Stevemeister,

Welcome to FT. Thank you for sharing your experience with us. In your case, probably the UAL gate agent had to honor a confirmed ticket holder by kicking you (with Alaska Air tickets) off. However, that's no excuse for this agent's rudenenss to you and your family. I urge you to participate in the UA forum and find out how best to contact UA to file a complaint.

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

Because board members don't agree with you they have not weighed the facts as presented? Pretty narrow minded comment if you ask me.
By the way I was out of line for my "liberal" comment and I apologize.
In response to calling the gentleman a "supposed" secret service agent I called him that because at the time his credentials were not confirmed. We all know he is a secret service agent now.


[This message has been edited by intobsv (edited 01-09-2002).]

intobsv, if you took the time to read the news reports again, you will clearly see that the police at the airport confirmed the agent's identity to the pilot, who then used the incorrect paperwork ploy to keep him off the plane. His identity was never in doubt to anyone at the airport, except to a biased FA who totally overreacted and then the pilot who had to support his fellow crew member. Read the news reports again!



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

How to keep Arabs off a plane and keep the skies safe...the American way. (A primer for airline pilots)

1. Determine authenticity (as a true Arab) by skin color, name, books on the middle east, gun on person, statements from a flight attendant, etc.

2. Find a reason to check on the validity of said person's presence on the aircraft. One or more of incorrect paperwork, duplicate tickets, missing numbers on boarding pass, duplicate seat assignment, baggage not loaded or loaded without checks, going to the toilet before take-off, etc., is sufficient.

3. Delay boarding and continue questioning until said person's patience wears off. (Warning: may take up to 2 hours).

4. As soon as the said person shows irritation at the process, deny boarding to the "angry passenger". Get at least one person to vouch for the irritation.

5. If the above does not work to make the person angry, you can enlist the flight attendant to spill coffee on the suspected Arab. If that doesn't work and the Arab appears to be well-mannered, pick a woman or child passenger nearby and rant on them until the said Arab is goaded into intervening at which point it is valid to deny boarding.

6. File a report with the airline with your version of the story.

PS: It is recommended that you do not apply this procedure to members of the US secret service as it may prove embarrassing to the airline. As we do not expect too many Arabs being employed by the US Secret Service this should not be a likely scenario. If it does happen, the airline may be forced to withdraw support for you and disavow all knowledge of this primer.

:-) For the sarcasm impaired.

I think you are right on. This is totally the fault of the SS. This is America and clearly from AA's point of view the SS should not hire Arab looking type people!

This is a flash back to WW2 and how we treated the Japanese.

I am an AA employee, but nothing I post is sanctioned/supported by AA.

One thing that comes to mind is that the random checks were announced and the pax went on board dropped his jacket off and then went back out for further screening. Well, to me that would be suspicious if he left items on board the airplane, before doing the extra "random" screening. I assume that is the reason he was called off board the airplane, after reading the accounts from the agents law firm.

If anyone else boarded a flight, before going through a random screening, and then left items aboard the airplane I think some eyebrows would and should be raised. It is possible that an individual could have picked up the LEO form already filled out and scratched out the flight number. There were some legitimate concerns, but the addition of the Arabic background kicked it all into overdrive.

Without knowing what exactly went on between the CA and the agent after being rescruitinized, I can't say if the CA made an error or not. I personnally would not care for an angry man with a gun to be seated next to me, but the question then is was he mad before or after the CA "questioned" his credentials.

From one of the original articles on this incident:
"After boarding, the agent was asked to get off the plane for more security checks and ultimately was barred from taking the flight because the pilot found inconsistencies in the paperwork, said American Airlines, a unit of AMR Corp."

The agent was already on the plane and seated, he was not asked to go to a security check, ignore the request, board the plane to drop off his jacket and personal items, and finally go to the security check. If I was a secret service agent carrying my credentials and was asked to step off a plane because there was a question about my documentation, I wouldn't think twice about leaving my possessions onboard.

This man did nothing wrong, and what is upsetting to me is how there is one post after another by people that twist around the stated facts and then try to justify what AA did!



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

I’ve been thinking about this very thing some more recently.

It has been interesting to say the least to see the extent to which people are willing to believe the AA captains story over that of the Treasury agent. Given the dearth of information originally available I would have guessed it would be closer to 50/50. I was unwilling to make up my own mind early on until more information came out as I could easily imagine either scenario. Thus I refrained from posting until I felt that a reasonable assumption could be reached culled from facts and impartial reports.

When one rationally and impartially looks at the timeline, AA’s statements and contentions fall by the wayside. Interestingly enough it was the captain’s own statement that swayed me to the Treasury agent’s side.

The fact is that the captain knew before he stepped on the plane that an armed LEO agent was on board and both had the agent’s paperwork and was satisfied that it was correct and proper as he climbed into the cockpit and began preparing the aircraft for departure. This is a simple, undisputable fact. When the captain was unaware of or unconcerned with the agent’s race or ethnicity he was ready to put the plane in the air.

It wasn’t until the FA became irrationally frightened (I’ve actually seen someone killed by a city bus but I don’t live in fear of the sight of all city buses) by the sight of an Arab looking passenger on her plane that she had him pulled for more screening, illegally searched his personal belongings, and brought her fears to the attention of the captain.

The agent was pulled of the plane for "additional screening" by AA personnel as confirmed by both an AA statement and the passenger sitting next to the agent. Again, this is an undisputable fact (unless AA and the passenger are lying).

So, here we are. Fact: It wasn’t until the FA brought her fears of an Arab on her plane that the captain left the cockpit to check the agent and his paperwork over. IIRC, the agent’s credentials and identity were confirmed by, at the very least, the Baltimore PD and the Maryland State police. I believe that Rssrsvp is correct that this started as a situation where the captain was backing up the FA for appearances sake and ultimately denied boarding when the agent began to plead his case, as an expression of the captains territorial prerogative, "Only I say who gets on my plane".

Opinion: I found it interesting that the AA captain claims that the agent "threatened to bring the powers of the White House down on [him]" While the agent claims he said, "these credentials are good enough to get me into the White House everyday". Hmm. While there is no impartial third party substantiation for either side, if I were in Vegas now I know which version I would bet on. Again, just my opinion.

So back to Rssrsvp’s question. Why do people twist and ignore facts in an effort to try and support the AA captains version?

Within the academy over the years there have been many studies concerning various professions and specializations that have explored the degree to which people are willing to "go along" with various types of "authority" figures. To lazy to worry about links but I am sure most here recall the study where "professional" and "authoritative" looking lab assistants instructed one participant to give a shock to another participant. It was determined that many people were willing to continue upping the voltage while in full knowledge/belief that they were causing the other person physical pain. I remember that one of the first books I read as an undergrad, Arendt’s, "Eichmann in Jerusalem" dealt more or less with this very subject.

IIRC (no interest in laboring to find links or dig out old undergrad psych texts as this is all anecdotal anyway) additional research building on this and other studies have found a discernable and observable correlation between ones general cultural, sociological, and ideological outlook and disposition and their willingness to acquiesce to an "authority" figure. Research has shown that someone with a generally more conservative or neutral outlook (this is not about political party affiliation) was more willing to obey/believe someone presented to them as an authority figure. Additionally, the very young and the very old were substantially more susceptible to an authority figure.

These and other similar findings are of course not absolute nor can they be simplistically construed as saying, for example, that Democrats lead and Republicans follow, all conservatives are Fascists, all liberal are Hedonists etc. Again IIRC, people with both extreme right and left ideological beliefs were found in equal numbers willing to obeying or rebel. Very interesting.

Does this definitively answer the question? I don’t know but I do believe that there is some substance to a hypothesis that, on this board (if not in general) those with a more conservative belief system are more likely to believe AA’s side (pilot authority figure, big corporation vs. the government) while those with a more liberal outlook may be more likely to side with the agent (someone who works for the government). As always, and as in life, nothing is absolute. But it is interesting.




[This message has been edited by anrkitec (edited 01-09-2002).]

anrkitec, I think it is actually simpler than you make it. Many of the people that supported the AA captain did so because they are associated with the airline industry or atleast feel they are associated. Also there is a good reason from the history of aviation, of captains following orders to take off or not stopping a flight because of concerns about aircraft status that resulted in accidents that most want the pilot to have authority to decide all issues. I think that the pilot is most qualified to make decisions about the things that he has knowledge of and security is not one of them.

I also think that most people do not have enough exposure of law enforcement personel except in a negative way and therefore it is easier for them to believe that the officer would be a nazi, because the last officer to pull them over did not believe the reason why they ran that stop sign.

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

please post facts.

Clacko, I am not sure what please post facts is about. I was responding to a comment about why some people are predisposed to support one side or another in an issue. I have seen studies from the nebraska state patrol and the U. Nebraska at Omaha regarding how people think of police officers. The shift from beat officers to car patroling officers and the significantly reduced normal interaction has taken a toll on police standing. The only time the majority of people interact with officers is in a negative experience, being arrested, ticketed or after being a victim. The remainder of the populations view of police officers is shaped by the news media and pop culture. Again areas that usually do not foster a positive view. Yet that image is drastically different among youths that interact in a non official situation such as Police benevolent leagues etc. So is that the kind of information you want? This data is supported by nearly all organizations that deal with CJ. That is the reason that most groups suggest a return to bike patrols, walking beats, federal loan program for police moving into disadvantaged neighborhoods etc. It increases the normal interaction between police and the civiil population.

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

My only concern is that many of you are attacking all American Airlines employees, lumping us all into a facist/racist lump. AA has many employees of the Islamic faith, as well as Catholics, Jews, Protestants, and Orthodox, Blacks, Gays, Asians, Hispanics. In fact, their is great pride for many of us working in the company knowing how open it is to differing cultures and lifestyles. It would not make sense for the company to support the Captain in the face of the thousands of AA employees of Middle Eastern backgrounds or Muslim Faith.

Sorry if I was not clearer in my earlier statement, but to make it clearer, it was a supposition that he boarded without going through extra security screening. I am going by what most news articles have posted regarding the sequence of events. No statements in any media articles have said that they pulled him off INITIALLY to question his credentials. Again I nor anyone on this board know exactly what happened only second, third and fourth hand accounts of the event.

To be honest in my opinion, it probably got to the point of a pi**ing match between the CA and Agent over who had greater authority. I think that there was concern by the flight crew that a man of Middle Eastern decent was on the plane with a loaded weapon. I think the Agent could have been frustrated by the earlier cancellation, the crowded airport, and the fact that someone would question his credentials. I think the CA could have been too in the agents face about confirming his identity. Imagine if you are trusted with the responsibility that a USSS Agent has, and some commercial airline employee questions you about your credentials, and will not accept your help to authinticate your credentials.

Now if you are flying on a plane and know that there is an individual on the plane that has a gun and is angry as heck with you (GWB thanks for bringing back that phrase) would you want that person on the plane. OK now you are the CA and have the ability to remove said individual from your flight, or refuse to fly, cause a cancellation or further delay of up to 3 hours to get a new captain, what would you chose to do?


BTW - where in any news article has the Maryland police department refuted the statement that they observed the Agent to be abusive? Please post links if you have them.

Interesting article.


http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ucac/20...e_fits__1.html

I applaude the bravery displayed by AA employees after Sept 11. Their professional behavior on and off the planes is admirable. If the complainers had to put their lives on the line everyday, I doubt very much that they would be talking to lawyers and claim racial profiling. The facts are: Middle Eastern people flew planes into buildings and their "leaders" called jihad on America. Should AA pilots, attendants an/or security personnel be looking for blonde, blue eyed people with Scandinavian or German last names as possible terrorists here? Call it profiling if you wish but it was their own people who did the damage. As a Hispanic, if the tables were turned on me because my people did this atrocity, I would cooperate to the fullest in all security matters. True, I would not like being singled out but the US as a country is above any specific religious, racial or political interest.



------------------
Fernando