secret service agent denied boarding
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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>
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>
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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".
However, the Captain's opinion should be absolute, regardless. Perhaps the hosties' should be sent back for ah.... "retraining".
"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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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>
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>
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
ZbV
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Samsonite
Age: 51
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Cheers
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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."
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."
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
The FA was dead right to check.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: New York
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: here to eternity
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Jolly Green Giant
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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">
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">
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Rhode Island, USA
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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?
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?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: dallas,tx,usa
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Jolly Green Giant
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Way to go American and long live the Republic of Texas!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: bucks
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Rhode Island, USA
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.