What would they have based the denied boarding on? His looks alone? Security officials said he wasn't a threat. Agreed, AA could deny boarding to all those who wear a particular type of clothing or by some other parameter they find sketchy. At least until the lawsuits followed from legitimate passengers who happen to look different.

Should we deny boarding to those who dress or appear different from the norm, is that what your advocating? That's what would have happened.

What would they have based the denied boarding on?

ISTR it was:
a) one-way ticket
b) no checked bags
c) no destination address
all of which were CAPPS flags prior to 9/11, although back then it just meant a bag search and PBM. I don't know if it was the same ground crew which alerted the second day.

Those are markers that note a closer look at by security. That was completed. He had no background that I'm aware of to tip anyones hat, he had special attention above and beyond what every other passenger received.

A a pilot who commutes to work (not in uniform), I meet some of those parameters. I am a last minute addition to the DM, one way pass, I offer no address other than company headquarters and no checked bags. What did it get me? A special date with security at the gate for an extra patdown and an examination of my flight case and roll aboard. After finding nothing, I was always allowed aboard. The only difference was I'm a white male, somewhat cleancut.

Turn Back
 

So if the shoe bomber's plane had been turned back, how would that have helped anybody's security?

Also if you are flagged because of no checked baggage, how do they do a baggage check on you (the hand baggage being scanned anyway)?

I've missed something somwhere. I am sure that there are more movements not fewer.:confused:

...and try getting back to your apartment in the centre of Birmingham at 0600 on Sunday morning when you have to be at work at 1300 with no sleep. All due to bomb threats and the evacuation of 20,000 ..... - not happy!! but a sign of the times!!

Security? What Security
 

Gentlemen;

Let us not confuse patriotism with effective security, I often read in these lines that being american or pro american in security policies is akin to being safe.

Wrong!

As someone rightly mentionned in an earlier thread, the 9-11 attacks started on american soil and not in Europe, where security despite what some may think of is much stricter in effective terms than security in the US.

Now everyone seems to have a wwonderfull go at the way we do things on this side of the Atlantic, rest assured everyone that security at European airports and cities is much better than anywhere in the US.

Which brings about another question, who is this security bash really serving?

It is destroying the industry at its seams and the ones creating these problems are really the US, everyone else in the industry is managing their security to KPIs that are much higher than any US carrier despite the appearances, troublesome check-in procedures and inconvenience caused to every pax and of course airport congestion.

European airports have got their procedures so well oiled that they are actually looking for other looming problems today like unruly and offloadable material (probably irrated from a US flight)

It still brings me back to the same question: Whose interest is this serving?

Certainly not the passengers, and certainly not the carriers and certainly not the airport authorities.

American airports remain the unsafest hubs in the world and their actions against other carriers are only an indication that they cannot compete in a service industry that has eveolved beyond the comprehensive psychological means of the honourable senator from Kentuky, so his parade is to impose what would otherwise be unexcusable in a market economy: Threat by fear.

I live in the Middle East and perhaps US authorities should come here to look at how we keep everything under control, no guns, no drugs and relatively orderly terminals.

It is also perhaps time to question why these threats seem to threaten only one axis and not the other, perhaps as citizens of the world some wshould question the presence and illegality of US troops abroad, the palestine conflicts etc..... Maybe if logic was used by these policy makers, all this would not be happening.... Just a thought!!!!:8

No right of carriage
 

AA nor any other carrier is obligated to fly anybody. By buying a ticket, the carrier and the PAX are entering a contract. As any contract, this one is subject to condition which must be meet by both parties. One of those conditions is that a PAX may be of no threat to the operation of the flight. From being ever so slightly unruly al the way to terrorist intentions.
If AA had such suspicions then AA should have denied the flight to Mr. Ried on basis of a breached contract – they could even have kept the airfare!

N380UA said:

If AA had such suspicions then AA should have denied the flight to Mr. Ried on basis of a breached contract – they could even have kept the airfare!


That sounds interesting. As an airline, all you have to do is to cancel a flight because you suspect everybody on it of being a terrorist, and keep the cash. I wonder how long you could get away with that before a court found against you? (not intended to give a certain Dublin based airline ideas!)

More seriously, I suspect anyone denied the flight would have a good case in court unless the airline could prove the terrorist connection.

I'm speculating, but there's a plausible reason I can think of why there have been no US carrier turn-arounds: these carriers are subject to US law by default and the US security will probably have the passengerlist before departure. For the US to get the foreign carrier's passenger list, a whole political dance has to be performed which likely delays the delivery of the list up to a point where the carrier has already departed.

I don't think the US security is favouring the US carriers, really. Just look at what the US govt has imposed on their citizens in the name of "national security", not to mention the scare tactics to make sure their citizens don't complain too much about losing their privacy step by step.

Just my two cents.

Paper Tiger

a) one-way ticket
b) no checked bags
c) no destination adress

That guy looks very much like a business traveler to me.

One-way-ticket because I don't know how long I am going to be there (assuming I have the necessary documentation). no chekce bags. Handluggage does the thing (I can live several weeks with hand luggage only provided someone give me a possibility to clean my clothes). No destination adress. No, since I have no idea where they are going to put me.

Or he is a pilot going to pick up a new airplane.

Pretty difficult to spot the 'terrorist' from all the legitimates with similar tickets.

Yep, been there done that......

In fact as far as US immigration is concerned they really do want an address on the entry card.....and according to the immigration guy that gave me a hard time on a previous trip, any address is better than none - 'even if its not the truth' I asked him, 'yep', he replied, 'its a reason for me to prevent entry if you dont have a destination address'.........what does that say about the system?

Regards, SD..

I've experienced the 'no fixed abode' problem twice (both prior to 9/11) - once in transit through LAX (NAN-LHR) and once on holiday in the US when the first night was on the Capitol Limited. In both cases the immigration staff were a little bemused, but with good will on both sides, I had no real problem getting through.

I wonder what happens when a plane-load of cruise-liner pax arrives in Florida? To be fair, I guess immigration there are used to this problem, whereas my cases were (slightly) unusual.

Rather than start a new thread ... a British senior academic was on BBC Radio 4 'Today' complaining that he was turned back at JFK.

He had been to the USA many times, including taking part in post 9/11 ceremonies and, on this trip, had been invited by a university .

Oh yes, he is a Moslem. Still, at least the flight was not turned back and ruined everyone's day. And it is reassuring to see that the USA are keeping to their usual standards.

Indeed - link to the BBC Article here

It seems even having dinner with QEII and ol' George W won't get you ... what is it, "good enough for the Secret Service isn't good enough for Customs and Immigration"

Jordan

Mouth-breathing ICE moron encounters self-important A-rab religious leader.
Result: predictable.
Apology: you must be joking.

P-T: That was a very silly set of statements. You might have contributed to the debate but, first, 'quote' from an unnamed source. Then insult the man, without revealing why and on what you base this.

Lastly you say, "Apology: you must be joking." No one here has suggested or asked for such. So you are reacting against your own imagination. If you are reacting against Dr.Badawi requesting an apology, then you should have stated such.

PAXBoy - I think P-T was pointing out what US Customs & Immigration point of view is ... nothing more than that ... I can put bottom dollar on them no apologising to the Cleric, and it shows that they are a law unto themselves.

Jordan

paxboy, the quote was from the link in the preceeding post. I apologise if that was too much for your attention span.

You are correct I was surmising what might have occurred based on reading between the lines in the story. If you have not experienced or witnessed such confrontations at a US Customs and Immigration post, then you should simply revel in your good fortune.

The US authorities have yet (to my knowledge) apologised for any of these err... misunderstandings wrt their 'secret' lists.

P-T, sure no problem. I have heard these stories of the way in which the US folks 'greet' some of their would be guests and it certainly is not something I wish to experience. The most I have had is my bags turned inside out.

I caertainly cannot imagine them apologising to anybody about anything for any reason!