Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
T Shirt Man Wins 240K From B6, Claims Discrimination  
User currently offlineKevin From Canada, joined Dec 2000, 1142 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 10136 times:

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/fligh...tlement_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

JetBlue Airways Corp. and the Transportation Security Administration paid $240,000 to a man who claimed he was discriminated against based on his ethnicity and Arabic writing on his T-shirt.

Now this is getting ridiculous. Airlines being sued to the right and to the left. What's next? IMHO people start abusing freedom and that is not right if you ask me.

105 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19510 posts, RR: 58
Reply 1, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 10111 times:



Quoting Kevin (Thread starter):

Now this is getting ridiculous.

I agree. And maybe B6 and TSA employees will think twice next time before being ridiculous.

I don't think that suing over being kicked off a flight, detained, and humiliated over a T-shirt is ridiculous. In fact, I would have awarded him more.


User currently offlineDavescj From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 2305 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 10012 times:



Quoting Kevin (Thread starter):
Now this is getting ridiculous.

Yes, that pesky right to free speech. It is certainly ridiculous.

Dave



Can I have a mojito on this flight?
User currently offlineSwiftski From Australia, joined Dec 2006, 2701 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 10003 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 1):
detained

Was he?

The article says he was allowed on the plane.


User currently offlineDanny From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3509 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 9973 times:



Quoting Kevin (Thread starter):
Now this is getting ridiculous. Airlines being sued to the right and to the left. What's next? IMHO people start abusing freedom and that is not right if you ask me.

As much as suing left and right in US is ridiculous this one is a legit case. There is no law that prohibits wearing Arabic language T-shitrs and people are free to do so. He was denied boarding until he covered the T-shirt. As far as I am aware TSA does not have the right to tell people what to wear.


User currently offlineEI A330-200 From Sweden, joined Apr 2001, 409 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 9822 times:

Last time I checked, the US still allowed private companies the right to refuse service. I coudl be kicked out of a 7-11 for now wearing shoes, because the company doesn't like people being barefoot. Is that impeading my right to free speech? What about shouting Fire in a crowded movie theater? Just some food for thought.


Long live Aer Lingus, the Flying Shamrock!
User currently offlineOHLHD From Finland, joined Dec 2004, 3962 posts, RR: 25
Reply 6, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 9811 times:

They should have done what TSA "actually" stands for.

Can´t believe that they think they have the right to tell me what to wear.

I just can´t understand the high sum but that must be US law.


User currently offlineElite From Hong Kong, joined Jun 2006, 2796 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 9803 times:



Quoting Danny (Reply 4):
As much as suing left and right in US is ridiculous this one is a legit case.

Compared to the things people sue - and win - for, and the amount that they win, I agree that this actually could be considered legit.


User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7526 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 9779 times:

What does "We will not be silent" mean.

It sounds like a political statement.


User currently offlineDirectorguy From Egypt, joined Jul 2008, 1668 posts, RR: 11
Reply 9, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 9780 times:

This is ridiculous-Arabic t-shirts are not offensive anyway.
I suppose people who have 'Paris, je t'aime' on their t-shirts are already subject to harrassment?


User currently offlineSwiftski From Australia, joined Dec 2006, 2701 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 9752 times:



Quoting Directorguy (Reply 9):
User currently offlineDirectorguy From United Arab Emirates



Quoting Directorguy (Reply 9):
This is ridiculous-Arabic t-shirts are not offensive anyway.

Biased?

-----

I'd be curious how it would go if the flight was hijacked, and it turned out to be by someone wearing a tshirt saying the same thing.

How would the blame go with regard to the airline / TSA not being more vigilant?

Just another take on it.


User currently offlineElite From Hong Kong, joined Jun 2006, 2796 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 9747 times:



Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 8):
What does "We will not be silent" mean.

It sounds like a political statement.

It is. Run by an organization called "The Critical Voice"...

http://thecriticalvoice.org/


User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7526 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 9710 times:

Not clear why B6 and the TSA settled.

Are you allowed to enter private (B6) property and display political slogans.


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7694 posts, RR: 21
Reply 13, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 9686 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 1):
I agree. And maybe B6 and TSA employees will think twice next time before being ridiculous.
I don't think that suing over being kicked off a flight, detained, and humiliated over a T-shirt is ridiculous. In fact, I would have awarded him more.

 checkmark 

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 12):
Are you allowed to enter private (B6) property and display political slogans.

Apparently yes, unless some arrogant individuals happen to not like the cut of your jib.

Quoting Swiftski (Reply 10):
I'd be curious how it would go if the flight was hijacked, and it turned out to be by someone wearing a tshirt saying the same thing.

If someone hijacked a plane, it would not be because they were wearing a t-shirt, unless that t-shirt was made of explosives or weaponary and had not been detected by the TSA.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineSwiftski From Australia, joined Dec 2006, 2701 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 9671 times:



Quoting RussianJet (Reply 13):
If someone hijacked a plane, it would not be because they were wearing a t-shirt, unless that t-shirt was made of explosives or weaponary and had not been detected by the TSA.

you missed my point.


User currently offlineAustrianZRH From Austria, joined Aug 2007, 1384 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 9654 times:



Quoting Directorguy (Reply 9):
I suppose people who have 'Paris, je t'aime' on their t-shirts are already subject to harrassment?

You think TSA personnel can read and understand French? Big grin



WARNING! The post above should be taken with a grain of salt! Furthermore, it may be slightly biased towards A.
User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7526 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 9635 times:

After the conversion from French Fries to Freedom Fries, I suspect that wearing that shirt may not be very popular.

I seem to recall that the ability to speak French was quite damaging for John Kerry.


User currently offlineEDICHC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 9584 times:



Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 12):
Not clear why B6 and the TSA settled.

Are you allowed to enter private (B6) property and display political slogans.

If the conditions of carriage for the carrier had a clause forbidding it it then B6 had a case...I suspect this wasn't the case though. In addition however, three "the critical voice" activists (all caucasian I believe) were permitted, without hinderance to fly on B6 from JFK-DCA the very next day wearing identical t-shirts. This would justifiably support a claim of racial discrimination.

I am all for carriers reserving the right to exclude passengers they consider unsuitable for travel, provided such exclusions are not contrary to statute law and the parameters for exclusion are clearly stated and consistently applied. It appears in this case B6 failed to meet these criteria. As for the TSA....not like them to exceed their authority is it?  Wink

Have to say I thought the settlement amount was a bit excessive.


User currently offlineSwiftski From Australia, joined Dec 2006, 2701 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 9563 times:



Quoting EDICHC (Reply 17):
If the conditions of carriage for the carrier had a clause forbidding it it then B6 had a case...I suspect this wasn't the case though

COC:

Comfort and Safety - In the following categories where refusal or
removal may be necessary for the comfort or safety of the Passenger(s)
or other passengers:

(1) Persons whose conduct is or has been known to be disorderly,
abusive, offensive, threatening, intimidating violent, or whose
clothing is lewd, obscene, or patently offensive


User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7526 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 9534 times:

"Clothing is lewd, obscene, or patently offensive"

Hard to argue that the clothing is lewd or obscene, (assuming that the Arabic text means the same as the English).

Equally, the slogan may be distressing/annoying for some, but "patently offensive" is a bit of a stretch. Perhaps they need to amend their COC.


User currently offlineSwiftski From Australia, joined Dec 2006, 2701 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 9505 times:



Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 19):

Hard to argue that the clothing is lewd or obscene, (assuming that the Arabic text means the same as the English).

I agree, but:

1 |əˈfɛnsɪv| offensive: causing someone to feel deeply hurt, upset, or angry

How can you quantify a level of other passengers "upset" or "anger"


User currently offlineEDICHC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 9497 times:



Quoting Swiftski (Reply 18):
(1) Persons whose conduct is or has been known to be disorderly,
abusive, offensive, threatening, intimidating violent, or whose
clothing is lewd, obscene, or patently offensive

The phrase "We will not be silent" written in two languages does not come into any of the above categories. And my point re conditions of carriage concerned political slogans. Still doesen't explain how B6 allowed three pax to board unhindered the next day wearing identical t-shirts.


User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7526 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 9465 times:

You are getting into an area that is very subjective.

It might help might help if they said "Patently offensive, including but not limited to ...".
In an area which is going to be contentious, it would sometimes help to give examples of what is unacceptable.


User currently offlineSwiftski From Australia, joined Dec 2006, 2701 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 9445 times:



Quoting EDICHC (Reply 21):
"We will not be silent"

This could be considered as a threat. i.e. we will DO something to prove that we will not be silent.

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 22):
You are getting into an area that is very subjective.

 yes 

Therefore...

Quoting EDICHC (Reply 21):
does not come into any of the above categories

... is a difficult statement to verify.

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 22):
In an area which is going to be contentious, it would sometimes help to give examples of what is unacceptable.

 yes 


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7694 posts, RR: 21
Reply 24, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 9444 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Swiftski (Reply 14):
you missed my point.

that point being....?

Quoting EDICHC (Reply 21):
The phrase "We will not be silent" written in two languages does not come into any of the above categories.

Certainly not, particularly in comparison with a huge number of other items of clothing commonly seen.

Quoting Swiftski (Reply 20):
I agree, but:

1 |əˈfɛnsɪv| offensive: causing someone to feel deeply hurt, upset, or angry

How can you quantify a level of other passengers "upset" or "anger"

Obviously it is subjective to a point, but in all common sense it is hard to imagine how these words could be construed as likely to cause offence. We may as well start denying boarding to people if a passenger objects to the offensive colour of their clothes if we're going to start with nonsense like this guy was subjected to.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
25 Elite : But it's not just that. It's a shirt from a politically charged organization.
26 EDICHC : Not really, the same carrier allowed 3 pax to travel the very next day from the same airport wearing identical t-shirts. So where is the consistency?
27 ElmoTheHobo : Whoah slow down there Rush! That would be the dumbest hijacker ever. Well of course, with the success rate they are getting water bottles and toothpa
28 Swiftski : Again, purely an example.
29 SPREE34 : Or anything else? LMAO! Now we're getting around to a point, I think, is worth mentioning. One is going to be, somewhat, judged and treated in public
30 BEYauty : How can anyone tell what the org stands for just by reading that slogan? I normally disagree with all the ridiculous lawsuits filed in the US, but in
31 Pilotaydin : TSA = Trashy Style Association they didn't like his style
32 JFK69 : Why is that? How much would you have awarded? Enough to bankrupt an airline and put thousands out of a job because some guy was wearing a shirt? Give
33 Avek00 : In the United States, common carriers, like airlines, are NOT permitted to discriminate on the basis of protected factors such as race, ethnicity, la
34 EDICHC : This was a civil case where compensatory damages are awarded to the plaintiff. Such damages are not awarded against the defendant to 'teach them a le
35 Elite : To be honest, I don't know. Maybe the TSA agent just so happens to recognize it? Slim chances, but possible. I don't know, but I do know that the shi
36 BEYauty : Regardless, I hope that this suit will serve as a lesson to those involved not to discriminate.
37 BEYauty : I disagree. I Don't want to turn this thread into a political discussion, but for many around the world, they see "We will never forget" as political
38 EDICHC : A punitive fine would only be issued by a criminal court not a civil one. But I get your point. The other side of this is, has any disciplinary actio
39 Elite : The first part of the sentence is correct - the US will get back at those who committed the 9/11 attacks, but your second part is contradictory. Gett
40 Manfredj : And that's the airlines right to do so. As soon as we start dictating to companies who they can and can't serve, you have made the reason for our cou
41 Elite : No, I did not. If you read the rest of my posts you would see that I disagreed with this case. But my comment was merely to emphasize how ridiculous
42 EDICHC : A carrier can refuse service if that person fails to adhere to the conditions of carriage. If a carrier refuses service for no good reason they are i
43 ElmoTheHobo : That's a moot point. The government isn't telling the airline who not to serve, they are telling them they must serve everyone.
44 RussianJet : How so? He paid the fare and they were contracted to carry him. They can't just refuse to do that because some idiot took ill-conceived and pointless
45 Manfredj : I guess so, but that's a dangerous way to substantiate it. Don't get me wrong, this man had the right to wear his shirt. He didn't have the right to
46 EDICHC : Wrong, wrong oh and.....WRONG! By accepting the passengers $$$ and issuing the ticket the carrier (and the passenger) entered into a legally binding
47 Ikramerica : You missed the other factors: intimidating, violent. One could argue the slogan was meant to intimidate people, though not sure if one can argue it i
48 EDICHC : If the carrier found this t-shirt so offensive, why did they allow 3 pax wearing the same t-shirt to depart from the same airport the very next day?
49 Avek00 : Manfredj, With all due respect, you are wrong on this one. Common carriers exist to provide service for the "public convenience and necessity". As suc
50 BEYauty : It's not contradictory simply because I was referring to the decision to "get back" at Iraq which had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. So, to my p
51 EDICHC : The CoC cited intimidating or violent behavior...not clothing. But the point everyone seems to be missing here is that the day after this guy was hel
52 RussianJet : Try it. If you wear a genuinely offensive t-shirt, you won't get a dime.
53 GothamSpotter : Many freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution are revoked when you walk into an airport, such as the right to carry firearms, and the right to say the
54 Lufthansa411 : As others have said, you sign a binding legal contract with the airline. Most of the time, the contract is worded in favour of the airline (cancellat
55 WindowSeat : That's a baseless argument. It's the same as wearing an Obama T-shirt or McCain T-shirt. That brings out some feelings of hurt, upset and anger. So w
56 AirNZ : Can you possibly explain to me what is ridiculous about it.......why anyone should be refused a flight based on what clothes they are wearing? On wha
57 Bennett123 : On that basis, I am upset, (not sure why yet, but I will think of something). When do I get limitless amounts of money handed to me.
58 RussianJet : On what basis? The treatment meted out to this guy just for wearing a t-shirt is not nothing. He was treated disgracefully.
59 ArcrftLvr : On the basis of what? So, he was humiliated. So what? Awwww, poor thing, he got his feelings hurt, how sad. Well, surely he is entitled to an exorbit
60 ArcrftLvr : Please let it be known that the person DID fly, just not on the flight they had initially chosen. So. How does that mean he is entitled to $240K? Ple
61 RussianJet : Perhaps, though a request for clarification of the point has so far gone unanswered. Whatever the point was, this t-shirt had nothing whatsoever to d
62 ArcrftLvr : In an attempt to clarify another person's statement via my interpretation, I assume the poster meant that if this individual had in fact hijacked the
63 RussianJet : Right, which is what I have also subsequently understood to be the point to be. However, as I have just said, regardless of what any hypothetical rea
64 Bennett123 : I recall working for an Insurance handling complaints. A customer made a complaint and was compensated. She then rang again to make a claim for Distre
65 Rampart : Shoes (and shirts) in a food establishment fulfill a legal health and hygiene requirement, not some arbitrary law on preferred clothing. This is a ha
66 Workflyer : It is interesting to read some of the comments above stating that the quoted phrase is inflamatory and offensive. If the writers here were to know of
67 TPAPDX : It appears they "settled out of court", meaning, they weren't awarded any money at all - they simply accepted a settlement offered by the TSA and B6 t
68 Rampart : Aren't most airports public and civic property? Airspace is common usage and under government jurisdiction? "Private property" aircraft cannot exist
69 TPAPDX : Most airports are qausi-public/private industries. While the TSA and airports may operate and be considered "public domain", private aircraft - such
70 Post contains images Thestooges : Seeing the photo of the man with the actual t-shirt on, I honestly would have to say it looks very unthreatening to me. I once had a Zildjian t-shirt,
71 MidEx216 : Well if the flight was hijacked by someone wearing that t-shirt, maybe in the future that t-shirt would understandably be banned, because it represen
72 EDICHC : If you read one of my previous posts, I did say I thought the amount was excessive. But this was an out of court offer, not an award by a court.
73 ArcrftLvr : And then people would be say, 'the gentleman in question was wearing said t-shirt' and would be pointing the finger at the airline and the TSA accusi
74 Thestooges : Actually after watching the video about the incident it appears that several fellow passengers were made uncomfortable by the mans ethnicity and t-shi
75 EDICHC : He was racially discriminated against. He was briefly denied boarding, detained and searched on the spurious grounds that his t-shirt was offensive,
76 RussianJet : That you would have to ask the TSA and B6, seeing as that figure came from them. However, for one thing, I would want that much in his position if no
77 ArcrftLvr : Give me a bleeding heart break! OK. So, explain to me how that justifies $240K in damages? By the way, he was not discriminated against. He was permi
78 EDICHC : If you read my previous posts you will see that I don't justify the amount. Try asking JetBlue and the TSA...it was they that decided the amount when
79 ArcrftLvr : Ummm, no. It was the plaintiff that decided the amount. B6 and TSA accepted it. OK. Discrimination/Profiling. Whatever. I pose the question again (th
80 Aviateur : Good for Raed Jarrar. Passenger vigilantism is out of control in this country. It's a menace to civil liberties, and to safety. Below is a salient poi
81 57AZ : Quite likely that the defendants concurred that even if they had a case, the probability of a good outcome on their behalf was possibly low enough th
82 EDICHC : Hardly credible, this has already reached the public domain so the issue of potential adverse publicity is largely irrelevant. In view of the fact th
83 Kevin : One word to explain all that: PROVOCATION Knowing the current situation in the post 9-11 world including the Israeli - Palestinian conflict,a man of
84 DingDong : Perhaps. Another word that could've been used was this: intelligence. Or the lack thereof. What exactly is the issue here? That some people are just
85 BEYauty : If you read my other posts you would've understood that the point I was trying to make is that people can interpret the same thing different ways, an
86 RedChili : So, are you saying that the TSA can stop a hijacking by asking the potential hijacker to cover up his t-shirt or change into other clothes? Please, e
87 Jacobin777 : "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."-Thomas Jefferson
88 Directorguy : Woa...I never knew this thread would be that popular or I'd have replied sooner. No, I'm not biased. Why would you think that? I agree with most of w
89 Max Q : I believe B6 is a publicly traded company, in any case, even if it were private, if it is doing business in these United States of ours it is subject
90 HAMAD : well, my compliments to the United states of "yours".
91 Davescj : While I agree the US is overly litigious, I think this suit was well founded (IMHO). How so? I don't see that in this case. Had that been the point,
92 RussianJet : Yes. I suppose muslims should also shave off their beards, don jeans and stars and stripes t-shirts and talk with a fake heavy Texan drawl whenever t
93 BHMNONREV : Unfortunately, the US Constitution affords these ass-clowns the rights to behave just as Mr. Jarrar did in this case and now Jet Blue and the TSA mus
94 HAMAD : how was he a dumbass? i think this was all stirred up just because the t-shirt had arabic writing in it. if it was in english no body could have even
95 BuckFifty : Really, it's like saying a terrorist planning to blow up a plane will wear a shirt saying "I'll blow up your plane". Use some logic, really. People w
96 EDICHC : Unfortunately had you read some of the previous posts fully you would learn that both B6 and the TSA left themselves wide open to litigation on the g
97 Bennett123 : IMO it would probably have been better to ask them all to cover up. AFAIK you have no right to stage political demonstrations at an Airport. As for da
98 Max Q : I think we have all had enough of this after the last eight terrible years. Time for a change.
99 RussianJet : Give me a break. Political demonstration? It was a guy wearing a t-shirt.
100 RedChili : If the TSA is going to try to stop everybody wearing anything with a political or a religious slogan on it... Obama buttons, McCain t-shirts, a simpl
101 EDICHC : And so do I. I suspect this was a figure thrown in with the expectation that B6 and the TSA would negotiate down. B6 and the TSA must have been very
102 HAMAD : the only thing is that i dont understand in the american system is.... ok, so he sued because of so called "Discrimination" that was conducted by jet
103 Rampart : Poor analogy. I am not paying to use your house as a publicly available commercial enterprise. Commercial laws exist to forbid discrimination. If I a
104 Davescj : Damages are just that -- award for damage done. The settlement was out of court, so the judge didn't set the terms. Further, it is directly a questio
105 ArcrftLvr : To the contrary. I'm assuming that B6 and TSA thought that if they accepted the offer, the issue would've simply gone away, thus avoiding the potenti
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Man Dies From Taser At YVR posted Sun Oct 14 2007 18:59:04 by AF340
Pakistani-born Pilot Sues B6 For Discrimination posted Wed Aug 9 2006 14:48:47 by Leelaw
Man Jumps From NWA Flight @ DTW posted Tue Mar 7 2006 19:36:03 by Dr.DTW
EY To Launch MAN-AUH From 27 March 2006 posted Mon Feb 20 2006 13:14:46 by BDKLEZ
Man Jumps From DAL 767-300 At ATL posted Tue Feb 14 2006 17:11:18 by KATL757
Delta Dropped From 9-11 Claims posted Sat Feb 11 2006 23:41:42 by NADC10Fan
Man Jumps From Plane...at FLL posted Tue Jan 24 2006 02:10:18 by Maury
Man Hanging From SAA Landing Gear @ JFK posted Tue Jun 7 2005 18:06:59 by Alitalia744
MAN-ORD From All 3 Terminals! posted Fri Jul 23 2004 17:02:16 by Ndebelebev
Advice About FCA From MAN Long-haul posted Tue Sep 9 2008 09:17:23 by Spud757
Calif. Man Wins Plane Toilet Ice Lawsuit posted Mon Jun 16 2003 07:50:30 by Ktliem@yvr
Man Wins In UK Court For 'uncomfortable' Seat! posted Thu Jan 24 2002 16:32:44 by Capt.Picard
Advice About FCA From MAN Long-haul posted Tue Sep 9 2008 09:17:23 by Spud757
B6 Doubles Flights From HPN! posted Tue Jul 15 2008 07:39:58 by Jaysan
Bomb Hoax On EK 20 From MAN To DXB posted Wed Jul 9 2008 03:02:41 by EK156
Any Plans For A 3rd Daily EK Flight From MAN? posted Mon May 5 2008 12:01:21 by Ek-a380