I would expect my airline to do the same. although drastic, it was the right thing to do. The govn't needs to be proactive in letting armed officials fly. Increased security is why this went the way it did. He obviously was trying to get away with as little headache as possible and go through the motions. Well he couldn't pull it off. Get to the back of the line like everyone else. If you're going to fly like me then you've got to be like me. I can't carry my gun either. I look arabic too. I get the old fish eye all the time. Too bad it took 9-11 for it to start. If security was up to that of the rest of the world, we'd still be living in the cushy USA that my kids will never know. Sorry for the rant.

I haven't seen any news report that described the agent's conduct, or how the agent treated the American Airlines personnel and the airport security staff. If you've seen a report about the agent behaving badly, please post a link.

To me, the only credible position for the pilot is if he honestly believed that the man was not in fact a Secret Service agent. But nothing I've read so far suggests that the pilot didn't believe the man was an agent.

If the pilot thought, "My flight is safer without an armed trained federal security officer on board," then the pilot isn't in the real world.

To reiterate, it is in everyone's interest on a flight to have a Secret Service agent on board. The president never flies without them. I wish they were on every flight.

The pilot should have been trying to do everything to get him on board (and armed). One of the president's bodyguards is the best you can get. Not only did the pilot seem to be doing everything to prevent his boarding, but apparently refused to call the Secret Service to verify (not that that should have been necessary, given the Maryland police's verification). On top of that he was wasting everyone's time on board by delaying the flight.

The pilot should have been said "Sir, let me see if we can get you a seat in first class, close to the cockpit. I know its not Air Force One, but at least we give frequent flyer miles. Thanks for flying with us today."

Further, if the pilot and American had any concern, the airport should have been evacuated immediately. In fact, if there was any concern, it might have been negligence not to evacuate.

Also, one thing that I have not heard discussed is the Secret Service Agent's flying profile. I assume he flew American before (yes, contrary to a prior posting, government employees, can, do and should fly commercial at special government rates all the time). Did American and the pilot try to check his frequent flyer profile to aid in verification?

Frankly, any pilot that wants to deny my flight Secret Service protection is a pilot worth firing and any airline that does not want them is Un-American.


[This message has been edited by Nevsky (edited 12-30-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Nevsky (edited 12-30-2001).]

I brought this whole thing up last night to my son who is an FBI agent and who also flies fairly frequently (including being on a United flight out of Newark on 9/11). He says it's not all that rare for a pilot to say he doesn't want an armed person on his plane no matter who the person is. He has not had this happen to him personally but he does know agents who have, both FBI and Secret Service. According to him the pilot has the right to refuse anyone with a gun no matter what. I do think the paper work thing was just an excuse to not let the agent fly. Since this is something that does happen I doubt very much that AA will discipline the pilot.

For myself, I would be thrilled to have a Secret Service or FBI agent on any flight I'm on. They do have to show proof of who they are, report to the police at the airport and also fill out the papers etc. so I really find it hard to believe that a terrorist would be able to pass through all the checkpoints without slipping up somewhere. But maybe I'm just a cock-eyed optimist. Will this pilot let an Air Marshall fly when they finally get that program up and running I wonder. And by the way what about the guy today who was able to fly two flights with a gun in his carryon? I think I'd rather have a government agent who has identified himself.

As a side note of interest to all of us who chase the op upgrade, my son also tells me that agents have been getting upgrades to First fairly regularly. It seems some pilots like the idea of them being right there on the other side of the cockpit door, armed and ready. I wonder if I really am too old to become an agent? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Chris

So, you think a guy who has been cleared to protect the President of the United States is the kind of guy who will take a plane down to the bottom of the ocean?

You can't be serious. This man was cleared to protect the President. Why shouldn't he be able to take any plane he wants?

I just wish your airline would say, we're sorry, we made a mistake. I think if the management did that, then this whole thing would have been defused very quickly.

The pilot made a mistake. He's human, and that happens. A quick whoops, we made a mistake and we're sorry about it would have ended the whole story quickly.

Perhaps a solution to this problem would be for each airline(or they could implement this collectively to reduce the cost) to have someone highly trained in the area of security/anti- terrorism on staff at each airport with the final say.

Pilot refuses boarding, fine. Now call in the designated expert to have the final say on the matter. An additional benefit of this process is that a pilot who does feel uneasy about someone would now feel freer to make it know as they would not have to ultimately be responsible for the decision to give the pax the heave ho. I dare say that something like this might have stopped the shoe stamper getting on the flight to Miami.

[This message has been edited by Mvic (edited 12-30-2001).]

But this begs the important question that was brought up before. There must be a logical conclusion and the "heave-ho" isn't it. Either the agent was legit and should be allowed to fly OR all hell should break loose and this guy should be arrested. The fact that the pilot (who is taking on law enforcement responsibility) can just wash his hands of the matter and allow the suspected terrorist to move on is not enough.

I agree highgamma, I was thinking more along the lines of a solution to stop these types of things from happening again and also something that would have a real impact on security. Most of the positions would probably be filled by ex LEO's who would figure out in a couple of minutes that the SS agent was legit and would give the pilot the confidence to fly with the pax as he has been checked out by the airlines own experienced professional. Airlines avoida messy PR situation, pilot has done his part, and the legit pax flies.


[This message has been edited by Mvic (edited 12-30-2001).]

Sorry if you do not like it but, I call em the way I see them. The pilot was a racist and those whom cannot see the obvious are likely to be as well...

AA would have found things much easier with an appoligy to the agent and the country, A free F ticket to the agent, a suspension and retraining for the pilot at bear minimum.

Don't forget that even President Bush spoke to the agent once he arrived at the ranch and apologized to him and voiced his total support for the man.

When will AA step up to the plate and do the same?

This is an example of what's wrong with PC thinking: if someone doesn't toe the line EXACTLY as those in Berkeley do, then he or she MUST be a racist.

The bottom line is that NONE of us know what went thru the pilot's decision-making process, which had to be made under stress, and in a limited time-frame. Obviously, something more than "brown skin" triggered his alarm, whether it be a discrepancy in the paperwork or (more likely) the agent's arrogance/law-enforcement mentality coming into conflict with the pilot's arrogance/"lord of the flight" mentality. Thankfully, he put caution over careerism, which is a rare quality in any field nowadays.

Quite frankly, I'd rather have the pilot, even wrongly (in retrospect), err on the side of caution, as if he's wrong, 200 people die. At the worse, as in this case, the man got on a later flight. Its not like he was paying for his seat, either.

If pilots were allowed to use racism to deny boarding to those they don't like, half the planes out of Louisiana or Alabama would never leave the ground....

This has nothing to do with Berkeley liberalism. It has everything to do with the simple fact that a man who is entrusted to protect the President of the United States, who had proper identification, and who had already been cleared to carry a weapon on board a plane was denied boarding.

I don't care what was going through the pilot's mind, period. He made a mistake. I don't care if he is or is not a racist. He made a bad decision. That's all there is to it. He needs to be punished for that bad decision just like you and I would be.

I only hope that this pilot doesn't make such a bad decision if and when his plane has some problems while flying.

That is a very good point. Whether the pilot was right or wrong (and from what I have read appears to have been very wrong), should American have permitted him to fly after what must have been a very emotional and trying situation.

Frankly, I would feel a lot safer with a Secret Service agent next to me than on a flight piloted by someone who may have been through a stressful and emotional situation.

And what about all those passengers that were delayed and may have missed connections while the pilot was examining paperwork in a scene that could have been out of a Kafka story, instead of quickly accepting the clearance by the professionals of the Maryland police, or at least making a quick call to the White House or the Secret Service, which he apparently refused to do?

Frankly, if American can not check people out quickly, I think there are more serious security issues here than just denying boarding to a Secret Service Agent.

So the question remains....how to punish the airline for poor decision making???

One solution....not allow any gov't employees to fly AA. Maybe the additional loss of revenue will wake them up.