Men kicked off flight for looking too Muslim

[Eclectic]

Does this happen often?

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/lawsuit-claims-flight-ejected-men-muslim-article-1.2499843

[Genghis the Engineer]

If social media feeds I get are anything to go by, yes.

Wonderful way to stir up racial tension isn't it - not least because the chap on the left of that photograph couldn't really look more sikh if he tried !

G

[ExXB]

Probably that's because he is Sikh

The four — Alam and another flier are Bangladeshi Muslims, one is an Arab Muslim and Anand a Sikh from India — were all ordered off the flight.

Why don't we just do away with the Seurity 'theatre' and rely on white flight attendants to decide who's a threat and who isn't.

[LlamaFarmer]

“She said the stewardess and the captain felt uneasy with us being on the flight. There were inconsistencies of our behavior traveling as a group, because two of us upgraded and two of us didn’t.”


I didn't think someone upgrading to business or not is a normal indicator of security threat.



Racial discrimination and profiling everywhere with air travel...

Flight delayed after Israeli passengers refuse to take off with Palestinian 'terrorists' on board in Greece | Europe | News | The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/flight-delayed-after-israeli-passengers-refuse-to-take-off-with-palestinian-terrorists-on-board-in-a6797276.html)




What's air travel in the USA gonna be like for anyone "a bit racial" if Trump gets into power.

And how many people ignorant enough to cause a problem are going to know the difference between a Sikh and a Muslim anyway, or any other asian-looking person (my generalisation is indicative of their ignorant generalisation)

[hoss183]

I'm not condoning this idiotic behavior in any way.
But remember that the 911 terrorists were in groups of 4, and got themselves seats in the front rows for access. I can understand why some suspicion was raised, just not the massive over-reaction to that.

[Dont Hang Up]

But remember that the 911 terrorists were in groups of 4, and got themselves seats in the front rows for access

For which the chosen policy was the flight deck security door.

Not (as far as I know) racial or religious apartheid.

[M68]

I can understand why some suspicion was raised, just not the massive over-reaction to that.

Just out of interest, what would be the proper reaction to such kind of suspicion?

[Scuffers]

we live in a scary world.

doing what they did with last minute booking changes that were clearly co-ordinated is bound to raise flaggs.

Yes, it's a shame we have to consider threats like this, and that normal people will sometimes get caught up in situations like this, but if you take a step back, it's easy to understand why they were viewed with suspicion.

Personally, as SLF, I want the Captain to retain the right to be able to off-load whoever he likes.

[Slow and curious]

Times have changed. Let them win their lawsuit.

(And have the captain checked for paranoia).

[ExXB]

Still, even if they were 'black-hats' the security screening would have ensured they were unarmed (and if not, why not?). The secure flight deck door would have kept the cockpit secure.

So what was accomplished here?

At very least they deserve an apology, and compensation for any losses incurred

Maybe punitive damages should be awarded (and donated to a worthwhile charity) to stop knee-jerk reactions like this. But this is a distinctly US concept, so I'll withhold further comments.

Remind me not to ask for an upgrade in the future.

[Good Business Sense]

It's gonna be awfully tricky for the Captain if he ever gets an international job !! He's not going to get airborne very often !

Only time I ever offloaded someone in this kind of fashion was out of Manila the day after 9/11 - the ground staff advised me that they were boarding someone who had been rejected by immigration. I asked why - she said, "false passport". I declined the offer to carry the guy as we didn't know who he was ........ the ground staff said, "yes, yes, we do" and showed me his passport :D:D:D:D:D

[Dont Hang Up]

we live in a scary world.

The World is no scarier than it ever was. Certainly the minuscule risk from terrorism normal people face in daily life is no cause for the ever increasing paranoia we are seeing.

It seems the "Keep calm and carry on" of a previous generation has been replaced with "We're scared sh**less why aren't you?"

Yes, it's a shame we have to consider threats like this, and that normal people will sometimes get caught up in situations like this

Just spare a though for how they may feel about all this. Completely innocent travellers subjected to that level of suspicion and finger pointing just because of the way they look. Perhaps they are the ones with a little more justification to feel scared.

I want the Captain to retain the right to be able to off-load whoever he likes.

Maybe, but only on grounds of flight safety, not some vague predjudice.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Just out of interest, what would be the proper reaction to such kind of suspicion?

Flag to the airport TSA staff, and ask for re-confirmation that the group is fit to fly, I'd have thought.

G

[Herod]

In the aftermath of 9/11, a lot of Sikhs in the UK wore T shirts saying "Don't freak, I'm a Sikh". Sad that it was needed. Having said that, I was passenger aboard a cruise ship on 9/11, and one of the passengers said to me that she was worried about a fellow passenger. Elegantly dressed, beard, and turban. I explained that he was a Sikh, and she hadn't a clue.

[uffington sb]

A few years back, post 9/11, Uffers junior worked for Thomas Cook. On a work experience trip back from Tahiti via JFK, one of the group of Asian appearance, got up and changed seats while taxiing out to bag the four across in economy to have a sleep. Unfortunately some American passenger thought this was suspicious and complained. As a result the aircraft returned to the gate, and despite the fact that he was a travel agent, on a travel agents works outing, was off loaded. Uffers Jnr and others of the group tried to intervene, but the Virgin captain was adamant that he be removed.
His name was Singh!!!!

[Wageslave]

Only time I ever offloaded someone in this kind of fashion was out of Manila the day after 9/11 - the ground staff advised me that they were boarding someone who had been rejected by immigration. I asked why - she said, "false passport". I declined the offer to carry the guy as we didn't know who he was ........ the ground staff said, "yes, yes, we do" and showed me his passport :D:D:D:D:D

Seems rather extreme. The poor guy had only been refused entry - he'd flown in and done no harm on the inward flight, what made you think he would suddenly want to do so on the unplanned and unforeseen return? Or have miraculously acquired the means to do so between aircraft and the immigration desk, all airside?
What difference does it make if you think you don't know who he is? That doesn't affect the current risk does it?

[Basil]

Seems rather extreme. The poor guy had only been refused entry - he'd flown in and done no harm on the inward flight
He's demonstrated criminal intent by traveling on a forged passport.
I'd have offloaded him.

[LlamaFarmer]

He's demonstrated criminal intent by traveling on a forged passport.
I'd have offloaded him.

Yup, I'd not have been happy with him travelling in the back of my aircraft, unless he was appropriately extradited, i.e. escorted and restrained.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Absolutely - once dishonesty is demonstrated - assume continuously dishonest.

G

[KelvinD]

Surely the authorities had a right to say "Airline, you brought him in with bogus documents. Now you get him back out" (or else!)

[Hydromet]

Personally, as SLF, I want the Captain to retain the right to be able to off-load whoever he likes.
As SLF, I'm happy to accept that the captain is an expert at flying an aircraft. That doesn't make him any better at judging who is a danger to his aircraft than Fred Nerk.
Still, if he wants to take the responsibility, and pay the appropriate penalties when he gets it wrong...

[llondel]

I wonder what would be the effect of announcing "this passenger is flying with us today. He has passed all the same security checks as the rest of the passengers on board. If you do not wish to share a flight with him, please inform the cabin crew, who will make arrangements for you and your baggage to be removed from the flight".

[Wageslave]

What on EARTH has demonstrating "dishonesty" vis a vis a fake passport got to do with an assumption of it also being a physical hazard to the flight - having, as I previously pointed out, presented no hazard whatsoever to his inbound flight. that is so utterly irrational it astonishes me it even needs to be stated. Is there something special about passport fraud? Do you come the Big I Am and offload him because he defrauded a business partner? Just what level of self-appointed moral judgement do you imagine your four bars entitle you to exert?

I think some people here are severely exceeding not only their capacity for exercising logic and clear thought but also their professional authority.

I am not impressed that "commander's decision" is compatible with that level of unsupportable dictatorial behaviour.

Is he likely to be a a danger to the flight? Yes or No? That is all that is under consideration.

In the example given the answer is clearly No.

[Hotel Tango]

I wonder what would be the effect of announcing "this passenger is flying with us today. He has passed all the same security checks as the rest of the passengers on board. If you do not wish to share a flight with him, please inform the cabin crew, who will make arrangements for you and your baggage to be removed from the flight".

I honestly like it, but it may of course backfire if the FD and or cabin crew walk off :E

[golfyankeesierra]

Still, profiling is very effective in security, and let's face it, these guys ticked a lot of the boxes.., especially purposely dispersing as a group and one of them sitting first row in biz while not at first glance filling the profile of businessman/frequent traveller ..
But the way the airline handled it is almost unforgivable.
And not everyone wearing a beard and a turban is a Taliban!

[Good Business Sense]

professional authority
poor guy
extreme
unsupportable dictatorial behaviour

So we have a few folk very happy to accept a deportee who has just been caught attempting to enter a country/Manila with a false passport and nobody knows anything about them - nothing - no name, nationality, untraceable
......... a very interesting approach as a Commander

[Huck]

It seems the "Keep calm and carry on" of a previous generation has been replaced with "We're scared sh**less why aren't you?"

Amen and amen.

[parabellum]

What on EARTH has demonstrating "dishonesty" vis a vis a fake passport got to do with an assumption of it also being a physical hazard to the flight - having, as I previously pointed out, presented no hazard whatsoever to his inbound flight. that is so utterly irrational it astonishes me it even needs to be stated. Is there something special about passport fraud? Do you come the Big I Am and offload him because he defrauded a business partner? Just what level of self-appointed moral judgement do you imagine your four bars entitle you to exert?

I think some people here are severely exceeding not only their capacity for exercising logic and clear thought but also their professional authority.

I am not impressed that "commander's decision" is compatible with that level of unsupportable dictatorial behaviour.

Is he likely to be a a danger to the flight? Yes or No? That is all that is under consideration.

In the example given the answer is clearly No. All so utterly wrong in all respects. You have no idea what his motives are, but you do know he travels on a false document, you don't know his real identity and that may be because he is on a world wide 'Not to Fly' list and the fact he did nothing to raise suspicion inbound doesn't mean he won't outbound, you simply don't know his motives, deportation may have been one of them, who were the pax on the outbound flight? Any VIPs? any politically sensitive people, in other words any 'targets' for a terrorist?

Some of the soft, 'let him go' and 'who are you to deny him passage' posts here are very disappointing and indicate that flight crew know an awful lot more about terrorism than these posters.

In the example given the answer is clearly No.The only thing that is clear as that you don't have a clue Wageslave.

I think some people here are severely exceeding not only their capacity for exercising logic and clear thought but also their professional authority.

I am not impressed that "commander's decision" is compatible with that level of unsupportable dictatorial behaviour.Once again Wageslave you are just demonstrating an abysmal ignorance combined with a huge chip on your shoulder about crew powers and responsibilities.

[_Phoenix]

They are each seeking $1 million in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages.

I'm wondering if they planned all this indeed, but for the money... Have to admit, that's smart!

[LlamaFarmer]

What on EARTH has demonstrating "dishonesty" vis a vis a fake passport got to do with an assumption of it also being a physical hazard to the flight - having, as I previously pointed out, presented no hazard whatsoever to his inbound flight. that is so utterly irrational it astonishes me it even needs to be stated. Is there something special about passport fraud? Do you come the Big I Am and offload him because he defrauded a business partner? Just what level of self-appointed moral judgement do you imagine your four bars entitle you to exert?

I think some people here are severely exceeding not only their capacity for exercising logic and clear thought but also their professional authority.

I am not impressed that "commander's decision" is compatible with that level of unsupportable dictatorial behaviour.

Is he likely to be a a danger to the flight? Yes or No? That is all that is under consideration.

In the example given the answer is clearly No.

Have to disagree with you, parabellum makes valid points.


Whilst he could be travelling on a fake passport because he cannot get a real one yet is desperate to travel for honest reasons (such as to visit sick family, or escaping persecution, they could genuinely have no malicious intent).


BUT, he could be travelling on it because he IS purposefully hiding his true identity, because he is a security threat and a no-fly list.

Perhaps he knows the procedures and is counting on being denied entry into the country, and is expecting/hoping to be returned back to point of departure.


Can you definitively say someone who has purposefully used false travel documents has no dangerous intentions for doing so?
If not, I don't feel it appropriate to put other passengers, crew and potentially people on the ground below, at risk without taking such precautions as criminally deporting them. Especially if they are travelling in desperation.


Its concerning that others appear they wouldn't even have any hesitation to allow them on.


It may be the airlines job to get them back to point of departure, but its security's job to have stopped them getting through in the first place, so it's not the airlines fault necessarily.




Escorted and detained, like they do when deporting criminals, I wouldn't have a problem. After all, travelling on false documents is a crime.





4 - Possession of false identity documents etc with improper intention


(1)It is an offence for a person (“P”) with an improper intention to have in P’s possession or under P’s control—

(a)an identity document that is false and that P knows or believes to be false,

(b)an identity document that was improperly obtained and that P knows or believes to have been improperly obtained, or

(c)an identity document that relates to someone else.


(2)Each of the following is an improper intention—

(a)the intention of using the document for establishing personal information about P;

(b)the intention of allowing or inducing another to use it for establishing, ascertaining or verifying personal information about P or anyone else.


(3)In subsection (2)(b) the reference to P or anyone else does not include, in the case of a document within subsection (1)(c), the individual to whom it relates.


(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or a fine (or both).





6 - Possession of false identity documents etc without reasonable excuse


(1)It is an offence for a person (“P”), without reasonable excuse, to have in P’s possession or under P’s control—

(a)an identity document that is false,

(b)an identity document that was improperly obtained,

(c)an identity document that relates to someone else,

(d)any apparatus which, to P’s knowledge, is or has been specially designed or adapted for the making of false identity documents, or

(e)any article or material which, to P’s knowledge, is or has been specially designed or adapted to be used in the making of such documents.


(2)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine (or both), or

(b)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the maximum period or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both).


(3)In subsection (2)(b) “the maximum period” means—

(a)in England and Wales or Scotland, 12 months, and

(b)in Northern Ireland, 6 months.


(4)In subsection (3)(a) the reference to 12 months in England and Wales is to be read, in relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, as a reference to 6 months.

[PacWest]

Maybe punitive damages should be awarded (and donated to a worthwhile charity) to stop knee-jerk reactions like this.But this is a distinctly US concept, so I'll withhold further comments.
A distinctly U.S. concept - ?


When was the last time 4 men of middle east/asian appearance flew a Boeing 737 loaded with passengers into a Swiss office tower - until such time as one does then it is doubtful you (who never miss an opportunity to sneer at Americans on this forum) have any idea of the training flight attendants receive in the U.S. with respect to safety awareness, et al. - since 9/11. :ugh:


`

[ExXB]

PacWest

I was referring to the concept of punitive damages which, I believe, is a distinctly US concept. I'm sorry you perceived a sneer

Can we get back to the topic again?

[Scuffers]

Still, profiling is very effective in security, and let's face it, these guys ticked a lot of the boxes.., especially purposely dispersing as a group and one of them sitting first row in biz while not at first glance filling the profile of businessman/frequent traveller ..
But the way the airline handled it is almost unforgivable.
And not everyone wearing a beard and a turban is a Taliban!

do we actually know that was the stated reason for them being offloaded, or is that the claim from the offloaded?

I 100% agree their actions must have raised almost every flag security wise, ignoring their appearance/nationality/religion, so I still side with the Captain's decision (likelihood is he never even saw them before he decided).

As SLF I have had full body scans, my trainers searched, etc etc, do I like it? not really, but I accept that security needs to be high and as a consequence, I will get stopped every so often.

[Dont Hang Up]

I 100% agree their actions must have raised almost every flag security wise, ignoring their appearance/nationality/religion

So if four suited, affluent looking businessmen had performed these identical late changes to their travel plans they would also have been offloaded?

I suspect not.

As SLF I have had full body scans, my trainers searched, etc etc, do I like it? not really, but I accept that security needs to be high and as a consequence, I will get stopped every so often.

And I am sure they were subject to exactly the same. But having passed all these strict security checks would you have appreciated being then offloaded because the cabin crew did not like the look of you?

[hoss183]

I think the level of suspicion is simply about how many boxes get ticked.
- changing seats, tick
- sitting up front near to the cockpit, tick
- in a group, tick
- religious/ethnic group, tick
- false passport (in reference to the parallel discussion), tick

Remove 1 or 2 of those ticks and there would normally be no problem. In this case a lot of boxes were ticked and someone rather than quietly informing TSA for a recheck, overreacted.

[ExXB]

Apparently the punters can swap seats, possibly for a fee, without involving the airline.

NEW 'SEAT SWAP' APP GIVES AIRLINE PASSENGERS THE CHANCE TO ESCAPE SMELLY NEIGHBOURS (http://www.airport-world.com/news/general-news/5402-new-seat-swap-app-gives-airline-passengers-the-chance-to-move-away-from-smelly-passengers.html?), tick

How it works (http://seateroo.com)

[Wannabe Flyer]

They swapped seats to Sit TOGETHER. They are not all from the same religious or ethnic group. These do not tick the same boxes as 9/11. Also given the level of paranoia & latest information actual terrorists are looking more white, normal & low profile. The were boarding an International flight & therefore were probably finger printed & & their passports scanned to be validated.

I think the captain would be hard pressed to find a job for better money if & when he applies for a position on an International carrier that flies more eastwards. He will probably off load all his passengers out of certain flights & definitely be jumpy with the look of many of the crews that service his aircraft from the sand pit onwards.

They should get compensation & he should get an all expenses paid tickets on Emirates doing multiple pit stops eastwards. :}

[goudie]

Waiting to board at Luton some years ago Mrs G espied 3 young muslim? guys who complete with backpacks looked suspicious to her. She sidled over to them for a closer look, came back and said, ''it's ok, they're with their mum!''

[Alain67]

When a bad guy has gone away in a red car, police will stop red cars on the roads for a check, though most of the drivers are cool people. Everyone understands that checking all the cars would be a waist of time, and no one talks about "racism" in such a case. In the recent years, 99% of the "red cars" have been muslims...

[RAT 5]

Mohammed Ali is a muslim. When was the last time he was bumped?

[Capot]

Let's hope the flight attendant, Captain etc who were so uncomfortable at being in the presence of a Muslim never have to go through a security channel at LHR, especially with their quite limited understanding about who is probably a Muslim and who is probably not, such as a Sikh.

Their discomfort levels might be so high they have to self-offload.

[gcal]

Many moon ago there was a VIP middle eastern pax travelling on a very big American Airline across the pond.
The cabin crew, bless 'em, soon identified the passenger because of his style of dress.
It had to be pointed out that the VIP was the young man in a polo shirt and jeans and not the one in traditional clothing.

[cappt]

Nobody here knows why they were removed other then what has been reported in the Daily news. PAX get themselves removed everyday for a number of reasons. The number one reason is alcohol.
Lets not resort to alleging the Flight Attendants are white racist who have never encountered Muslims aboard their aircraft before. Good Grief.

[twochai]

Lets not resort to alleging the Flight Attendants are white racist who have never encountered Muslims aboard their aircraft before. Good Grief.

CAPPT: The problem in the USA and elsewhere these days is that paranoia is rampant.

Tonight, the Mayor of Washington, DC, has declared an approaching winter snowstorm as a 'Homeland Security event', because the weather forecasters have only twice before forecast such a big snowfall - 12" to 15'.

18" of snow in DC is not common, but its certainly not unknown. This system is moving quickly and will certainly move out in 24 to 36 hours.

To me it smells of the security services trying find another job for themselves, presumably because there's not enough action on the Homeland Security frontline..

Settle down guys, take a deep breath and deal with it. Some people look 'different'.

[cappt]

CAPPT: The problem in the USA and elsewhere these days is that paranoia is rampant.

Paranoia? I can count at least a dozen attacks on western nations in the last few years, half in the USA. There will be more.

The third post in this thread, I wont quote it because it doesn't deserve to be reposted, is very offensive. I'm surprised MODS think it OK?

If you want to talk about Paranoia and profilers lets talk about Kuwait Airlines whom just decided they would rather not fly into JFK then carry an Israeli passenger aboard. GO figure. Blatant discrimination.

Kuwait Airways drops NYC-London route (http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/2015/12/15/kuwait-airways-drops-nyc-london-route/77370416/)

[twochai]

18" of snow in DC is not common, but its certainly not unknown. This system is moving quickly and will certainly move out in 24 to 36 hours.

Cappt: Of course you're correct: there will be more. No surprise there.

But most attacks today are by homegrown animals, a very high percentage of whom have mental issues. The level of destruction they inflict do not warrant the level of defensive measures employed.

Get to the source, stop the 'wingnuts' who are the real issue today. Thankfully, Kuwait Airways stopped themselves!

[cappt]

Agree on the snowstorm, it snows in January so nothing new there.
Media hype, storms sell.

[WhatsaLizad?]

"CAPPT: The problem in the USA and elsewhere these days is that paranoia is rampant."


Let's give it a rest, okay mate?


AAL like any other US corporation today has strict marching orders in compliance with political correctness standards. That includes Muslims and people of all colors present on probably ANY flight yesterday, today and tomorrow.


Any AAL Captain and any US airline Captain would be fighting for their jobs within hours of making a call that they removed 4 passengers, especially 2 in business class because they were simply Muslims. For you typical PPruners that lambast the USA endlessly on subjects like this, close your eyes and repeat the above statement several times for therapy. ;)


I have ZERO information on this event other than the media. Odds are there was other behavior that was suspect to the crew, and odds are the group didn't respond well to instructions or requests of the crew and that was got them tossed.


How many flights does AAL fly in a typical day? More than most countries.

[AC560]

The media often tends to over react in both directions when these things erupt. Remember the US AIR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_imams_incident) incident. It will be a long time given the legal process before we probably find out what really happened and if there were additional factors other than appearance that resulted in the removal.

[LlamaFarmer]

The third post in this thread, I wont quote it because it doesn't deserve to be reposted, is very offensive. I'm surprised MODS think it OK?

I think it's meant to be sarcastic... although sarcasm doesn't always translate online.

[hoss183]

Cppt: If you think the third post was offensive you clearly havent read or understood it properly.

[RAT 5]

A few decades ago, at LHR during an ATC assistants' strike, if the story is truthful, a sheik's private jet was delayed for a long time due ATC. His response was to ask how much LHR ATC cost to buy.
Today, with the oil price slightly depressed, this might not be so ready a solution. Still, it would amuse me if a group of sheik clad business passengers was asked to deplane and then they offered to buy the airline.

[LlamaFarmer]

A few decades ago, at LHR during an ATC assistants' strike, if the story is truthful, a sheik's private jet was delayed for a long time due ATC. His response was to ask how much LHR ATC cost to buy.
Today, with the oil price slightly depressed, this might not be so ready a solution. Still, it would amuse me if a group of sheik clad business passengers was asked to deplane and then they offered to buy the airline.

Reminds me a bit of this

https://youtu.be/oC4edw3n3h4