PDA

View Full Version : 'Safest' seat remarks get Muslim family kicked off plane


The Postmaster General
01-02-2009, 04:15 PM
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A Muslim family removed from an airliner Thursday after passengers became concerned about their conversation say AirTran officials refused to rebook them, even after FBI investigators cleared them of wrongdoing.


A Muslim family was removed from an AirTran flight after a conversation about the safest place to sit.

Atif Irfan said federal authorities removed eight members of his extended family and a friend after passengers heard them discussing the safest place to sit and misconstrued the nature of the conversation.

Irfan, a U.S. citizen and tax attorney, said he was "impressed with the professionalism" of the FBI agents who questioned him, but said he felt mistreated when the airline refused to book the family for a later flight.

AirTran Airways late Thursday said they acted properly and that the family was offered full refunds and can fly with AirTran again.

"AirTran Airways complied with all TSA, law enforcement and Homeland Security directives and had no discretion in the matter," the company said in a prepared statement. Watch how Muslims find climate of fear at airport »

Family members said FBI agents tried to work it out with the airline, but to no avail. iReport.com: Share your story

"The FBI agents actually cleared our names," said Inayet Sahin, Irfan's sister-in-law. "They went on our behalf and spoke to the airlines and said, 'There is no suspicious activity here. They are clear. Please let them get on a flight so they can go on their vacation,' and they still refused."

"The airline told us that we can't fly their airline," Irfan said.

Don't Miss
iReport.com: Do you wear a religious garment?
The dispute occurred about 1 p.m. Thursday as AirTran flight 175 was preparing for takeoff from Reagan National Airport outside of Washington, D.C., on a flight destined for Orlando, Florida.

Atif Irfan, his brother, their wives, a sister and three children were headed to Orlando to meet with family and attend a religious conference.

"The conversation, as we were walking through the plane trying to find our seats, was just about where the safest place in an airplane is," Sahin said. "We were (discussing whether it was safest to sit near) the wing, or the engine or the back or the front, but that's it. We didn't say anything else that would raise any suspicion." Watch Muslims recount how they were kicked off plane »

The conversation did not contain the words "bomb," "explosion," "terror" or other words that might have aroused suspicion, Irfan said.

"When we were talking, when we turned around, I noticed a couple of girls kind of snapped their heads," said Sobia Ijaz, Irfan's wife. "I kind of thought to myself, 'Oh, you know, maybe they're going to say something.' It didn't occur to me that they were going to make it such a big issue."

Some time later, while the plane was still at the gate, an FBI agent boarded the plane and asked Irfan and his wife to leave the plane. The rest of the family was removed 15 or 20 minutes later, along with a family friend, Abdul Aziz, a Library of Congress attorney and family friend who was coincidentally taking the same flight and had been seen talking to the family.

After the FBI interviewed family members, it released them, Irfan said.

AirTran spokesman Tad Hutcheson said the incident began when some passengers reported hearing suspicious remarks by a woman and alerted flight attendants. Two federal air marshals, who were on board the flight, notified law enforcement about the security-related issue, AirTran said.

After the family and Aziz were taken for questioning, the remaining 95 passengers were taken off of the plane and rescreened, along with the crew and the baggage, AirTran said.

Irfan said he believes his family is owed an apology.

"Really, at the end of the day, we're not out here looking for money. I'm an attorney. I know how the court system works. We're basically looking for someone to say... 'We're apologizing for treating you as second-class citizens.'"

"We are proud Americans," Sahin said. "You know we decided to have our children and raise them here. We can very easily go anywhere we want in the world, but you know we love it here and we're not going to go away, no matter what."

Aziz said there is a "very strong possibility" he will pursue a civil rights lawsuit.

"I guess it's just a situation of guilt by association," Aziz said. "They see one Muslim talking to another Muslim and they automatically assume something wrong is going on."

- http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/01/01/family.grounded/

Bourne101
01-02-2009, 05:00 PM
Hmm... this is a tough one. Once they were cleared they should have been allowed to fly that airline, but safest seat??? For one, your ticket has a seat number on it so you should probably sit there, unless the plane is empty at which time some people would go find a seat with more leg room if there was one. I don't believe any one seat is safer than another. If you're gonna crash you're gonna crash, those who live are just lucky the plane crashed the way it did.

Very odd story.

Cop No. 633
01-02-2009, 06:09 PM
I don't think they wanted to sit anywhere... it was more of a general question, "I wonder which is the safest seat?" Then it went on as they got to their seats. They never were trying to sit anywhere else except their own seats. If they tried sitting in the alleged "safest seats" and fought for them, then yes, that would be suspicious.

If they were white, nobody would have said or done anything. Simple as that. These people should get a fat apology that either comes with free flights or money.

Bourne101
01-02-2009, 06:30 PM
I don't think they wanted to sit anywhere... it was more of a general question, "I wonder which is the safest seat?" Then it went on as they got to their seats. They never were trying to sit anywhere else except their own seats. If they tried sitting in the alleged "safest seats" and fought for them, then yes, that would be suspicious.

Yeah, that makes sense.

The Postmaster General
01-02-2009, 09:22 PM
My wife says that we've actually had this discussion on a plane before but I don't remember it. Still though, it is a very common topic of discussion - behind the wing, in front of the wing, or at the back?

Very, very common discussion: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=1006033015888


These people should be flying free for life, much less banned from the airline. Airtrans stance on the issue is mind-boggling.

Preston_79
01-03-2009, 11:44 AM
Very sad. The father sounds like a good man, and his family is owed an apology.

Homyrrh
01-03-2009, 06:32 PM
I don't think they wanted to sit anywhere... it was more of a general question, "I wonder which is the safest seat?" Then it went on as they got to their seats. They never were trying to sit anywhere else except their own seats. If they tried sitting in the alleged "safest seats" and fought for them, then yes, that would be suspicious.

If they were white, nobody would have said or done anything. Simple as that. These people should get a fat apology that either comes with free flights or money.
No, they definitely wouldn't, and for very supportable, very substantiated reasons. Let's not kid ourselves here...

The Postmaster General
01-04-2009, 06:44 PM
No, they definitely wouldn't, and for very supportable, very substantiated reasons. Let's not kid ourselves here...


Kid ourselves about what? That they shouldn't get an apology? I don't understand how you can add an argumentative point when you are agreeing with Cosmic.

If you are just throwing out that you think it's perfectly reasonable to assume Muslim men are more likely to be planning to blow up a plane, than white people, then okay, but while the passengers may have reacted reasonably, there's no doubt that the airline was acting like morons.

BTW - I saw a headline that the airline did apologize. I assume they also lifted the ban.

Homyrrh
01-04-2009, 08:44 PM
Kid ourselves about what? That they shouldn't get an apology? I don't understand how you can add an argumentative point when you are agreeing with Cosmic.

If you are just throwing out that you think it's perfectly reasonable to assume Muslim men are more likely to be planning to blow up a plane, than white people, then okay, but while the passengers may have reacted reasonably, there's no doubt that the airline was acting like morons.

BTW - I saw a headline that the airline did apologize. I assume they also lifted the ban.
Oh, yeah, I was referring to CP's discontent with the racial disparity. I felt the most reasonable entity involved was the family, and the airline, especially after FBI intervention, was ridiculous in their decision to deny the restitution.

I assumed he was referring to the complaints levied by the passengers--it was a misunderstanding, but I meant "let's not kid ourselves" that people should be entirely neutral and unbiased in their reactions to the general nature of the conversation depending on ethnic and racial bounds.

The Postmaster General
01-04-2009, 11:49 PM
Right. My take is that while it is understandable, seeing a dog eat a piece of crap is also understandable, but that doesn't make it any less disgusting. I probably would have asked them what the hell they were talking about, or somehow interjected in the conversation, if not just minding my own business.

I think part of the key toward why one may look down on the family for being paranoid, though, might be in considering that if the 8 Muslim men getting on the plane were having the same conversation, but not in English, that the family may have become just as concerned, maybe even more so, given that they didn't have any "solid" reasoning for reporting them to airline personnel. Of course that's just speculation, but while I do see where they were coming from, I still think they were being too touchy.

Homyrrh
01-05-2009, 12:27 AM
Right. My take is that while it is understandable, seeing a dog eat a piece of crap is also understandable, but that doesn't make it any less disgusting. I probably would have asked them what the hell they were talking about, or somehow interjected in the conversation, if not just minding my own business.

I think part of the key toward why one may look down on the family for being paranoid, though, might be in considering that if the 8 Muslim men getting on the plane were having the same conversation, but not in English, that the family may have become just as concerned, maybe even more so, given that they didn't have any "solid" reasoning for reporting them to airline personnel. Of course that's just speculation, but while I do see where they were coming from, I still think they were being too touchy.
Yeah, and I feel it boils to a single fundamental point about this and other related cases, that caution and sense should take precedence over political correctness. The airline should heed the concerns of its passengers, and was right in doing so, though their ultimate conduct was, as I mentioned, ludicrous.

The Postmaster General
01-05-2009, 11:12 AM
Political correctness has nothing to do with this. If anything, it was the Muslims who were acting politically incorrect. If a black man appears on a street and a white woman screams, "Oh my god! He's going to attack me!" -- That's not being politically incorrect, that's being paranoid. Political correctness would be not mentioning that the guy was black when reporting the story. Being "incorrect" would be either the black dude going, "Hm. White meat!" or the white woman going, "You better stay away or there'll be a hangin!"

There was nothing in the way that the airline or the family acted that concerns political correctness. It's funny that you brought it up because I was going to bring it up in my last response as a question if we've gone through a looking glass with political correctness, and now minority groups have to watch what they say as to not offend people.

Homyrrh
01-05-2009, 12:51 PM
Political correctness has nothing to do with this. If anything, it was the Muslims who were acting politically incorrect. If a black man appears on a street and a white woman screams, "Oh my god! He's going to attack me!" -- That's not being politically incorrect, that's being paranoid. Political correctness would be not mentioning that the guy was black when reporting the story. Being "incorrect" would be either the black dude going, "Hm. White meat!" or the white woman going, "You better stay away or there'll be a hangin!"

There was nothing in the way that the airline or the family acted that concerns political correctness. It's funny that you brought it up because I was going to bring it up in my last response as a question if we've gone through a looking glass with political correctness, and now minority groups have to watch what they say as to not offend people.
My original post was a response to CosmicPuppet's original reply that this would have never happened to a white family; that implied, to me at least, a stark implication of racism and an issue with political correctness.

The Postmaster General
01-05-2009, 03:39 PM
I took Cosmic's comments as more matter of the fact as anything else. There's a difference between racial profiling and political correctness. People often argue as if "equal treatment" is the same thing as "political correctness" and it isn't. I've heard Ann Coulter use the two terms interchangeably as an indictment on political correctness (referring to racial profiling and airline security, go figure), and it just doesn't fly that way. (pun?)

A vague term to begin with, "political correctness" is being used more and more loosely as time goes by and it seems at times that, going by people like Coulter's use of it, that one could say the Civil Rights movement was all about political correctness. There's a difference between something that can offend people, and something actually harms people. I think the incident on the AirTran and the Muslim family wasn't about offense, but that a level of harm (though not physical) was placed on that family. It wasn't a matter of people not speaking up because they were worried about offending them, because it goes a little bit beyond being offended when your taken into custody by the FBI and have your vacation ruined.

It's hard to word this, but hopefully I made some sense out of how I'm seeing it.