secret service agent denied boarding

[dallas dude]

Folks,

A little more background on this storm in a tea cup.

The SS agent's E-2 paperwork was incorrectly filled out TWICE.

The Captain then requested the correct paperwork, at which point the SS agent became irate.

The Duty Manager at AA's SOC became involved and decided it was inappropriate to board an irate passenger , in possession of a loaded weapon.

The subsequent non story about the Captain's "racial" decision clearly has/had no merit.

Guv, I'll expect you to apologise accordingly (not).

Today, CNN is reporting that the said SS agent is planning to file a lawsuit.

At the rate he's going, and as unbalanced as he appears to be, he may need to file for unemployment too!

This was NEVER, repeat NEVER, about any underlying racial overtones at AA. They do not exist.

There are those who expect our World to change for them and then there's the rest of us, who change to fit into our World.

[The Guvnor]

Well, to be fair, we were all working under hypothesis - including yourself, DallasDude. Where did you get this latest information from? How come there were two sets of paperwork - who prepared the second? What were the errors on them?

Also to be fair, you'd have been pretty upset if your first flight had been cancelled; the paperwork you'd been given (by whoever) was incorrect, and now you're getting grief from someone else.

I certainly don't think that he'd have posed a threat to have had on board - after all, to get within inches of the President with a firearm he'd have been rigorously psychologically profiled - but equally I can understand the concerns of the AA personnel especially in the context of the recent attacks.

I also think you're gooing well out on a limb by saying that racism doesn't exist at AA. As long as you employ humans, then they will have their personal likes, dislikes and prejudices.

Even if it's just Okies vs Texans. <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

[747FOCAL]

I think after last years events that a pilot should be able to remove, without question, anyone he/she sees fit from any flight.

dallas dude- You forgot those that choose to try and strangle the rest of the world into what they want. Kinda like a few fellas we Yanks would seriously like to cut the M#$#$ther F&KI&NG balls off of.

[Paterbrat]

Sad though it may seem the events of the 11th have tended to tilt the table slightly in that the suicidaly inclined hijackers were all Arabs. This combined with the overwhelming predominance of Arabs in the subsequent events involving Al Queda has meant that the spotlight is on this segment of the population.
It will be unavoidable not to view any suspicious actions by Arabs without a degree of shading created by recent events, and yes it is unavoidably racial profiling. If you are in fear of your life it does lead to a degree of paranoia otherwise known as a heightened sense of self preservation. Perhaps understandable under the circumstances

[oncemorealoft]

CNN are apparently now reporting that the pilot has filed a misconduct charge with the internal affairs division of the Secret Service, a branch of the Treasury Department.

The agent, according to CNN, has retained an attorney and is considering his
options.

Dallas Dude is well-informed and the evidence (as opposed to the speculation by various parties) is that the Captain took a reasonable decision in a difficult situation which is being wholeheartedly supported by his Managers and colleagues. Anyone seeking to turn this into a racial issue is being disingenuous at the very least.

[West Coast]

With the details coming out in the wash now, and assuming its correct, how could he have let him onboard? A man with a gun with an attitude. The more I hear, the more I know that skipper made the correct decision.

[GlueBall]

<a href="http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/020103/dath025_1.html" target="_blank">AA Captain's Offical Report</a> <img src="eek.gif" border="0">

[FLARE DAMIT]

Once again in this strange world we live, the extremes of so called "political correctness" rears its ugly head where minorities can hold the majorities to ransom by shouting to any one(especially a lawyer), that simple singular word "racsist". Oh boy what a world?.

[WhatsaLizad?]

<a href="http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/020103/dath025_1.html" target="_blank">http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/020103/dath025_1.html</a>


American Holds Firm on Protecting the Safety of Its Passengers
FORT WORTH, Texas, Jan. 3 /PRNewswire/ -- American Airlines today said it would not be deterred from protecting the safety of its passengers by frivolous claims of racial profiling asserted by the Washington, D.C. law firm of Relman & Associates.

The company said: "American carries out its security obligations according to the guidelines provided by the Federal government. Those guidelines are applied equally among all passengers, and the company vigorously resents any suggestion of racial discrimination.

"Threats of lawsuits will not deter us from justly applying the security programs established to protect the tens of millions of customers who entrust us with their lives each year.''

American finds the "facts'' released by the law firm today surprising and irresponsible since the firm has not discussed this incident with any American Airlines employee involved. Airline employees said the passenger, an armed Secret Service agent, behaved inappropriately.

The airline said that, while it also would prefer to resolve this situation in an amicable way, it cannot allow misleading information to go uncorrected.

American therefore feels obligated to release the attached copies of incident reports filed by the captain of Flight 363 and the manager of the airline's System Operations Control center who spoke directly with the passenger.

"These reports paint a clear and consistent picture of what occurred during this agent's attempt to board Flight 363,'' the airline said. "While we'll let the reports speak for themselves, we will reiterate that American will not allow any armed individual onboard, regardless of who he or she is, if that person is angry or acting in a manner that the crew believes could jeopardize the safety of the flight.''

American can confirm that, as stated in the captain's report, he has filed a letter of complaint with the Secret Service.

As this incident is now under investigation by the Secret Service, American cannot comment beyond this statement.


Text of Captain's Statement

Misconduct of Armed Passenger

Debrief Detail:


Armed passenger * flight 363 BWI/DFW. Flight was scheduled to leave at 1715. I was notified that due to a mechanical at the next gate - they would hold our push for approximately 30-40 minutes to try to accommodate those pax going to DFW. A few moments later the *1 flt attendant brought to my attention that she and other flt att were concerned about the actions of one of the pax. This pax left the aircraft with carryon bags still in his seat. He told the flt att. Please don't leave without him. While the pax was away a flt att observed books in the individuals seat which were written in what she assessed was Arabic style print. Upon further investigation - when the individual came back it was determined that he was in fact our 'armed passenger'. I then decided to stop my pre-flt and review the AA E2. The form was unreadable because it was a carbon-copy and there were missing items. I then had the agent come back and recheck his credentials and give me a new AA E2. Again this form was filled out improperly. I left my seat to speak to the individual. He appeared nervous and anxious. With all the forms that I received in error I determined that the most prudent course of action was to call dispatch to phone patch me to the SOC. I asked them to fax me a copy of what the Secret Service credentials looks like. He advised me that BWI should have this information. BWI in fact does not. We still were accommodating the connecting passengers and had time to further determine the proper credentials of this person. While all this was going on the individual approached me in front of the lead agent and asked why he was being denied boarding for so long. I disclosed to him that the paper work was not correct and that I needed to have this fixed before he would be accommodated. This was an AA issue and none of his concern. At this time the individual became very hostile with me. Upon all the information that I had up to this point - I had doubt as to his actual representation as a Special Agent for the Secret Service. 1. *Two improperly filled out AA Form E2. 2. *Flt atts bringing to my attention what appeared to be strange behavior. 3. *Hostility toward me for trying to correct my required paper work. I then had the Maryland Airport Authority police determine his proper ID by calling the Secret Service as to his legitimate status. This took about ten minutes to complete. In the interim I was given a third improperly filled out AA Form E2. This had no signature of the LEO. No initial as to the traveling status of the officer. No phone number. While the police were determining the proper status of this individual this person came up to me with loud abusive comments as to his being denied boarding. That he has the powers of the White House behind him and that this is not of [sic] the end of this matter. The police agreed with me that there was a legitimate concern because of his unprofessional behavior. This was all in full view of every passenger boarding the flight. He then said he would not board the flt. As it turned out he was an actual LEO. After the events of 9/11 and another of our fls targeted with explosives and causing injury to a flt att I absolutely felt correct in having this individuals [sic] identification validated. After three improper AA Form E2s [sic] and the behavior of this individual, I needed to be 100% sure of his credentials. If he just let us do our job of getting the paper work in order, he would have been boarded, and it would have been a pleasure to carry an 'armed passenger'. With the lives of the entire passengers and crew, I was uncomfortable with his actions and did what a Captain should do and edge toward the side of safety and not move the aircraft until I'm confident that all issues are satisfied before taking off. As a note, I am filling [sic] a misconduct report with the Secret Services Internal Affairs division. I would suggest that AA Security follow up on this matter because this individual made the entire crew uncomfortable with his actions and absolutely with his confrontational behavior toward me. The police officer who was very helpful was officer (redacted). The case # was (redacted). The Secret Service Agent's name was (redacted). Passports and fraudulent IDs can easily be altered to look passable. With all the items to this event not adding up, I absolutely believe I acted in the best interest of my crew, pax and AA.

Text of SOC Manager's Statement:

I was working as Center Manager on Christmas and received a call from Captain (employee number ) flying flight 363 from BWI/DFW. The Captain had a concern about a passenger onboard his flight. The Captain first requested a fax containing all wanted terrorist photos that American had available. I explained that this was not possible and asked exactly what problem he was encountering. He said that he received paperwork for a passenger that stated he was a Secret Service Agent and would be traveling armed. The Captain said that the paperwork contained scratched out flight numbers and may have been altered. I then suggested that the Captain request new paperwork. The Captain called back again and stated the he was still questioning the validity of this passenger working for the Secret Service because the secret service agent had failed to fill the paperwork out properly again. I asked if he had looked at the agent credentials. He said you work for the airline, you know how easy it would be to get fake I.D. I suggested that I could call the Secret Service and verify that this passenger was in fact an agent. I asked the Captain to request the agent's superiors [sic] name and number. The Captain said that we should not use his information because he could have a friend answering the phone when we called. I then suggested get the local police to verify the I.D. since, being located at BWI, they would have exposure to Secret Service I.D.'s and contact phone numbers. The next phone call I received was from the AA ticket agent at BWI. He said that the Secret Service agent had verbally abused the Captain and that the Captain was denying him boarding. I asked to speak to the police officer that was witness to this, who then verified what the ticket agent had stated. Based on this, I then decided to end boarding to this passenger on future AA flights. Later, I received a call from the AA ticket agent at BWI and was asked to talk to this Secret Service Agent. I then heard the Secret Service Agent's side of the story. He admitted to not properly filling out the paperwork for carrying a weapon; not once, but twice. He also admitted to losing his temper with the Captain because he was asked for his ID five separate times. When he asked why he was denied future boarding, I explained that I could not expose AA crews or passengers to abuse. He said he was being discriminated against, wanted my bosses [sic] name, and threatened that he would have my job. He was going to take this to the highest authority. I asked for his superior's name and contacted him. I explained the situation to the superior. He confirmed that this man did work for the Secret Service, and would contact him. A short time later the agent's superior called back and said that he was sorry for losing his temper and would like to travel out of DCA the next day. He then stated that the agent was of Middle Eastern descent. I explained to the superior that I did not know this and that there was no discrimination in the denied boarding process with SOC. I was 1,000 miles away from the situation and handled it as we would for any unruly passenger. We agreed the agent could travel the next day.

SOC Center Manager - American Airlines

[Hold at Saffa]

Yes indeed, thanks Glueball.
If the AA cdr's version of events is accurate, then I completely support his decision. Nearly denied boarding to the bodyguard of an EU cabinet minister last year in similar circumstances. My company places final authority in such matters with me alone, and will back me to the hilt thereafter. Doesn't AA support their cdr's in the same way? If not, why not?

[Donkey Duke]

All I know is that American Airlines cannot get a break lately in the press. All of the hype after 9-11, the crash in JFK, the shoe bomber, and then this incident cannot be helping AA's ticket sales.
Let's hope it stops.

Donkey Duke <img src="cool.gif" border="0"> <img src="cool.gif" border="0">

[reportfurther]

An American secret service agent of Arab descent who was ejected from a flight on his way to protect President George W Bush has started legal proceedings.

The man's lawyers claim his ethnicity was the sole reason for his removal from the plane.

The decorated agent was on his way to the President's ranch when the incident occurred.

He was asked several times to produce his secret service identification, which he did.

A source at the White House also verified his credentials.

However, an American Airlines pilot decided he did not want the man on his plane.

Lawyer John Relman is representing the agent.

"The only reason why he wasn't allowed on that plane was because he is an American of Arab descent," Mr Relman said.

"This is a case of discrimination."

The pilot says he was trying to act in the best interests of his crew.

[dallas dude]

So,guv,

Now that the internal information that was referred to in my previous posts is finally available to you, will you now admit that you may have been a mite quick to criticise the Captain?

Again, for your consideration, AA literally BENDS OVER BACKWARDS to accomodate ALL passengers, irrespective of race and gender.

Let me know when your inaugural flight will take place, I'll book some vacation. Around April 2002, isn't it?

I'd hate to miss it.

[broadreach]

For what it's worth, my Netscape home page today carried a poll asking "Should pilots be allowed to remove passengers for security reasons?".

Doh....

Most of the votes seemed to think "doh" as well. Out of 58,000 or so 95% replied "yes". If they are representative of the flying public perhaps AA is not as likely to lose passengers as some would think - quite the opposite perhaps.

[ironbutt57]

And this person protects the president?...race card immediately played by this person?...

[411A]

Think he should be booted OUT of the Secret Service....pronto!

[Steepclimb]

Chip on his shoulder, he should know better than anyone, playing the race card. Trying the old, 'I have friends in high places' gambit is so unprofessional. It all adds up to a career ending mistake which he's compounding by going the legal route. I suspect he'll be told to drop it or else, soon. Followed by a serious bollocking.


What amazes me is that he could think he was going to get away with it in todays climate. Of course he was singled out because of his ethnic appearance AND his behaviour. He should get used to it, it's happened to me for years going through Heathrow etc. Single Irish man travelling alone, not wearing a suit. They always said it was random, 'Of course it is' I'd say smilingly, usually receiving a nod of agreement in return.

People should get used to it.

[DownIn3Green]

Dallas Dude!!!

You're the Man!!!

First my apologies if I contributed to the shut down of the "other" thread on this issue by my ill-advised posts.

Also, I'm not a big fan of AA, although that may be partly in fact that you don't go where I usually go, when I want to go.

I will say when I do ride, I enjoy your extra leg room in economy.

And if I ever do ride with you again I will certinally appreciate your Captains' extra vigilance regarding the safety and security of their passengers.

Current events notwithstanding, your Captain in this instance acted just as I would hope every Captain, F/O or any other airline employee,(no matter what colors are on the side of their airplanes)would act.

Well done for the day, and well done for your post to shut up Goober...

[The Guvnor]

Not so fast, Dallas Dude - there was a report on this in PM on Radio 4 yesterday ... saying that "several" passengers had come forward to confirm the agent's version of events.

Against that, you have the SOC Manager's statement, which doesn't tie up wholly with the captain's report.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs, as the article says AA has all the US government business and the USSS agent's ticket had "US Government" all over it - which should have been a bit of a give-away as well.

And given that on the third set of documentation the only things missing were a signature, initial and phone number, don't you think that the easiest thing would have been for the captain to say "hey, you have to do this, this, and this?"

Frankly, if I'd had a flight cancelled on me, had been hassled because of my ethnic origins and had to fill out the same paperwork three times I'd have been pretty p*ssed as well.

On the other hand; sounds like just another day in Africa! :)

[747FOCAL]

What, are The Guv's planes a little noisy?

[radeng]

As a user of American Airlines, the captain's actions in this case reinforce my confidence in flying with them.

[SaturnV]

According to today's Washington Post. this is the book the flight attendant thought was in Arabic: :

"Kelli M. Evans, another of the agent's lawyers, said the book, written in English, was "The Crusades Through Arab Eyes" by Amin Maalouf.

Maalouf is Lebanese, writes often in French, and has won the Prix de Goncourt, which (the few) Francophiles on PPRune will recognize as quite an honor. The Crusades book was published in December 1999.

[dallas dude]

guv or walter mitty (ppruner's, you choose),

My last post to you as I don't have quite as much time to waste as you apparently do.

Despite the HUGE hints I dropped regarding AA backing up the Captain (which if you really knew a tenth as much as you claim ought to have set your alarm bells ringing!) before the rest of this nonsense was made public you relied on a newspaper report, a supposition (or suppository) that AA needed in this case to be buddy, buddy with APA so we'd "give back" and now a radio report claiming to support the SS agent. You still don't recognise the nose on your face, do you?

Really, it's OK to be wrong once in a while. Try it. Folks may actually respect you instead of watching that miniscule remnant of credibility you possess head rapidly towards the nearest dumpster.

You should realise that although there are always new people to fool or try to impress, the truth ALWAYS comes out eventually and ppruners then can decide for themselves who to believe and who to throw custard pies at.

You may yet become the pprune's weakest link.

Again, when in April 2002 will your inaugural flight be?

[Green Guard]

It is interesting how much we are less and less pilots who sometimes have to use common sense
and more and more robots as the time goes by.
Captain did what he did.I don`t blame him I don`t defend him.Let him defend himself.
What is obvious is that SS agent acquired an attitude,because he was right,he did not like to make a further delay,he had Very Important job to do,he was there to help the Captain and all the others,yet he was treated like a criminal as he was dealing with a Captain and his crew who too had an "attitude".
Guv didn`t need to be a rocket scientist just to notice if the rocket went off course.Right?

[DownIn3Green]

GrandP,

You are so right...send him back!!!

Probably nothing will happen to him however because of his race...

[Shore Guy]

Glad to see AA supporting their captain so quickly and so publicly. I seriously doubt the SS agent will be terminated, for many reasons, one being his race/ethnicity (Yes, there are two sets of rules for behavior here in the states). But I sure would like to see him assigned to pooper-scooper duty behind the Prez’s pooches.

Used to be based in the DC area, and carried a lot of SS and Treasury types. Never had a problem, but always wondered why they were required to carry weapons while off (official) duty.

[AAL_Silverbird]

Dear Guv,

Did the “several” passengers know in advance they were sitting next to an armed passenger? If they did then his cover was blown and it was time for him to collect his bags and leave the plane for his own safety as well as the safety of the passengers. If the passengers didn’t know his status then yes it would look like the Captain had singled him out for special treatment, not because he was an American of Arab descent but because he was carrying a GUN!

Do you know what a Secret Service badge and ID look like? I don’t! Are you going to let any Tom, Dick or Harry with a shiny badge and fancy paper work on board your aircraft if you aren’t 100% sure as to who that person claims to be? Then he can’t fill out the paper work correctly and you suggest for the Captain to assist him! That’s a good one! What’s next let the guy borrow your lighter so he can light his shoe? Even the BWI cops thought he was acting “unprofessional”.

Anyone packing a gun onboard an aircraft after 9/11 should be prepared to receive “special attention” and not to be surprised if the Captain expects all the I’s dotted and all the t’s crossed. He might even want to see the ID several times. If the LEO gets hostile, or belligerent about this treatment then I would suggest he put his weapon in his checked baggage and travel like all the other passengers.

I’ve had several armed LEOs onboard since 9/11 and they have all acted very professional and have blended in with the rest of the passengers in the back. The Captain did the right thing in leaving him behind to cool off.

[bblank]

First, this is an interesting thread concerning important issues. The last thread got closed down when it diverged from those issues.

As BIK_116.80 just posted, Reuters has reported the agent's name. You can google his home address and home purchase price if you are interested. It is beyond belief that a Secret Service agent in his right mind would invite such publicity or that the Secret Service would tolerate such notoriety. (It may be that the press does not yet have the name correct but sooner or later it will.)

So far the major print media has been pretty even-handed. Television will be another matter and the mess has spilled over. Good Morning America (ABC) interviewed one of the agent's lawyers and a passenger who supports the agent's story. The passenger more or less said that the F/A searched the man's belongings without permission when he left the plane. The passenger denied that the agent lost his cool. The segment also showed a clip of the President uttering his famous "madder than heck" words. AA's side of the story was limited to a printed policy statement that was shown on screen. In the print media the agent's lawyer was quoted that "It was the pilot who was rude, unprofessional and demeaning." The passenger was not asked to comment on that statement.

I have had the opportunity to observe the legalities of some employment issues and it is my impression that it is not so important that an action is justified as it is that the action is carried out no differently than in prior situations. Any singularities are legal red flags. Consider the Captain's statement "when the individual came back it was determined that he was in fact our 'armed passenger'. I then decided to stop my pre-flt and review the AA E2." This does not appear to have been a standard inspection of paperwork. Later in the report the Captain justifies his suspicions by saying that the F/As (plural) brought to his attention "what appeared to be strange behavior." Up to this point the concerns of only one F/A was mentioned in the report. The only behavior that was mentioned was that the agent left the a/c asking that the flight not depart without him. If white businessmen ever do the same thing without causing alarm then the term "strange behavior" will be questioned.

The first comments by the AA spokesman indicated that verification of the identity of the agent was the issue. Today's AA statement indicated that the demeanor of the agent was the issue. If there is any discrepancy in the stated reasons (and it may be that the two statements were excerpted) a lawyer will argue "pretext." John Relman is one of the most famous civil rights lawyers.

I think that the Captain did the right thing. I am not playing devil's advocate either. But I have seen lawyers at work and unless the police officer in the report corroborates the Captain's version this is not going to be a slam-dunk for AA.

[Roadtrip]

I listened to a morning show program with an interview with one of Mr. Shater's attorneys and a passenger who claimed he was seated next to Mr. Shater. The attorney said that her client did not get agitated nor try and bully the flight and ground crew and that AA refused to verify the agents credentials -- all LIES. The passenger admitted that he didn't really know squat about the whole thing - he didn't see or hear what went on outside the aircraft, but that a flight attendant did check out the items left by the ss agent - pat'd down his coat (I would presume to check to be sure the agent didn't leave a weapon in it). After the pax admitted he didn't know squat - he said he called the Arab American Association and said he was sure that it was a case of discrimination . . . and the new media give coverage to nitwits like that.

Such is the spring-loaded mentality, blind stupidity, lack of knowledge and procedure that is demonstrated by the news media and people like the "Guv."

[Clarence Oveur]

Somehow I don't think that being of arab descent and having a name as him, would be in his favor.
I am not saying that AA or their employees are racist, but I could very easily imagine that the agents appearance and name "nudged" the Captain in the direction that he took.

Sending people back to the country of their ethnic ancestors!!. I'm sure Chief Running Bear and his friends would just love that.

[Big Tudor]

No matter what the outcome the commander of the aircraft must be allowed the ultimate decision as to who is carried and who is not. After all, it will be the commander who would have been hauled over the coals if anything had gone wrong.

One would like to think that the USSS could at least have produced correct paperwork for one of their armed officers. In aviation a crate of oranges doesn't travel if the paperwork is incorrect !!!!! If USSS officers are travelling armed, whether on or off duty, then they their admin should be sh@# hot, particularly after 9/11

[ 04 January 2002: Message edited by: Big Tudor ]</p>

[Roadtrip]

It appears to me that the secret service agent in question is trying to save his job by going on the offense with fake charges of "racism." Unfortunately, there are many lawyers and news media people that are more interested in money and sensationalism, than truth and good journalism.

The facts are as follows. To all you conspiracy theorists -- You probably think all the people in this chain of events plotted and conspired to "create" this incident. Unfortunately, the Secret Service agent brought the whole thing down on himself through his behavior which called into question his credentials, AND, regardless of his credentials, his ability to control himself as an armed individual on an aircraft.


FOR RELEASE: Thursday, Jan. 3, 2002
AMERICAN HOLDS FIRM ON PROTECTING THE SAFETY OF ITS PASSENGERS

FORT WORTH, Texas – American Airlines today said it would not be deterred from protecting the safety of its passengers by frivolous claims of racial profiling asserted by the Washington, D.C. law firm of Relman & Associates.

The company said: "American carries out its security obligations according to the guidelines provided by the Federal government. Those guidelines are applied equally among all passengers, and the company vigorously resents any suggestion of racial discrimination.

"Threats of lawsuits will not deter us from justly applying the security programs established to protect the tens of millions of customers who entrust us with their lives each year."

American finds the "facts" released by the law firm today surprising and irresponsible since the firm has not discussed this incident with any American Airlines employee involved. Airline employees said the passenger, an armed Secret Service agent, behaved inappropriately.

The airline said that, while it also would prefer to resolve this situation in an amicable way, it cannot allow misleading information to go uncorrected.

American therefore feels obligated to release the attached copies of incident reports filed by the captain of Flight 363 and the manager of the airline’s System Operations Control center who spoke directly with the passenger.

"These reports paint a clear and consistent picture of what occurred during this agent’s attempt to board Flight 363," the airline said. "While we’ll let the reports speak for themselves, we will reiterate that American will not allow any armed individual onboard, regardless of who he or she is, if that person is angry or acting in a manner that the crew believes could jeopardize the safety of the flight."

American can confirm that, as stated in the captain’s report, he has filed a letter of complaint with the Secret Service.

As this incident is now under investigation by the Secret Service, American cannot comment beyond this statement.

Text of Captain’s Statement
Misconduct of Armed Passenger
Debrief Detail:

Armed passenger * flight 363 BWI/DFW. Flight was scheduled to leave at 1715. I was notified that due to a mechanical at the next gate - they would hold our push for approximately 30-40 minutes to try to accommodate those pax going to DFW. A few moments later the *1 flt attendant brought to my attention that she and other flt att were concerned about the actions of one of the pax. This pax left the aircraft with carryon bags still in his seat. He told the flt att. Please don’t leave without him. While the pax was away a flt att observed books in the individuals seat which were written in what she assessed was Arabic style print. Upon further investigation - when the individual came back it was determined that he was in fact our ‘armed passenger’. I then decided to stop my pre-flt and review the AA E2. The form was unreadable because it was a carbon-copy and there were missing items. I then had the agent come back and recheck his credentials and give me a new AA E2. Again this form was filled out improperly. I left my seat to speak to the individual. He appeared nervous and anxious. With all the forms that I received in error I determined that the most prudent course of action was to call dispatch to phone patch me to the SOC. I asked them to fax me a copy of what the Secret Service credentials looks like. He advised me that BWI should have this information. BWI in fact does not. We still were accommodating the connecting passengers and had time to further determine the proper credentials of this person. While all this was going on the individual approached me in front of the lead agent and asked why he was being denied boarding for so long. I disclosed to him that the paper work was not correct and that I needed to have this fixed before he would be accommodated. This was an AA issue and none of his concern. At this time the individual became very hostile with me. Upon all the information that I had up to this point - I had doubt as to his actual representation as a Special Agent for the Secret Service. 1. *Two improperly filled out AA Form E2. 2. *Flt atts bringing to my attention what appeared to be strange behavior. 3. *Hostility toward me for trying to correct my required paper work. I then had the Maryland Airport Authority police determine his proper ID by calling the Secret Service as to his legitimate status. This took about ten minutes to complete. In the interim I was given a third improperly filled out AA Form E2. This had no signature of the LEO. No initial as to the traveling status of the officer. No phone number. While the police were determining the proper status of this individual this person came up to me with loud abusive comments as to his being denied boarding. That he has the powers of the White House behind him and that this is not of [sic] the end of this matter. The police agreed with me that there was a legitimate concern because of his unprofessional behavior. This was all in full view of every passenger boarding the flight. He then said he would not board the flt. As it turned out he was an actual LEO. After the events of 9/11 and another of our fls targeted with explosives and causing injury to a flt att I absolutely felt correct in having this individuals [sic] identification validated. After three improper AA Form E2s [sic] and the behavior of this individual, I needed to be 100% sure of his credentials. If he just let us do our job of getting the paper work in order, he would have been boarded, and it would have been a pleasure to carry an ‘armed passenger’. With the lives of the entire passengers and crew, I was uncomfortable with his actions and did what a Captain should do and edge toward the side of safety and not move the aircraft until I’m confident that all issues are satisfied before taking off. As a note, I am filling [sic] a misconduct report with the Secret Services Internal Affairs division. I would suggest that AA Security follow up on this matter because this individual made the entire crew uncomfortable with his actions and absolutely with his confrontational behavior toward me. The police officer who was very helpful was officer (redacted). The case # was (redacted). The Secret Service Agent’s name was (redacted). Passports and fraudulent IDs can easily be altered to look passable. With all the items to this event not adding up, I absolutely believe I acted in the best interest of my crew, pax and AA.

Text of SOC Manager’s Statement:

I was working as Center Manager on Christmas and received a call from Captain

(employee number ) flying flight 363 from BWI/DFW. The Captain had a concern about a passenger onboard his flight. The Captain first requested a fax containing all wanted terrorist photos that American had available. I explained that this was not possible and asked exactly what problem he was encountering. He said that he received paperwork for a passenger that stated he was a Secret Service Agent and would be traveling armed. The Captain said that the paperwork contained scratched out flight numbers and may have been altered. I then suggested that the Captain request new paperwork. The Captain called back again and stated the he was still questioning the validity of this passenger working for the Secret Service because the secret service agent had failed to fill the paperwork out properly again. I asked if he had looked at the agent credentials. He said you work for the airline, you know how easy it would be to get fake I.D. I suggested that I could call the Secret Service and verify that this passenger was in fact an agent. I asked the Captain to request the agent’s superiors [sic] name and number. The Captain said that we should not use his information because he could have a friend answering the phone when we called. I then suggested get the local police to verify the I.D. since, being located at BWI, they would have exposure to Secret Service I.D.’s and contact phone numbers. The next phone call I received was from the AA ticket agent at BWI. He said that the Secret Service agent had verbally abused the Captain and that the Captain was denying him boarding. I asked to speak to the police officer that was witness to this, who then verified what the ticket agent had stated. Based on this, I then decided to end boarding to this passenger on future AA flights. Later, I received a call from the AA ticket agent at BWI and was asked to talk to this Secret Service Agent. I then heard the Secret Service Agent’s side of the story. He admitted to not properly filling out the paperwork for carrying a weapon; not once, but twice. He also admitted to losing his temper with the Captain because he was asked for his ID five separate times. When he asked why he was denied future boarding, I explained that I could not expose AA crews or passengers to abuse. He said he was being discriminated against, wanted my bosses [sic] name, and threatened that he would have my job. He was going to take this to the highest authority. I asked for his superior’s name and contacted him. I explained the situation to the superior. He confirmed that this man did work for the Secret Service, and would contact him. A short time later the agent’s superior called back and said that he was sorry for losing his temper and would like to travel out of DCA the next day. He then stated that the agent was of Middle Eastern descent. I explained to the superior that I did not know this and that there was no discrimination in the denied boarding process with SOC. I was 1,000 miles away from the situation and handled it as we would for any unruly passenger. We agreed the agent could travel the next day.

SOC Center Manager – American Airlines

[ShotOne]

Why did the agent need to carry a gun on that flight anyway? He was not apparently engaged in presidential protection at the time.

[Covenant]

I didn't read the other thread, but one thing about this which concerns me, and which doesn't appear to have been addressed yet is that a large part of the damage has already been done by the damned politically correct litigious US system.

If you are a captain, and, after this incident, you are in a situation where you are having to decide whether to board an Arab about whom you have some doubts, aren't you going to have a little pause for thought?

I'm sure most of you will say, quite rightly, that the safety of your aircraft and passengers is your primary concern, but with the prospect of court action, media scrutiny and possibly even disciplinary action if it all goes pear-shaped, isn't there going to be a temptation from now on to play it safe and not cause a fuss in borderline cases?

I find it hard to believe that, just four months after the events of 9/11, the grasping lawyers feel justified in playing the race card for their own personal gain.

My own opinion is that this law suit actually discriminiates against all the other millions of passengers who have flown since 9/11. What was it that really upset him? The answer, of course, is that he became frustrated and pissed off with the kind of delays and bureaucratic cock-ups that all airline passengers have to cope with on a daily basis, even before the tragic events of this year. The difference is that he was arabic and chose to play the race card and was also a secret service agent who was able to get media attention for his little upset.

[SaturnV]

BrianBlank raises a good point about singularity. If one goes back to how this tempest in a teapot began, the actions of the flight attendant raise questions and perhaps forms the basis for AA vulnerability in a lawsuit.

From various media reports and AA statements, the sequence seems to have unfolded this way.

1. The Secret Service agent's original flight to DFW was delayed/cancelled and he was placed on this later flight.

2. The AA BWI gate agent apparently scratched out the original flight number and rewrote the new number on the armed LEO paperwork

3. The Secret Service agent boarded the aircraft, introduced himself to the PIC, and handed over his paperwork. This followed normal protocol. The PIC in his statement says nothing about the agent appearance, behavior, etc. that caused him any concern at this juncture. It would appear that the PIC glanced over the paperwork briefly, if at all. At that time, the PIC made no comments about it being an illegicle carbon copy or having errors or omissions. (The pilot's statement makes no mention of meeting the Secret Service agent or receiving any paperwork from him on initial boarding, but indicates that he had received the paperwork.)

4. The agent, apparently with some other passengers, was asked to leave the aircraft and proceed again through security. (The agent's paperwork remained with the PIC as he examined it more closely after the flight attendant raised her concerns about the passenger with him.)

5. At his seat, the agent left a leather jacket and several books. The agent had a single carry-on bag. The PIC statement says that the flight attendant reported that the agent had left his carry-on bags behind (plural in the original).

6. On leaving the aircraft, the agent said to the flight attendant, 'Don't leave without me.' Presumably this was a normal pleasntry.

7. After the agent left the aircraft, the seatmate to the agent asserts that the flight attendant proceeded to the agent's seat, and twice takes the leather jacket and pats it down, apparently searching for something. It is unclear whether the jacket was in the seat itself, or in the overhead bin.

8. The flight attendant also takes the agent's book on the Crusades from the sleeve of the seatback. She apparently examines it, sees what she later says is print with Arabic looking symbols, and places it back in the sleeve. (There is no indication she brought the book itself to the PIC, or that any AA personnel other than her examined the book (which was in English)).

9. The flight attendant also apparently examined other books or reading material that the agent had left at his seat. It is unclear whether these other books were on the seat or in the overhead bin. (I is also unclear if the agent had left his carry-on bag(s) behind, where these were, and whether she examined these as well.)

10. On putting the Crusades book back, the flight attendant makes a gesture "like she was grossed out" to the individual sitting in the seat next o the agent.

11. A short time later, the flight attendant asks this same seatmate in effect to 'watch or cover her back' with this agent on-board.

12. After examining the Crusades book, the flight attendant goes to the PIC and voices her (and the other cabin crew's?) concern about having this Secret Service agent on the aircraft.

13. The agent attempts to reboard the aircraft, and then begins the sequence of questioning his paperwork and credentials. It appears from the pilot's statement that the agent was never able to get back to his seat, nor have any conversation with his seatmate about what the flight attendant had done. The PIC ultimately refused to let the agent retrieve his jacket after he was denied boarding.

14. After departure, the flight attendant said to the seatmate that she was pleased that the agent was off the plane because 'he made the flight crew uncomfortable.'

Endnote 1: The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that it is unconstitutional for the police on boarding a mode of public transport (e.g., bus, train) to pat down the outside of closed passenger luggage when looking for contrabband.

It could be argued that the flight attendant's examination of the agent's clothing and other articles without his consent or even in his presence represented an unlawful search by a person not even authorized under the color of law or regulation to conduct such a search.

Endnote 2: The American Airlines statement asserts that it does not racially discrminate. Nowhere have I read what the Secret Service agent's race was. In this instance, any alleged discrimination would seem to be more on the basis of ethnicity or religion, which the AA statement is silent about.

Endnote 3: On why a Secret Service agent would carry a weapon on-board the aircraft when he is not protecting an individual on that aircraft. The simple answer is that the agent is required to have the weapon in-hand when he reports on-duty, and AA or any other airline cannot guarantee that checked baggage (with a weapon inside) will not be lost or misrouted, or that checked baggage will not be pilfered and the weapon stolen.

Endnote 4: The pilot's statement omits his initial request to the SOC Manager, which was that photos of terrorists be sent to him, presumably so that he could see whether the Secret Service agent was a known terrorist. The SOC manager dissuaded him from this approach. Presumably, if the pilot had received the photographs they would have included: Osama Bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri (known as the Doctor, 50 years old, and Osama's second in command), Abdel Al-Nasser (speaks only Arabic and Farsi), and 19 others. Most of those on the list do not speak English at all. The few that do would, with one exception, speak it with a foreign accent. Only one, Abdel Yasin, is a native-born American and quite likely is perfectly fluent in colloquial English.

Endnote 5: The PIC implies that the cabin crew were unaware that the Secret Service agent was sitting in a particular seat and had left the aircraft until the agent returned. His statement declares that, "Upon further investigation - when the individual came back it was determined that he was in fact our ‘armed passenger’." The FAA regulations require the aircraft operator to "Notify the pilot in command and other appropriate crewmembers, of the location of each armed LEO aboard the aircraft. Notify any other armed LEO of the location of each armed LEO, including FAM's. Under circumstances described in the security program, the aircraft operator must not close the doors until the notification is complete." It is unclear whether this notification took place prior to the Secret Service agent leaving the aircraft.

[ 06 January 2002: Message edited by: SaturnV ]</p>

[Tan]

This situation is a tough one for any Captain to deal with. From what has been said so far it would appear that the F/A. sucked the Captain into a scene already gone bad.

I suspect that AA will settle out of court, in order to save face for the actions of their crew.

S##t happens..

[Roadtrip]

Nonsense. The problem of ID and paperwork could have been eventually cleared up if Mr. Shater had been cooperative and let the system work. I think the real problem was the hostile and threatening attitude of Mr Shater toward the police officers, captain, gate agent AND the SOC controller in Dallas. The SOC controller didn't even know what this guy looked like, yet he denied boarding as well.

Mr. Shater was WAY out of line and is now using ethicity to cover his butt. Hard to believe we have secret service agents with so little judgement and temper.

[Tan]

Roadtrip

You are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine and time is going to provide us with the answer.

Having been sucked into situations by F/A's who could have handled things better before they ever got to me, I feel for the Captain...

[PaperTiger]

Don't wish to become embroiled in the 'he said..., he said...' nature of this, nor comment on the 4th amendment implications of the FA's rifling of the agent's stuff.
However, I do think his choice of reading material gives some insight into the alleged 'attitude' question. Yes I know, in a free society one should be free to read whatever one wants. But really... a History of the Crusades being read by a muslim SS agent. At best more evidence of questionable judgment IMO, and possibly a reason for a chat with the head MIB ?

[WhatsaLizad?]

This situation is a tough one for any Captain to deal with. From what has been said so far it would appear that the F/A. sucked the Captain into a scene already gone bad. "TAN"

The statement above seems to arise out of an idiot reporters description of the events and misinterpreting the Captains report. The big problem wasn't his arabic history book, it was the fact he got out of his seat and appeared to LEAVE the plane, and left his belongings.This is a big red flag and any belongings left are fair game for a search.

[PaperTiger]

Exactly why he left the plane seems to be a matter of some confusion. He reportedly said to the FA not to leave without him. This and leaving his belongings indicates to me he fully intended to return. Apparently the FA, already spooked, thought otherwise and thoroughly searched his coat, the seat pocket and so on.

The title of the book may therefore be 'inadmissable' evidence <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> , but still not the kind of thing that gives me a warm feeling in the circumstances.

And easy with the bolding please.

[ 06 January 2002: Message edited by: PaperTiger ]</p>

[411A]

A hostie "over reaction" perhaps? Would NOT be the first time.
However, the Captain's opinion should be absolute, regardless. Perhaps the hosties' should be sent back for ah.... "retraining".

[BOING]

Do you think anybody intending to blow up an aircraft is going to leave his seat and his carry-ons behind and say he is NOT coming back. Get real.

[WhatsaLizad?]

"He reportedly said to the FA not to leave without him. This and leaving his belongings indicates to me he fully intended to return"

Of course, how silly of me to overlook this statement. No terrorist would lie like that <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

I'm sure many murder victims were told, "relax, I am not going to hurt you" and they believed it too.

The title of the book may therefore be 'inadmissable' evidence , but still not the kind of thing that gives me a warm feeling in the circumstances.


Actually, I am not a lawyer, but I think it works something like this:

If the person leaves, and an off duty cop in the next seat rummages through said persons bags, then finds, lets say a kilo of cocaine. If he says "a-ha! your under arrest", then it is illegal search and seizure and inadmissable.
If in the same instance, a FA looking for a pillow accidently opens said bag and finds the coke, then says to off duty cop, "A-ha! look at this Mr. Policeman. Then the druggie is in trouble. The cop can use the evidence in that case.

[PaperTiger]

No Boing, I don't.
Had he not returned by the time the doors were to close then of course his stuff would be removed.
From what I have read (maybe you should too), that is not what happened.

[BEagle]

Having had the misfortune to see the wretched American fat cat lawyer/media circus freak show on a US TV show yesterday, I can only wonder at the utter naivety of this agent.

1. If he is a bona fide armed agent, then the question of his being permitted to travel with his personal weapon is nihil ad rem.

2. To travel with his personal weapon, he needed the correct paperwork.

3. His paperwork was insufficiently completed. This aroused the crew's doubts.

4. Correct paperwork was never forthcoming, the agent became abusive to airline employees already very sensitive to recent events.

5. The agent was off-loaded when, notwithstanding his unpleasant behaviour, the correct paperwork was still not produced.

...and that's where it should have ended. The airline has every right to complain to the agent's organisation and the captain and his crew should receive an unreserved apology.

But no - we have the absurd race relations industry bringing up spurious charges, smarmy lawyers whining on TV about 'their client' and rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of a high profile case improving their ranking amongst others of their kind. Utterly ridiculous claptrap - the agent clearly failed to produce correct supporting documentation, failed to act reasonably, failed to act in a professional manner. He deserves no sympathy from anyone for his behaviour and the question of his further employment as an armed agent should certainly be reviewed.

[ 06 January 2002: Message edited by: BEagle ]</p>

[Wino]

Also, when you are pulled off an airplane for screening, you are to take EVERYTHING with you. This agent did not.

What the flight attendant did or did not do afterwords is irrelevant, because not only did the agent not fill out his paperwork correctly NUMEROUS times, but he also did not take ALL of his stuff with him as he was required to do.

Even knowing that he is an agent, I would have no choice but to throw someone off who behaved like that, throw in a little abuse of the gate agent and the GSC and I call the cops as well.

A badge is not a license to be an as sh ol e!

Cheers
Wino

[JJflyer]

Right on Spot Beagle... Could not have said it better myself. Offloading that dork was the best way to solve the situation. I would have done it in a heartbeat.

Cheers

[SaturnV]

WhatsaLizad wrote:
Actually, I am not a lawyer, but I think it works something like this:
If the person leaves, and an off duty cop in the next seat rummages through said persons bags, then finds, lets say a kilo of cocaine. If he says "a-ha! your under arrest", then it is illegal search and seizure and inadmissable.If in the same instance, a FA looking for a pillow accidently opens said bag and finds the coke, then says to off duty cop, "A-ha! look at this Mr. Policeman. Then the druggie is in trouble. The cop can use the evidence in that case.

Actually, it (the one kilo of cocaine discovered by the FA) is more likely to be inadmissable. The doctrine is known as plain view. In this example, for the coke to be admissable in a prosecution, (1) the cop would have had to be on-duty, and surveilling the flight and its passengers; (2) the coke would have had to fallen onto the cop's lap, and not be something that the FA told him about. (Contraband is not usually considered a danger. If the item that had been seen in or fallen out of the bag was a weapon, then the off-duty cop could have seized it and made an immediate arrest.) And if the flight crew called ahead to the destination airport, LEOs there might be able to effect a more legal search and seizure of the one kilo of cocaine.

Concededly off topic, but a more interesting example of search and seizure might be the following: HYPOTHETICAL BA flight from Jamaica to Miami to LHR. (Often, a high percentage (10 percent or more) of passengers on outbound BA flights from Jamaica are smuggling contraband on their person.) FA goes into the lav, discovers a broken condom with traces of white powder on the lav floor. Flight crew calls ahead to MIA to alert law enforcement of this discovery. Would law enforcement in Miami have probable cause (for a search) to X-Ray some/all debarking passengers there to see whether they are secreting contraband in their gastrointestinal tract? Should the LEO's conduct a similar search of any debarking flight or cabin crew?
________________________________

It seems that the Secret Service agent, and perhaps AA as well, failed to adhere to the FAA instructions and rules regarding problems encountered on boarding an armed LEO. Relevant excerpts from the FAA's published procedures are below (Emphasis is in the original). From the two AA statements, it appears that neither the BWI station manager or ground security coordinator were ever involved.

"WHILE FLYING ARMED:
1. It is ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL that you fulfill, in a timely manner, your obligation to notify the air carrier in advance of your intended travel. Your check- in process must be accomplished in full compliance with FAA requirements and air carrier policy.
2. You must use discretion to avoid alarming passengers or crew by display of the firearm.
3. If you are armed and traveling by air carrier, DO NOT SURRENDER YOUR FIREARM TO ANYONE.
4. If you cannot resolve a problem with any representative of the air carrier, to include the captain of an aircraft prior to departure, you should immediately request the assistance of the air carrier's GROUND SECURITY COORDINATOR or STATION MANAGER."
.....
"Any person traveling aboard an aircraft while armed shall at all times keep their weapon: (i)
Concealed and out of view, either on their person or in immediate reach, if the armed LEO is not in uniform. (ii) On their person, if the armed LEO is in uniform. (2) No person may place a weapon in an overhead storage bin."

[MarkD]

In most [all?] airports now you are told "Do not leave any personal belongings unattended". I never heard the rider "but once you get on the plane you have leave stuff anywhere you like".

The FA was dead right to check.

[Roadtrip]

All the talk of items left behind, his choice of reading material, etc, etc, are really irrelevant. The REASON that Mr. Shater was denied boarding by everyone involved was that he became hostile, bullying, and abusive to the Captain, the Police Officers, the Gate Agent, and the SOC Duty Officer. If he had relaxed and been cooperative, the situation would have been resolved and everyone would have been onboard. Air-Rage among US Secret Service Agents (or anyone, especially one that is armed) is completely unacceptable regardless of the reason.
After review of the facts and talking to the people involved, the CEO of American Airlines has completely, fully, and with enthusiam, backed the decision by the Captain and SOC controller.

[HugMonster]

The Captain had significant concerns about this passenger, for whatever reason. The Captain denied him permission to fly. End of story.

If this guy looked Arabic/Middle Eastern, then perhaps you could claim discrimination. Whoopee. As a Secret Service Agent, he should have been sensitive to the present climate and understood that people are going to be jumpy. That his paperwork was not in order was (from the Captain's point of view) worrying. That he allegedly became rude and aggressive was, IMHO, ample reason in itself to deny him passage.

I look forward to hearing that the Captain has been totally exonerated, and this idiot thrown out of the Toytown Secret Service.

[OneWorld22]

As Huggie correctly points out above, the captains decision is final and there really shouldn't be any kind of debate about that. That's the way it is in aviation and it's totally correct as well.

As Wino pointed out on the closed thread, everything a pilot does whilst on duty on board the aircraft he is commanding, is governed by his company's Flight Operations Manual
this is his Bible, (or Koran). A deviation from this strict document and a pilot can find himself in front of the CEO or FOM and after a very short meeting, can find himself with a boot up his ass as he sails majestically through the front doors. Or, if heaven forbid, there's an incident, then he can expect rabid Aviation Authority Inspectors to rip up his hard won license in front of his face. Either way, it's his career ruined.

This really is a black and white issue, (no pun intended), this SS agent appears to be a total class A1 a**hole. For anyone of Arab appearence carrying a gun, even if he is a Government agent, to roar and shout and act aggressively whilst about to board an airplane in the United States.......need I go on?

Bravo to the Captain whoever He or She may be, he or she should be held up by AA as the example to which all employees should aspire to. And well done to Don Carty for not bowing to PC pressure.
Might be a nice little rift developing between Don and George over this. (Come on over to the Democrats Don, you'll have much more fun with us!)

AA are an airline that passengers should have the upmost confidence in. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

[5 APU's captain]

If the USSS agent needs to carry a gun - let him use an US Air Force transport!
Any way the CAPTAIN IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!

[T_richard]

Excuse me if I add my two cents here. The issues are simple if we sweep away all the rhetoric. #1: A SS agent attempts to board with questionable paperwork. Q: If any citizen approached the same SS agent at a White House checkpoint with questionable paper work what would happen. Probable answer, A lenghty conversation for the record in a locked room with a posted guard. #2: Same SS agent threatens "higher power" etc. Q: what would happen if you presented that argument to same SS agent at same checkpoint. Probable answer: Time frame of said lenghty conversation would expand exponentally, legal counsel would be offered. #3: SS agent leaves bag on seat says "don't leave without me" Q: you walk up to same SS agent at same checkpoint put luggage at his feet, start walking away as you say " I'll be back!" what happens next? Probable answer; SS agent and colleagues draw weapons, strongly suggest that you lie face down where you stand and search you. Later you may imply racism, sexism or any other -ism, you would have years to file your briefs and appeals from federal prison. Bottom line IMHO, the agent acted like an arrogant a##, the Captain acted within his rights and responsibilities. The lawyers will run up some billable hours,the press will report everything, most incorrectly and hopefully this agent will get to guard polar bear traps at the North Pole.

[WhatsaLizad?]

Guv,

Any chance an apology to us AA guys might be forthcoming?

Or have you quietly retired to think about throwing your cyber-molotov cocktails at subjects that aren't as well defended?

[dallas dude]

guv/walter mitty

Here's the view from a real airline CEO's leather armchair.

Looking forward to reading your apology to the Captain involved...

PLEASE POST ON ALL BULLETIN BOARDS

DON CARTY HOTLINE

Hello, everyone, and thanks for calling. This is Don Carty with a special
hotline for Saturday, January the 5th.

I thought it important to get on the horn today to talk to you about an
unfortunate situation that is gathering steam in the national press -
something that runs the very real risk of escalating beyond reason.

Many of you have seen news stories accusing us of mistreating an
Arab-American Secret Service agent on Christmas Day by denying him
boarding at BWI. His attorneys held a press conference this week saying
all manner of unkind things about us, and specifically accusing the
Captain of denying the boarding for reasons of racial discrimination.

Now, I'm stepping in here because I think two things are worth making
completely clear to everyone.

The first is this: I've read the Captain's report, the SOC report and have
been briefed on our conversations with the BWI law enforcement officer
involved. I am completely convinced that our Captain acted appropriately
and in the best interests of security on his airplane.

Our Captains deal with law enforcement professionals who carry firearms on
airplanes all the time. They get a feel for what the paperwork should
look like and how these law enforcement professionals should behave.

In the judgment of an experienced pilot - backed by SOC and law
enforcement in Baltimore - this agent was not behaving appropriately, and
our Captain simply was not going to let an angry man with a gun on his
airplane.

I back that completely. And I will back any employee who makes the same
kind of decision for safety and security decisions. Period. End of
story.

Now to Point Two: Let me remind you what I said on Sept. 12. We do have a
lot of valued friends, co-workers, customers and shareholders who are
Arab-American and Muslim and - especially in a time of such national
tension - there is never - never -- an excuse for not treating everyone
with the utmost in respect and tolerance.

We have a rich and diverse culture at American - and we should all take
great, great pride in that fact. There is not now and there will never be
a place for intolerance at American Airlines. I think that about says it.

We have no quarrel with the Secret Service. Far from it. Nor do we doubt
the patriotism or love of country of the Arab-American Secret Service
agent who was involved. He, of all people, should understand the security
concerns that motivated our Captain, who, under federal law has
responsibility for the flight and for the lives of our customers on board.

In my view, this situation has been elevated way, way beyond reason. I
believe it is time to step back, let emotions cool, say we hope such an
incident never happens again, and get on with the business of flying a
safe airline.

In the meantime, let me again thank you for all you are doing to ensure
the safety of our operation. Stay alert. Serve our customers well. Help
one another. And, of course, thanks for calling.


When in April is your inaugural flight going to take place?

[OneWorld22]

Thanks for posting that dallas dude, good to know Don Carty has formally backed his Captain. I like the way US CEO's do this correspondance with employees, I know Gordon Bethune does it at CO and his e-mails and phone messages really rallied the troops post 9/11.

Way to go American and long live the Republic of Texas! :)

[Velvet]

Poor AA they just can't win. I doubt this decision was taken frivolously or lightly - the Captain must have known there could be serious consequences. But he felt that the safety of his pax and crew were paramount and that it was worth the inconvenience of one person's hurt feelings and delayed journey.

As a pax, I fully support this Captain's actions. The pax who sat next to the agent can not have known all the facts, and I'm sure would have been the first to hold the airline and Captain (plus crew) to account if an incident had occurred whilst in flight.

I suspect the AA crews are more cautious, quite rightly - even if they are a bit more jittery with Arabic type pax it is understandable.

I think President Bush should have remained out of it, at least until the facts were ascertained. What a power trip for the secret service man to have the President come out 'spitting bullets' on his behalf. Bush, though, should have thought of the repercussions, at best he is seen as being too quick to jump in, at worst highly embarrassing if his agent was taking advantage of his position.

[T_richard]

Hi All, Velvet, I agree that GWB should have stayed out of it till the dust had settled, however I think enough weight has stepped in behind the Captain to give overwhelming support to his positon. GWB can speak in this country but he is not the only voice. I have stated before that I'm non-military, non-aviation but I have been sailing since I could walk. Under Admiralty (sp?) Law the captain of an ocean going vessel is legally and morally (sp?) liable for any actions that occur on his vessel. The definition of a vessel is not defined by physical dimensions! BTW. On my sailboat, the buck stops with me! I have responsability therefore I have authority. No "ifs", "ands", or "buts". I know its not a comercial vessel, but my attitude would be no different if I had an unlimited tonnage license. My way or the highway, the AA Captain made the right call. All that remains now is for the SS to stand up for what is right. I won't hold my breath.

[Charlie Mike]

In spite of all of the presumptious rhetoric that has passed so far, I would suggest that perhaps the author at the NY Post is the most level headed of all.

<a href="http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/38543.htm" target="_blank">http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/38543.htm</a>

But, now it has gone too far and every one including Carty has pulled out his privates for a measure.

[DownIn3Green]

Dallas Dude,

I suppose if Gooberner apologised to you via e-mail you would have let us know. He got his hands slapped on another thread so they're probably too sore to reply at this time.

Your guy was 100% correct and now it's back to CMT (Country Music Television) for me.

Thanks for setting the record absolutely straight!!!

[ 12 January 2002: Message edited by: DownIn3Green ]</p>

[Captlucky]

We should all support the actions of this AA Captain. I would have also denied boarding to this arrogant ass. By Law, we are responsible for the safety of everyone who enters our aircraft. If that means stepping on a few toes, then so be it. If that jerk had not been removed and an incident had occurred, then the FAA would be investigating the ailine and the Captain as to why he was not denied boarding. I am sure that that the law firm representing this Secret Service agent would have also been proud to represent those Arab hijackers if they had been denied boarding on September 11.

[T_richard]

Hey Capt. You are right on the money, responsability demands authority. Never accept one without the other. The AA Captain understood this, all the backseat drivers mean nothing

[MachOverspeed]

Just my 2 cents....

Guv, check this out, FAR 91.3(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

In laymans terms, and in the context of this thread, that means that the PIC can boot ANYBODY off the a/c if he so desires. End of story.

Although I do not fly for AA, the management at my company (Jet Aviation) has given me strict orders to examine each and every bag/box/whatever before loading, to positively identify each and every pax before boarding, and more importantly, anyone who squawks about it SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED TO BOARD THE AIRCRAFT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. Violaters of this policy recieve immediate discharge. Even regular charter customers whom we know get this treatment, and you know what, they ALL agree with it (so far).

I will not go into all our other security protocols here.

Others have mentioned the Supreme Court and rulings concerning the searching of bags on public transport. That applies to law enforcement only. Employees of said transport are not restricted by this ruling, therefore the flight attendant who looked into the SS agent's bag did not break the law.

It seems to this old country boy, that AA didn't become the 800 pound gorilla via a policy of harassment/discrimination....

Lastly, had I been faced with the same situation as the AA Captain, I would have done the same thing. "You're outta here, bub". Pure and simple, I've got too many other things to worry about, and don't have the time/energy/inclination to deal with some raving ass%$#@. Especially if he/she claims to be a GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE and cannot fill out forms correctly. I think the AA Captain should be given a medal, and held up for all to see as a shining example of truth, virtue and the American way.

[dallas dude]

DownIn3Green

This website is a GREAT chance for us all to share our opinions (just like hangar talk should be).

When we're all sitting around shooting the s**t it's usually easy to spot a Walter Mitty. Once spotted, and identified, it's fun and games as usual.

The difference on pprune is that there are a few people masquerading as the real thing who should have a disclaimer attached. They continually pretend to be all-seeing, all-knowing when that's actually a bit of a stretch.

I appreciate many of these peoples' informative articles. It's a bit frustrating though, when they cross over and start to pass themselves off as "enlightened" aviation personnel. With the constant addition of new ppruners it seems we have to go through this process too often.

The mere addition of the words ...in my opinion...or...I believe... would identify fact from fiction, instead of passing off third hand knowledge as first hand.

Enough of this crap...here's another article with an opinion!

Fort Worth Star-Telegram
Wednesday, January 9, 2002


Pilot was right; agent wasn't

Have we learned nothing?

Have we learned nothing at all from the crash course in national
security that's been under way for about four months?

Sometimes I wonder. How else to explain the ridiculous drama that
has followed a Christmas Day conflict at Baltimore-Washington
International Airport between an Arab-American Secret Service
agent and an American Airlines pilot?

The pilot's story is that the agent - on his way to Texas to
protect the president - left the aircraft, leaving his carry-on
bag in his seat.

A flight attendant observed books in his seat that seemed to be,
according to the pilot's statement, "in Arabic-style print." This
spurred the pilot to review the passenger's Form E2, presented by
all law enforcement personnel carrying weapons onto a flight.

The pilot called the form, an incomplete carbon copy,
"unreadable." His statement continues: "I then had the agent come
back and give me a new AA E2. Again this form was filled out
improperly. I left my seat to speak to the individual. He
appeared nervous and anxious."

As calls were made to ascertain the agent's identity (a
cumbersome process slowed by layers of bureaucracy), he
apparently grew more testy.

As the pilot was given what he says was the third improperly
completed E2 form, lacking a signature, phone number and travel
status designation for the agent, "this person came up to me with
loud abusive comments about being denied boarding. [He said] he
had the powers of the White House behind him."

The pilot said police at the scene agreed with his concern about
an armed passenger losing his cool.

The Service Operations Center manager at the airport also
released a statement describing the maze-like series of phone
calls in the quest to identify the agent.

This had to be frustrating for a man who was only trying to get
to Texas to do his duty protecting the president. But the bottom
line is that his paperwork was sufficiently lacking and his
behavior sufficiently disturbing that the pilot did what any
pilot should do, before or after Sept. 11: He erred on the side
of caution.

What has the captain earned for this? Trumped-up charges of
racism.

Attorneys John Relman and Christy Lopez have been making the TV
rounds, asserting - without any knowledge whatsoever - that the
pilot denied the agent boarding because of a distaste for
Arab-Americans.

Lawyers can mouth off all they want; it's a free country. But
what disturbs me most about this is that the agent obviously
condones it.

I can understand and even forgive a brief interlude of lost
composure at the gate. What I cannot tolerate is an extended
campaign of excuse-making that includes baseless playing of the
race card.

And please let us remember that to whatever degree the pilot may
have taken the agent's race into account, that, too, is justified
in light of an act of terrorism committed by people of the same
ethnicity.

If this gentleman cannot handle the stress of a delay at the
airport, I wonder about his fitness for duty in a job that can
yield rigors far more demanding. He of all people should
understand the new and more stringent cautiousness of the
post-9/11 world.

For his part, President Bush has said he'd be plenty mad if he
discovered that the agent was denied boarding for race reasons.

Well, Mr. President, how about some anger over one of your agents
flipping out in the face of a pilot just doing his job?

The pilot, not the agent, deserves the benefit of the doubt. One
is a trained professional who did his job, exercising the caution
that Bush himself has called us to exercise, with witnesses to
back him up.

The other is also a trained professional. But he abrogated the
letter and spirit of that training by thwarting the authority of
a pilot, whose judgment is final in such matters. That's the law.

The agent's increasingly annoying lawyers ask whether pilots
should have such unilateral authority. That answer is an
emphatic, undeniable, more-clear-than-ever "yes."

This pilot is a hero. This Secret Service agent needs a different
job.

Mark Davis is a talk-show host on WBAP/820 AM. [email protected]

[PaperTiger]

I'm not taking the agent's side in this by any means. He should have just sucked it up and we'd all have been none the wiser.

However..
Especially if he/she claims to be a GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE and cannot fill out forms correctly.

1. The original accreditation for the cancelled flight was presumably OK.
2. The flight number on the form was changed (the 'discrepancy' ?) by an AA CSR.
3. I doubt the agents prepare these forms themselves.

And without being there, I don't know who started the willy waving (to quote Kate Adie). If the agent was such an a'hole why did the Capt. only file an incident report after it all became public ? Smacks of CYA to me.

[njcapt]

&gt;If the agent was such an a'hole why did the Capt. only file an incident report after it all became public ? Smacks of CYA to me.
&lt;

Unless the Captain was immediately pulled off his trip (which I'm pretty sure was not the case) we was WORKING. The media jumped all over this in about six hours. How was the Captain supposed to compose an accurate, level headed report, submit it to the company, and have it released to the press before the s*** hit the fan?

You are no less guilty of using inflammatory speculation than the media. Give the guy a break, he was using his best judgement to handle a difficult, high profile situation. He did his job in a professional manner, quite unlike the SS guy, who immediately lawyered up and started crying discrimination via the media.

By the way, an airline pilot's primary motivation in filing a report IS to CYA. If an official recollection of events is not received, the media's skewed version of the situation is legitimized.

[PaperTiger]

Going by what appeared on CNN...
1132 EST Dec 27 story is first posted (a tad more than 6 hours). AA internal incident reports posted Jan 2, report of Capt. filing misconduct complaint posted Jan 3.

Understandable on this board that overwhelming support is for the Capt., and as I have said more than once, I support him too if it went down according to the AA version. If you wish to blindly ignore reports that maybe it didn't that's your prerogative. I need all the facts before making a categorical judgment.

I'm still not clear on the sequence of events. Maybe I missed it, but if his form was unacceptable why was he allowed to board AA1715 at all ? And what caused the Capt. to then review his clearance ? The 'grossed out' FA (#1 I assume ).
[quote]A few moments later the #1 flight attendant brought to my attention that she and other flight attendants were concerned about the actions of one of the pax<hr></blockquote>

Tan IIRC and others were right IMO in surmising that this Capt. was dropped in it by the CC whose actions and motives are noticeably absent from most of the accounts.

Inflammatory speculation ? Hardly. I just want to know WTF happened and see the guilty smacked, whoever they are.

[HugMonster]

Given that, as a Flight Safety Officer, I often had trouble getting an MOR out of some Captains within 48 hours, I am quite impressed that the Captain in this case produce such a comprehensive report in such a short time.

As I said before, the Captain's decision in such a case is final. The reasons are irrelevant. He is the final responsible authority for the safety of the aircraft, its crew and all passengers on board. He made a decision. It is not up to the courts to challenge that decision based on such a nebulous concept as racial discrimination. A Secret Service Agent should be able to understand and accept such a decision. If he cannot, he has no business being in the Service, particularly given the current nervousness.

The Captain had every right to insist upon the paperwork being correct to every box filled in, all t's crossed and i's dotted. He needed to assure himself that his arcraft, crew and passengers were safe.

It is very, very easy to judge this incident with the 20-20 hindsight of a Tuesday morning armchair quarterback. But he had to decide the case there and then. He did so. Sure, he has later to provide a certain amount of justification, but anyone who errs on the side of safety is OK by me.

Anyone criticising his decision has to convince me that they could be as certain as is reasonably possible that the aircraft was not endangered by this person's continued presence on board. I am (so far) not convinced.

[Charlie Mike]

"The Captains decision is final"

Right or wrong?? Good or Bad??? Is CRM only in the cockpit?? Not when standing in the doorway.

I was reminded of this episode on AA while watching a movie the other night called Crimson Tide. There the Captain commanded a nuclear submarine and was going with his decision all the way. He couldn't be wrong.

It is time for AA to admit that the decision made was unfortunately wrong.

[seupp]

I'm sorry, but how can you guys (all of you) dwell on this. pls let it go... isn't there more importent things??

seupp

[WhatsaLizad?]

Charlie Mike,

Is your occupation "airline management" as listed in your profile? If so, this airline pilot is not surprised that your response is only backed up with a movie you saw, versus actual command experience.

It must kill you to look at people who
don't have to fire off a memo to headquarters
for permission to take a leak.

[ 13 January 2002: Message edited by: WhatsaLizad? ]</p>

[Hairy Lasso]

Charlie Mike,

You had better believe his decision is final.

Your feeble attempt at using CRM as an analogy together with a fictitious movie script only displays your complete lack of understanding of the responsibilities that a Captain can be faced with.

Have you bothered to read the preceding pages or did you just decide to read this last page?

It appears the Captain sought the assistance of Police and SOC so your definition of CRM must be different to the rest of us.

Stick to your paperwork and don't bother commenting here with inane comparisons that only serves to show your ignorance.

[skydriller]

Ive been reading this thread and the previous one with interest.

The Actions of this ‘Highly decorated Agent’ after being refused flying onboard an AA flight say more about his ‘Attitude’ than anything else. Instead of understanding that after the events of 11/09/01, he might expect problems if his paperwork wasnt exactly right and just quietly fixing it with a few calls to his superiors, he gets the ethnic equality people involved, then after all the media interest decided to sue!!! I cant understand why the Secret Service of all organisations have let this get so far out of hand, it does not say much for the judgement of the entire service, not just the of the Agent concerned.

As for myself, I hope ALL flight crew on the aircraft I travel on are not detered from making similar decisions where safety is an issue because of this law suit. I would be ‘Mad as heck’ if you did.

Regards, SD.

[AA SLF]

More "input" for us to chew on. Interesting reading:
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37201-2002Jan12.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37201-2002Jan12.html</A>

On a frequent flyer site in the USA, an AA employee said it looked liked the situation degenerated into a "pissing contest" between the Agent and the Capt. I agree with that too.
dAAvid -

[The Guvnor]

Isn't this what I have said several times?

[quote]In his statement, Shater said that during his 75-minute wait to board the plane while the pilot checked his credentials, "the pilot never just called my supervisor or any one of a half-dozen independently verifiable numbers that would have confirmed my identity in minutes."

"I offered such numbers and offered to assist in any way I could," Shater said. "When another American Airlines employee made that call that evening . . . my identity . . . was verified in just a few minutes."<hr></blockquote>

and

[quote]But Shater has another version. "After over an hour of the pilot humiliating me, I did tell the pilot that his treatment of me was unprofessional. When he responded, 'Never again address me directly,' I showed him my credentials and told him that those credentials get me into the White House, not just his plane.<hr></blockquote>

Sorry, but to me (based entirely on the various press items I've read and without any particular 'inside information') it still looks like the crew weren't prepared to carry him because of who he was.

And that's racism.

I suspect that one of two things will happen now. This is blowing up into a major issue where opinion is being polarised - and which is going to have a serious effect on AA (especially if they lose the US government business, however unlikely that that would be - though it could happen if GWB does indeed, get "madder than heck").

The alternative is that an out of court settlement will be reached with the agent.

My money's on the latter.

[HugMonster]

Charlie Mike, yes, the Captain's decision is final. This does not mean that CRM is not practiced.

A Captain who consults where he can, takes others' views and opinions on board and then makes his decision is one who exercises both leadership and command as well as CRM.

[bluskis]

guv
hate to join in a gov bashing, but-- the twin towers attack was racist,please decide which side of the racial divide you are on.

[Behind the Curtain]

Bluskis,

I'm not qualified to make any comment on aviation matters except as a passenger, but I am a human, so here goes...

We probably agree on whether the captain's authority is final and I'm sure most of my fellow travellers would feel the same.

I'm not criticising you as I don't know you at all, just that your comment "[...] please decide which side of the racial divide you are on" is the most depressing thing I've read for a long time. I think it's because of the large number of normally reasonable people who I imagine think the same way.

[MarkD]

Guv

sh!te. Exactly what level of federal agent should be allowed on the plane because his ID "gets him into the White House"?

Someone said earlier - a bag of orange doesn't travel without paperwork. Especially post Sept 11.

All you have done is invite pilots to wonder whether you would stand behind the pilots in the airline you want to run the way Don Carty has this time.

[Tan]

The Guvnor

I hear what you are saying about racism, but post 911 has made us all racist. As far as I know there is no quicker method of making a "safety" judgment then "profiling" and that's racist. I suspect that everyone now notices any male that appears to hail from the middle east.

The Captain, IMHO had no choice in refusing to carry the secret service agent if he had even the slightest "safety" doubt. Indeed he would have remiss in his duties if he had done otherwise. The secret service agent was probably hired in the first place because of his size and ability to intimidate others in the course of his duties. If I had been the Captain, I too, would probably have felt threatened by the agents physical presence under these circumstances. The Captain was in a box, not all of his own doing, and took the smart safe way out....Deplane the agent for "safety" reasons....End of story.

The F/A's were spooked because of past events and probably could have handled the problem better. If the Captain had taken the agent, his crew probably would have been resentful and in the event of an emergency... Upset F/A's do not make for a good safety scenario. ...Something else he would have to consider.

As you well know, incident reports especially if they involve emotions, never tell the whole story...

No doubt that a out of court settlement will be reached but that's how big corporations always react. Its all very bottom line and politics.

Cheers..

[DownIn3Green]

Gooberner,

Who gives a to$$ what you think? No one here, I bet... :) :) :) :)

[Huck]

Is anyone else wondering this: what would have happened if the Secret Service agent had said to the airport screeners, "Why are you worried about tweezers? I could crash the plane!"

[Harvy]

Can anyone honestly say that post 911, they would allow an arab looking man to board their plane with a gun after he'd not bothered to fill in his paperwork properly. Would you disregard your own concerns and command the aircraft confidently? Would you KNOW that it was ok, he's a good guy?
All this rubbish just because someone's feelings got hurt...

[Wino]

To quote someone else on an AA pilot's board, "I'll be mad as heck if they were racially profiled." :) :)

Secret Service agents suspended

3 sent from Games after allegations of threat, sexual assault

By Mike Brunker MSNBC

SALT LAKE CITY, Feb. 15 — Three U.S. Secret Service agents have been suspended from duty after one or more of them reportedly threatened a hotel manager and sexually assaulted a woman during a rowdy party at a Provo motel a week before the opening of the Olympics. THE AGENTS, who were not identified, were immediately sent back to their offices in Mississippi, Alabama and Florida and then placed on administrative leave pending full investigation of the charges, Secret Service spokesman Jim Mackin said Friday. All three are cooperating with police, Mackin said. Mackin and Michael Mower, a spokesman for the city of Provo, confirmed that the agents had been suspended and that a criminal investigation was under way, but both declined to detail the allegations against the trio. But the Salt Lake City Tribune reported Friday that one of the agents allegedly put a gun to the head of the hotel manager and threatened to kill him when the man arrived to investigate complaints that a noisy party was disturbing other guests. Four days later, a woman who attended the party alleged that one or more of the agents sexually assaulted her, the newspaper reported without identifying the source of the information. It also said the woman had given differing accounts of the incident to detectives. The Deseret News of Salt Lake City, quoting a source close to the investigation, reported that the incident may have involved underage girls to whom the agents supplied liquor. The manager of the hotel where the incident allegedly occurred, Casey Clement, was on vacation and could not be reached for comment early Friday. Desk clerk Jerry Chang told MSNBC.com that Clement had told him that he had been threatened by one or more Secret Service agents when he went to check on the party but did not say anything about having a gun put to his head. Provo police were expected to wrap up their investigation by next week and forward evidence to the Utah County attorney’s office, which will decide what, if any, charges will be filed. If the agents are charged, they also could face administrative discipline, said Mackin, the Secret Service spokesman. “The Secret Service has zero tolerance for improper behavior,” he said. “We are, however, waiting for all the facts to be determined.” Approximately 2,000 Secret Service agents are in the Salt Lake City region as part of the massive security force assembled to safeguard the Winter Olympics. The Secret Service, which concentrated on VIP protection during previous Olympics, took over as the lead federal agency in providing security for the Games as a result of a 1998 order signed by former President Bill Clinton, declaring them a “national special security event.” The FBI had served in that capacity during previous Olympics.

[B Sousa]

Its very simple, everyone involved should sue everyone else. Isnt that what Amerika is all about.