Why the heck did the guy keep filling out his paperwork incorrectly? Why the heck would a professional secret service agent that is supposed to protect the president under the most extreme circumstances and pressure lose his temper? If I was the president I think I would be concerned about this agent. You liberals should put yourself in the pilots position...the supposed agent was of middle eastern descent, he was armed, and he was agitated, and he was uncooperative. I would have sent him off as well. Pilots want to live too.

[This message has been edited by intobsv (edited 01-08-2002).]

I wonder if when my next flight is delayed and I ask for an update they tell me that I can not have an update because airlines are no longer allowed to lie! Do you really believe either side in this mess? Is it possible the truth lays somewhere in the middle? If I had to guess I would go with the SS agent telling more of the truth, but we will have to wait and see on this, there is no reason to guess AS WE JUST DONT KNOW.

Oh, come on! Who says that the agent filled out the paperwork incorrectly? American Airlines, that's who. Maybe they have an interest in the outcome? Hardly an impartial third party.

The only impartial third parties there were the other passengers, who reported no inappropriate behavior on the part of the agent. I can't imagine how anyone can defend AA on this one, but I'm seeing it with my own eyes!

Bruce

The agent was in the plane or going in the plane so AA (pilot, FA, Gate Agent) knew there was a LEO in the plane. They should question the paperwork right then.

Bruce, you and I know that we can't believe what AA says. It is strange how the board seems to in general be agreeing with AA. At the same time, there seem to be people who are telling me DL is good and I am bad because I do not speak well of them.

The board is changing, and I think the people that really fly alot are or have moved on. There are still a few, but there is so much wrong or unfounded info on the board these days (LIKE THIS THREAD) that one has to wonder what is really going on.

se94583, Thanks for listening to what I have siad. I also agree that the pilot should have final authority on the things he knows about. This type of issue is one where I don't think he knows best.

I also disagree with your statement that we are hung up on his looks. The reason we have stressed that is the pilot and AA SOC statement want us to believe that his Arabic appearence had nothing to do with it and it was just the paperwork. That arguement does not wash with the captains own statement. He acknowledges that he new he had an armed LEO on board and the paper work was OK. He was preping the aircraft for takeoff and allowed the armed individual to board. HE states that it was only after the FA brought his/her concern about his arabic book that he expresses any concern about the paper work. The improper paper work that was first turned in was correct with the exception of an AA emplyee changing the flight number!!!! That is an AA employee that made the first mistake. Regarding the next mistake, I guess we will only know later what that was. But more important, by this time the pilot did not believe his official badge and credentials and would not accept the word of the local police that they were legit. They then confirmed the badge and SS status, but by that point the pilot says he had made his decision.

I also am surprised that if AA actually had any support for the statement of the agent becoming hostile, that they would not have published it. Even Carty's comment says that he reviewed the pilots and SOC comments. He did not offer anymore proof about the nature of the agents disposition during the arguement. The only independent witnesses to anything that have stepped forward are the civilians that agree with the agent, and again from federal officers I have known and the stadards that Presidential detail personel are held to he gets my benifit of the doubt. If the pilot would admit that his arabic look started this whole thing then I might believe his comments more.


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

Interesting comments. President Bush is standing behind the Secret Service Agent. Is he one of the "You liberals should..." you are addressing?

For the record, Mr. Walied Shater IS a Secret Service Agent-- a member of President Bush's protective detail. He isn't a "supposed agent."

Welcome to Flyer Talk and I hope you find this board helpful.
Now that the formalities are done, I don't think that you know enough about anyone on this board to make such a broad statement. This is not an issue of liberal vs. conservative and to label it as such is irresponsible and unproductive.

Bruce, common sense and the reported facts add up to only one logical conclusion, that there was racial and ethnic bias on the part of the pilot that motivated his decision.

All of the posts referring to the paperwork being incorrect neglect the fact that AA started the problem by crossing out the flight number of the cancelled plane and putting in the new number. This pilot was backing up his FA who frankly stepped over the line by going through the agent's personal property.

The real question remains, how long will it take AA to eat crow and admit that it made a mistake?

The fact that so many board members choose to support AA on this issue without weighing the facts as presented, totally shocks me.

It is clearly not the same board it was a year ago, that is for sure. We used to be a board of discussion based on fact. Perhaps this change is a result of being lied to so often by the airlines that logical thinking has worn off some of our members.

Re this board -- could we please stop generalizing so much? I believe the Secret Service agent far more than AA. TravelManKen is spot on w.r.t. liberal vs. conservative; it's not a partisan issue.

I just wanted to make sure that this thread was brought to the top of the forum so that everyone could appreciate how much the discussion has improved.

Haven't you read the news accounts? AA filled out the paperwork. Not the agent. And they updated the paperwork when they moved him from his original flight to the flight in question. And they crossed out one flight and put in the other, which is the original discrepancy the captain complained about. It was AA's issue, not the SS agent.

The captain was just using this excuse to put him off the plane. Actually, (this is pure speculation now, based on my own experiences with AA FA's lately) I don't think the Captain was afraid of anything. He was just backing up his FA who was scared to death of an Arab with a gun.

A week BEFORE 9-11, my family and myself arrived on a KAL flight from Bangkok at SFO, after 18 hours en route. The Alaska Airlines connecting flight was delayed by 7 hours (when I finally gave up). After a huge struggle, Alaska endorsed me on for UAL. The UAL rep gave us the "last 3" seats and we boarded and were seated. Ten minutes later, the same rep came on and curtly asked us, over the PA, to "get off the plane with all our bags". I also noticed one or more passengers getting ON the plane at the same time. All she deigned to tell me, AFTER I asked why, was that there were "duplicate" seats assignments. The only possibilities were 1) The rep made a mistake of some kind, or, 2) the "computer made a mistake (unlikely)," or, 3) She wanted to accommodate a "more important" passenger for business reasons. In any event, the least she c'd have done was express an apology of sorts. Since an error involving THREE seats was unlikely, I asked her which of our seats were "duplicated." Not a word more, was exchanged. She snapped, "Ok, you are done flying with United," and added, "I want you to get off right now." The threatening implications were unmistakable, and my family did get off. None of the passengers said anything (not my 'judgment' of them, just a statement of fact). Even after we got off, not a word of apology for the "inconvenience" from any UAL staff. We eventually flew Alaska. I was going to write to UAL, but 9-11 happened.

Gate reps and cabin crew sh'd not have such arbitrary powers. If I had protested a minute longer, she w'd have probably had me arrested for "obstructing civil aviation." I have no doubt that she w'd have also told the police that I was abusive and aggressive. I am Asian (US citizen), and that certainly w'd not have helped if it came to my word against hers. And all this was in the pre-9/11 environment!

I don't know what really happened in the Secret Service (SS) agent's case. I cannot but be skeptical about AA 's assertion that he was abusive (proof?). AA has no explanation why the c'd not contact the SS independently�911 w'd probably connected them! There ought to be SOME rules on what airline crew can do in such circumstances. Maybe make the captain write a report on the spot of EXACTLY why a passenger was removed, and, make an announcement in flight to let passengers know how and why the action was taken for "their protection." That way, if the report contains baseless allegations of "aggressive and abusive" behavior, decent folks will call their bluff once the plan lands. If the pilot had legitimate reasons, great, a danger has been removed�and false complaints of "profiling" will be seen as such.

JRF, the trouble is that many too people are gullible and naive. They will believe anything they see in the press, like the AA press releases. In addition, there are many that have a tendency not to believe LEO's no matter how solid the facts are. If you have ever sat on a criminal jury, you know what I mean. If this case goes to court and the agent wins a civil judgement against AA, they will say it isn't the same as a criminal judgement as that requires a higher level of proof. We are in a no-win situation when something like this happens, and you can argue until you are blue in the face to no avail.

The facts are clear, AA screwed up, the pilot screwed up and the FA that the pilot supported clearly violated the agent's civil rights by going through his personal belongings. If AA was smart, which they clearly aren't, they would do a 180 turn and apologize.

------------------