OA412 wrote:

mcdu wrote:

Last week I posted a topic about an AA captain inserting himself into a customer service issue between an agent and a African American passenger. He told the agent not to board the young lady. She claimed it was racially motivated.

The topic was deleted and no reason was given. However, it appears there are more instances that have created this travel warning.

Your topic was never deleted. It quickly derailed and turned political, so it was moved to Non Aviation.

Shouldn’t this one suffer the same fate? That leads to another question. Why are topic starters not notified when their topic has been reclassified?

ripcordd wrote:

There are 3 sides to every story yours mine and the truth....I have a feeling AA will be throwing some free flights at them to shut them and this just creates bigger problems just like the DAO effect rewarding people for bad behavior. And with the capt inserting himself in the argument with the passenger and agent we where not there to see but if I'm walking by and I see a passenger that will be on my ship verbally abusing an agent on the ground I do not want that kind of behavior 30,000FT up so I would not let her fly on my ship.

I don't think the head of the NAACP is looking for free flights just to shut "them" up. Just FYI.

WaywardMemphian wrote:

izbtmnhd wrote:

thekorean wrote:

What reason would NAACP have to single out AA if they didn’t have a at least semi legitimate concerns?

I am thinking the same thing. If it's a "shakedown" as some people are implying would it not be smarter to call the whole industry out and extort money from all the US airlines.

Also if some are going to claim that the NAACP is extorting companies currently, some examples would be great.

No, you target a single mark, Jackson perfected it in the early 80's after Reagan ended his PUSH government grant money gravytrain that got started under Carter. REagan had more than enough to throw him injail but just cut off the money and declined prosecution due to the fear of racial trouble. His first mark was Coca Cola after the gov't grants were cut off. The NAACP is simply taking a page from Jesse's playbook now that he's mostly retired.

You can not separate politics from a discussion from anything that involves the NAACP. It is inherently political in nature.

The first step has been won, now comes the meeting where AA gives gifts. Someone gets a paid advisory gig, some funding for something that only lines the exec's pockets or those associated with them.

It's a tried and true method.

ripcordd wrote:

There are 3 sides to every story yours mine and the truth....I have a feeling AA will be throwing some free flights at them to shut them and this just creates bigger problems just like the DAO effect rewarding people for bad behavior. And with the capt inserting himself in the argument with the passenger and agent we where not there to see but if I'm walking by and I see a passenger that will be on my ship verbally abusing an agent on the ground I do not want that kind of behavior 30,000FT up so I would not let her fly on my ship.

Yes, because there's noooooo way that they may actually be genuinely concerned about the way that some black people may have been treated on their flights. It's CLEARLY just a case of black people wanting free things.

As I've said before, the responses here are extremely telling.

If these actions are false and AA caves in and offers something to make them happy you will see DL/UA/SW next

izbtmnhd wrote:

I don't think the head of the NAACP is looking for free flights just to shut "them" up. Just FYI.

It's a lot more than a few free flights.

Back in 2003, AA was giving six-figure donations to the NAACP. And the NAACP had no issues with AA:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... 723-6114r/

If you have access to current tax records I suspect you will find that AA no longer donates enough cash to satisfy the NAACP.

IPFreely wrote:

izbtmnhd wrote:

I don't think the head of the NAACP is looking for free flights just to shut "them" up. Just FYI.

It's a lot more than a few free flights.

Back in 2003, AA was giving six-figure donations to the NAACP. And the NAACP had no issues with AA:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... 723-6114r/

If you have access to current tax records I suspect you will find that AA no longer donates enough cash to satisfy the NAACP.

You're making an accusation with zero evidence. This is how these threads ends up in Non-Av. Let's stick to what's actually going on.

izbtmnhd wrote:

IPFreely wrote:

izbtmnhd wrote:

I don't think the head of the NAACP is looking for free flights just to shut "them" up. Just FYI.

It's a lot more than a few free flights.

Back in 2003, AA was giving six-figure donations to the NAACP. And the NAACP had no issues with AA:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... 723-6114r/

If you have access to current tax records I suspect you will find that AA no longer donates enough cash to satisfy the NAACP.

You're making an accusation with zero evidence. This is how these threads ends up in Non-Av. Let's stick to what's actually going on.

Agreed! Baseless accusations without proof to back them up are inappropriate, no matter the forum. Please let's all stay on topic.

izbtmnhd wrote:

The National (US) Chapter of the NAACP issued an advisory statement warning African Americans of discrimination issues when travelling with AA. Is this a first?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/video/peoplean ... ocid=ientp

Print article:

http://abcnews.go.com/Lifestyle/wireSto ... s-50705351

In my experience flying the former US Airways and now AA on a weekly basis, I have never witnessed a situation where AA appeared to treat anyone differently due to race or any other factor. To the contrary, I think they treat everyone equally - with the same level of apathy.

AA has a lot of problems but racism isn't one of them. I'm not saying that the NAACP is necessarily looking for kickbacks, but such an abrupt and random advisory raises a lot of questions about the motive behind it, because it looks very misguided. There are companies (outside of the aviation industry) which are much more guilty of racism than AA, so targeting AA for some typical CS snafus that could've happened to anyone just seems wrong.

izbtmnhd wrote:

RDUDDJI wrote:

Interesting that he said it was a "white passenger". Could have simply said "passenger"...

As the article is written, Rev. Barber does not identify the passenger as white. The person who wrote the story does.

The article says: "Barber said police were called and removed him from the plane after he asked a flight attendant to tell a white passenger behind him to quiet down."

My emphasis added. I'm not sure how else the author would know the color/race of a person they never saw.

This is how "advocate" groups like NAACP and BLM operate. By way of bullying and intimidation.

Issuing a travel advisory to black people warning them about travelling on AA should get them a serious lawsuit. Its based on nothing but the experiences of a few disruptive people who got themselves in trouble by causing a scene. You just do NOT do that when you're flying. And its not just "cuz I'm black".

But of course groups like this are ALL over it. Especially since one of the people causing a stink a couple weeks ago was a black activist of some sort.

This is beyond nonsense and AA and any other company attacked this way should lawyer up and fight back as strongly as necessary.

AASAP777 wrote:

ty97 wrote:

AASAP777 wrote:

Being the first airline to hire an African American pilot, it's pretty much off limits to accuse AA of "racism".

Why?

I'm not commenting on the specifics of the article because I have no personal experience with the topic, but just because an airline was the first to hire an African American pilot decades ago doesn't mean the airline can't have race issues today.

Because that shows that racism is not a"corporate practice". If someone is racist, it is because he's got issues and I certainly hope someone like this should be fired because it is unacceptable that at this time and day someone still thinks about being disgusted about skin color or ethnic stuff. I was an AAer for 15 years, and many African Americans wore the double A logo with pride. Even in my home station (SAP) we had Honduran staff of African heritage, not to mention all those stations in the Caribbean. Racism in AA is unacceptable, and if someone still has those kinds of ideas, they ought to be terminated.

That's BS. Check out August (Auggie) Martin who was an airline pilot before most you were born Even has a school named after him in NYC as I recall. Also another black pilot, last name Greene (?) at CAL.

Let us hope that AA does not give in to this blackmail

izbtmnhd wrote:

You're making an accusation with zero evidence. This is how these threads ends up in Non-Av. Let's stick to what's actually going on.

But to be honest it seems like the entire subject of the thread is accusations made with zero evidence. The Rev. Barber was removed from a flight and the presumption is because it was due to his race? An "activist" wasn't permitted to board the flight after an argument with a gate agent (who apparently was also African American) when a white pilot intervened and that's presumed to be racism? If the pilot hadn't intervened on his/her coworker's behalf would that also have been racism?

From reading the TV station's write-up referenced in post #6, it seems obvious to me that the Rev. Barber was removed from his flight because he stood up while the plane was taxiing, presumably to confront the passenger behind him who was saying offensive things. Even setting aside the Bible's admonition to "turn the other cheek," with which a man of the cloth (not to mention a keynote speaker at an interfaith conference) ought to be familiar, that's not an appropriate time to confront another passenger (absent a situation where someone is in danger of or being physically harmed), even if it's making you feel uncomfortable. AA doesn't have a checkbox on the ticket purchase page requiring passengers to certify that they're not racists, so how exactly would the behavior of another passenger be indicative of systematic racism at AA?

I celebrate 15 yrs this month with AA, and while I am fully aware of all the problems AA has. Corporate racism is most definitely not one of them. I have always supported the NAACP but I am very disappointed by this announcement from them. Just like any other job in the world, I sometimes hate it and most of the times I love it. But the one thing that I have always loved about working at AA is the diverse culture. Much more diverse than the average corporate job in the USA. My coworkers are gay, straight, trans, bi, white, black, brown... And a thousand other shares of skin tones, cultures, languages and ideas. I could not see my self working in a place that would support any kind of discrimination because I would feel complicit on it.
That’s why I feel so confused and disappointed by this announcement by the NAACP. If they have had an increase of incidents in which they consider racism the force behind it then they should have made those concerns very public and direct to AAs leadership. But to simply come out and say that AA supports a culture of racism is frankly, irresponsible and insulting to the rest of us. The thousands of employees like me that share our workdays with a rainbow of cultures and are not only happy but proud of it.
My respect and support of the NAACP is eroding rather fast.

So just to recap the responses to this thread:

- Black people are looking for kickbacks/free stuff/shaking down/blackmailing the company.
- AA can't possibly be racist because they hired the first black pilot.
- The real racism was committed by Rev. Barber in his case because he may have identified the other passenger involved as white.
- The incidents were all caused by the black customers in each instance "causing a scene" and being "too sensitive"

Yup. We're firing on all cylinders today.

The airline that sponsored Oprah.

Tsk tsk tsk

F27500 wrote:

This is how "advocate" groups like NAACP and BLM operate. By way of bullying and intimidation.

Issuing a travel advisory to black people warning them about travelling on AA should get them a serious lawsuit. Its based on nothing but the experiences of a few disruptive people who got themselves in trouble by causing a scene. You just do NOT do that when you're flying. And its not just "cuz I'm black".

But of course groups like this are ALL over it. Especially since one of the people causing a stink a couple weeks ago was a black activist of some sort.

This is beyond nonsense and AA and any other company attacked this way should lawyer up and fight back as strongly as necessary.

If they don't pay up satisfactory, they'll next call for a boycott. It's a Hollywood formula movie script.

Jesse was able to get Coke distributorshIPs as part of that shake down, they went after and got some from KFC before the YUM days, it was working so good, he tried to get Anhueser Busch to give his sons some when he threatened them. The same tactic of not enough minority dealerships was used on Toyota. NAACP just wants paid here.

Brickell305 wrote:

So just to recap the responses to this thread:

- Black people are looking for kickbacks/free stuff/shaking down/blackmailing the company.
- AA can't possibly be racist because they hired the first black pilot.
- The real racism was committed by Rev. Barber in his case because he may have identified the other passenger involved as white.
- The incidents were all caused by the black customers in each instance "causing a scene" and being "too sensitive"

Yup. We're firing on all cylinders today.

And just when you thought the responses couldn't get any more...interesting:

- the Obama administration has now been involved
- they can't be racist, they used to sponsor Oprah.

BravoOne wrote:

AASAP777 wrote:

ty97 wrote:

Why?

I'm not commenting on the specifics of the article because I have no personal experience with the topic, but just because an airline was the first to hire an African American pilot decades ago doesn't mean the airline can't have race issues today.

Because that shows that racism is not a"corporate practice". If someone is racist, it is because he's got issues and I certainly hope someone like this should be fired because it is unacceptable that at this time and day someone still thinks about being disgusted about skin color or ethnic stuff. I was an AAer for 15 years, and many African Americans wore the double A logo with pride. Even in my home station (SAP) we had Honduran staff of African heritage, not to mention all those stations in the Caribbean. Racism in AA is unacceptable, and if someone still has those kinds of ideas, they ought to be terminated.

That's BS. Check out August (Auggie) Martin who was an airline pilot before most you were born Even has a school named after him in NYC as I recall. Also another black pilot, last name Greene (?) at CAL.

Not quite:

http://avstop.com/history/blackairlines/davidharris.htm

LuigiGDL wrote:

I celebrate 15 yrs this month with AA, and while I am fully aware of all the problems AA has. Corporate racism is most definitely not one of them. I have always supported the NAACP but I am very disappointed by this announcement from them. Just like any other job in the world, I sometimes hate it and most of the times I love it. But the one thing that I have always loved about working at AA is the diverse culture. Much more diverse than the average corporate job in the USA. My coworkers are gay, straight, trans, bi, white, black, brown... And a thousand other shares of skin tones, cultures, languages and ideas. I could not see my self working in a place that would support any kind of discrimination because I would feel complicit on it.
That’s why I feel so confused and disappointed by this announcement by the NAACP. If they have had an increase of incidents in which they consider racism the force behind it then they should have made those concerns very public and direct to AAs leadership. But to simply come out and say that AA supports a culture of racism is frankly, irresponsible and insulting to the rest of us. The thousands of employees like me that share our workdays with a rainbow of cultures and are not only happy but proud of it.
My respect and support of the NAACP is eroding rather fast.

This is the most intelligent and constructive post in this thread.

brianz24 wrote:

izbtmnhd wrote:

The National (US) Chapter of the NAACP issued an advisory statement warning African Americans of discrimination issues when travelling with AA. Is this a first?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/video/peoplean ... ocid=ientp

Print article:

http://abcnews.go.com/Lifestyle/wireSto ... s-50705351

In my experience flying the former US Airways and now AA on a weekly basis, I have never witnessed a situation where AA appeared to treat anyone differently due to race or any other factor. To the contrary, I think they treat everyone equally - with the same level of apathy.

Perhaps, but see:

If the NAACP feels AA is discriminatory....why not file a complaint with the DOJ or DOT?

F27500 wrote:

This is how "advocate" groups like NAACP and BLM operate. By way of bullying and intimidation.

Issuing a travel advisory to black people warning them about travelling on AA should get them a serious lawsuit. Its based on nothing but the experiences of a few disruptive people who got themselves in trouble by causing a scene. You just do NOT do that when you're flying. And its not just "cuz I'm black".

But of course groups like this are ALL over it. Especially since one of the people causing a stink a couple weeks ago was a black activist of some sort.

This is beyond nonsense and AA and any other company attacked this way should lawyer up and fight back as strongly as necessary.

That's an awful lot of air for no balloon!

Seriously, you've made at least 6 conclusions without evidence. Care to share your private knowledge?

727LOVER wrote:

If the NAACP feels AA is discriminatory....why not file a complaint with the DOJ or DOT?

There are myriad ways to get things done. Lawsuits are incredibly expensive. Are you suggesting you would prefer American Airlines have to defend one?

This path may serve a positive purpose with much less financial outlay by both sides.

WaywardMemphian wrote:

F27500 wrote:

This is how "advocate" groups like NAACP and BLM operate. By way of bullying and intimidation.

Issuing a travel advisory to black people warning them about travelling on AA should get them a serious lawsuit. Its based on nothing but the experiences of a few disruptive people who got themselves in trouble by causing a scene. You just do NOT do that when you're flying. And its not just "cuz I'm black".

But of course groups like this are ALL over it. Especially since one of the people causing a stink a couple weeks ago was a black activist of some sort.

This is beyond nonsense and AA and any other company attacked this way should lawyer up and fight back as strongly as necessary.

If they don't pay up satisfactory, they'll next call for a boycott. It's a Hollywood formula movie script.

Jesse was able to get Coke distributorshIPs as part of that shake down, they went after and got some from KFC before the YUM days, it was working so good, he tried to get Anhueser Busch to give his sons some when he threatened them. The same tactic of not enough minority dealerships was used on Toyota. NAACP just wants paid here.

You know that doesn't make any sense, right? Black people are allegedly harmed, so AA should pay the NAACP?

You've posted a lot on this thread. I just want to make sure you're aware that your arguments don't line up.

Junction wrote:

How can an organization legally be allowed to publicly slander a company in this way without needing to provide evidence?

Don't you have freedom of speech in the US ?

Isn't your president slandering people, companies, even nations, almost every day, without consequence for him ?

I'm seeing an awful lot of people who at first sight of the word NAACP jump to the conclusion that the allegation is baseless, and that the charge is nefarious.

I'm black, an NAACP life member, and an American Airlines elite for the past ten-plus years. While I do not feel I have been discriminated against, I have found that when someone else tells me that they hurt, it is inappropriate for me to tell them that they do not. Yet, that's exactly what I am seeing a bunch of people here doing.

It may well be the case that there is no widespread discrimination at AA. It may also be the case that implicit bias is rearing its ugly head here. I think you lot that are quick to say "no it ain't" would do yourselves well to stop and at least ask the question, "is it possible that the NAACP is right?" before you conclude that it isn't.

At this point, very little of this discussion is aviation related. The topic will now be moved to Non Av.

✈️ atcsundevil

izbtmnhd wrote:

You're making an accusation with zero evidence. This is how these threads ends up in Non-Av. Let's stick to what's actually going on.

An observation is not an accusation.

Many people think the NAACP is supported by members and does not solicit large contributions from major corporations. The fact that they do solicit and accept large donations from corporations, then issue “advisories” about the corporations that do or do not give them money, is something people need to be aware of when these “advisories” are issued.

IPFreely wrote:

izbtmnhd wrote:

You're making an accusation with zero evidence. This is how these threads ends up in Non-Av. Let's stick to what's actually going on.

An observation is not an accusation.

Many people think the NAACP is supported by members and does not solicit large contributions from major corporations. The fact that they do solicit and accept large donations from corporations, then issue “advisories” about the corporations that do or do not give them money, is something people need to be aware of when these “advisories” are issued.

And again, if you're going to make such a claim, you should provide some evidence.

(Also, you really shouldn't hide behind semantics. An observation is absolutely an accusation when it accuses something observed.)

1.4M butt in seat miles in 10 years on AA and I never been discriminated against nor have I ever witnessed discrimination toward anyone else.

I personally see this as a shakedown. Guessing things will be back to normal when the right palms get greased.

bluejuice wrote:

1.4M butt in seat miles in 10 years on AA and I never been discriminated against nor have I ever witnessed discrimination toward anyone else.

Me neither, but see:

bluejuice wrote:

I personally see this as a shakedown. Guessing things will be back to normal when the right palms get greased.

You're making the same baseless assumption WaywardMemphian is making.

D L X wrote:

bluejuice wrote:

1.4M butt in seat miles in 10 years on AA and I never been discriminated against nor have I ever witnessed discrimination toward anyone else.

Me neither, but see:

bluejuice wrote:

I personally see this as a shakedown. Guessing things will be back to normal when the right palms get greased.

You're making the same baseless assumption WaywardMemphian is making.

Unfortunately, this happened to a company I worked for years ago. Baseless charges from a known troublemaker. A boycott was threatened. Donation was made. Nothing was ever said again.

D L X wrote:

IPFreely wrote:

izbtmnhd wrote:

You're making an accusation with zero evidence. This is how these threads ends up in Non-Av. Let's stick to what's actually going on.

An observation is not an accusation.

Many people think the NAACP is supported by members and does not solicit large contributions from major corporations. The fact that they do solicit and accept large donations from corporations, then issue “advisories” about the corporations that do or do not give them money, is something people need to be aware of when these “advisories” are issued.

And again, if you're going to make such a claim, you should provide some evidence.

(Also, you really shouldn't hide behind semantics. An observation is absolutely an accusation when it accuses something observed.)

Funny how you keep squawking to people in this forum about "providing evidence" ... yet you are completely behind the NAACP's irresponsible statement to all black people about travelling on AA ... with only vague dribble from them about "patterns of bias" ,, just to stir up a fire storm.

You don't seem too concerned about the NAACP, of which you are such a proud member, being required to "provide evidence", do you? Why is that, DLX?

F27500 wrote:

D L X wrote:

IPFreely wrote:

An observation is not an accusation.

Many people think the NAACP is supported by members and does not solicit large contributions from major corporations. The fact that they do solicit and accept large donations from corporations, then issue “advisories” about the corporations that do or do not give them money, is something people need to be aware of when these “advisories” are issued.

And again, if you're going to make such a claim, you should provide some evidence.

(Also, you really shouldn't hide behind semantics. An observation is absolutely an accusation when it accuses something observed.)

Funny how you keep squawking to people in this forum about "providing evidence" ... yet you are completely behind the NAACP's irresponsible statement to all black people about travelling on AA ... with only vague dribble from them about "patterns of bias" ,, just to stir up a fire storm.

You don't seem too concerned about the NAACP, of which you are such a proud member, being required to "provide evidence", do you? Why is that, DLX?

I think you may have an issue with reading comprehension today. I'll let you take another crack at it.

bluejuice wrote:

Unfortunately, this happened to a company I worked for years ago. Baseless charges from a known troublemaker. A boycott was threatened.

I don't see anything to suggest a boycott has been threatened, and I think it is quite a statement to list the NAACP as a "known troublemaker."

D L X wrote:

I'm seeing an awful lot of people who at first sight of the word NAACP jump to the conclusion that the allegation is baseless, and that the charge is nefarious.

I'm black, an NAACP life member, and an American Airlines elite for the past ten-plus years. While I do not feel I have been discriminated against, I have found that when someone else tells me that they hurt, it is inappropriate for me to tell them that they do not. Yet, that's exactly what I am seeing a bunch of people here doing.

It may well be the case that there is no widespread discrimination at AA. It may also be the case that implicit bias is rearing its ugly head here. I think you lot that are quick to say "no it ain't" would do yourselves well to stop and at least ask the question, "is it possible that the NAACP is right?" before you conclude that it isn't.

This! I'm not Black, but I am a card-carrying homo. Nothing irks me more than people who outright dismiss discrimination, particularly those who do not live my reality. I'm with you in that I never find it appropriate to outright tell someone they are not hurting. I'm happy to listen, I'm happy to try and understand, but I will not tell someone they are over-reacting, too sensitive, or just plain "making it up" to "shake down" a major corporation. Doug Parker's response to this incident was proper. It's unfortunate that so many of the participants in this thread can't take that example rather than making all sorts of accusations because they hate the NAACP.

OA412 wrote:

D L X wrote:

I'm seeing an awful lot of people who at first sight of the word NAACP jump to the conclusion that the allegation is baseless, and that the charge is nefarious.

I'm black, an NAACP life member, and an American Airlines elite for the past ten-plus years. While I do not feel I have been discriminated against, I have found that when someone else tells me that they hurt, it is inappropriate for me to tell them that they do not. Yet, that's exactly what I am seeing a bunch of people here doing.

It may well be the case that there is no widespread discrimination at AA. It may also be the case that implicit bias is rearing its ugly head here. I think you lot that are quick to say "no it ain't" would do yourselves well to stop and at least ask the question, "is it possible that the NAACP is right?" before you conclude that it isn't.

This! I'm not Black, but I am a card-carrying homo. Nothing irks me more than people who outright dismiss discrimination, particularly those who do not live my reality. I'm with you in that I never find it appropriate to outright tell someone they are not hurting. I'm happy to listen, I'm happy to try and understand, but I will not tell someone they are over-reacting, too sensitive, or just plain "making it up" to "shake down" a major corporation. Doug Parker's response to this incident was proper. It's unfortunate that so many of the participants in this thread can't take that example rather than making all sorts of accusations because they hate the NAACP.

... Are you OK with the way the NAACP has bashed and slandered an entire company here over these alleged incidents ? Stop all the "hurting" nonsense for a minute here. Do you think the NAACP was right in issuing a warning to all black people about flying American Airlines .? Just a yes or no.

D L X wrote:

F27500 wrote:

D L X wrote:

And again, if you're going to make such a claim, you should provide some evidence.

(Also, you really shouldn't hide behind semantics. An observation is absolutely an accusation when it accuses something observed.)

Funny how you keep squawking to people in this forum about "providing evidence" ... yet you are completely behind the NAACP's irresponsible statement to all black people about travelling on AA ... with only vague dribble from them about "patterns of bias" ,, just to stir up a fire storm.

You don't seem too concerned about the NAACP, of which you are such a proud member, being required to "provide evidence", do you? Why is that, DLX?

I think you may have an issue with reading comprehension today. I'll let you take another crack at it.

bluejuice wrote:

Unfortunately, this happened to a company I worked for years ago. Baseless charges from a known troublemaker. A boycott was threatened.

I don't see anything to suggest a boycott has been threatened, and I think it is quite a statement to list the NAACP as a "known troublemaker."

I did not state the NAACP is a known troublemaker. A local resident with a history of causing trouble made baseless claims against the company I was consulting for. It didn't matter that the allegations were impossible. A boycott by a local chapter of the NAACP was threatened. Legal decided it was easier and cheaper to make a donation. The company decided that even if they won, they would lose so the easy solution was chosen.

I noticed the stock price was down $.93 today. It will be interesting see if there's any change in bookings and stock price going forward.

AASAP777 wrote:

Well, everyone will talk on how the party was depending on how he felt.

Being the first airline to hire an African American pilot, it's pretty much off limits to accuse AA of "racism". t's absurd to attack an airline of racism just because you were too sensitive or on a bad mood. But as 727LOVER says, there's got to be more to be heard in order to establish a right judgement.

For years I thought Marlon Green (Continental) was the first African-American pilot hired at the majors. I didn't know American Airlines technically did it first, granted it was probably because Continental lost its case at the Supreme Court. Mr. Green definitely paved the way.

F27500 wrote:

... Are you OK with the way the NAACP has bashed and slandered an entire company here over these alleged incidents ? Stop all the "hurting" nonsense for a minute here. Do you think the NAACP was right in issuing a warning to all black people about flying American Airlines .? Just a yes or no.

LOL at "Just a yes or no." If you're unwilling or incapable of handling nuance, what are you doing here?

But since you asked, of course I'm okay with it. Why wouldn't one be? Why do you think saying "We've noticed a pattern and want to talk to you about it" is slander?

Note how different Doug Parker's response was.

(Also, your bias is showing. "Hurting nonsense?" You seem to be unable to resist jumping to that conclusion. Wouldn't it be better to at least consider for a second that something actually has happened before assuming it hasn't?)

D L X wrote:

F27500 wrote:

... Are you OK with the way the NAACP has bashed and slandered an entire company here over these alleged incidents ? Stop all the "hurting" nonsense for a minute here. Do you think the NAACP was right in issuing a warning to all black people about flying American Airlines .? Just a yes or no.

LOL at "Just a yes or no." If you're unwilling or incapable of handling nuance, what are you doing here?

But since you asked, of course I'm okay with it. Why wouldn't one be? Why do you think saying "We've noticed a pattern and want to talk to you about it" is slander?

Note how different Doug Parker's response was.

(Also, your bias is showing. "Hurting nonsense?" You seem to be unable to resist jumping to that conclusion. Wouldn't it be better to at least consider for a second that something actually has happened before assuming it hasn't?)

In agreement. I read the NAACP's statement and it's neither slanderous nor are they bashing AA. I will also add that minimizing what I'm saying and calling it "'hurting' nonsense" is not conducive to rational, respectful dialogue. It tells me you're absolutely unwilling to listen to the other side because you've already made up you're mind they're just "faking it."

D L X wrote:

F27500 wrote:

... Are you OK with the way the NAACP has bashed and slandered an entire company here over these alleged incidents ? Stop all the "hurting" nonsense for a minute here. Do you think the NAACP was right in issuing a warning to all black people about flying American Airlines .? Just a yes or no.

LOL at "Just a yes or no." If you're unwilling or incapable of handling nuance, what are you doing here?

But since you asked, of course I'm okay with it. Why wouldn't one be? Why do you think saying "We've noticed a pattern and want to talk to you about it" is slander?

Note how different Doug Parker's response was.

(Also, your bias is showing. "Hurting nonsense?" You seem to be unable to resist jumping to that conclusion. Wouldn't it be better to at least consider for a second that something actually has happened before assuming it hasn't?)

Actually I was asking OA412 .. not you ... your bias was made clear several replies ago.

But since you did chime in yet again ... you just lost even more credibility when you said "of course you're OK with it" .. ..

The NAACP did NOT simply say "We've noticed a pattern and want to talk to you about it" to AA .... they came out and issued a public warning to all black people about flying AA. As if they were in some sort of danger. What part of that are you not understanding? That was OK with you? Keep showing your bias, DLX .

But enough is enough of the bullying by these activist/advocate (intimidation/bully) groups. Time for companies to start fighting back and not caving in to this extortion. This was not "dialog" the NAACP wants. It never is.

F27500 wrote:

Actually I was asking OA412 .. not you ... your bias was made clear several replies ago.

My bias? You mean when I said that I think the best course of action is to listen? That's bias?

F27500 wrote:

But since you did chime in yet again ... you just lost even more credibility when you said "of course you're OK with it" .. ..

What have I said that is untrue such that my credibility could be challenged?

F27500 wrote:

The NAACP did NOT simply say "We've noticed a pattern and want to talk to you about it" to AA .... they came out and issued a public warning to all black people about flying AA. As if they were in some sort of danger. What part of that are you not understanding? That was OK with you? Keep showing your bias, DLX .

Did you read the NAACP statement? The first words are: "Calls for Meeting with Airlines to Discuss Troublesome Issues"
http://www.naacp.org/latest/naacp-issue ... -airlines/

So, now that you know what they actually said, point to the slander. Cut and paste it.

F27500 wrote:

But enough is enough of the bullying by these activist/advocate (intimidation/bully) groups. Time for companies to start fighting back and not caving in to this extortion. This was not "dialog" the NAACP wants. It never is.

Extortion?!

Please cite evidence.

INFINITI329 wrote:

AASAP777 wrote:

Well, everyone will talk on how the party was depending on how he felt.

Being the first airline to hire an African American pilot, it's pretty much off limits to accuse AA of "racism". t's absurd to attack an airline of racism just because you were too sensitive or on a bad mood. But as 727LOVER says, there's got to be more to be heard in order to establish a right judgement.

For years I thought Marlon Green (Continental) was the first African-American pilot hired at the majors. I didn't know American Airlines technically did it first, granted it was probably because Continental lost its case at the Supreme Court. Mr. Green definitely paved the way.

Well...it's Wikipedia..so who knows?

This says Marlon Green won the court case in 1963...then David Harris was hired in 1964 (by AA?)...and then Green was hired in 1965
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marlon_Green

http://www.denverpost.com/2009/07/09/pi ... imination/

https://www.airspacemag.com/history-of- ... -16161631/








CARRIED OVER TO UNITED

What is special with AA hiring the first black pilot in 1964? Were the USA that racist that short time ago? Of course we all know that. What is so pioneering about being less racist?
What about fear that they could not deny to hire qualified black pilots any longer after the Supreme Court decision from 1963 regarding Marlon Green David. Harris was an air force pilot, having flown B 52, so hardly incompetent on big aircraft.

This is very sad. Racism is a real problem in this world. It is not ethical to make frivolous and undignified claims of racism. To make such a weak case trivializes and marginalizes the real people who are fighting real problems.

bluejuice wrote:

I personally see this as a shakedown. Guessing things will be back to normal when the right palms get greased.

NAACP may have gone too far. Good chance they never see another dime from AA, at least not until the entire Board of Directors and executive office turns over to new people.

usflyer msp wrote:

I generally support the NAACP but this advisory is just stupid...

why its been useless for years and does nothing but shakedown companies.