Muslim family that was ordered off an AirTran Airways flight on New Year’s Day received an apology and refund on Friday from the airline, which said its decision to bar the passengers was necessary.
Atif Irfan said in an interview with CNN that federal authorities removed him, seven family members and a friend from the flight after passengers overheard members of the group talking about the safest place to sit on the plane. He said they were being careful to avoid any “buzzwords” like “bomb” that would trigger a security alert.
The group was flying out of Reagan Washington National Airport and was headed for a religious retreat in Florida when other passengers apparently overheard the conversation and reported it to authorities.
AirTran issued a statement apologizing to the nine and the other passengers who were inconvenienced by the incident. It said the airfare of the nine was refunded and other passengers would be reimbursed for expenses incurred by taking other flights.
“We apologize to all of the passengers — to the nine who had to undergo extensive interviews from the authorities, and to the 95 who ultimately made the flight,” the discount airline said in a statement.
“While ultimately this issue proved to be a misunderstanding, the steps taken were necessary,” it said.
An earlier AirTran statement said the airline complied with all Transportation Security Administration and Homeland Security directives and had no discretion in the case.
All 104 passengers aboard the flight were taken off and re-screened and their baggage was checked again, AirTran said. Of the nine passengers in the group, six asked to be rebooked to Florida, AirTran said.
The Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations said it filed a complaint on Friday with the US Department of Transportation. The Islamic civil rights group said in a statement it was working with the Muslim passengers and the airline to address the civil liberties issues related to the incident.
“We believe this disturbing incident would never have occurred had the Muslim passengers removed from the plane not been perceived by other travelers and airline personnel as members of the Islamic faith,” the group said in its complaint.
Kashif Irfan, Atif’s brother, told The Washington Post he thought the group, all but one of them US-born citizens, were profiled because of their appearance. He said five of the six adults in the group are of South Asian descent, and all six are traditionally Muslim in appearance, with the men wearing beards and the women in headscarves.
Kashif Irfan, 34, is an anesthesiologist, and his brother Atif, 29, is a lawyer, the Post reported. Both live in Alexandria, Virginia.
Atif Irfan told CNN that US law enforcement officials treated the group with kindness but the family is upset that the airline did not allow the group to re-board the plane or rebook a flight after they had been cleared of any wrongdoing.
The Post reported the group booked a flight on US Airways after the incident.
(Reuters)
By: Grey Area - 5th January 2009 at 07:08
Moderator Message
That’s quite enough.
This is supposed to be an aviation forum.
GA
By: Corsair82pilot - 5th January 2009 at 03:27
The only thing that’s irrational in this situation by my logic seems to be the decision to boot 8 perfectly normal, law abiding people off the plane. If there’s even a shred of rationality in that, please explain to me where because I’m failing to see it!
Paul
It is easy to pontificate when it hasn’t happened to you.
By: PMN - 5th January 2009 at 01:00
The problem is you are all applying rationale to an irrational situation. The perpetrators of 9/11 succeeded in at least one thing. They put fear in the mind of the traveling public, at least in the US. Fear is not rational, and there is no way to legislate an end to it. You can not call people racists because of a fear borne of an act of terrorism.
The only thing that’s irrational in this situation by my logic seems to be the decision to boot 8 perfectly normal, law abiding people off the plane. If there’s even a shred of rationality in that, please explain to me where because I’m failing to see it!
Paul
By: Corsair82pilot - 5th January 2009 at 00:48
You have been drinking the BBC cool aide for too long. Though racism exists,(as it does everywhere) it is not quite so endemic as you in Europe are lead to believe. I am half dago and half nigger, in your terms. I retired from the US Air Force as a Lt. Col, and I am an Airline Capt. When was a black man ever a member of Parliament or the Prime Minister of England? Last I checked, our Pres-elect is a brother.
You Brits invented the word wog before our country existed.
PS, slavery was an institution brought to this continent by Europeans. Though it took time, the first real American generation gave close to half a million lives to rid our country of that European institution.
By: kev35 - 4th January 2009 at 21:13
The problem is you are all applying rationale to an irrational situation. The perpetrators of 9/11 succeeded in at least one thing. They put fear in the mind of the traveling public, at least in the US. Fear is not rational, and there is no way to legislate an end to it. You can not call people racists because of a fear borne of an act of terrorism.
Are you talking about the same America in which Jews are called kikes, Hispanics are called spics, Italians are called dago’s, Irishmen are called mick’s and Black Americans are called niggers? All of these delightful names chosen long before September the 11th of course.
Serve said:
It should not be necessary for peaceful, law-abiding people to have to spend their lives pandering to stupid bigots, adjusting their public behaviour to take account of that stupidity & bigotry.
And he is absolutely right!
corsair82pilot should not try to blame racism which is endemic in his country on a terrorist attack.
regards,
kev35
By: Corsair82pilot - 4th January 2009 at 20:31
The problem is you are all applying rationale to an irrational situation. The perpetrators of 9/11 succeeded in at least one thing. They put fear in the mind of the traveling public, at least in the US. Fear is not rational, and there is no way to legislate an end to it. You can not call people racists because of a fear borne of an act of terrorism.
By: PMN - 4th January 2009 at 20:23
I saw them on CNN. They said they were discussing where in the plane was safest in the event of an accident. I’ve had exactly the same conversation on boarding, without anyone showing the slightest trace of alarm, & I’ve overheard others discuss it in a departure lounge.
BTW, has it not occurred to anyone that a terrorist would be likely to (1) dress inconspicuously, & (2) not draw attention to him or her self by discussing plans for destroying an aircraft while boarding it, using a language (English, in this case) other passengers might reasonably be expected to understand? Never heard of one taking the whole family (kids included) along, either. Also, why would a terrorist be worried about the safest place to sit?
Also (referring to other posts), there is no accusation of them acting in a “furtive or disruptive manner”. They were doing something that caused alarm only because of irrational (& it is irrational – see above) prejudice by both other passengers & the airline. It should not be necessary for peaceful, law-abiding people to have to spend their lives pandering to stupid bigots, adjusting their public behaviour to take account of that stupidity & bigotry.
As Grey Area said, disgraceful.
I agree 100% with every word. Every single word.
Paul
By: swerve - 4th January 2009 at 19:53
It might also depend on what exactly they were discussing,interesting that one of them was reported as being a lawyer :D.
cheers baz
I saw them on CNN. They said they were discussing where in the plane was safest in the event of an accident. I’ve had exactly the same conversation on boarding, without anyone showing the slightest trace of alarm, & I’ve overheard others discuss it in a departure lounge.
BTW, has it not occurred to anyone that a terrorist would be likely to (1) dress inconspicuously, & (2) not draw attention to him or her self by discussing plans for destroying an aircraft while boarding it, using a language (English, in this case) other passengers might reasonably be expected to understand? Never heard of one taking the whole family (kids included) along, either. Also, why would a terrorist be worried about the safest place to sit?
Also (referring to other posts), there is no accusation of them acting in a “furtive or disruptive manner”. They were doing something that caused alarm only because of irrational (& it is irrational – see above) prejudice by both other passengers & the airline. It should not be necessary for peaceful, law-abiding people to have to spend their lives pandering to stupid bigots, adjusting their public behaviour to take account of that stupidity & bigotry.
As Grey Area said, disgraceful.
By: NYRangerfan1994 - 4th January 2009 at 17:58
you don’t know how embarrassing it is being singled out, especially if you’re alone… i was in the uk doing my masters studies, and they singled me out because i’m indian, and since all brown people are the same, i must be terroristy… the idiot security guy wanted to see my student id because i guess he didn’t believe i was a student, so i showed it to him, he reads off the 1983 on my id and tells me that this id is old, and i tell him that’s because the 1983 reflects my year of birth… all the while everyone else is staring at me wondering what’s going on… and of course, these are the very people i’ll be flying with so i have to spend the next 8 hours looking as normal as i possibly can, trying to sound as american as i can get… then while about to board the plane, i’ve never had a problem with my passport before, but the boarding agent pulls me over, you don’t look like the person in the passport picture… i wanted to tell her, i’m sure she didn’t always look as ugly as she does now, but i told her the pic was taken a while back… but still, she tells me, well people don’t change that much in a few years… remembering that no one else that looked at my passport pic thought anything of it… needless to say, i won’t ever fly BA again…
By: UPSMD11f - 4th January 2009 at 16:30
Whether muslim or not there are certain things you do and dont say on Aircraft.If the public has a bad view on a certain race of people then its not very wise to get on a plane and start discussing the safest place to sit.I have no doubt that this was an over reaction but with the world it is today i cant say im surprised this happened.I suppose its down to everyones opinion there is no real right or wrong way to deal with this but the crew does have the right to remove any passenger they feel can cause problems to the safety of the aircraft and all onboard
By: Corsair82pilot - 4th January 2009 at 16:04
I feel the Muslim community as a whole is not helping their own image, which helps to feed the intolerance. (I happen to have quite a few Muslim friends that are US Airways pilots, and I think I am stating this in an objective way) Instead of attempting to learn from these situations and work with the authorities and non Muslims to avoid these things in the future, some seem to want to make civil rights cases out of them and win bold headlines. They seem to thrive on the sensationalism. Muslims must learn to be tolerant of the feelings and fears of non Muslims which grew out of 9/11, and learn not to create situations through actions that are not necessary whilst on an aircraft. I am saying we need to work together.
I once had a passenger ask me if I had been drinking as I stood by the door greeting my boarding passengers (Boeing 757 in Boston). The word went around like a fire that the pilot had been drinking. I stopped the boarding and went to the clinic to be tested for alcohol. I passed, of course, but it took three hours to administer the test. When I returned to the aircraft, it was like a war zone. I promptly explained to the passengers what had happened. I located the fool who had made the statement and invited him to leave my aircraft with the threat that he would be escorted off by the Boston police if he did not leave of his own accord. Funny thing, his wife remained on board for the trip to St. Martin.
If anyone acts in a furtive or disruptive manner in a US aircraft these days, it creates a passenger uproar. Not just Muslims. Regardless of what the disruption is caused by, the aircraft crew must make a spot decision that will alleviate the situation in a quick and safe fashion, whilst attempting to keep the service on time. Sometimes the hands of the Captain are tied and he must make a decision with the information at hand in an expeditious manner.
By: PMN - 3rd January 2009 at 14:17
The measure of being reasonable and justifiable is easy from the comfort of our armchairs where we can make less emotional, more reasoned and balanced judgements. So, to acuse those who perpetrated the act in the first place as being disgraceful might not, unreasonably, be considered by some as unreasonable!
Surely by that logic defending those who took that decision from the comfort of our armchairs might also be considered unreasonable? I can assure you 100%, had I overheard the conversation in question I would not have assumed they were trying to blow the plane up and needed to be kicked off the flight. I can’t actually see why anyone would assume something so ridiculous beyond them being spectacularly ignorant and stupid.
Naturally, just an opinion.
Paul
By: bazv - 3rd January 2009 at 13:10
Perhaps when someone is let on board, despite Staff suspicions, and blows up a plane with innocent people aboard?
It will happen. Then, Staff will be accused of not taking enough action.It’s damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
And its far too easy for us to judge the actions of others from the comfort of our armchairs.
I had meant to quote this and say that I absolutely agree,unless you were there you cannot give a reasoned judgement.
cheers baz
By: bazv - 3rd January 2009 at 13:09
It might also depend on what exactly they were discussing,interesting that one of them was reported as being a lawyer :D.
I flew to the states a few days after 9/11 and I must say that on the return journey whilst waiting to board at SFO it was like being in a clousseau (sellars) film with everybody looking sideways around the waiting room at any possible terrorists 😀
Then again I have worked in aviation all my life and have a strange sense of humour.
cheers baz
By: Arabella-Cox - 3rd January 2009 at 12:25
The measure of what is “reasonable ” or “justifiable” in instances like this is very subjective. I have little doubt that those involved in taking the action thought it entirely reasonable and entirely justifiable. I am not saying it isn’t wrong. Just human reaction to a situation with a perceived if unrealistic threat. The measure of being reasonable and justifiable is easy from the comfort of our armchairs where we can make less emotional, more reasoned and balanced judgements. So, to acuse those who perpetrated the act in the first place as being disgraceful might not, unreasonably, be considered by some as unreasonable!
By: PMN - 3rd January 2009 at 11:09
Perhaps there is not any difference to the hostility directed at German sounding names in WW1 (the Royal Family included!!) or the abuse suffered by innocent Italian Ice Cream vendors at the start of WW2…most if not all of whom were locked up for the duration. Such lists are endless. Ignorance. Hysteria. Call it what you will. All the time we are human being beings it ain’t gonna stop….however many howls of “disgraceful” there are!
I’m not denying that. Sadly I’m well aware how stupid human beings can be but I still don’t think it’s reasonable or justifyable!
Paul
By: Arabella-Cox - 3rd January 2009 at 10:52
Perhaps there is not any difference to the hostility directed at German sounding names in WW1 (the Royal Family included!!) or the abuse suffered by innocent Italian Ice Cream vendors at the start of WW2…most if not all of whom were locked up for the duration. Such lists are endless. Ignorance. Hysteria. Call it what you will. All the time we are human being beings it ain’t gonna stop….however many howls of “disgraceful” there are!
By: PMN - 3rd January 2009 at 10:42
In the case of Cat Stevens .. they were afraid if they let him into the US he’d play his music
Ha! I have to admit, that was funny! 😀
Paul
By: Grey Area - 3rd January 2009 at 07:03
In the case of Cat Stevens .. they were afraid if they let him into the US he’d play his music
The horror! The horror!!! 😮
By: steve rowell - 3rd January 2009 at 04:51
That said, in this case they were wrong, as they were when Yusuf Islam (previously known as Cat Stevens) was offloaded in Canada as a result of not being allowed into the US a couple of years ago.
Paul
In the case of Cat Stevens .. they were afraid if they let him into the US he’d play his music
Sign In
January 2, 2009 at 11:51 pm