AA - no to ICE to transporting detained child migrants

ltbewr · Wed Jun 20, 2018 6:34 pm

American Airlines has stated they will no longer transport for ICE within the USA anymore foreign national minors who entered the country illegally with their parents and separated from them who are going to detention centers. Apparently this was after a group was flying out of PHX on apparently one of their flights with ICE using the cover of them being a youth soccer team. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/american-a ... 018-06-20/

Continental767 · Wed Jun 20, 2018 6:38 pm

Applauding American for this decision. United and Frontier just released similar statements on their Twitter accounts.

PlanesNTrains · Wed Jun 20, 2018 6:40 pm

I was wondering what the legal grounds for refusing them are, but I guess if they are lying about who the people are (let alone them not being documented) they can turn them away.

Mir · Wed Jun 20, 2018 6:40 pm

United has said the same.

Jshank83 · Wed Jun 20, 2018 6:43 pm

Although AA still is. Apparently some are on flight 5772 right now.

https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/sta ... 8093384704

PlanesNTrains · Wed Jun 20, 2018 6:46 pm

DocLightning wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
I was wondering what the legal grounds for refusing them are, but I guess if they are lying about who the people are (let alone them not being documented) they can turn them away.

No legal ramifications. AA is quite free to decline a contract with a government agency/entity.

And certainly if ICE is outright lying and saying that these kids are a youth soccer team, that's extremely concerning on a number of levels.

That makes sense. I was thinking of it more as them refusing service to a customer vs turning down a contract.

DocLightning · Wed Jun 20, 2018 6:48 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
I was wondering what the legal grounds for refusing them are, but I guess if they are lying about who the people are (let alone them not being documented) they can turn them away.

No legal ramifications. AA is quite free to decline a contract with a government agency/entity.

And certainly if ICE is outright lying and saying that these kids are a youth soccer team, that's extremely concerning on a number of levels.

dtw2hyd · Wed Jun 20, 2018 6:49 pm

So it is going to be JPATS. I sincerely hope kids will not share rides with criminals, that will traumatize kids forever. There is no solution to this problem.

jscottwomack · Wed Jun 20, 2018 6:54 pm

Jshank83 wrote:
Although AA still is. Apparently some are on flight 5772 right now.

https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/sta ... 8093384704

Look at the creator of the tweet. All he does is stir the pot as that is how he makes his money. I would take it with a grain of salt.

N717TW · Wed Jun 20, 2018 6:56 pm

what? The Gov't is putting kids on a plane and is lying about why there are on the plane? If that's true, then this whole thing has gone bonkers.

32andBelow · Wed Jun 20, 2018 6:56 pm

An airline can’t really refuse someone form buying a ticket. They are a common carrier.

Seabear · Wed Jun 20, 2018 6:57 pm

Hopefully all US carriers will follow suit. Complicity with this abominable policy equates to approval.

marcelh · Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:00 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
So it is going to be JPATS. I sincerely hope kids will not share rides with criminals, that will traumatize kids forever. There is no solution to this problem.

They are already traumatized because they are sepatated from their parents.

Bobloblaw · Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:00 pm

Time for the FAA to do some through inspections

waly777 · Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:04 pm

32andBelow wrote:
An airline can’t really refuse someone form buying a ticket. They are a common carrier.

They can certainly refuse accepting certain passengers onboard.

DocLightning · Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:05 pm

32andBelow wrote:
An airline can’t really refuse someone form buying a ticket. They are a common carrier.

They most certainly can. Customers can be blacklisted. Most businesses have a "reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" policy. They can't make the policy based on CRA-covered reasons, like race, but refusing to sell tickets to a government entity is not illegal.

Bobloblaw wrote:
Time for the FAA to do some through inspections

I assure you, you do not want to live in a country where harassing a party that does not agree with the leadership's politics becomes commonplace. But if that's what you *REALLY* want, I invite you to move to any of the great many authoritarian regimes on this planet. That's a classic item in their playbook.

WorldFlier · Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:26 pm

32andBelow wrote:
An airline can’t really refuse someone form buying a ticket. They are a common carrier.

That's just not true.

They can refuse to sell to people on a blacklist.

They can refuse to sell to unaccompanied minors without their parent's permission (where are the parents...oh right...)

They can refuse to board people without identification.

They can refuse to participate in borderline fascism.

PlanesNTrains · Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:27 pm

Seabear wrote:
Hopefully all US carriers will follow suit. Complicity with this abominable policy equates to approval.

Please stop. I don't need the airlines serving as my moral compass. Otherwise, I'm sure there are plenty of people who others would not want transported as well.

DocLightning wrote:
32andBelow wrote:
An airline can’t really refuse someone form buying a ticket. They are a common carrier.

They most certainly can. Customers can be blacklisted. Most businesses have a "reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" policy. They can't make the policy based on CRA-covered reasons, like race, but refusing to sell tickets to a government entity is not illegal.

Bobloblaw wrote:
Time for the FAA to do some through inspections

I assure you, you do not want to live in a country where harassing a party that does not agree with the leadership's politics becomes commonplace. But if that's what you *REALLY* want, I invite you to move to any of the great many authoritarian regimes on this planet. That's a classic item in their playbook.

We're already there, but I agree it should be stopped in its tracks.

INFINITI329 · Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:34 pm

If you read the statements from UA & AA I interpret it as merely a strongly worded request. Notice neither carrier called into question their respective contracts with the United States Government. I doubt you will see that. Becuase it's all about the benjamins to the airlines and U.S. Government has a lot of it.

ltbewr · Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:36 pm

Airlines know the transport of these minors for detention purposes for ICE is going to get them bad public relations at a time when they are considered lower than whale crap. There may also be cabin crew who do not want to or are refusing to work flights with such passengers and have the Unions backup. Some passenger also may not feel comfortable around ICE agents either as may not be of legal residency status.

slvrblt · Wed Jun 20, 2018 8:27 pm

exFWAOONW wrote:
Regardless of your perspective, this is a minor issue that will blow over quickly as the president is doing something about a law that has been on the books for a long time. Now the children will have to sit in jails with their parents.

No they don't, what rot. Put them all in the same Walmart or whatever, it's a misdemeanor for heavens sake. It's all the same detention but at least more humane keeping the family unit still together. Then deport them as fast as you can.

atcsundevil · Wed Jun 20, 2018 8:33 pm

This is a discussion on American's announcement today. Discussion regarding the politics behind this announcement belongs in the Non Aviation Forum.

✈️ atcsundevil

OB1504 · Wed Jun 20, 2018 8:43 pm

ltbewr wrote:
Airlines know the transport of these minors for detention purposes for ICE is going to get them bad public relations at a time when they are considered lower than whale crap. There may also be cabin crew who do not want to or are refusing to work flights with such passengers and have the Unions backup. Some passenger also may not feel comfortable around ICE agents either as may not be of legal residency status.

I’ve read reports that crews are refusing to work flights upon learning that ICE agents are on board.

Etheereal · Wed Jun 20, 2018 8:51 pm

OB1504 wrote:
ltbewr wrote:
Airlines know the transport of these minors for detention purposes for ICE is going to get them bad public relations at a time when they are considered lower than whale crap. There may also be cabin crew who do not want to or are refusing to work flights with such passengers and have the Unions backup. Some passenger also may not feel comfortable around ICE agents either as may not be of legal residency status.

I’ve read reports that crews are refusing to work flights upon learning that ICE agents are on board.

Guess that means unexpected delays, more $$ to pay and headache to passengers in general. Thank you Doug.

OB1504 · Wed Jun 20, 2018 9:01 pm

Etheereal wrote:
OB1504 wrote:
ltbewr wrote:
Airlines know the transport of these minors for detention purposes for ICE is going to get them bad public relations at a time when they are considered lower than whale crap. There may also be cabin crew who do not want to or are refusing to work flights with such passengers and have the Unions backup. Some passenger also may not feel comfortable around ICE agents either as may not be of legal residency status.

I’ve read reports that crews are refusing to work flights upon learning that ICE agents are on board.

Guess that means unexpected delays, more $$ to pay and headache to passengers in general. Thank you Doug.

This has nothing to do with Doug Parker and everything to do with crews refusing to participate in ICE’s latest practices.

Etheereal · Wed Jun 20, 2018 9:03 pm

OB1504 wrote:
Etheereal wrote:
OB1504 wrote:

I’ve read reports that crews are refusing to work flights upon learning that ICE agents are on board.

Guess that means unexpected delays, more $$ to pay and headache to passengers in general. Thank you Doug.

This has nothing to do with Doug Parker and everything to do with crews refusing to participate in ICE’s latest practices.

I'm aware, i was just being sarcastic that people will soon start to blame doug because the crew cuts and general mismanagement on AA.

SierraPacific · Wed Jun 20, 2018 9:20 pm

So I guess Swift Air is going to get a little more busy out at AZA

Flighty · Wed Jun 20, 2018 9:24 pm

Um yeah... this is a team of Hondouran 10 year old, you know, soccer players... $70,000 for the charter, you say? Okay, not a problem, our team can easily... now, how soon can you get here? Do you have more aircraft available? Say, ten more?

DXTraveler · Wed Jun 20, 2018 9:40 pm

"Please stop. I don't need the airlines serving as my moral compass."
Exactly - anyone want to bet the airlines have been transporting these types of individuals for years? Why suddenly all the moral outrage? Yes I know the answer.

Corporate America has become so hyper reflexive, just as they did with the NRA issue.

spinotter · Wed Jun 20, 2018 10:38 pm

DocLightning wrote:
32andBelow wrote:
An airline can’t really refuse someone form buying a ticket. They are a common carrier.

They most certainly can. Customers can be blacklisted. Most businesses have a "reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" policy. They can't make the policy based on CRA-covered reasons, like race, but refusing to sell tickets to a government entity is not illegal.

Bobloblaw wrote:
Time for the FAA to do some through inspections

I assure you, you do not want to live in a country where harassing a party that does not agree with the leadership's politics becomes commonplace. But if that's what you *REALLY* want, I invite you to move to any of the great many authoritarian regimes on this planet. That's a classic item in their playbook.

Hear, hear. I agree with everything you are saying, DocLighting. Lying about kids being separated from their parents and deported by claiming that they are a youth soccer team. Really, in the USA? I wonder how many of those children will be met by anyone at the destination airport in Mexico. This has so many overtones of words that may not be allowed on a.net. But one begins with a capital "N" and the other with a small "f." However, hasn't Trump canceled the policy now? About time, tinpot dictator that he is.

Edited to say that the capital "N" word appears in its full glory just above. Hurrah!

727200 · Wed Jun 20, 2018 10:52 pm

All the airlines have no business getting involved in a political issue, and if a solitary employee did they would be shown the door. Such hypocrites on corporate side to even mention this.

Judge1310 · Wed Jun 20, 2018 11:28 pm

727200 wrote:
All the airlines have no business getting involved in a political issue, and if a solitary employee did they would be shown the door. Such hypocrites on corporate side to even mention this.

Let's guess, you don't work for an airline, eh?

What's happening these days isn't a "political issue"; indeed, it's an issue of optics, an issue of humanity, an issue of doing what is right.

If we are to follow airline policy, it is against all Western airlines' policy to transport a child without the direct, express, and written consent of the absent parent(s)/guardian(s). That part, notwithstanding, an airline can refuse transport to any one deemed "unacceptable for travel" -- what that entails requires one to research the individual carrier's Contract of Carriage.

32andBelow · Wed Jun 20, 2018 11:33 pm

WorldFlier wrote:
32andBelow wrote:
An airline can’t really refuse someone form buying a ticket. They are a common carrier.

That's just not true.

They can refuse to sell to people on a blacklist.

They can refuse to sell to unaccompanied minors without their parent's permission (where are the parents...oh right...)

They can refuse to board people without identification.

They can refuse to participate in borderline fascism.

As a common carrier you would need to prove they are harmful to the operation. Like do not fly list harmful. An airline does NOT have the right to refuse service to anyone. A child under the custody of the US government would not be an unaccompanied minor.

I hate this admin and am a dem but airlines do not have this right.

WkndWanderer · Thu Jun 21, 2018 12:11 am

32andBelow wrote:
WorldFlier wrote:
32andBelow wrote:
An airline can’t really refuse someone form buying a ticket. They are a common carrier.

That's just not true.

They can refuse to sell to people on a blacklist.

They can refuse to sell to unaccompanied minors without their parent's permission (where are the parents...oh right...)

They can refuse to board people without identification.

They can refuse to participate in borderline fascism.

As a common carrier you would need to prove they are harmful to the operation. Like do not fly list harmful. An airline does NOT have the right to refuse service to anyone.

Saying a passenger has to be "no fly list level harmful" to be prohibited from flying at the discretion of the airline is untrue, an airline can refuse to transport any passenger for any reason that isn't illegally discriminatory or otherwise prohibited by law, you most certainly don't have to be "no fly list harmful" for them to refuse you service...the reasons can be related to customer service issues, frequent flier program abuse, or not complying with any one of the airline's rules or policies which of course are largely arbitrary and can be updated at will. Almost every contract of carriage reviews that the airlines maintain broad discretion to largely decide who flies and who doesn't.

WkndWanderer · Thu Jun 21, 2018 12:31 am

Flighty wrote:
Um yeah... this is a team of Hondouran 10 year old, you know, soccer players... $70,000 for the charter, you say? Okay, not a problem, our team can easily... now, how soon can you get here? Do you have more aircraft available? Say, ten more?

Already happening...

"On one of the flights, an ICE agent lied about the children and initially said the kids were traveling as part of a soccer team. When pressed, the agent finally admitted that they were, indeed children who were being relocated to assigned camps.”

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... ansporting

sw733 · Thu Jun 21, 2018 12:42 am

727200 wrote:
All the airlines have no business getting involved in a political issue, and if a solitary employee did they would be shown the door. Such hypocrites on corporate side to even mention this.

I’m happy to see them take a stand. If I don’t like it, I won’t fly them.

Matt6461 · Thu Jun 21, 2018 12:49 am

PlanesNTrains wrote:
Please stop. I don't need the airlines serving as my moral compass.

Others' exercise of their moral compass is not an exercise of yours - unless you have surrendered yours to theirs. State your real objection.

Wacker1000 · Thu Jun 21, 2018 12:59 am

Don't blame them - I wouldn't want to be responsible for transporting known law breakers.

IPFreely · Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:04 am

The "stories" about youth dressed as criminals or masquerading as a soccer team are from "sources" like facebook posts. This looks much like a social media fake news storm where facts are not going stop people from believing whatever they want to believe.

Those who actually read the article referenced by the OP will find out...

American:

said it has "no knowledge that the federal government has used American to transport children who have been separated from their parents due to the recent immigration policy"

Alaska:

To our knowledge, we haven't transported any immigrant children who have been separated from their families.

United:

United Airlines said in a statement that it had not seen evidence that it had flown children who'd been separated from their parents

Southwest:

we do not have evidence that tickets purchased for Southwest flights have been utilized to transport detained children

Etheereal · Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:04 am

Super80Fan wrote:
I think the children involved are very happy about not being allowed on United. They are being treated terribly enough by being split up & where they are, they don't need to experience the UN human rights violations that are UA aircraft and personnel.

I wasnt expecting this post here, but magnificently done. Bravo!

Judge1310 wrote:
Super80Fan wrote:
I think the children involved are very happy about not being allowed on United. They are being treated terribly enough by being split up & where they are, they don't need to experience the UN human rights violations that are UA aircraft and personnel.

Go away Troll.....

Discussing factual policy without interjecting ridiculous and irrelevant "commentary" is appreciated on this particular comment thread.

Anywaaaaaay, as an astute poster above stated, so long as the reason for not transporting someone isn't discriminatory, an airline is NOT required to take anyone's money.

You're the one missing the point. He's not talking about politics, nor feelings (which moderators have told us to strictly stay on topic), but he's talking about how UA management and in-flight experience is so bad, they're pretty much doing them a favor.

catiii · Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:04 am

727200 wrote:
All the airlines have no business getting involved in a political issue, and if a solitary employee did they would be shown the door. Such hypocrites on corporate side to even mention this.

How naive of you. Airlines are corporations made up of thousands of people. They are political entities. They employ teams of internal and external lobbyists to influence policy. They weigh in on social issues.

Get over it.

IslandRob · Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:05 am

Seabear wrote:
Hopefully all US carriers will follow suit. Complicity with this abominable policy equates to approval.

I agree with all my heart. I am so ashamed of my government. -ir

catiii · Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:06 am

How interesting that Delta equivocated and made a milquetoast statement. Guess they’ve had enough of getting their asses kicked in 2018 for taking social justice stands.

airtran737 · Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:32 am

Notice that it is a request, not a refusal. AA said that they have no way of identifying who these kids are and that they are requesting to not be used. In the end, it doesn't matter, these kids will be flown by somebody. AA just saw an opportunity to save some face after the PSA debacle and rode it.

AirCalSNA · Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:39 am

Like so many things in the upside-down world we currently inhabit, AA's stance really makes sense only from an "SJW" standpoint since it arguably ends up hurting the kids by limiting their travel options and perhaps requiring that they be sent back home on military aircraft or another other less comfortable means of transport. It would be nice if we could get back to making a sharper distinction between performing a simple business transaction and expressing agreement with someone's or some group's political views.

SuperGee · Thu Jun 21, 2018 2:03 am

I came across this article last night before AA and the other airlines announced their policies regarding this. It predates the CBS article in the OP and contains information and details in addition to that article:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 716360002/

448205 · Thu Jun 21, 2018 2:15 am

OB1504 wrote:
ltbewr wrote:
Airlines know the transport of these minors for detention purposes for ICE is going to get them bad public relations at a time when they are considered lower than whale crap. There may also be cabin crew who do not want to or are refusing to work flights with such passengers and have the Unions backup. Some passenger also may not feel comfortable around ICE agents either as may not be of legal residency status.

I’ve read reports that crews are refusing to work flights upon learning that ICE agents are on board.

Dumb ass crews in that case. Hopefully delayed long enough to find a new job. They will need it.

Virtue signaling and politics has no place in the airline industry.

dtw2hyd · Thu Jun 21, 2018 2:45 am

Now that the EO is signed, AA and others can help locate 2300 kids and reunite with their parents even back to South America if parents are already deported. I believe there is crowdfunding, so need not be total charity.

Rest of the discussion should be deported to the non-av forum.

SteelChair · Thu Jun 21, 2018 2:47 am

And to think that i had a post deleted recently because it was too political. I am outraged at the outrage. Why can an endless flood of people ignore the border and the law and why is the press and one party so in favor of this lawlessness?

What about documentatuon to board an airplane? An actual citizen of the USA has to submit to all sorts of indignity to prove that they are not a terrorist. Who polices this flood of undocumented people? How hard would it be for a terrorist to slip in among them? I've read that countless drug mules are among the illegals.

PlanesNTrains · Thu Jun 21, 2018 2:58 am

WkndWanderer wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
And to think that i had a post deleted recently because it was too political. I am outraged at the outrage. Why can an endless flood of people ignore the border and the law and why is the press and one party so in favor of this lawlessness?

What about documentatuon to board an airplane? An actual citizen of the USA has to submit to all sorts of indignity to prove that they are not a terrorist. Who polices this flood of undocumented people? How hard would it be for a terrorist to slip in among them? I've read that countless drug mules are among the illegals.

Nothing you just said involves children who don't control what happens to them being forcibly removed from their parents, corralled into wire fenced enclosures in abandoned Walmarts to huddle with space blankets surrounded by port-a-potties, or being transported by DHS/HHS officials on commercial aircraft to be be held at various tent camps or distributed into social service systems and the decisions of airlines to publicly state they won't be willingly complicit in those actions toward children.

Well hopefully we can fix the system so that the children aren't stuck in the middle of it all. I won't hold my breath - too much political clout and dollars on both sides to fix something like this.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net