Location Transport

Do you think the airline was correct in making these passengers get off the plane? (link included)?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090102/ap_on_re_us/muslim_passengers_removed "WASHINGTON – Nine Muslim passengers were kicked off a flight from Washington, D.C., to Florida after other passengers reported hearing a suspicious remark about airplane security. AirTran Airways spokesman Tad Hutcheson called the incident on the New Year's Day flight from Reagan National Airport to Orlando, Fla., a misunderstanding, but defended the company's response. He said the airline followed federal rules and did nothing wrong. Irfan told the newspaper he thought he and the others were profiled because of their appearance. The men had beards and the women wore headscarves, traditional Muslim attire. The family was upset that AirTran didn't allow the Muslim passengers to book another flight. They eventually made it to their destination on a US Airways flight. Hutcheson said the passengers were given a full refund and are welcome to fly on AirTran now that the investigation is complete. Hutcheson and a federal Transportation Security Administration spokeswoman said the pilot was right to postpone the flight. "At the end of the day, people got on and made comments they shouldn't have made on the airplane, and other people heard them," Hutcheson said. "Other people heard them, misconstrued them. It just so happened these people were of Muslim faith and appearance. It escalated, it got out of hand and everyone took precautions." One of the passengers removed, Abdur Razack Aziz, said he will consider a lawsuit." Does it disturb you that they are considering suing Air Tran? Won't that make other airlines reluctant to deboard passengers that sound suspicious? Is that really fair? I copied only some of the aritcel, not all of it b/c it was really long, so please refer to the link above for the complete article

Public Comments

1. They should have special flights for muslims. Or seperate trains... the Germans have a natural ability to pack thousands of people onto trains, maybe they'll be able to help.
2. They should have made them walk
3. yes, if they can't handle it get them to have the rest of their brethren behave.
4. The airline followed Federal Law so no suing will occur. A waste of time. As for the remarks, in today's society you have to be extra careful what you say. If ignorant morons like liberal loons can't understand that, they deserve what they get.
5. Yes they were correct. Any complaint has to be looked into thoroughly -- regardless of who it is.
6. Yes
7. The pilot made the decision not to transport people who he thought were not taking airline security seriously enough. If they had been white anglo saxon protestants in blue jeans and baseball caps, we wouldn't be having this discussion. - Stuart
8. I'm glad that the airline actually did something rather than nothing. How ever, I have watched over the last few years as we as Americans have accepted more and more inconvenience in the name of show security. I think that the towel heads should not sue as the airline was acting in a responsible way to protect the other passengers. I do agree that should they successfully sue, then other airlines may be less inclined to deboard passengers. We will have to watch and see what happens.
9. People need to understand you cannot mention the word bomb at an airport. A friend of mine had two visitors from Germany a few years ago and when they were at the airport to return home, one of them said the word bomb. He was pulled aside and though he was deemed to be harmless, he was not allowed to board a plane for 24 hours. As I said, he was German. You simply can't say those kind of things at an airport, no matter what religion or nationality you are.
10. Yay Airtran. Guess I won't be flying US Airways anytime soon.
11. The more important question is what was gained by treating them like second class citizens. What kind of precedent does it set. What does it teach our children about humanity and dignity and co-operation with our fellow human beings. And finally what does this type of stereotyping do to our own selves our psyche, our vision of ourselves and the place we want to create in the world.
12. History dictates the need for security.
13. They make people get off for raising their voices or making a complaint, why not for making suspicious comments? It has nothing to do with racism or appearance since these "Muslim" dressers already are allowed extra privileges. I am a well dressed white American and I have to take off my shoes, coat, any excess clothes. I have had my bra wanded, my purse searched and my legs patted down. Why? Why am I singled out and these women aren't? They don't have to take off all their robes and headdresses? Why is their modesty more important than mine? If they don't want to follow the rules and keep their mouths shut, then they can suffer the consequences. Air travel is a privilege. It's not a right.
14. there was a simliar case couple years back and those people did sue and was or is going to try to sue the people for turning them in. People speculated that they did that on purpose to sue. Congress did pass law saying that citizens can be protected if they turn in someone who may have be suscipous.
15. No, because if these people were white we wouldn't be having this conversation...they wouldn't have been kicked off the plane. "My brother and his wife were discussing some aspect of airport security," Irfan said. "The only thing my brother said was, 'Wow, the jets are right next to my window.'" "The FBI agents actually cleared our names," Inayet Sahin, one of the family members kicked off the flight, told CNN. "They went on our behalf and spoke to the airlines and said, 'There is no suspicious activity here. They are clear. Please let them get on a flight so they can go on their vacation,' and they still refused." It disturbs me that our citizentry is so scared.
16. This is the consequence of a politically correct society. We have a right to be suspicious of Islamic people .
17. That's really sad! Judging on people and charging them with murder, just because of their appearance!!
18. I disagree with the decision not to let them reboard after it was shown to be a misunderstanding--if not the original flight because of the other scaredy-cat passengers, then the next flight. I think Al-Qaeda's whole goal with the WTC attack was to get us too frightened to continue being who we are, and it makes me sad to see them succeeding. I also have to say that airport security is much more show than substance--designed to allay the fears of travelers though still entirely breachable by any competent actor. If they were providing real security, I wouldn't mind so much, but to experience all of this inspection and inconvenience for the illusion of security is just galling.
19. They where right in investigating.The airlines had a complaint and did their job to that point. The safety of all must be priority. They where completely wrong in not allowing them to re board once they where cleared by security. The truth is a terrorist threat can be anyone or look like anything.Extremist are not limited to Muslim, arab or arab looking. I feel the apology,reimbursement and offer to pay for return ticket was only a peace offering after learning the guy was a lawyer. Those people where racially profiled. Reminds me of something from a recent movie about such a thing. Many muslim don't have a beard or wear a headscarf.