var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
LeJerk
January 2, 2009 10:56 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

Can we do this for all annoying passengers? Simply tell the flight attendant that they were talking about terrorist related stuff and they'll be kicked off? Or do they have to look like they are from the middle east?

Reply
6 replies
\"user-pic\"
Zorantor
January 4, 2009 7:21 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@LeJerk: They weren't even discussing terrorist-related things. They were talking about airplane-related things!

First rule of being on a plane: don't talk about being on a plane.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
KMan13 still wants a Pontiac G8
January 3, 2009 11:28 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@LeJerk:
Did I mention that the crying toddler was going to blow up the plane?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mythago
January 3, 2009 12:21 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@LeJerk: they have to look stereotypically Muslim. So it's OK to talk shit about a Sikh, but not about a blue-eyed, blond Midwestern dude, even if he really is a terrorist.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dopplerd
January 3, 2009 10:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mythago: Interesting you mention \"Midwestern\" because the guy who was pulled off the flight was born in Michigan. Yes he \"looks\" like a foreigner (using the asshole definition of foreigner, not mine) but is American enough to be President of the United States.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
PølάrβǽЯ
January 3, 2009 4:18 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mythago: Yeah, because white guys don't blow shit up... Theodore... Timothy...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Kajj
January 3, 2009 10:16 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@aaron8301: No sarcasm on the internet, nope nope. Good thing you were here to correct that obviously serious poster.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
DrGirlfriend
January 2, 2009 11:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@LeJerk: Apparently, as long as you are willing to have everyone else on the flight be de-planed and re-screened. Depends on just how deep your revenge streak runs!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
January 2, 2009 10:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I heard this on the radio this morning... as I generally have quaint conversations with my friends about random things like safety on a plane, which seems especially appropriate if you're on a plane, I thought maybe this family was treated extremely unfairly, and maybe AirTran should have put them back on the plane, or given them a new flight.

I think the Irfans may be bigger people than any of us...because I bet most of us would want to get back on that flight just to sit next to the person who thought we were terrorists and just mess with that person all during the flight.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
SybilDisobedience
January 2, 2009 11:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Foibles and Weebles: I was on a flight two weeks ago, reading Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell. It's an amazingly good book, and anyone who's read it doubtless remembers the chapter concerning pilot mistakes on commercial aircraft and how inter-crew relations in the cockpit affect crash statistics. I was discussing this with my boyfriend, in a conversational tone, because it fascinated me so - and he actually shushed me because he was afraid another passenger would overhear my talk of plane crashes and assume the worst.
Of course, maybe he was just shutting me up because I wouldn't stop talking about Malcolm Gladwell. That's equally likely.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MRT
January 2, 2009 11:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Foibles and Weebles: They were not given the option of getting back on the plane.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
MrsLopsided
January 2, 2009 11:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The family was on a rear engine Boeing 717 (a later version of the MD80 & DC-9). I typically book late and wind up in the back seats with a window view of nothing but the engines inches away. I don't feel safe back there either. They should splash photos of the accusers across the media also. Unfortunately once a complaint is made nobody wants to take responsibility and it just snowballs and escalates.

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
Lejo Flores
January 3, 2009 3:15 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

IIRC, there was a young boy who died on a Delta flight a few years ago when an uncontained engine failure (i.e., the engine blew up) sent fan blades into the cabin during the plane's takeoff roll. The aircraft aborted takeoff, but sadly it was too late for the passenger.

So, it's not as if their concern is without merit.@MrsLopsided:

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Circa 2009 _SteveDave
January 2, 2009 11:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MrsLopsided: Typically the tail section IS the safest area of a plane. It survives most crashes.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bwcbwc
January 3, 2009 2:32 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Circa 2009 _SteveDave: Depends on the model of the plane. There's a large variation between big/small and front engine/tail engine construction.
@MrsLopsided: Umm, the 717 would be made by Boeing while the DC9 was McDonnell-Douglas. So a \"later version\" doesn't make sense. Do you just mean it's a newer model with a similar design?

What I'd like to see is that if someone reports \"suspicious people\" to the FBI, they have to get off the plane and be interviewed too, not just rescreened. And if the people that they reported turn out to be clear, the people who reported their suspicions suffer along with the people they reported: the airline has to treat both groups equally. If you screw up someone's reputation and travel plans like this, there should be consequences.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MrsLopsided
January 3, 2009 3:59 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bwcbwc: Douglas made the DC-9 starting 1965, merged with McDonnell to become McDonnell-Douglas and rebadged the DC-9 as the MD80/MD90 in 1980, then merged with Boeing in 1995 and rebadged the plane as the Boeing 717.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MrsLopsided
January 2, 2009 11:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Circa 2009 _SteveDave: I hate the noise at the back of the MD80 and knowing that fan blades are whirling just feet from my head.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Circa 2009 _SteveDave
January 3, 2009 1:53 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MrsLopsided: The cowling of the engine is designed to contain the blades, in case they broke off.

@David Brodbeck: More turbulence or more living. Hrmmmmmm, that's a tough one. I want to be where the black boxes are put to help THEM survive the crash, which is the tail section, so I'll take an extra demeral or darvocet or whatever that D-drug is you take to deal with motion sicknedss.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
KhaiJB
January 3, 2009 2:21 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Circa 2009 _SteveDave: well we all can't sit in the back. the damn plane will fall over....

Reply
\"user-pic\"
KhaiJB
January 2, 2009 11:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Circa 2009 _SteveDave: plus how many planes back into a mountain?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
David Brodbeck
January 3, 2009 12:31 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@KhaiJB: OTOH, turbulence is felt more in the tail section. Any pitch motion is amplified back there.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
rioja951 - Why, oh why must I be assigned to the vehicle maintenance when my specialty is demolitions?
January 4, 2009 1:51 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@David Brodbeck: BUT, and a huge BUT, remember that designed for and will do, are two very different things.
I certainly remember another article here that showed an un-contained failure, although it wasn't this model.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Darkest Daze
January 3, 2009 12:14 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@KhaiJB: My uncle used to always want to sit in the back of the plane and that was his exact reason.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Philip Marquis
January 3, 2009 12:09 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@KhaiJB:
you know thats a very good question ROFLMFAO

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Skankingmike
January 2, 2009 11:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The rare times i fly i talk about the safest place to sit incase of crash or something too..


But since i'm a big white irish looking guy it's ok right? well wait.. i could be IRA.....

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
DrGirlfriend
January 2, 2009 11:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

When I read the article this morning, these two things jumped out at me:


\"When we were talking, when we turned around, I noticed a couple of girls kind of snapped their heads,\" said Sobia Ijaz, Irfan's wife. \"I kind of thought to myself, 'Oh, you know, maybe they're going to say something.' It didn't occur to me that they were going to make it such a big issue.\"


The rest of the family was removed 15 or 20 minutes later, along with a family friend, Abdul Aziz, a Library of Congress attorney and family friend who was coincidentally taking the same flight and had been seen talking to the family.


It makes me sad that this is all it takes - to talk about airplane safety under the influence of being Middle Eastern. And I'd love to know what, exactly, is AirTran's excuse for not re-seating the family. Even the FBI tried to reason with them.

Reply
9 replies
\"user-pic\"
PølάrβǽЯ
January 3, 2009 4:27 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DrGirlfriend: I completely agree. Nobody wrote any articles about Timothy titled \"Catholic Blows Up Federal Building.\" What the hell does their religion have to do with it?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
katylostherart
January 3, 2009 7:33 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@aaron8301: well he also wasn't doing it in the name of the pope. it's unreasonable to assume everyone from the mid-east or even appearing to be so is muslim, but at the same time, the terrorism that freaks out most americans (in media theory) is islamic extremism.

they have mentioned religions of other nutjobs but only when it's part of the reason, assumed or stated, for the violence.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
wunami
January 3, 2009 8:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@katylostherart: That's the point. They mention religion of other nutjobs when it is the reason. So why did they mention it in this case?

Was being Muslim the reason they were talking about safe seats? As evident from the comments here in this post, other people that aren't Muslim talk about it too. What were they saying? \"We're Muslim so we need to figure out the safest seats on this plane.\" Probably not.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
rachmaninov1
January 2, 2009 11:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DrGirlfriend:

According to the Fox affiliate in Washington:

A source told FOX 5 the Irfans were not allowed on another Airtran plane because while at the gate trying to re-book their flight, someone in the family mentioned Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh and said the word 'bomb'.

[tinyurl.com]

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mythago
January 3, 2009 12:22 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@rachmaninov1: \"A source\" being who, an AirTran PR employee?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
floraposte
January 3, 2009 12:37 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mythago: Seriously. Everything I read from the family suggests that these are veteran travelers wearily aware of the fact that they're unfairly under extra scrutiny right now. I'm finding them considerably more credible than an unnamed AirTrain CYAer.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
DrGirlfriend
January 2, 2009 11:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DrGirlfriend: And the link to this article reminds me of something that has been bugging me lately - CNN has been really \"cute\" lately with their choice of titles. Under the \"Top News\" section at the bottom of the page, there is another link to this story titled \"Muslims miffed after being booted off plane\". Did it really need to be so flippant-sounding?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
brent_r
January 3, 2009 5:40 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DrGirlfriend: It's the moronic tagline writing that has taken over journalism.

The entire goal it seems is to be as misleading and controversial as possible to draw attention.

It's disgusting, it's annoying, and there seems to be nothing people can do to change this behavior because the mass media these days has no shame.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
wtrwlkr
January 3, 2009 1:37 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DrGirlfriend:


There was a similar problem a couple months ago with my hometown newspaper's website. From what I remember, a two year old got hit by a stray bullet (can't recall if the baby survived) but when the story was first reported online, the headline was pretty straightforward. Something along the lines of \"Two year old hit by stray round\". A couple hours later, the same story was featured under the headline \"Tot Shot\" by some idiot editor who thought it sounded cute. There were at least twenty comments on the story's forum from people who didn't think the headline was so cute, and a couple hours later it was changed to the original headline.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Crabby Cakes
January 2, 2009 11:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DrGirlfriend: THANK YOU. That has been bugging me all day. I think this goes a bit beyond \"miffed.\"

Miffed is when your boyfriend forgets to take out the stinky trash AGAIN, this is in a whole different category.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
January 2, 2009 11:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DrGirlfriend: And that makes me wonder, why does it matter that they're Muslims? Why does CNN think it's important that they're Muslims - non-Middle Eastern people can be Muslims too, and Middle Eastern people can be of another religion or no religion at all. I find it interesting that CNN chooses to be \"cute\" and at the same time blow it way out of proportion for focusing on an aspect of the story that isn't very important.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
MrsLopsided
January 2, 2009 11:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Get on the plane. Watch the safety demonstration in silence. Read the safety card in silence. Very discretely check the locations of the emergency exits. But don't ask any questions or discuss safety with your seat mate.

Reply
1 replies
","","
\"user-pic\"
Micromegas
January 2, 2009 11:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Let's be real honest with each other here. I mean everybody.

1) A white family of nine people get on a plane. They are dressed in contemporary clothing. Three of the young adults make a remark about where would be the safest place to sit on the plane in the event of an accident or explosion.

2) A brown family of nine people get on a plane. They are dressed in traditional clothing of Islamic people. Three of the young adults make a remark about where would be the safest place to sit on the plane in the event of an accident or explosion.

Hell why not:

3) A Chinese family of nine people get on the plane. They are dressed in clothing straight out of 1920's Shanghai. Three of the young adults in thick Chinese accents remark about where would be the safest place to sit on the plane in the event of an accident or explosion.

The reason why other people felt uncomfortable on the plane had everything to do with the appearance of this family. Those preconceptions and stereotypes led them to interpret those remarks differently then they would have with #1 or #3.

It was racism. Period.

Reply
12 replies
\"user-pic\"
badgeman46
January 3, 2009 12:15 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Micromegas: You can call it racial profiling, but lets face it: 9/11 was not carried out by a \"diverse\" group, nor was it Irish Catholic altarboys at the helm. If there was a rash of people burning crosses, wouldn't you assume they were white? They almost certainly would be. That's why racial profiling is a necessary evil.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
thrid001
January 3, 2009 3:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@badgeman46: That might be the dumbest thing I have ever heard. White people are BY FAR the largest producers of crystal meth, but EVERYBODY has to sign the government form when you buy Sudafed now. Tim McVeigh carried out the second largest terrorist attack in the history of this country, so should we profile all ex military white guys to see when they are renting a truck they may run it into a federal building. You are a racist pile of shit

Reply
\"user-pic\"
badgeman46
January 4, 2009 12:18 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@thrid001: Again, its not racism. Last I checked Islam is not a race. Islam is a religion, not a race. For instance, take Richard Reid, or Johnny walker Lindh, they were white guys who bought into the \"Religion of Peace.\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
batsy
January 5, 2009 4:42 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@badgeman46: Yeah, but racists associate Islam with brown people. Your logic escapes them.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
katylostherart
January 3, 2009 7:36 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@badgeman46: no, the irish catholic alter boys are the reasons there are no trash cans in tube stations in england.

what a freaking pain it is just to get rid of an empty coffee cup.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Nick1693
January 3, 2009 12:47 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@badgeman46: \"If there was a rash of people burning crosses, wouldn't you assume they were white?\"

Only because there's a group of white people doing this, otherwise, no.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
floraposte
January 3, 2009 12:40 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@badgeman46: Problem is that most domestic US airplane attacks have been enacted by homegrown white guys. And, of course, a fair bit of the ground terrorism as well. Allowing 9/11 to drive policy while ignoring the rest of history may gratify xenophobia, but it doesn't make anybody safer.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
David Brodbeck
January 3, 2009 12:36 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@badgeman46: The other problem with racial profiling is it makes screening predictable and easier to circumvent. Look at Israel; suicide bombers there knew that the Israeli security forces did profiling that singled out young men, so they started sending women and elderly people in wheelchairs to do bombings.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TheRealAbsurdist
January 3, 2009 12:36 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@badgeman46: So then I take it by your logic that after Timothy McVeigh and the OK City bombing, the FBI should investigate every white fundamentalist who rents a Ryder truck?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Colage
January 4, 2009 6:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TheRealAbsurdist: McVeigh wasn't a fundamentalist; he was a lapsed Catholic. And even so, it's not like you can really discern someone's religion or biases from looking at them unless they're wearing a shirt explaining it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
David Brodbeck
January 3, 2009 12:33 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@badgeman46: But 9/11 is one event. The Oklahoma City bombing was not carried out by people in that group. The \"shoe bomber\" wasn't brown-skinned either.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ironchef
January 3, 2009 12:30 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@badgeman46: lucky you are that white racist guy nobody supposed to suspect.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Skankingmike
January 2, 2009 11:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Micromegas: racial profiling is acceptable to a degree.


And the FBI should check all complaints against people.


The fault is the airline not letting them back on.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
doctor_cos wants you to remain calm
January 3, 2009 1:11 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Skankingmike: Let me hear you say that when YOU are the one being profiled.

Until then, don't say what is and is not acceptable.

I would think that the subsets of what you find acceptable and what others find acceptable do not intersect as much as you think.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Skankingmike
January 3, 2009 2:01 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@doctor_cos: Police and FBI have to profile it isn't always racially. That's how the world works, would you like them not to question the white dude, with sweat pants hanging out in front of a playground, where he was when a little kid was abducted?


@Nick1693: you're just silly if you don't think a bunch of people burning crosses aren't white.


@floraposte: Where does that info come from. For the last 30 years Domestic US airplane attacks have been overwhelmingly non homegrown white guys. There was one FedEx plane hijacking because he was being fired and went nuts, and some white dude who was being sent to jail who took out huge life insurance policies on himself in Iowa then set off a bomb on the plane. I didn't see anything about homegrown terrorists but please point me in that direction.


@TheRealAbsurdist: Actually they have a list of all fundamentalist groups and cults to do just that keep track of their activities. And yes they should look into many of those groups more often.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Nick1693
January 5, 2009 12:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Skankingmike: I was just saying, if there were not a group of white people doing that, I'd be less likely to think so.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mythago
January 3, 2009 3:36 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Skankingmike: What does profiling have to do with this story? The FBI did not report suspicious behavior. Some asshole passengers did. The FBI, acting on this report, checked it out and cleared the family. Up until that point, it wasn't \"profiling\", it was checking out a tip, even though it was likely to be (and was) merely racist assbaggery.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Skankingmike
January 3, 2009 1:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mythago: The orginal post was about race thats why.


Saying had it been a white couple nobody would have said anything. Which is most likely true unless that couple was white, Irish and flying out of England.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mythago
January 3, 2009 4:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Skankingmike: Again: that is not racial profiling. Racial profiling would be if the FBI had asked to speak to this couple. Some racist assjack on the plane saying \"OMG towelheads!!!!\" is not racial profiling.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
January 2, 2009 11:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The article did not mention that TSA was the ones that requested AirTran remove the people off the airplane.

It failed to mention that everyone (people and bags) were re-screened.

AirTran was following the rules.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Pylon83
January 2, 2009 11:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The blatant racism here only goes as far as the passengers who reported the victims here. What is the airline expected to do in this situation? A potential threat, regardless of how credible, was brought to their attention. They are expected, if not obligated, to investigate it. Even one they were cleared, I think everyone can see why they didn't re-board them: because it would make all the other passengers uncomfortable. At that point I don't think race/gender/ethnicity even matter. Once a passenger is removed for a safety concern, be they white/black/brown/green, it's going to make all of the passengers uncomfortable if that person (or persons) is allowed to re-board. The real \"villain\" here is the dumbass passenger who decided to start this whole mess. I don't really think the airline did anything wrong.

Reply
8 replies
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
January 3, 2009 12:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Pylon83: @Pylon83: \"A potential threat, regardless of how credible, was brought to their attention\" There was NO threat of any kind. All that the family did was to discuss the safest place to sit in case of an accident.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Aisley
January 3, 2009 6:15 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

If you so allow me, my dear Pylon, the airline is not obligated to investigate anything. Their option is to call the FBI, which they did, and have the G-men handle it. Thus, if you call someone to investigate something and after doing it they tell you that there's nothing to worry about then why are you still punish the subjects of the investigation? Your position is exactly like the one of the woman who's husband is having and affair, and she goes and blame the \"other woman\". If the husband were doing the right thing, it would not matter what the other woman do; he still would not do the wrong thing.


Another thing, we human beings are so used to stereotypes and preconceptions that is just ridiculous. The article refers to a Muslim family, and we ALL JUMP to believe the family is an Arab family. They are not Arabs, they're Pakistanis. You guys really have it easy. You do not have to go through the humiliation this is for us; and I say us because I am a Muslim too. The \"cute\" thing is with my name and the color of my skin unless I wear a head scarf, which I rarely do, people assume I'm not. Just a little example. I needed to fly to Florida for a family situation. That day, for reasons that are not relevant, I was wearing the head scarf. Even before I made it to the boarding area, the security people and the document checkers gave me a #%^%^* of a time. When they finally let me go,and after telling them that it was just an act of racism, I decided to try a little experiment. I walked back out and went to the bathroom. I took of the scarf, fluff my hair a bit, and put on some make up. Well, What do you guessed! I just flew by smoothly. They not just didn't stop me, they did not look at me at all!!!


And you know what's the saddest thing? That this was BEFORE 9/11. @Pylon83:

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mac-phisto
January 3, 2009 3:30 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Pylon83: well there's something different for the new year - pylon's supporting the company's position. oh wait...

seriously though, i agree that it was probably a good call not to put the people back on the plane - while there was no safety concern, one could arise if it was discovered that these were the people responsible for the delay (people tend to get very irate when they're stuck in situations like this one).

however, i cannot believe that they refused to put them on another flight, i believe that is blatant discrimination & i think airtran should be investigated & fined for it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bwcbwc
January 3, 2009 2:49 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Pylon83: They didn't let them back on a flight after they were cleared, regardless of whatever Fox News \"sources\" are telling them.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Pylon83
January 3, 2009 3:03 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bwcbwc:
Nowhere in my comment did I make the assertion that they were allowed to re-board. In fact, I justified the airlines refusal to allow them to re-board.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mythago
January 3, 2009 3:38 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mac-phisto: No kidding. If AirTran employees had kidnapped the family's little kids and burned them alive, Pylon would explain to us all that it was a sound market-based decision and he could hardly blame them for it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
hypochondriac
January 2, 2009 11:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Pylon83:

What the hell didn't Airtran let them re-board the plane? that makes no sense, they were cleared. If the other passengers still had a problem screw them. Let the passengers who fell uncomfortable leave the plane. It's not fair to make a group leave just some assholes feel uncomfortable

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Pylon83
January 2, 2009 11:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@hypochondriac:
Think about it. Do you expect the stewardess to get on the intercom and announce to the whole plane that the FBI cleared these people, so don't worry about them and the fact they were previously removed for safety issues?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Grrrrrrr, now with two buns made of bacon.
January 2, 2009 11:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Pylon83: No, the flight-attendant should have said \"We're sorry, there has been a misunderstanding and the flight will now resume.\" If the paranoid passenger(s) didn't want to fly, they should have been allowed to get off the plane.

At the very least, AirTran should have rebooked them onto a later flight.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
DrGirlfriend
January 3, 2009 12:44 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@☠Grяrяrяrяrяrяrя. All new for 2009 and available with 0% f...: Indeed. Anyone still uncomfortable *after* these people were cleared are the ones who should not fly on that aircraft.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
hypochondriac
January 2, 2009 11:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Pylon83:

Forgot to add by not allowing them to re-board. The accuser might get the impression he/she was correct and they did pose a threat.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
hypochondriac
January 2, 2009 11:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Pylon83: Don't announce anything, just have them re-board the plane. Everyone was offloaded and re-screened not just the Muslims. Why is it only the Muslim group that was prevented from re-boarding?

Logically if someone who was asked to disembark is allowed to re-board that means any problem was rectified. Only idiots would still worry

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
January 2, 2009 11:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Pylon83: That's a legitimate point. But AirTran refunded their money, and made them find a new flight. They didn't rebook them, they just said \"here's your money, find your own way home.\"

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
DrJimmy
January 2, 2009 11:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Big Fail by AirTrans. I'll bet other carriers were lining up to fly that family for free.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
CyberSkull
January 5, 2009 7:14 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DrJimmy: An airline will never do anything \"free\" without a court order that they will fight tooth & nail.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Overheal
January 3, 2009 7:20 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DrJimmy: At the very least, the FBI in this case had the good sense to arrange for the family to be placed on another flight. Im not sure if it was at the federal expense.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
mepoochkey
January 2, 2009 11:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Just heard on ABC World News Tonight that the airline did offer an apology and a trip home today, but the Irfans aren't sure whether they'll take the flight, or take the airline company to court.

I say they show them just how American they really are and take them to court!

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
fantomesq
January 3, 2009 8:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mepoochkey: The local AirTran officials claimed that the issue was out of their hands until the investigation was completed. AirTran's investigation apparently is separate from the FBI's. I agree that this family was wronged, especially when AirTran refused to put them on a separate flight but AirTran corporate did make a fair offer to the family after the fact - it refunded them for their original flight, refunded them for the flight on another airline that got them to their destination and offered to fly them home for free. ITs obviously a CYA move but not a terribly bad offer, especially considering the difficulties and uncertainties of suing under these circumstances. Still, I suspect that the offer will be rejected and they will sue.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MrsLopsided
January 4, 2009 8:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@fantomesq: You are describing AirTrans second statement and offer - made after their first by-the-book/we-did-nothing-wrong statement hit the media fan.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
digitalgimpus
January 3, 2009 3:16 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mepoochkey: Yea but they'll likely loose since nobody knows the exact rules/regulations airlines need to follow. They are technically classified and out of public view.

Considering the airline offered a good faith voucher later... this will get thrown out.

Sad

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
aguacarbonica
January 2, 2009 11:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I can't believe people are excusing AirTran here. That family should have been rebooked on another AirTran flight or been compensated sufficiently to take a comparable flight with a similar airline, the flight schedule of which should have been provided by AirTran.

Knowing the sorts of prices this company usually offers, I find it hard to believe that their refund of an advance-pay ticket was remotely sufficient to buy a ticket on another airline.

The incident was racist on the part of the fliers, but AirTran has notoriously shite customer service, so I am not remotely surprised that they handled the situation this way. I won't jump to the conclusion that their decision not to rebook was motivated by other reasoning.

The thing I can't get over about this whole thing is...if these people really thought the plane was about to be bombed or run into a building, just what position on the plane did they think would possibly offer safety from that? None. This was racism, pure and simple.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
gwynn1101
January 3, 2009 7:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@aguacarbonica: Re: I have first-hand experience with AirTran's awful customer service. They offered a group of 8 or 10 of us free flight vouchers after changing the departure gate twice, but only announcing the first change, then not allowing us to board the plane that was still sitting right there. I told them I wouldn't want to fly AirTran ever again, free voucher or no, and began my boycott that day. Oh, and I should mention that my partner and I are black, and the vouchers were only offered after the other affected (white) passengers arrived to complain about not having heard an announcement. We were the first of the group to arrive at the gate and had been told that we should have been paying attention to the announcements.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Paladin_11
January 2, 2009 11:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Airlines should take security seriously of course. But AirTran refusing to reboard this family shows a fundamental lack of respect for the law. These folks are entitled to equal accommodation, the same as every other AirTran passenger. They deserve to be boycotted over this.

I would say they've lost my business over this but the truth is they never had it. I still haven't forgiven them for their fatal crash in the Everglades when they were still ValuJet. That was another instance of their flaunting the law by flying passengers with active oxygen generating cannisters aboard. The purchase of another air/flight certificate and the AirTran name might have fooled some people but it doesn't impress me. They're still the same less than savory company.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Julia789
January 3, 2009 12:01 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I don't blame them for talking about \"the safest place to sit on a plane.\" Just look at recent runway crashes on the news where people died or nearly died!

If a plane crashed or fell from high in the sky, it probably wouldn't matter where you were sitting - but these runway crashes - it could make a big difference! Especially in winter, the chances of skidding off the runway due to ice is higher. And the chance of hitting another plane that is taxiing on the runway, especially in terribly crowded major airports...

Being near an exit can save your life. Look at that runway crash recently, was it Denver? The plane was ON FIRE but people were blocking the exits because they were GETTING THEIR LUGGAGE FROM THE UPPER RACKS! You have to be near an exit to protect your family from idiots who are more concerned with their luggage than the life of everyone on the plane! I don't care if your heart medication is in that suitcase - get the hell out. There are ambulances 100 feet from you on the ground to help you if it's that serious! In those narrow aisles, you couldn't even stampede your way out in a panic. It would bottleneck, killing everyone.

Yes, the chances of crashes happening are low, and it's still \"safer to fly than drive\" but people can't help being nervous. I get very nervous when I fly, even though I rationally tell myself over and over that it's the safest mode of transport and I'd be more likely to be hit by lightning than be in a plane crash. I just can't help it.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
SadSam
January 3, 2009 3:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Julia789:


True, another reason carry on luggage isn't safe.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Julia789
January 3, 2009 10:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SadSam: Seriously. Carry on luggage flies around hitting people on the head, or otherwise making boarding and exiting a slow painful process. It could seriously endanger people in a fire. I can't believe those idiots, with the plane visibly on fire, were stopping on their way to the rubber slides to escape to get their luggage, endangering those behind them!

When they design new planes and build the first test model, they do a safety test of how quickly all passengers can exit in a fire or crash. Volunteers/employees all board the plane, and they blow a whistle and everyone evacuates while it's timed on a stopwatch. I don't think anyone doing those tests ever tried them with carry on luggage aboard, and people who are willing to die rather than leave their laptop or change of clothes on a plane!

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
STrRedWolf
January 3, 2009 12:16 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

They got a refund, and working on getting their United tickets refunded too. AP story on apology, refund.

They were also offered a return flight, but the family-plus-friend has indicated they'll probably decline.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
STrRedWolf
January 3, 2009 12:16 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

BTW, it also has hit Slashdot too:

[yro.slashdot.org]

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
shepd
January 3, 2009 12:20 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Nail 'em to the wall! There's no excuse to do this to anyone, ever, anywhere. Maybe a serveral-million-dollar lawsuit will explain to AirTran why discrimination is criminally wrong!

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
jamesdenver
January 3, 2009 12:28 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yes - I would guess based on the story it was benign idle chatter that every family has probably mused about. I doubt the same concerns would be raised if anyone else was prattling on about airplane nothingness.

By the way this quote was in the CNN story:

The families of Atif Irfan, a tax attorney, and his brother Kashif Irfan, an anesthesiologist

Completely off topic - but that made my brain perk up. Remember the movie American Beauty, when Chris Cooper as the bigot neighbor meets his new gay neighbors? One introduces the other as \"his partner.\" Cooper blurts out \"Partner huh - so what's your business?\" One replies, \"Well, I'm a tax attorney and he's an anesthesiologist.\"

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
2719
January 3, 2009 12:33 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

They need to take them to court and not accept anything in the meantime.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
sinfuly Delicious
January 3, 2009 12:35 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

You people are forgetting one thing. They refused to let them on ANY flight.... not just the one they were scheduled. You honestly think the FBI was able to clear these people in time for them to board their flight?

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
hypochondriac
January 3, 2009 1:49 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sinfuly Delicious: According to the article not only did the FBI clear them. The FBI also asked Airtran to let the 9 passengers re-board the plane.

Why do they need an FBI clearance anyway? Their names weren't on a no fly list. Just because some passengers are paranoid assholes doesn't mean your civil rights go out the window.The FBI asked them a few questions and were satisfied with the answers. what did you want a full background check with character references before they could board the plane?

The passengers were cleared by airport security as well. If that not good enough I guess was should get rid of the TSA and have the FBI handle all security?

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
aguacarbonica
January 3, 2009 12:41 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Right, and I pointed that out. The point that I was making was that if AirTran is unwilling to perform the service that they contracted to perform through no fault of the customer, then they have a responsibility to ensure that the customer still reaches their destination at no additional cost. That is why the onus was on AirTran to rebook them with another airline and to foot the bill for the extra cost. No paying customer who isn't breaking airline rules should have to incur last minute fees from emergency rebooking, especially not for this many people.

Even if AirTran wasn't acting racistly, they still chose to highly inconvenience paying customers in order not to discomfit their racist passengers. That's unacceptable.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Nick1693
January 3, 2009 12:53 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Has anyone called the ACLU yet?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
January 3, 2009 12:53 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Political correctness needs to be put aside. YES -- PROFILING DOES OCCUR. YES -- if you look middle eastern (i.e 9/11 hijackers) you will be watched. YES -- if you say something regarding safety, bombs, etc and appear middle eastern -- you will be pulled off of the flight. Flying the friendly skies is not a RIGHT -- it is a PRIVILEGE. After all the recent terrorism attacks -- we are waiting for the next one to occur here. It is unfortunate, but this is the world we live in

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
rekhihs
January 3, 2009 1:00 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Regarding racial profiling..It is no acceptable. Racial profiling by definition means that people believe that race played a role in deciding whether a person is person is pre-desposed to certain unlawful tendencies.

It also perpuates itself. Take for instance when Black people are racially profiled and are pulled over and searched for drugs. If you pull over 1,000 Black people and 10% have drugs you end up arresting 100 Black people.

If you pull over 100 white people and arrest 10% that is only 10 people. Then when the stats come out, the argument is that we must racially profile because 100 out of 110 people arrested are for drugs are black...of course they are because that is the only people you are pulling over.

It is violation of the law. It is racist and this country can do better. I say search everyone, regardless of race, very thoroughly. That is the best solution if we are truly concerned for our safety.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
seamer
January 3, 2009 1:11 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Airplane safety these days is the big white elephant that takes a crap in your living room and dares you to say something.

I'm wondering why the stewardess didn't talk to the captain, who typically knows where the air marshall is seated.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
ceejeemcbeegee is not here
January 3, 2009 1:30 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

In my opinion, if the FBI gave the passengers the all-clear, the airline should have re-booked them. Period.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
RandomHookup
January 3, 2009 1:37 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

AirTran, the airline formerly known as ValuJet? The airline that managed to crash a jet into the Everglades because they didn't know how to store cargo?


The baggage handlers have crashed more of their planes than terrorists.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
drdom
January 3, 2009 1:42 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Nobody will ever accuse me of being a bleeding heart liberal. I'm a little to the conservative side, to say the least. And even I think AirTran sucks on this one. And even I can recognize it was a violation of their civil rights.

I think I can hear hell freezing over.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Prince Campbell
January 3, 2009 2:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

My thoughts exactly!

An entire pakistani family, which have already gone through all the secret, behind the scenes screening and then TSA airport screening on site, is going to blow up a plane because they were talking about seat safety?

Someone really need to 'out' the accusers in his case.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
January 3, 2009 1:55 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Thanks AirTran I will fly you any day. Profiling is just fine if it keeps me, my family and the rest of the travelling public safe. So they were a nice family unit... umm of course that makes a difference and means that they couldn't possibly by planning something bad.

Badgeman and SkiankingMike are the only ones here that have it right. Keep up the profiling, if we had done that on the morning of 9/11 maybe the twin towers would be standing and thousands of people would still be alive today.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
urabl
January 3, 2009 2:16 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Regarding the accuser:

If you're the type of person who assumes brown = terrorist, why would the fact that the were discussing the safety of their seats put you over the edge? Wouldn't you assume that they were looking forward to dying in the plane crash, so they could be with Allah and 72 virgins for all eternity?

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Pylon83
January 3, 2009 2:55 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

The airline didn't have any good options here. Had they let the people back on the plane, someone would be screaming that they ignored a potential security threat. The FBI didn't have the ability to fully \"clear\" them at the airport. Full background checks couldn't be done that quickly. Clearly AirTran just doesn't care about security. Punish the people who made the ignorant complaint? Ignoring potentially valid security concerns, violate their first amendment rights, chill other potential complaints. Ignore the complaint altogether? AirTran doesn't care about security. Have the flight attendant use his/her judgment to determine that the complaint was illegitimate? Flight attendant isn't competent to make such a determination. Make the decision they did, they get vilified for it. While the situation certainly could have been handled better, AirTran doesn't deserve to be vilified here. With regard to AirTran violating their civil rights, that assertion is complete bull. I suspect that had the people been white, they too would have been denied re-boarding, based on the perceived \"Security\" threat, not based on their race. But leave it to overly litigious American's to jump on the lawsuit bandwagon, which ultimately does nothing but raises prices for everyone.
Moreover, these situations wouldn't even occur if the government wasn't so intent on perpetuating the public's fear that air travel is inherently dangerous. Hijackings, statistically, simply don't happen. There have been a few high profile ones, but on a ratio basis, it's far less than 1/1000th of 1% of all flights. The govt. has created the TSA security theater that simply instills fear in everyone and puts them on edge. That fear leads to these kinds of situations.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
mythago
January 3, 2009 3:41 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Pylon83: Who would be \"screaming\" about a potential security threat? You? The idiot passengers who complained? The FBI? Oh, wait, the FBI asked AirTran to let these folks reboard the plane.

The good option would have been to apologize, thank the family for being good sports about it because you know how it is these days they have to check out every report no matter how unlikely, etc. etc., and reboarded them on the plane.

See, was that so hard? Or are you really that hard up for trolling for comments?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Pylon83
January 3, 2009 3:49 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mythago:
The security nazis, the fear mongers, the racists, conspiracy theorists, all those who are pro intense security. I'm not advocating that they are right, but I'm certainly capable of seeing that there are two sides to this story.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mythago
January 3, 2009 10:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Pylon83: So the 'other side' you are championing is that paranoid racists would complain if AirTran accepted the FBI's clearing this family?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Barney_The Plug_ Frank
January 3, 2009 3:01 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is such a non-story! If this wasn't a 'muslim' family, this story might show up as a small blurb on page 10 in the metro section of your local paper. Lets get back to the real stories like: suicide bombers, beheadings, rocket attacks against Israel, and just basic asshole behavior, etc.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
digitalgimpus
January 3, 2009 3:20 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

It should be noted that AirTran is a decedent of ValuJet. Yes that company the notorious for a crash and many safety problems:

[en.wikipedia.org]

If they have a history of not complying with rules and regulations, what makes you think they'd change?

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
30253
January 3, 2009 4:13 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@digitalgimpus:

It should also be noted that SabreTech illegally loaded oxygen generators onto the aircraft causing the crash.

Get your facts straight!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
January 3, 2009 3:21 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

The Muslim family should do like only US citizens can do: sue the hell out of Air Tran, and slap the biaaatch who wrongly accused them with a defamation of character suit. Maybe that person would then have to pay out on the trouble it caused everyone involved and/or have to perform civil duties such as cleaning the toilets in a Supermax prison for a month.

With all that friggin' annoying as hell security, who the hell cares what the passengers were talking about - unless it was about the pilots.

In the \"heightened security\" US airport world today, without going into a few covert techniques that may or may not work, I would think the only semi-reliable way to commit an act of terrorist would be through the pilots actions...

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Ronin-Democrat
January 3, 2009 3:26 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

well now that family is on the list and can expect audits, courtesy calls fro the fbi, etc.

hey arab people, do like mlk, boycott.
make them feel the pain of money.
that's when people come around.

everytime you take a flight email airtran's pres and media relations and say they lost your business

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
January 3, 2009 4:07 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Anyone who is Muslim, Arab, and/or Middle Eastern probably won't find this surprising. Or, at least, it's nothing new. This kind of crap was extremely common right after 9/11, but I'm slightly disgusted that it hasn't ceased. I don't care if they got a refund. Knowing AirTran, it will probably only cover a happy meal at McDonald's and may be a Greyhound ticket.Everyone knows that security is all over you before you can even get into your gate, especially if you show any signs of being \"from there.\" It's really entertaining that so many of us (Americans) pride our country in the so-called \"change\" that's ahead after Barack [Hussein] Obama has been elected president, and yet bigoted people like the woman on this plane are \"threatened\" by someone with a head scarf on.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
30253
January 3, 2009 4:14 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

FYI to correct the stoy...

At departure time, the Captain of flight 175 informed the airline that there were two federal air marshals onboard who contacted local and federal Washington law enforcement officials for a security related issue onboard the aircraft involving verbal comments made by a passenger and overheard by other passengers. The airline then advised the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). It was determined that all 104 passengers onboard must deplane and passengers, crew, baggage and the aircraft should be re-screened. After the re-screening of the passengers, crew, bags and the aircraft, 95 passengers were allowed to reboard the aircraft and nine were detained for interrogation by the local law enforcement officials, the FBI and the TSA. Flight 175 departed nearly two hours late and arrived safely at its destination.

Later in the day, six of the nine detained passengers approached the customer service counter and asked to be rebooked to Orlando. At the time, the airline had not been notified by the authorities that the passengers were cleared to fly and would not rebook them until receiving said clearance. One passenger in the party became irate and made inappropriate comments. The local law enforcement officials came over and escorted the passengers away from the gate podium.

AirTran Airways complied with all TSA, law enforcement and Homeland Security directives and had no discretion in the matter. The nine passengers involved were all offered full refunds and may fly with AirTran Airways again after having been released from questioning and cleared by the law enforcement officials.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
bagumpity
January 3, 2009 4:35 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

It would be much simpler if we could just have a terrorist-only seating section. Let them board first (they'll need extra time to set up their explosives, and you know how limited overhead space is). Make it fun. Give it a cache' term like Premium Terrorist Level. Free upgrades & guaranteed preferred booking.

That way, when the terrorists apply for their Premium Terrorist frequent flier card, no profiling of any kind will be needed. (Except of course the profiling directed at card holders).

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
MooseOfReason
January 3, 2009 4:47 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

That woman who \"alerted\" the flight attendant, should be arrested.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
ageshin
January 3, 2009 5:09 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is what you get after seven years of fear mongering. It is alway the people who look a bit differant that are picked on. For once I would like to see a group of priests thrown off a plane for talking about the hereafter.

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
January 3, 2009 7:50 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

One would think real terrorists riding a plane they planned to blow into smithereens at 30,000 feet wouldn't be quibbling over the safest seat to chose when boarding.
The FBI should have arrested the eavesdropper on a Federal charge of stupidity and called it a day.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
geoffhazel
January 3, 2009 7:53 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Air tran has apologized. But pretty much says 'we did the right thing'

[www.breitbart.com]

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
bigvicproton
January 3, 2009 12:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

im not sure how it works, but the rule should be that if you complain about strange looking muslims, you should get to come along and miss your flight as you explain in detail to the FBI what is so strange about people you dont understand to the point it makes you all scared...

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
wolfytoo
January 3, 2009 1:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

My suggestions is to go to Air Tran's web site and send a comment. Tell the company, as I have, that you will refuse to fly (at least one trip or indefinitely) until the company morally, ethically and probably legally apologizes and financially compensates this family for the company's horrible action.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
savdavid
January 3, 2009 2:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If we do this for everyone who is annoying or or suspicious there will be NO one flying including me and you.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
pastabatman
January 3, 2009 2:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

to those who think that racial profiling in this case was \"OK\" or that somehow it's fine because the ends justify the means - here's what bugs me about this stuff.

The very IDEA that a terrorist would go on a plane to blow it up and then DISCUSS some element of this WHILE ON THE PLANE while wearing \"muslim clothing\" makes me think that the people reporting (and maybe some here who find this reasonable) are IDIOTIC.

If you see people in traditional muslim clothing on your plane, the truth is, more than likely YOU ARE SAFE from these people. If there was an attack, you can almost guarantee that those people had NOTHING to do with it. Why?

Because true blue terrorists are NOT STUPID. why would they wear \"muslim clothes\" and discuss strategy on the very plane they are attacking? So an idiot in seat 22c will tell the attendant!?

Remember what the 9/11 attackers looked like? They wore milquetoast western clothing, cleanly shaved, conservative haircuts etc and calmly and separately boarded the planes.

On a side note, if there was another large scale orchestrated attack on the US, on US soil, I highly doubt that it would involve the airline industry. It's where we're NOT looking. That's the whole point.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
hypochondriac
January 3, 2009 2:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I love how Airtran says if a Pilot is uncomfortable with flying certain passangers it's his/her right to refuse.

So hypothetically if a racist pilot says he won't fly black people because he believes they're all crooks. Airtran would kick them off? I really doubt it. To me seems like an weak excuse

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
gwynn1101
January 3, 2009 8:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@hypochondriac: Hypothetically, yes, Airtran would kick the black passengers off. They wouldn't cite the real reason for kicking them off; that's not the way institutionalized racism works. A scholarly article that you should read is \"Racial Microaggressions in Everyday Life\", by Derald Wing Sue, et al. Of special interest is the section titled \"The Invisibility and Dynamics of Racial Microaggressions\". See
[www.hrs.cmich.edu]

Reply
","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
banmojo
January 3, 2009 9:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm not fully convinced this was 'racism' and not just 'stupidity/ignorance'. Now, racism exists only in the blinders of stupidity (yes, I know there are some high IQ individuals who were/are racist, but having a high IQ doesn't disqualify one from being 'stupid' in my books - racism only exists within the motherly embrace of stupidity/ignorance, that's a fact).

The airline should have done more to appease this apparently innocent and unfortunately wronged family. Traveling is hard enough as a 'white' man, I can only imagine how nerve wracking it must be for a 'brown' man; add in the FBI butt probing, the delay to travel plans, the uncertainty, anxiety, anger, etc this must have caused to them, and AirTrans has some SERIOUS butt kissing to do.

If they don't, I hope this family sues the living SHIT out of them, puts them outta business, and makes a statement to the rest of the asshole airline companies that they had better start focusing once more on customer satisfaction instead of their bottom line.

Ultimately, once enough customers have had enough of their bullshit (as I have long ago - I just don't fly anymore, period) the airlines will all go outta business, new ones will start up and hopefully learn from the mistakes of the 80s, 90s with the woeful fall in CS, and get back to fundamentals of successful longevity minded business.

Airlines and TSA can both kiss my ass. Peckerhead, good for nothing nazi assholes, the lot of 'em.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
ShadowFalls
January 3, 2009 9:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is the joke that makes you realize how dumb people really are. They see a person that looks like a muslim and automatically assume terrorist? A white guy or a black guy, or a native american can blow up the plane just as well. A person doesn't have to fit a racial profile to be a mass murderer.

This family deserves a face to face public apology from the CEO of AirTran, nothing less.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
GreatWhiteNorth
January 5, 2009 3:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Every time I read about events like this I am reminded of an experience in early 2002 flying out of Miami to the Bahamas... Just as I was getting to the boarding ramp... long after the screening and guys in camo with big guns and nasty grins... I was pulled aside by a staffer who said I had been randomly chosen for a further security check. I joined a group of other passengers also selected for special treatment... at random. Oddly, I was the only white face in the bunch. In fact I was checked first, a check that entailed me explaining the rattle in my carry-on was caused by the coins dumped into it at previous screenings. I got to continue onto the plane with only a moments delay. I didn't get to see any of the other guys get screened and non boarded my flight... wonder what their screening was like. I wonder how randomly chosen they felt.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
davidc
January 5, 2009 7:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Racial profiling, while unfair to some, works for a reason. If you look up the statics of what \"racial profiles\" commit the most violent crimes around the world you will see a trend.

Ignoring this highly accurate trend for the sake of being \"politically correct\" is beyond stupid.

Is it \"fair\" to the people that match the profile, but don't subscribe to the view points / methodologies of the \"bad people\" in same profile?

Yes!!! Why? because the people / society of those \"profiles\" allow and sometimes even promote the type of behavior that gets them profiled in the first place.

If one room of your house is sooooo full of filth that your neighbor smell it, don't expect the neighbor to not take action just cause you won't clean up that room!

The question I have is: Did the people that got pulled off the plane spend ANY time or energy complaining to their spiritual / governmental ties \"back home\" to squash the radical view points to help end the need for \"profiling\"?

Oh right ... not their problem huh? So now it's ours and this is one of the few ways to deal with it.

Reply
");