Well, Guy Betsy,

Thanks for lumping us all into one group. My onboard service is respectful and appreciated without you trashing AA as a group. I realize that a lot of people are upset over recent events and I can understand the frustration from you all. I just think we should all try and feel for the other parties, whether we agree with their methods or not. I would never be as arrogant as to try and tell you (or anyone else) how to do your job (without the proper training). With the same token I expect people to extend the same courtesy to others. None of us know what really happened on that flight without having been there. Let us all try (I know, hard to do in these stressful times) to extend the same doubt to others who were actually there. We don't know what REALLY happened unless we were there. There are always two sides to every story. In this holiday time, can't we all try to find a little compassion for everyone? Airline personnel aren't the scum of the earth, as some of you would believe. We have all been through a lot, as airlines and as a country. Let's not forget the things we have to be grateful for. I am not making excuses but I will make a promise to all of you. I will look past most of the disrespect and rudeness if you will too. 99.999% of my passengers are truly wonderful and I will treat others with the respect I am greeted with. Safe flying and best wishes for a TRULY New Year to all!

IntheAAisle

Very well said, InTheAAisle.

Now I would just like to see AA in the same Christmas spirit and give a sincere apology and a free ticket to that secret service agent who probably would have preferred to be either doing his job or staying home instead of being detained at an airport.

Hi ChaseTheMiles,

Maybe I will see you one day onboard. You know, maybe AA will and maybe they won't. You and I have both probably been around long enough to experience the culture. Here's to hoping we can all be normal again. And with the right culture to prove it!!!

Happy New Year!!!

“Since the terrorist hijackings and events of September 11, we have seen several reports of airlines apparently removing passengers from flights because the passengers appeared to be Middle Eastern and/or Muslim. We caution airlines not to target or otherwise discriminate against passengers based on their race, color, national or ethnic origin, religion, or based on passengers' names or modes of dress that could be indicative of such classification. Various Federal statutes prohibit air carriers from subjecting a person in air transportation to discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, or ancestry. At DOT, we are and will continue to be vigilant in ensuring that the airport security procedures, mandated by FAA and implemented by the airlines, are not unlawfully discriminatory.” Norman Strickman, Assistant Director for Aviation Consumer Protection, Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation.

Quite a number of unsubstantiated statements were made about pilots having complete control of an aircraft. That may very well be the case once airborne, but while on the ground with the plane at the gate, he or she is still subject to lots of laws and regulations (and in fact still is while in the air, but will be held accountable once the plane lands). FAA regulations do not permit a pilot to deny a person his constitutional rights. They do not (and can not) permit a pilot to disobey other FAA regulations and federal laws. In fact, American Airlines could have removed him from command of the aircraft at any time and they did not. In fact American Airlines is still backing him up. From everything I have read, two instances of bad judgment by American.

Also, were the people on the ground in charge at American Airlines not capable of confirming the identity of a Secret Service Agent (in addition to the confirmation they apparently already received from the Maryland police) in less than 15 minutes. If they can not do that are they capable of maintaining and flying planes? The airlines want armed sky marshals. Well, how is American going to identify them if they can not confirm the identity of a Secret Service Agent? When I fly I am trusting the judgment of the pilot and the airline. American has shown very bad judgment recently. I know I will not be flying American anytime soon.

Further, if the captain really was concerned about passenger safety, and had any doubt at all that the agent was in fact an agent, he should have done everything in his power to confirm his identity (or get him arrested as an imposter and have the airport evacuated because of a security breach) and get the agent on the plane fast, assuming his identity is verified. I know I would feel much safer with a member of the presidential detail on my flight—more so than with a recently trained sky marshal. The background checks, testing and training of Secret Service Agents on the presidential detail are the best this country has to offer. Frankly, I wish I could have a person on the presidential detail with me on all flights (and anytime I travel). These are some of the best trained law enforcement officers in the United States and the world.

But maybe the captain really did not like Arab-Americans, even if one of America’s finest? If American does not discipline him, perhaps the same FAA that licenses him to fly should, after a full and fair investigation, consider whether he is fit to hold a commercial pilot’s license.

And seriously, what in the world does a pilot know about security? He may be an expert (or at least I hope he is) about flying planes, but unless no other security personnel are available (as they clearly were), he should leave these matters to the professionals.


P.S. Male and female Secret Service Agents have died in the service of their country.


[This message has been edited by Nevsky (edited 12-29-2001).]

Nevsky you nailed it to the wall here, I couldnt have said it better, SO I guess the freaking pilot had access to NCIC and a lifeline to god giving him the doubts about this agent. WHEN he was told by Police officals that the secret service agent was quite valid. The agent was denied passage due to his looks! The agent was never detained, there was no reason to detain him.
And to top it off flag him so when he went to the next flight he was labeled supicous?!@? insane.
This agent should have been kicking and screaming MAD, but Im willing to bet he kept very composed.. They are trained quite well to keep stress to a min in a high intensed situation.

NOW FOR AA CREW. i know for the most part we have an awesome crew out there, and its very unfortunte that the crew on this flight failed in every direction. Just because of this horrible failure DOESNT MEAN that it should filter to all the other crew members.

I still stand my my words, the crew on this situation should be suspended at the very least. Crew should have stepped in when they realized the captain was making a major error!

Actually I do not agree that the crew should be blamed with the pilot unless there is evidence that the copilot/crew specifically were asked their input. I would doubt that the pilot asked for their input as he felt that it was his decision. I do believe that while profiling should be used effectively to focus our securities attention no one should be denied anything because of looks, dress even attitude as long as it is not disrupting.

Just as I will probably subjected to looks and intense scrutiny tomorrow because I am flying from omaha to dusseldorf and returning with only a 3 hour layover. I will not be checking any luggage and I actually paid cash because I used a cash voucher and only owed 40 some dollars afterward. I will put up with the additional checks politely as have several arab friends that have flown since 9-11. I do believe that everyone, not just a SS agent should be treated the same. At the same time, I think people are most upset that an agent was denied because it is such a cut an dried situation. (ok I will grant we might not know everything, but I can tell you that if the agent acted anything but a professional he knows he would be reassigned and punished for bringing disrepute onto the presidential detail. That would also be the case with any armed officer that acted badly in this situation. Even a city police officer would be severly punished if he acted out in front of other police officers/witnesses.)

I also disagree about the use of the initials SS, that is taking political correctness to an absurd level. While I do believe some people use USSS, many publications have used SS otherwise why not require people to use USFBI or USDEA. Usually you would use US if the publication was aimed at an international audience or in a situation that talked about history of security detachments that might refer to both US and Nazi German ones.

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

Actually, the complete name of the USSS is the United States Secret Service ( see http://www.treas.gov/usss/ ). The DEA and the FBI do not include the United States in their names, and are thus properly abbreviated as above. SS seems a derogatory leftover from the 60's.


------------------
It is better to spend money like there's no tomorrow
Than to spend tonight like there's no money!

Welcome to FlyerTalk.

I'm sorry but I do lump all the AA employees into one group. A group that is trying their best under very difficult situations. I hope mistakes can be used as learning experiences rather than opportunities to just criticize.

Hope to see you in the air. IMO AA continues to provide outstanding service.

Folks, I suggest that we call an official time out on this thread. We all know where we stand on this issue and we have tried to get FT'ers with opposing opinions to change their minds. At this point, nobody is going to change their opinions, and all this posting is getting them further entrenched in their positions.

I am a firm believer in taking your life experiences and using common sense to review the facts of a situation like this, and then come to a educated conclusion (judges always tell you this when you serve on jury duty, and give you their final instructions). What we have here is a deadlocked jury. Hopefuly, more information will be released in the near future to clarify the events that took place, and we will know the truth.

I agree. We have hashed this out over and over. So, unless new INFORMATION is released by somebody, enough?

The term "Secret Service" is the original name of the division, in use since 1865. They didn't have an US in front of their name back then either.

Right now, the official designation for the agents protecting the president is "Secret Service Uniformed Division". Notice once again that there is no US in the official designation.

So I think it's both historically accurate and technically correct to call them...

Secret Service.

Posts like this are what <B>I</B> find disturbing. se94583 alleges that that Council on Arab-Islamic Relations is "may have ties to islamic terrorism itself". Am I the only one having problems with this post? If se94583 has information that substantiates this allegation then s/he should contact the feds. Post 9-11 the US govt has been pursuing organizations with alleged links to terrorism; if allegations against this particular organization were credible I would assume that they would have been shut down, their assets frozen, etc. etc.
In any case, se94583 fails to address any of the facts of the case. Even if, and I don't grant that, this organization does have such links as se94583 alleges, does that bear on the facts of the case as reported and discussed here?

The "Uniformed Division" is the same as the old "Executive Protective Service", which was changed over in the 70's. They protect the White House and foreign embassies. The plain clothes agents that protect the president are not in the "Uniformed Division". They have very different missions (i.e. members of the Uniformed Division do not investigate counterfeiting, as they are not special agents).

"a government official, especially one who is overcautious in doing his job, should not be running off to file complaints with a defamation league which may have ties to islamic terrorism itself."

Prove they do. Give me something besides the fact that they probably are of the same religion as a billion or so other folks, some of whom happen to be as crazy as the Christian abortion clinic bombers. I find it VERY hard to believe a United States Secret Service Agent would pick a terrorist organization to represent him.

Or are you playing six degrees of Kevin Bacon? Islamic support group = must know terrorists.

If you'd like, I can quickly link the NFL to Osama Bin Laden. See, the NFL contributes heavily to the United Way, who had a single lawyer represent some of the people held after 9/11. CLEARLY, SOMEONE MUST STOP TERRORIST MASTERMIND PAUL TAGLIABUE!!!

My little fantasy has about as much evidence as yours does. And is about as plausible. OTOH, you're welcome to go try and arrest some NFL Players / Terrorist Supporters if you think that'll help make us all safer. I'll send the flowers to your hospital room.

I'm not trying to beat on you (well maybe I am a little bit), I'm trying to get you to NOT associate all muslims with terrorists by showing you how silly the logical links you're making are.

Regards,
-Bouncer-

Class, for your homework assignment, read this article in one of the most liberal publications on the internet:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2001/09/26/muslims/

Editing to add one more article, a really good one on CAIR:

http://www.danielpipes.org/articles/199911.shtml

In the words of Steve Pomerantz., a former Chief of Counterterrorism for the FBI, "CAIR, its leaders, and its activities, effectively give aid to international terrorist groups."

Editing once more to add the Senate testimony of Steven Emerson before the Judiciary committee on Terrorism. He talks at length about CAIR, well documented.
http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/6453/emerson.html


[This message has been edited by benoit (edited 12-29-2001).]