Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Overzealous AirTran Boots 9 Passengers Off

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Fri Jan 02, 2009 05:40 PM
from the fear-mongering-works dept.
An anonymous readerwrites "On Friday the wonderfully customer centric AirTran decided to remove a family of 9 US born Muslims after a comment between two family members regarding how close to the Jet engine they had been seated. The wonderful part is that after the FBI cleared the family 2 hours later, AirTran refused to fly the family, and refused to rebook them on their way from Washington to Orlando, Florida. The family purchased additional tickets on US Airways later that day, after AirTran requested that the irate father be escorted from their booking podiums by security. This whole story highlights the pathetic customer service we are getting from the Airlines these days — they actually treat us like criminals first and ask questions later. Just don't get me started on Delta." It's nice to see that stupidity still knows no bounds.
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • They got a refund (Score:5, Informative)

    by Linker3000 (626634) on Friday January 02 2009, @05:43PM (#26305409)

    Apparently, they have now received a refund:

    Linky [yahoo.com]

    • by EdIII (1114411) * on Friday January 02 2009, @05:58PM (#26305603)

      Refund has nothing to do with it. It was racism and racial profiling that got them kicked off the plane, interviewed by the FBI, their trip delayed, etc. The financial loss of the original plane tickets is nothing compared to the trauma they have had to deal with mentally.

      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.

      • by Snarfangel (203258) on Friday January 02 2009, @06:18PM (#26305827) Homepage

        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.

        I'd be afraid they'd stop the plane, run around it, then get back in.

      • by MightyYar (622222) on Friday January 02 2009, @06:25PM (#26305937)

        This event is exactly what you could expect when you go around telling people, "If you see something, say something."

        Is this racism? Yes. However, bear in mind that you are asking EVERYONE to go out and look for suspicious activity - even people who are completely unprepared to identify it.

        Anyway, the airline has since apologized and offered to fly them back home for free, and frankly I think that the whole thing got blown out of proportion. Hell, even the family admitted that the FBI was very professional - their beef was with the girls that reported them and the stupid airline, which apparently has some really bad decision makers on the ground.

        • by EvanED (569694) <evaned@gmailPLANCK.com minus physicist> on Friday January 02 2009, @06:44PM (#26306177)

          Anyway, the airline has since apologized and offered to fly them back home for free, and frankly I think that the whole thing got blown out of proportion.

          Though at the same time, if it was in fact blown out of proportion (which I don't quite believe), I suspect that the only reason they got their refund and apology was because it was blown out of proportion.

          • Re:They got a refund (Score:5, Interesting)

            by fishbowl (7759) <`nethack' `at' `cox.net'> on Friday January 02 2009, @07:02PM (#26306413)

            >I suspect that the only reason they got their refund and apology was because it was blown out of proportion.

            They only got the refund after someone in senior management got word that one of the counter clerks had actually refused a request from an FBI agent to issue a new ticket. I guess the potential liability that comes from having faced down the FBI was much greater than the exposure to a civil suit from the passenger....

      • Re:They got a refund (Score:5, Informative)

        by LWATCDR (28044) on Friday January 02 2009, @06:26PM (#26305951) Homepage Journal

        On a good note the FBI even tried to get them back on the plane when they found out it was just silliness.
        A combination of a few silly passengers, dumb rent a cops, and a REALLY STUPID AIRLINE.

      • by PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) on Friday January 02 2009, @06:50PM (#26306255)

        Let's be real honest with each other here.

        Huh, what, why?

        I mean everybody.

        Including me?

        1) A white family of nine people get on a plane.

        Well, I tossed an exception right there. White family of nine . . . that's actually really funny!

        2) A brown family of nine people get on a plane.

        No, they get booted from the plane.

        3) A Chinese family of nine people get on the plane.

        If the Chinese are leaving the country in such numbers, that means that the economy is going to hell in a hand-basket.

        You have been warned.

        • Mormons (Score:5, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 02 2009, @07:12PM (#26306555)

          1) A white family of nine people get on a plane.

          Well, I tossed an exception right there. White family of nine . . . that's actually really funny!

          Wait,

          PolygamousRanchKid doesn't know about Mormons?

      • by MrMr (219533) on Friday January 02 2009, @06:54PM (#26306309)
        It was racism.
        No, It was profiling. A technique that combines racial, religious, ethnic and political bigotry to increase the sense of security of the voters.
        • Re:They got a refund (Score:5, Interesting)

          by bishiraver (707931) on Friday January 02 2009, @06:28PM (#26305985) Homepage

          Anecdote, arising from said "kick me" signs:

          A friend was on tour with Godspeed! You Black Emperor. They were eating at an IHOP, somewhere in the midwest. Now, Godspeed is kind of an odd band. I don't know if they still do, but they used to squat in an abandoned warehouse up in Quebec. They're peacefully anti-establishment. They dress kind of odd (compared to your typical small-town midwestern family).

          Twenty minutes or so after they sat down to their pancakes and eggs, four county sheriffs show up at the restaurant. They sit down and begin questioning the band about terrorism, if they were terrorists, what they were planning on blowing up / shooting up, et cetera.

          In other words, some small-town hick decided to call the police on a potential terror threat because this band looked a little different than they did.

          Also:

          ANY "family of nine" is going to seem damn peculiar on an
          airline flight. It doesn't matter if it's the Brady Bunch.

          Even if they're hardline Catholic? Even if they're hard-line southern baptist? There were several families in the PCA (presbyterian church of america) church I group up in who not only believed makeup and jewelry was evil, but also contraceptives. Each family in that (admittedly, small) portion of the congregation had about six or seven kids. Are these families going to raise a few eyebrows? Sure. Should these families be suspected of being terrorists? Hell no. Sure they're weird, sure they're not the norm.

          But neither was the (rather large) family of Hasidic Jews that were aboard my flight from Atlanta to NYC the other day. They dressed different. They had a large family. If their kids were asking which section of the plane was safest, and if they were safe sitting next to the engine, would that have aroused suspicion? I'm guessing not.

          • by Toonol (1057698) on Friday January 02 2009, @07:05PM (#26306463)
            You are conflating prejudice based on race with prejudice based on culture. They're not the same thing, although there's a large amount of overlap. I think prejudice based on culture is slightly more reasonable, although still prone to much error. After all, culture affects behavior much more than race does.

            Different cultures evidently produce terrorists at different rates. That seems factual. The unresolved question seems to be, to what extent is it reasonable and ethical to subject individuals from problematic cultures to greater scrutiny? Not at all? Is there a certain line that shouldn't be crossed? Is increased scrutiny ok, so long as rights aren't violated?
            • by RichardJenkins (1362463) on Friday January 02 2009, @07:45PM (#26306957)

              Well, the Irish have been terrible terrorists in the UK over the last few decades. Still, the cahnces of a fellow being a murderer just because he's Irish are pretty low, so picking on a chap for that is a little harsh.

      • by ColdWetDog (752185) on Friday January 02 2009, @07:16PM (#26306601) Homepage

        FBI agents were much too polite, merely "requesting" that the airline re-book their travel. Now they probably didn't have the authority, but they still should have *ordered* it when the airline refused.

        I think not. From TFA's, it appears that the FBI agents did everything right and didn't push ANYBODY around. They don't have legal authority to tell the airlines what to do. They seemed perfectly all right with the airline making an ass out of themselves. When you have that much power and authority, and you're in the spot light, that's exactly what you do. Put on your dark glasses and play it cool.

  • US born (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RockMFR (1022315) on Friday January 02 2009, @05:44PM (#26305411)
    I'm glad the summary specifies that they were born in the US. Because otherwise it would be okay to treat them like dirt, right?
      • by ColdWetDog (752185) on Friday January 02 2009, @07:18PM (#26306645) Homepage

        My experience with AirTran was the worst flight I've ever been on. Bastards left us stranded in Atlanta for 8 hours.

        It would have been worse if you were booked in the passenger cabin. Luggage usually makes it it's correct destination.

  • Discrimination (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Adrian Lopez (2615) on Friday January 02 2009, @05:49PM (#26305477) Homepage

    Laissez-faire types will hate me for suggesting this, but this is exactly the sort of thing that should lead to anti-discrimination lawsuits. We make a big deal out of prohibiting racial discrimination in employment and housing, so why not in transportation? It's because Muslims are all terrorists... innit?

    • Re:Discrimination (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 02 2009, @05:59PM (#26305609)

      Well, Muslim-looking-people are the new "black people" when it comes to profiling. I know what it feels like, being that I'm half black and half white. It's easy for people to shrug it off when it has never happened to them. Dirty looks, being spat on, racial slurs, etc. Fortunatly my experiences turned me into the strong person that I am today.

      Hopefully those of you who are unempathetic will never have the shoe on the other foot.

      • Re:Discrimination (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Skye16 (685048) on Friday January 02 2009, @06:13PM (#26305759)

        I donno man, I'm an atheist and had a little old grandma spit on me, too. People can be ignorant savages regardless of skin tone. If you're different than they are with something they identify strongly with, they'll turn on you no matter what.

        Bunch of savages in this town.

      • Re:Discrimination (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Ma8thew (861741) on Friday January 02 2009, @06:02PM (#26305655)
        Yeah, fuck civil rights. Black people shouldn't have made such a fuss about where they could sit on buses, they should have sucked it up and let the free market handle it.
          • Re:Discrimination (Score:5, Informative)

            by Chyeld (713439) <chyeld AT newsguy DOT com> on Friday January 02 2009, @07:01PM (#26306395)

            I've not read a more ignorant, mis-informed, and downright stupid account of the Montgomery Bus Boycott, than yours.

            It did not end because the free market got tired of losing money. It ended because the Federal Government came in (in the form of the Supreme Court) and smacked them upside the head. Said:"Idiots, we already told you to stop that, do it. Now!"

            There had been two previous cases where someone did the exact same thing as Rosa Parks and the legal decision had been in their favor.

            What the 'free' market did was attempt to use the civic governments to crack down on the boycott. They tried to force insurance companys to drop the policies of the folk carpooling. They attempted to fine the taxi drivers who were charging fares the same amount as the normal bus fare. They then firebombed two people's houses (including MLK's) and four black churches. They physically attacked the boycotters.

            Not ONCE did they say "Oh dear, we are losing money, we should stop this crazy thing and act like human beings"

      • Re:Discrimination (Score:5, Insightful)

        by rhizome (115711) on Friday January 02 2009, @06:39PM (#26306133) Homepage

        If anybody on a plane makes a claim that a group of people are acting auspicious then they have very little choice.

        Anybody? Really? So there's no line to be drawn, can't be too safe, etc.? How about we have some First Amendment repercussions for the complainers? Certainly yelling "terrorist!" in a crowded airplane could be against the law just like "fire" in a crowded theater is.

        The complainers should be punished, and this is where the airline got it wrong: the Muslim Nine should have been let back on and the complainers gotten kicked off the plane and should have lost their fares.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 02 2009, @05:49PM (#26305485)

    ..that the "real terrorists" didn't succeed in their plots to "terrorize" Americans.

  • by Ma8thew (861741) on Friday January 02 2009, @05:51PM (#26305509)
    I bet the xenophobic idiot who reported their 'suspicious comments' is pleased with themselves, having delayed their flight by 2 hours.
      • by HangingChad (677530) on Friday January 02 2009, @06:24PM (#26305927) Homepage

        If anyone is talking about a "bomb" or what have you, they should be reported. Better safe and late then dead and never arriving.

        This group never said anything about a bomb. A professional terrorist wouldn't wander down the isle speculating about the best place to put one, either. What does it say about airport security that people who have been through a thorough screening can still arouse suspicion with a casual comment? No faith in Homeland Security or the billions we're spending on airport security?

        I am constantly amazed at the level of ignorance and stupidity this country displays toward security. It's gutless and unreasoned. There are something like 1.2 billion Muslims on the planet, around 22% of the total population of the planet! We have problems with a few thousand of them. How long are we going to use 9-11 to justify continued fear and ignorance?

        Pathetic.

  • by Atario (673917) on Friday January 02 2009, @06:04PM (#26305669) Homepage

    I just dread the day terrorists start pulling bombings of buses or trains or truck weigh stations or busy freeways or malls or what-have-you in the US. Because that day, all the stupidity we see in airports and airplanes will be copied into those venues too.

    Unless, of course, we as a people finally pull our heads out instead.

  • Is this legal ? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bheading (467684) on Friday January 02 2009, @06:07PM (#26305701)

    I'm reasonably sure in Europe you could be sued if you refused to carry someone based on their religion or racial background - I have a feeling this is true in the US also ? If so, I hope they take this stupid airline to the cleaners. Even setting the obvious discrimination aside, there was no excuse for denying them travel given that the FBI had cleared them.

  • Similar story... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by KStieers (84864) on Friday January 02 2009, @06:21PM (#26305871)
    Minnesota Public Radio's "The Story" show with Dick Gordon did a piece on Mohamed Fikry, an almost 5 million mile customer with American Airlines... and they pulled the SAME CRAP. Twice! Once because a customer heard him speaking "a foreign language on the phone" (it was Spanish) and once because a flight attendant thought she'd seen him "backstage". 5 Million Miles! with the same airline... And to top it off, they had the FBI pull him from the plane AFTER they flew to the destination! If he were such a threat, why let him fly at ALL... Gotta love airline customer service. Link to the story http://thestory.org/archive/the_story_669_Business_Class_Terrorist.mp3/view [thestory.org]
  • by Newer Guy (520108) on Friday January 02 2009, @06:52PM (#26306277)

    First off, this WAS DISCRIMINATION and RACISM!...PERIOD

    Second off, NOTHING that the airlines are doing accounts to a RATS ASS at improving ANY air security. NOT THE TSA, NOT THE FBI, NOT THE AIR MARSHALLS...NOTHING!

    What HAS helped are two things: First the cabin doors are hardened and second, the pilots have to IMMEDIATELY put the plane on the ground in case of ANY hijacking or other problem!

    If these two policies wewre in place on 9/11/2001, both planes from Boston would have landed in Providence or Hartford and NOTHING would have happened to the Trade Center towers! NOTHING would have happened to the Pentagon and the plane that crashed in PA would have landed in Pittsburgh safely.

    The whole thing of 'airline security' is a money wasting bullshit facade-and the people involved take themselves WAY TOO SERIOUSLY!!

    • Re:"bomb" (Score:5, Informative)

      by NeutronCowboy (896098) on Friday January 02 2009, @06:00PM (#26305631)

      Actually, you misread. The article at CNN explicitly stated: "The conversation did not contain the words "bomb," "explosion," "terror" or other words that might have aroused suspicion, Atif Irfan said."
      See linky: http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/01/02/family.grounded/index.html [cnn.com]

      Not to mention that merely saying the word bomb and attack is not cause for concern. Are we really less capable than the various chat bots for understanding context?

    • by rcw-home (122017) on Friday January 02 2009, @06:04PM (#26305667)

      Be careful what you say at airports and on planes. Never get irate or argue at airports and on planes.

      That's correct. In fact, it's important to remember the cardinal rule of the airline business: The customer is always wrong.

    • by whoever57 (658626) on Friday January 02 2009, @06:05PM (#26305683) Journal

      The airline already apologized, refunded the money, and paid for the other flight the family took that trip. Just get over it.

      The article does not say that the airline paid for the other flight. It says that the airline offered to pay for the other flight. I'm guessing that the offer requires the family to release the airline of all liability.

      Also, other reports stated that the airline was refusing to pay the family's extra cost of taking the other flight, which implies that the offer only came after this became a national news issue. In other words, the offer of a refund only came about because people did not get over it.

    • by Chyeld (713439) <chyeld AT newsguy DOT com> on Friday January 02 2009, @06:12PM (#26305751)

      So let me get this straight, you get on a plane and share your opinion that you'd rather not sit next to the engine, because it's not a safe spot in an accident, and you expect to be taken off of the flight, reported to the FBI, and embarrassed by being refused to be allowed back on or to take another flight later on despite the fact that you've been screened a second time and cleared by the FBI.

      That, according to you, is a level headed response? An appropriate response?

      Are you one of those folk who complain that rape victims had it coming, they should have known not to do whatever it was that caused them to catch the rapist's eye?

        • by Chyeld (713439) <chyeld AT newsguy DOT com> on Friday January 02 2009, @06:50PM (#26306257)

          Who decided to 'pull the plane over' and kick them of? The pilot.

          Who pays the pilot? The airline.

          Who decided, once they were cleared by the FBI, that they couldn't get back on that plane? The airline.

          Who decided, once they couldn't get on that flight, that they couldn't get on any AirTran flight? The airline.

          Do I give a fuck about the other passengers or what they may or may not have started? No. The world is full of clueless twits. The difference between them and the airline's clueless twits is that they weren't the ones exerting their authority in the matter to make things worse.

    • by eln (21727) on Friday January 02 2009, @06:12PM (#26305755) Homepage

      The passengers were at fault for being racists and reporting a non-issue. The airline was not at fault for handing the matter over to the FBI when the issue was reported. The FBI did the right thing by clearing the family. However, the airline WAS at fault for refusing to let the family fly on any future flight even after they had been cleared by the FBI. There's no legitimate (non-discriminatory) reason to do that given the circumstances.

      These people likely had their whole vacation planned, and this incident screwed up their plans. One article said they were going to a religious conference, and it's unlikely that conference was delayed while they tried to make other travel arrangements. On top of all of that, they were made to feel like second-class citizens simply because they were brown and Muslim.

      They have good cause for a lawsuit against the airline, and I think they should file one. I'm not talking millions of dollars here, but the airline needs to get slapped in court to make them think twice next time a situation like this crops up.

      The fact that incidents like this keep happening show that bin Laden and his cohorts succeeded beyond their wildest dreams on 9/11.

    • by bishiraver (707931) on Friday January 02 2009, @06:46PM (#26306205) Homepage

      Our intervention in the middle east over the past 200 years has bread suicide bombers who want us the fuck out of their lives. Not the religion.

      99% of all terrorist acts are committed by religions nutjobs

      Got a reference, bub?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_terrorism [wikipedia.org]
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-terrorism [wikipedia.org]
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalist_terrorism [wikipedia.org]
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_violence [wikipedia.org]

      There are many terrorist organizations which are not religious.

      In fact, one could argue that a majority of the religious terrorism in the middle east is actually nationalist terrorism disguised as religious extremism. If you look at the causes which drive people to the al-qaida bootcamps: oppression (by US forces or otherwise - AQ was not active in Iraq before we had a military presence there), lower standards of living, and so forth. People turn to religion when times get tough. Other people use that to twist the religion. They convince people at the end of their rope that the only thing that will make things better for them, their family, and their country is to go blow up the people fucking them over.

      The fact your PC idiots refuse to wake up from your delusional world is why we are in for a world of hurt over the next 4-8 years.

      The fact that you ignorant asshats refuse to wake up from your delusional world of hate and bigotry, and perhaps read why people hate the US instead of believing the line "because we're not muslim" is why we've had muslim terrorist attacks on this country and its consulates. Look up the term blowback.