Post-Paris "Flying While Brown" Syndrome Claims Its First Victims
Nov 17, 2015, 4:50 pm
#1
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,165
Post-Paris "Flying While Brown" Syndrome Claims Its First Victims
You just KNEW this was going to happen. I wonder why it took so long: http://wapo.st/1j5mi0y
"Four passengers removed from flight at BWI that was headed to Chicago"
If Congress wants to actually do something, they should pass a law that requires that the identity of the passengers who make such claims be revealed. The victims should be allowed to confront their accusers and seek civil and perhaps criminal redress. This includes the flight crew who make these decisions based in the fear of Joe Sixpack.
Sorry for the iPhone cumbersomeness.
"Four passengers removed from flight at BWI that was headed to Chicago"
The head of an Islamic civil rights organization on Tuesday warned of increased racial profiling of Muslims after a plane was diverted from takeoff in Baltimore when a passenger raised concerns about the “suspicious activity” of a traveler whose companions included people who reportedly appeared to be of Middle Eastern descent.
“That just indicates it’s what we suspected all along. It’s flying while Muslim,” said Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for Washington-based Council on Islamic-American Relations.
<snip>
The Chicago Tribune, quoting passengers after the plane landed, said at least two of the people removed from the plane appeared to be of Middle Eastern descent, and one was watching a news report on his mobile phone as the plane taxied toward the runway. The flight attendant notified the captain of the passenger’s concerns and “out of an abundance of caution, the plane returned to the gate,” Spirit Airlines spokesman Stephen Schuler said in a statement.
<snip>
First Sgt. Jonathan Green, a spokesman with the Maryland Transportation Authority Police, said the passengers who were removed had not been arrested and they had not been charged with a crime.
<snip>
The Chicago Tribune, quoting passengers after the plane landed, said at least two of the people removed from the plane appeared to be of Middle Eastern descent, and one was watching a news report on his mobile phone as the plane taxied toward the runway. The flight attendant notified the captain of the passenger’s concerns and “out of an abundance of caution, the plane returned to the gate,” Spirit Airlines spokesman Stephen Schuler said in a statement.
<snip>
First Sgt. Jonathan Green, a spokesman with the Maryland Transportation Authority Police, said the passengers who were removed had not been arrested and they had not been charged with a crime.
Sorry for the iPhone cumbersomeness.
Nov 17, 2015, 5:06 pm
#2
Join Date: May 2014
Location: CMH, HNL
Programs: UA, HA
Posts: 583
I'm curious if Spirit Airlines (NK) have any defensible rationale for what seems legitimate behavior on a flight. Were these people disregarding cabin crew instructions? If it really comes down to other passengers "felt" uncomfortable for above-board behavior (+ flying while brown), that's profoundly uncool and should be dealt with severely.
Nov 17, 2015, 7:56 pm
#3
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 79
The terrorists involved with Paris attacks were fair skin, not brown.
Though, they were of Middle Eastern heritage.
Still, paranoia ....!
My Boston flight felt uneasy with anyone with dark hair no matter the skin tone, especially those with Mediteranean appearances, including me. And I am not even Muslim and Middle Eastern!
Though, they were of Middle Eastern heritage.
Still, paranoia ....!
My Boston flight felt uneasy with anyone with dark hair no matter the skin tone, especially those with Mediteranean appearances, including me. And I am not even Muslim and Middle Eastern!
Nov 17, 2015, 11:31 pm
#4
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: LGA
Programs: Double Unobtainium, Grace L. Ferguson Airline & Storm Door Co.
Posts: 154
From the Chicago Tribune's story:
So did the person who disrupted the flight and ignored an order from an air crew member face any consequences for breaking the law and endangering her safety as well as her child's?
The woman grabbed her young daughter and rushed to the back of the plane, where she reported the man's "suspicious behavior"
The plane, Spirit Airlines Flight 969, was already taxiing down the runway.
“They were gearing up to take off when the woman with her child got up and walked very briskly to the back of the plane to the bathroom," Farella said. "The flight attendants were on the PA pretty aggressively telling them to sit down and she ignored them, kept walking and that’s when I started panicking."
Nov 18, 2015, 1:26 am
#5
Join Date: May 2014
Location: CMH, HNL
Programs: UA, HA
Posts: 583
Why do I think not. Still/technically, wouldn't mom's actions fall under the doctrine that which is necessary is not illegal? This feels like it gets into the nebulous area of Stand Your Ground, i.e. if you have a reasonable (insert eye roll) fear, then your actions are permissible. I'm curious how much of a hassle it would be and who would have to pay for it for a flight to return to gate, call security, clear up the matter, and then keep all on board and taxi/fly away later. Maybe there has to be a scapegoat if someone cries wolf/terrorist?
Nov 18, 2015, 6:49 pm
#6
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: SEA
Programs: Delta TDK(or care)WIA, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 1,869
I'm curious if Spirit Airlines (NK) have any defensible rationale for what seems legitimate behavior on a flight. Were these people disregarding cabin crew instructions? If it really comes down to other passengers "felt" uncomfortable for above-board behavior (+ flying while brown), that's profoundly uncool and should be dealt with severely.
Nov 18, 2015, 7:33 pm
#8
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
Don't get me wrong; I don't like this at all. But as long as our culture promotes notions like "if you see something, say something", we're going to get idiotic incidents like this.
Or, as Bruce Schneier put it: "If you ask amateurs to act as front-line security personnel, you shouldn't be surprised when you get amateur security."
I wish I had a better answer. (Heck, I wish I had any answer.)
Nov 18, 2015, 8:22 pm
#9
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,137
.... so that they can both be re-booked onto the same flight when it's revealed that the accused was not a threat? Yeah, that won't be a problem at all.
Don't get me wrong; I don't like this at all. But as long as our culture promotes notions like "if you see something, say something", we're going to get idiotic incidents like this.
Or, as Bruce Schneier put it: "If you ask amateurs to act as front-line security personnel, you shouldn't be surprised when you get amateur security."
I wish I had a better answer. (Heck, I wish I had any answer.)
Don't get me wrong; I don't like this at all. But as long as our culture promotes notions like "if you see something, say something", we're going to get idiotic incidents like this.
Or, as Bruce Schneier put it: "If you ask amateurs to act as front-line security personnel, you shouldn't be surprised when you get amateur security."
I wish I had a better answer. (Heck, I wish I had any answer.)
Regardless, there should be some consequence for a complaint if it is unfounded.
Nov 18, 2015, 9:15 pm
#10
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
Indeed, that is the course that should be the preferred default for such situations. Material witnesses to "suspicious criminal activity" need to be subjected to examination and questioning by law enforcement .
Nov 18, 2015, 10:53 pm
#11
Join Date: May 2014
Location: CMH, HNL
Programs: UA, HA
Posts: 583
The especially aggravating thing is that no entity will probably apologize for inconveniencing the travelers in question. It's just unlucky to be inherently suspicious to people when you live in a see something, say something culture. Sucks to be brown.
Nov 19, 2015, 7:26 am
#12
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: WAS
Programs: enjoyed being warm spit for a few years on CO/UA but now nothing :(
Posts: 2,507
Nov 19, 2015, 8:07 am
#13
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
Maybe that would be a better system than the one we have now. But there is no political will to move in that direction.
Nov 19, 2015, 8:08 am
#14
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
Put a system like this into place, and you'll shut down all legitimate complaints too ... because few people will risk having their complaint judged as "unfounded". (That's why there are "Good Samaritan" laws.)
Maybe that would be a better system than the one we have now. But there is no political will to move in that direction.
Maybe that would be a better system than the one we have now. But there is no political will to move in that direction.
Last I checked this incident was one of flying on US carriers.
Nov 19, 2015, 8:29 am
#15
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
What do we have here? A man watching a video on his cellphone, probably in violation of crew instructions to place electronic devices in airplane mode. A woman walking back to the restroom, in violation of crew instructions to remain seated during taxi and takeoff.
We're reminded all the time that "compliance with crew member instructions is required by federal law". Yes, the people who reported these violations probably did so because they were non-Anglo, not because of the violations themselves. But how are you going to prove that? They (probably) provided accurate information about these "violations of federal law" to the crew members. Any attempt to convict them of providing "false information" is going to fail.