a toddler should be fired. B6 employee should have got his or her manager rather than caving to the alleged TSA demand to speak with the pax.
Any TSA employee who allowed this incident to continue after seeing that the target was a toddler should be fired. (stripped of pension benefits and barred from public service for life too) The TSA employee should have exercised one or two brain cells, recognized that 1) this was a toddler, and 2) the passenger was already screened by TSA, and let these people go instead of harassing them for half an hour.
While we're at it, let's fire the B6 and TSA spokesholes who keep deflecting blame onto the other. The only acceptable PR response to this incident is "we deeply apologize to the family and are looking into what compensation is appropriate for them."
And to be thorough, let's fire the first level and perhaps second level managers of all the people above.
I'm not joking. I think doing this after one or two of these incidents would put a permanent stop to them. We should make these abusive incidents so toxic that no employee--airline, TSA, airport, or LEO--wants to go anywhere near them other than to defuse them.
Any B6 employee who allowed this incident to continue after seeing that the target was a toddler should be fired. B6 employee should have got his or her manager rather than caving to the alleged TSA demand to speak with the pax.
Any TSA employee who allowed this incident to continue after seeing that the target was a toddler should be fired. (stripped of pension benefits and barred from public service for life too) The TSA employee should have exercised one or two brain cells, recognized that 1) this was a toddler, and 2) the passenger was already screened by TSA, and let these people go instead of harassing them for half an hour.
While we're at it, let's fire the B6 and TSA spokesholes who keep deflecting blame onto the other. The only acceptable PR response to this incident is "we deeply apologize to the family and are looking into what compensation is appropriate for them."
And to be thorough, let's fire the first level and perhaps second level managers of all the people above.
I'm not joking. I think doing this after one or two of these incidents would put a permanent stop to them. We should make these abusive incidents so toxic that no employee--airline, TSA, airport, or LEO--wants to go anywhere near them other than to defuse them.
May 10, 2012, 9:38 am
#12
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,165
I was afraid that the Underwear Bomber II incident would be a windfall of credibility for the TSA. Fortunately, with this incident, the TSA has self-corrected and have taken care of negating and potential perception of competence themselves.
May 10, 2012, 9:46 am
#13
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,676
I'm inclined to think Jetblue is the culprit here (and I'm no TSA aplogist). I think crew and/or pax saw the woman's headscarf and got scared.
First, if the child was on the 'no-fly' list, she wouldn't be allowed to fly. Period. If she was on the watch-list, supposedly the airlines are allowed to 'clear' her at checkin based on her obvious age, despite the alleged name match. (I thought Secureflight was supposed to reduce this by doing a match on names and birthdates, but perhaps not).
Second, according to the story, the airline employee specifically said that the problem was not the wife, but the child. The husband clearly thought the problem was his wife's headscarf. Maybe he was right and the Jetblue employee was just engaging in a bit of misdirection.
At any rate, if Jetblue calls TSA and reports suspicious pax, TSA is going to show up. Possibly even TSA will realize, after 30 minutes, that if the parents and kid were cleared for boarding passes, cleared the checkpoint, and nothing further (LEO checks?) turns up, there is no reason to stop them from flying.
The comments on this story are ridiculous. On and on about how 'everyone' knows Muslims have an established history of using infants and small children to commit violent acts of terror. I'd like to see just a couple reliable cites to establish this, particularly considering that Pistole recently announced less severe focus on children under 12 (as well as seniors) - a risk assessment based, presumably, on good intel.
First, if the child was on the 'no-fly' list, she wouldn't be allowed to fly. Period. If she was on the watch-list, supposedly the airlines are allowed to 'clear' her at checkin based on her obvious age, despite the alleged name match. (I thought Secureflight was supposed to reduce this by doing a match on names and birthdates, but perhaps not).
Second, according to the story, the airline employee specifically said that the problem was not the wife, but the child. The husband clearly thought the problem was his wife's headscarf. Maybe he was right and the Jetblue employee was just engaging in a bit of misdirection.
At any rate, if Jetblue calls TSA and reports suspicious pax, TSA is going to show up. Possibly even TSA will realize, after 30 minutes, that if the parents and kid were cleared for boarding passes, cleared the checkpoint, and nothing further (LEO checks?) turns up, there is no reason to stop them from flying.
The comments on this story are ridiculous. On and on about how 'everyone' knows Muslims have an established history of using infants and small children to commit violent acts of terror. I'd like to see just a couple reliable cites to establish this, particularly considering that Pistole recently announced less severe focus on children under 12 (as well as seniors) - a risk assessment based, presumably, on good intel.
May 10, 2012, 9:51 am
#14
Join Date: May 2009
Location: LGA, JFK
Posts: 1,018
The TSA also said that since Riyanna and her parents were issued boarding passes, that means they had been cleared by the TSA and were definitely not on the no-fly list.
EDITED TO ADD:
After 30 minutes of waiting in the terminal, the family was told they could re-board, but refused to do so out of embarrassment.
Shame on you, Jetblue.
ETFA: OK, found another quote:
Riyanna's parents said once they were taken off the plane, they were met by TSA agents and made to stand in the terminal for about 30 minutes.
Could it be that the "TSA agents" were not really TSA agents? Curious.
Last edited by GaryD; May 10, 2012 at 10:23 am Reason: found more facts from article