The article referenced in this post certainly makes the "pissing contest" theory sound like the most likely explanation...

It's good that the LATimes article tried to establish a timeline for what happened.

It looks like the pilot was determined to find fault with the agent. It probably surprised him that Pres. Bush actually has an Arab American agent.

I also don't think the FA should have rifled through the agent's belongings when he was away. I certainly wouldn't want anyone to do it without my permission unless it's at an official security checkpoint. And then this particular FA made the mistake of thinking the book is Arabic and probably alarmed the pilot by telling him the mistaken information.

It appears to me that AA needs an official policy on who can arbitrage between their own security procedure vs. the pilot when they are at odds over security clearance. Let's face it, the pilot is trained to fly and he feels an enormous burden given the responsiblity of the plane; yet he is not trained to distiniguish security-cleared Arab Americans from Arab terrorists. And if he has any personal racial bias or stereotypes at all, it doesn't help him do his job (and that's why he's not in customer service either.)

All in all, this whole thing could have been settled quickly with a quick apology from AA. It seems inevitable now that we will head into an unnecessary lawsuit.

I guess I do not understand where the story became a pissing contest from the article cited. The article either starts with a mistake or something that contradicts the captains own statement. He says that he had not met the officer until after the flt att. told him about the arabic book and 'suspicious actions' and he came out after looking at his paperwork. The pilots statement still keeps looking strange. Just how he asks to see a fax of the terrorists pictures, that anyone can get fake id's and the best one to me is that he would have friends stationed at a phone that would be obviously a white house prefix. Does anyone truly believe that the agents appearance had nothing to do with this whole incident. The pilot even admits that he had not looked at the paperwork until after the flt att. tells him about the book.

If the pilot would have just been honest, that he was nervous about an arab being armed after the previous incidents, I would believe some of what he had said. Since he wants me to believe the unbelievable, I can not automatically believe his contention that the agent was verbally threatening.

------------------
Robert

Platos90, whomever you are...

A blunt question.. Do you work for AA?

It sure seems like you have the mentality that no matter how many witnesses (Pax, Police) and how the facts (No paperwork goof, profiling, rifiling of papers) add up against AA you seem to always find a way to stand behind the AA lies.

AA has changed it's story 3 times
1. The agent had bad paperwork (Turns out it was fine except the crossed out flight number changed by the AA gate agent when the original flight cancelled)
2. The agent was not verifiable. (Maryland police verified him but, the pilot was not good with that.. The ticket was issued by the White House for that matter)
3. Now the latest.. The agent was abusive.. Really, Now the man seated next to him and a women in the gate area dispute that claim and you go with the continued lies..

Heck AA claimed the police backed up the pilot but, the Maryland Police quickly said that was untrue...

I think you better pick a different corner... You are backing and betting on the sure loser if this makes it to court.

acvitale: Plato has become ensorcelled by the shadows on the cave wall. They are reality to him. Nothing, at this point, will change that.

AA should just settle and be over it.

The SS agent is wrong in this: he claims to want to stop airlines from being arbitrary, and says he wants no monetary compensation. Okay.

But pilots need to be in charge, and need to have the authority to deny passage. They also need to be held accountable for bad decisions. This particular pilot made a very bad decision, and should be held accountable; but as a pilot, it was his decision.

Are you a law clerk for the firm defending this guy? Or maybe the agent's cousin?

Is it impossible to disagree with you without having ulterior motives like being an employee of AA?

None of your three discrepancies were part of AA's statements, since AA only made one (1) statement so far. You're finding discrepancies within reporters' stories, which are based on their guesses and innuendo. Big surprise that those reporters made mistakes.

Personally, I'd love to see this thing go to court. Regulation and law is clearly on AA's side, which is why they will vigorously defend this charge.

[This message has been edited by Plato90s (edited 01-05-2002).]

Plato: I think acvitale is suggesting that your continued hysteria on this subject is suggestive of preconception.

You sound a little bit like the Red Queen: "he didn't initial the paperwork -- off with his head!"

The witnesses can certainly testify as to the agent's manner and behavior in their presence.

The whole mess seems to have started with a flight attendent who went out of their way to search the passenger's private belongings, and who could not tell the difference between Arabic script and Latin script formed -- for marketing purposes -- to look vaguely Arabic.

AA should just offer an apology -- the agent isn't asking for money -- and send the employees to intelligence school (I would say sensitivity training, but that comes after Common Sense 101, imo).

Pilots SHOULD have the discretion to fly whom they please (acvitale: please don't use "whom " anymore, until you learn how). But they should also be held responsible for the consequences when they screw up. That's what they get paid bigbucks for, right?

Isn't the bottom line that this case will mean either continuing to allow the pilot as CAPTAIN, to have the final say over the flight safety, or allow the "security" bureauracy to have the final say.

I'm sorry, all this amounts to is an arrogant SS agent, who happened to also be an arab, was inconvenienced by a pilot who wouldn't kow-tow to his "law enforcement" mentality. Let's face it: had he been a white agent, none of this would have hit the news, he would have been placed in custody until the matter cleared, and he surely would be unemployed by now.

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).]

-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 disagree. We as paying AA pax will foot the bill, even if AA wins (as it should), as many, many thousands of dollars in legal fees will be churned just to defend a frivilous lawsuit even to the motion to dismiss stage.

What I don't get is why this agent should receive special treatment because: 1) he's a SS agent, and 2) he's an Arab. IF any of US (white, black, asian regular folk) did the same, we would have been refused passage and threatened with arrest. How many tales are on this board alone of a pax coming up against a haughty FA or gate agent or crew and then being "asked" to deplane, whether justified or not, even before 9-11??? However unreasonable the pilot's actions, the standard should be the same: play by the rules and respect their authority, and understand their position, as a significant number of their friends either have died at the hands of terrorism or are now unemployed because of 9-11.

[This message has been edited by se94583 (edited 01-05-2002).]

se94583,

Whether there should be a lawsuit or not, the essential question has not been answered. If there was a security threat, why was the terminal left open? Conceivably, this agent could have carried several guns in, handing them off to several confederates. If the concern was truly a security concern, why wasn't security protocol followed?

se94583
I think you are missing the point. Part of what makes this case special is that some pilots and aircrews have been misusing their status. It becomes harder to defend said action against someone that has special security clearance and status, than you or I being dumped from a plane for an unjustified reason. I do not like the idea that this would go to a lawsuit, as I dislike the idea of the denny's suit. In most types of businesses, racism will harm a company. If it is possible to make a choice we do and stop buying from a company that treats us bad. Unfortunately, as it has been discussed on this board often enough, we generally have limited choices on our air travel decision. Sometimes where you live or travel forces you to travel on an airline you dislike, or pay an unreasonable premium. The airlines like the broadcasters have a special responsibility because they have access to gate slots or flight departures that are government regulated.

I have disliked this kind of bigotry or stupidity since college. I went to LSU and as a ROTC student hung out with black cadets, some foriegn students and mostly non frats. Maybe the second week of school some of us cadets are going out to a student bar and as we pull up a couple of the black cadets don't want to go in. They had heard that blacks get harrassed or attacked there. I did not want to believe that was the case and got them to go in. Before the night went very far a couple of people were not feeling as well as when they walked in and it was not me. I stayed away from that bar for the next four years because there were some other bars around campus. If the government sold slots around campus and the only 2 bars allowed to open were racist, I would expect that their license would be taken back.

I am a white male. I was raised as a gentleman and trained as an officer. I hate lawsuits but if this company can not step up an admit that the pilot made a mistake or that he could not get over his nervousness about an arab being on the plane in the current enviroment then they will deserve this. I have not been flying American for a couple of years and I don't think I will be flying them in the near future. What makes me most sad is that this probably could have happened on any airline. Northwest has had flight crews disallow arabs on its flights and I believe several others have as well. Maybe the reaction from this event will get the attention of some of the other airlines, maybe even the government will see that security has to be logical.

------------------
Robert

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Plato90s:
Are you a law clerk for the firm defending this guy? Or maybe the agent's cousin?


Nope worse yet, An American who believes in the rights that made this country the home of the free and whom despises racism and bigotry as well as big business running roughshod with their big money lobbying, lawyers and lies.


Is it impossible to disagree with you without having ulterior motives like being an employee of AA?

Not when you adopt such calous disregard for the truth. I assumed you must be on the payroll. It would not be the first time AA and others have planted persons to push their agenda amongst stock and frequent flyer boards.


None of your three discrepancies were part of AA's statements, since AA only made one (1) statement so far. You're finding discrepancies within reporters' stories, which are based on their guesses and innuendo. Big surprise that those reporters made mistakes.

Now I know you are full of it... AA made three different public statements as summized above.. A quick check of the news, will verify what the AA spokesmen said.. Of course I can see your next argument will be that the people hired to speak on AA's behalf and that do so publically must have not been doing so on AA's behalf.. You are a work of art. Do you always ignore truth and fact for your deluded view?


Personally, I'd love to see this thing go to court. Regulation and law is clearly on AA's side, which is why they will vigorously defend this charge.


Regulation is not CLEARLY on anyones side. AA violated it's operational certificate and violated several civil rights laws, as well as FAR's, unfortunately for everyone the law is self contradictory and it will be an interesting trial. The interesting point is that for the most part the "law" on FARs is an FAA regulation in contrast to the civil rights acts.. As explained by a lawyer to me during this subject conversation today there is significance in that in that one is voted in by representatives and another is a "rule" made by a federal agency and hence in court one sees rules carry less weight then laws...

Just shedding a bit of light on a point made above: Properly promulgated rules (or regulations, which are the same thing) have the "force of law." To be properly promulgated, they must be issued under procedures dictated by the Administrative Procedures Act. The Act requires certain minimum periods for public comment (except in cases of emergency) and response by the Federal agency issuing the regulations. In addition, the law must authorize the issuance of regulations, but most complicated laws do.

Bruce

Here is a chilling, but interesting article about what airline captains seeking to defend their aircraft are up against. Note the part about where the terrorist planted the bomb and then deplaned. The bomb exploded aloft, killing a passenger and injuring five others.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...6/MN222117.DTL