Muslim Woman Removed From WN Flight At MDW

NoTime · Tue Apr 19, 2016 1:56 am

Quoting RDUDDJI (Reply 97):
This. Does anyone really think an FA wants to sit around and do a bunch of denied boarding (or whatever it's called) paperwork and then get hassled by their boss?

Give up, man. I've tried pointing that out, but the SJWs around here have an ax to grind. In the absence of any real details about the situation, people are free to make up whatever stuff they want to fill in the gaps.

ElPistolero · Tue Apr 19, 2016 1:57 am

Quoting Prinair (Reply 3):

So far this indicates that Southwest does investigate any security concerns and will not hesitate to take any needed action to guarantee the security of their flights.

Nope.

All it indicates is that there are people out there who think they're being heroic by assuming that they're better positioned to identify a threat than all of the law enforcement agencies and TSA. You know, the folk who actually have the equipment, resources and training to identify threats.

Perhaps we should put WN cabin crew in charge of national security.

So...still nonsense.

[Edited 2016-04-18 19:02:44]

Prinair · Tue Apr 19, 2016 2:48 am

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 102):
Obviously, you don't.

Do you? Obviously you do not know either. Unless you were there.

guyanam · Tue Apr 19, 2016 2:51 am

Quoting avi8 (Reply 87):

Cannot recall a woman beinbg denied boarding, or HUMILIATINGLY being tossed off a plane because she "looked Catholic". There have been several instances of Muslims being humiliated. In almost no situation where they proven to be terrorists and in almost every situation they were allowed to board a later fight.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 91):

I have relatives who live in Canada, and I have also worked in a Canadian company. Canadians are just more silent in their racism. There is even a "Black Lives" movement over there.

Canadians love to pretend that they are less racist than Americans. Sorry, it is about equal. Just different in how it shows up.

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 99):

Is speaking about ISIS illegal? If so almost every one in the USA would be tossed off planes.

Quoting NoTime (Reply 103):

No. It means that a few are bigots. When a passenger is drunk airlines don't hesitate to report this. So why is WN so shy in discussing the behavior of the passengers. Is it that they want to be seen as an airline filled with bigots?

Prinair · Tue Apr 19, 2016 3:02 am

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 104):

Nope.

All it indicates is that there are people out there who think they're being heroic by assuming that they're better positioned to identify a threat than all of the law enforcement agencies and TSA. You know, the folk who actually have the equipment, resources and training to identify threats.

Perhaps we should put WN cabin crew in charge of national security.

So...still nonsense.

[Edited 2016-04-18 19:02:44]

It indicates that some people will take security seriously and will take action on any perceived threat. It's laughable how so many on this forum will defend this woman without knowing what really happened. There are two sides to the story yet everyone is quick to blame the airline of any possible wrongdoing. Also, it would not come as a surprise if airline personnel actually performed better than TSA at detecting security threats....

These situations will continue to happen as long as there is a threat of terrorism .... Get over it. Life goes on.

mariner · Tue Apr 19, 2016 3:07 am

Quoting Prinair (Reply 107):
It indicates that some people will take security seriously and will take action on any perceived threat. It's laughable how so many on this forum will defend this woman without knowing what really happened.

And yet when asked (of the f/a) if there was any reason the woman had been taken off the plane, the f/a said "no."

mariner

[Edited 2016-04-18 20:14:38]

Prinair · Tue Apr 19, 2016 3:15 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 108):
And yet when asked of the f/a if there was any reason the woman had been taken off the plane, the f/a said "no."

If a flight crew member does not feel "comfortable" with a passenger and has them removed, it is still a valid reason as far as I am concerned.

N1120A · Tue Apr 19, 2016 3:24 am

Pure, indefensible bigotry. Nothing else.

longhauler · Tue Apr 19, 2016 3:27 am

Quoting guyanam (Reply 106):
I have relatives who live in Canada, and I have also worked in a Canadian company. Canadians are just more silent in their racism.

I see I was too subtle in my terminology and you didn't catch it.

I wasn't referring to the way Canadians react to another race when compared to Americans, I was referring to the way they react to the racism itself. Everyone is "racist" to a certain degree, it is human nature. And with very similar upbringing and cultures, Americans and Canadians would likely have the same reaction to another race.

However, how that racism is handled is different between the two countries. Yes, Canadians are silent in their racism, because to discriminate or harass due to race is illegal in Canada. And, most large corporations, airlines included, have very clearly defined Codes of Conduct with the way that harrassment and discrimation is addressed.

So if the facts of this event are true as presented, the point I was making is simply ... To remove a passenger from an aircraft due to her race/religion is illegal in Canada. And had the Southwest employees involved been working for Air Canada (for example) they would have been fired.

mariner · Tue Apr 19, 2016 3:29 am

Quoting Prinair (Reply 109):
If a flight crew member does not feel "comfortable" with a passenger and has them removed, it is still a valid reason as far as I am concerned.

I think we know your position on all this already, but if there is no valid reason - if she had done nothing wrong - then she should not be removed from the flight, otherwise it is:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 110):
Pure, indefensible bigotry. Nothing else.

mariner

longhauler · Tue Apr 19, 2016 3:33 am

Quoting Prinair (Reply 109):
If a flight crew member does not feel "comfortable" with a passenger and has them removed, it is still a valid reason as far as I am concerned.

As long as you are not the person being removed. And where do you draw the line?

It goes back to what I said about 100 lines above ... If airlines in the United States want to be considered "World Class" they are going to have to acknowledge that the world exists outside of the United States. (Making uneducated Flight Attendants more "comfortable" with someone of another race).

N1120A · Tue Apr 19, 2016 3:35 am

Quoting longhauler (Reply 113):
It goes back to what I said about 100 lines above ... If airlines in the United States want to be considered "World Class" they are going to have to acknowledge that the world exists outside of the United States. (Making uneducated Flight Attendants more "comfortable" with someone of another race).

Every bit of this. I've never heard of AC doing this.

Prinair · Tue Apr 19, 2016 3:40 am

Quoting longhauler (Reply 113):

As long as you are not the person being removed. And where do you draw the line?

It goes back to what I said about 100 lines above ... If airlines in the United States want to be considered "World Class" they are going to have to acknowledge that the world exists outside of the United States. (Making uneducated Flight Attendants more "comfortable" with someone of another race).

Being "world class" is just not in the interest of an airline like Southwest. It is simply about transporting people from point to point in an efficient and safe manner while making a profit. Southwest does this extremely well.

DocLightning · Tue Apr 19, 2016 3:40 am

Quoting longhauler (Reply 111):

So if the facts of this event are true as presented, the point I was making is simply ... To remove a passenger from an aircraft due to her race/religion is illegal in Canada.

And in the United States. But apparently in the U.S. the burden of proof is on the aggrieved.

longhauler · Tue Apr 19, 2016 3:47 am

Quoting Prinair (Reply 115):
Being "world class" is just not in the interest of an airline like Southwest.

It would appear not.

And ... if their aim is to be perceived as definitely NOT World Class, then they are certainly achieveing that!

Quoting Prinair (Reply 115):
while making a profit. Southwest does this extremely well.

Much like, I am sure the bus company that insisted that Rosa Parks give up her seat was also very profitable.

ElPistolero · Tue Apr 19, 2016 4:03 am

Quoting Prinair (Reply 107):
It indicates that some people will take security seriously and will take action on any perceived threat. It's laughable how so many on this forum will defend this woman without knowing what really happened. There are two sides to the story yet everyone is quick to blame the airline of any possible wrongdoing. Also, it would not come as a surprise if airline personnel actually performed better than TSA at detecting security threats....

These situations will continue to happen as long as there is a threat of terrorism .... Get over it. Life goes on.

How many terrorists have WN cabin crew detected to date? (Hint: the correct answer is 0)

Will also point out that you're assuming there's a security concern while simultaneously declaring that you yourself can't possibly know how your assumption is right. Odd.

Also going to point out that there are several stages of security screening before pax get on a plane - conducted by people who know what they're doing.

Quoting Prinair (Reply 109):

If a flight crew member does not feel "comfortable" with a passenger and has them removed, it is still a valid reason as far as I am concerned.

Got it. Sounds a lot like "I have a right to discriminate against a person because their lifestyle choice is an attack on my values".

Bigotry is the correct word.

Tigerguy · Tue Apr 19, 2016 4:10 am

Quoting Prinair (Reply 109):

If a flight crew member does not feel "comfortable" with a passenger and has them removed, it is still a valid reason as far as I am concerned.

Are you sure you'd be fine with a flight attendant saying they weren't comfortable with you and removing you from the plane?

SOBHI51 · Tue Apr 19, 2016 4:22 am

Quoting mham001 (Reply 88):
He was removed for questioning after making a phone call on the plane, in Arabic, discussing ISIS and ending the call with "inshallah". I can see people feeling "uncomfortable" with that.

Hmmm i didn't read anywhere that he was discussing ISIS on the phone, unless you know something others don't

Quoting mham001 (Reply 88):
I can see people feeling "uncomfortable" with that.

Of course.

Quoting mham001 (Reply 90):
What he is really looking for is his 15 minutes of fame.

For such behavior from the airline he deserves more, and he should sue. remember the problem with a passenger who was refused to book a ticket on Kuwait Airways, because he did have an Israeli passport, also remember what you posted, enough said.

Quoting Prinair (Reply 109):
If a flight crew member does not feel "comfortable" with a passenger and has them removed, it is still a valid reason as far as I am concerned.

So if she doesn't like the color of my shirt or my haircut, she can throw me out, ridiculous.

alfa164 · Tue Apr 19, 2016 4:25 am

Quoting Prinair (Reply 105):
o you? Obviously you do not know either. Unless you were there.

If it has taken 120 posts for you to grasp what happened, we can make it simple for you:

1) Flight Attendant has a Muslim passenger remover from aircraft;

2) Same Flight Attendant tells FBI there is no threat and no reason the passenger should not fly.

Is that simple enough for you?

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 118):
Got it. Sounds a lot like "I have a right to discriminate against a person because their lifestyle choice is an attack on my values". Bigotry is the correct word.

[Edited 2016-04-18 21:25:55]

Prinair · Tue Apr 19, 2016 4:40 am

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 122):

120 posts of hearsay.... No one knows what really happened.

seahawk · Tue Apr 19, 2016 4:56 am

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 122):
If it has taken 120 posts for you to grasp what happened, we can make it simple for you:

1) Flight Attendant has a Muslim passenger remover from aircraft;

2) Same Flight Attendant tells FBI there is no threat and no reason the passenger should not fly.

Is that simple enough for you?

Nobody can be that stupid. I think there must be more to the story and the bottom line should always be: "Better save than sorry".

atcsundevil · Tue Apr 19, 2016 5:10 am

Just a reminder: please stay on topic and avoid from making overly political or racist remarks, and please resist the temptation to belittle others' opinions.

There has been some good discussion in this thread, but it has walked the line a number of times, including many users who have crossed the line.

Please remember that this is an aviation forum, and we are here to respect each other. The moderators have gone through a lot of effort to keep this discussion on topic and within forum guidelines, so please help us in these efforts.

✈ atcsundevil

bennett123 · Tue Apr 19, 2016 5:36 am

IMO, it comes down to 2 posts, 89 and 121.

If the FA Told the FBI there was no reason for the passenger not to fly, then clearly the FA was wrong to do so.

If the passenger was talking in Arabic about Islamic State then she has no no to blame but herself. No law would be broken, but discussion of this on a plane is plain stupid, unless you want to be deplaned.

mariner · Tue Apr 19, 2016 5:45 am

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 125):
If the passenger was talking in Arabic about Islamic State then she has no no to blame but herself. No law would be broken, but discussion of this on a plane is plain stupid, unless you want to be deplaned.

That charge has never been made about this woman.

It has never been said that she talked about ISIS (Daesh), only that she has a male passenger sitting next to her to switch seats, with which he agreed.

That;ls when the f/a stepped in and put paid to the seat-switching.

The other was a completely separate case, of a male student kicked off a different Southwest flight, who had been talking to his uncle, in Iraq, in Arabic, and who - apparently - mentioned ISIS/Daesh.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/17/us...outhwest-muslim-passenger-removed/

"Arabic-speaking student kicked off Southwest flight"

mariner

[Edited 2016-04-18 22:47:06]

bennett123 · Tue Apr 19, 2016 6:05 am

Quite right, my mistake.

enzo011 · Tue Apr 19, 2016 8:55 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 126):
It has never been said that she talked about ISIS (Daesh), only that she has a male passenger sitting next to her to switch seats, with which he agreed.

That;ls when the f/a stepped in and put paid to the seat-switching.

I wish those that defend the FA's decision would comment on why on the woman was removed and not the passenger she switched with.

seahawk · Tue Apr 19, 2016 9:04 am

There must be more. Can you see the law enforcement officials being happy to be called for no reason and being handed over a probably quite angry woman for no reason? Can you see WN defending a FA that does this?

enzo011 · Tue Apr 19, 2016 9:07 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 129):
There must be more. Can you see the law enforcement officials being happy to be called for no reason and being handed over a probably quite angry woman for no reason? Can you see WN defending a FA that does this?

You seem to underestimate the stupidity of the human race.

mariner · Tue Apr 19, 2016 9:38 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 129):
There must be more. Can you see the law enforcement officials being happy to be called for no reason and being handed over a probably quite angry woman for no reason? Can you see WN defending a FA that does this?

Why must there be more?

Whether the law enforcement officials were "happy" has nothing to do with it, they did their job. The woman was booked on a later flight, apparently without issue.

And Southwest will defend its staff - in public - just as I would expect. I have no idea what was said in private.

mariner

mjoelnir · Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:57 am

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 128):
I wish those that defend the FA's decision would comment on why on the woman was removed and not the passenger she switched with.

They would than have to admit that there was something strange with the F/As decision. It would be also nice to know, how it is a breach of security to exchange seats with a fellow passenger with non assigned seating.

alfa164 · Tue Apr 19, 2016 11:08 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 129):
Can you see the law enforcement officials being happy to be called for no reason and being handed over a probably quite angry woman for no reason?

They probably weren't happy. They did what their job required them to do - happy, or not.

Quoting mariner (Reply 131):
And Southwest will defend its staff - in public - just as I would expect. I have no idea what was said in private.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 132):
They would than have to admit that there was something strange with the F/As decision. It would be also nice to know, how it is a breach of security to exchange seats with a fellow passenger with non assigned seating.

We would all like to know that. I must have been a security risk on many occasions...

guyanam · Tue Apr 19, 2016 4:18 pm

Quoting Prinair (Reply 106):

Why is it OK for a passenger, who has PAID THE SALARY of the F/A to be removed merely because the latter has unresolved levels of bigotry which leads to them feeling "uncomfortable".

Suppose this causes the passenger to miss an important business meeting, family event, or connections? Will WN compensate the passenger because the F/A felt "uncomfortable".

One day folks like you will understand that airlines are there to serve the passengers. Airlines are NOT doing us a favor!

Quoting seahawk (Reply 126):

Yes WN defends the F/A to build up a case to avoid being sued by the passenger. If they admit the F/A is to blame then they hold themselves liable. So they blame the passenger.

As to the male passenger. Is it illegal to speak Arabic while on a plane? NO! Is it unreasonable, given the havoc that ISIS has made of Iraq that a conversation with some one living in Iraq would probably include this?

I suggest that airlines publish a code for Muslims. Do not wear Muslim garb. Do not speak Arabic. Do every thing to avoid "looking Muslim" and if this includes use of skin lightening creams, then so be it. Do not speak on any topic concerning the Middle East.

Seriously just now Muslims will be forced to wear a symbol and placed under armed guard at the back of the plane!

One thing for sure is I will NOT be using WN!

SOBHI51 · Tue Apr 19, 2016 4:23 pm

Quoting guyanam (Reply 131):
Seriously just now Muslims will be forced to wear a symbol and placed under armed guard at the back of the plane!

It might happen if a specific person wins the elections

seahawk · Tue Apr 19, 2016 4:25 pm

Quoting guyanam (Reply 131):

Yes WN defends the F/A to build up a case to avoid being sued by the passenger. If they admit the F/A is to blame then they hold themselves liable. So they blame the passenger.

What is the point denying it, when the law enforcement officials would confirm that there was no reason to remove the passenger from the flight?

OA412 · Tue Apr 19, 2016 4:41 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 126):
There must be more. Can you see the law enforcement officials being happy to be called for no reason and being handed over a probably quite angry woman for no reason?

There doesn't have to be more. Law enforcement does their job whether they're happy about it or not. There aren't really penalties against the complainant. They investigate and move on. Further, LE deals with angry people all day, every day. And drunk people, and high people, and violent people, and so on. It is a fact of the job all officers are well aware of.

N1120A · Tue Apr 19, 2016 4:44 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 113):
And in the United States. But apparently in the U.S. the burden of proof is on the aggrieved.

Sort of. It depends on the situation and whether the Plaintiff can make a prima facie case - something not particularly difficult here.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 115):
How many terrorists have WN cabin crew detected to date? (Hint: the correct answer is 0)

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 115):
Got it. Sounds a lot like "I have a right to discriminate against a person because their lifestyle choice is an attack on my values".

Bigotry is the correct word.

Yup.

readytotaxi · Tue Apr 19, 2016 4:56 pm

Quoting SOBHI51 (Reply 132):
It might happen if a specific person wins the elections

My goodness, who on earth do you mean?
How could such a person become a leader of the free world?

bgm · Wed Apr 20, 2016 2:44 am

Looks like Southwest have found a solution for those pesky muslamic passengers.

Quote:
DALLAS – Southwest Airlines announced a new premium upgrade available for all passengers starting May 2016. Arabic Select® allows Arabic-speaking and Muslim passengers to comfortably speak the Arabic language without having to worry about getting kicked off the plane.

http://www.nationalprofiler.com/southwest-offers-arabic-select/

[Edited 2016-04-19 19:53:58]

DocLightning · Wed Apr 20, 2016 5:42 am

Quoting guyanam (Reply 131):

Yes WN defends the F/A to build up a case to avoid being sued by the passenger. If they admit the F/A is to blame then they hold themselves liable. So they blame the passenger.

There is an alternative, which is to formally discipline the F/A up to and including termination and to offer redress to the passenger. It's a lot harder to win a suit under such circumstances.

Frankly, I would encourage both passengers to sue. For a LOT of money. WN needs to decide whether it wants to do business in the U.S.A. as an airline under the CRA of 1963 or not.

As has been pointed out, Air Canada flies passengers of all ethnicities, languages, and religions and doesn't seem to have this problem.

mariner · Wed Apr 20, 2016 5:52 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 139):
There is an alternative, which is to formally discipline the F/A up to and including termination and to offer redress to the passenger. It's a lot harder to win a suit under such circumstances.

I very much doubt that will happen. Southwest has closed ranks and is insisting it is a "safety of aircraft" issue.

In the other case, the Muslim man kicked off the plane for speaking Arabic, Southwest is even pushing back, saying that the complainant spoke Arabic as well, and thus understood what the suspected man was saying.

However, the cops haven't really helped Southwest's case by declaring that the off-loaded student "did nothing wrong."

This article shows two sides of the coin - what the L.A. cops said and, further down the page, brief video of a male Southwest f/a telling pax it was a security issue.

http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel...y/bf30153b2944ce1b3ad94e9ec720c0f7

"Police say man booted off flight for speaking Arabic did nothing wrong"

mariner

EA CO AS · Wed Apr 20, 2016 6:39 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 139):
Quoting guyanam (Reply 131):
Yes WN defends the F/A to build up a case to avoid being sued by the passenger. If they admit the F/A is to blame then they hold themselves liable. So they blame the passenger.
There is an alternative, which is to formally discipline the F/A up to and including termination and to offer redress to the passenger. It's a lot harder to win a suit under such circumstances.

Worst-case scenario for the flight attendant - assuming there have been no other work performance issues with this individual - is a formal discussion with management, and a letter of discussion in her file. There's no way labor relations attorneys would sign off on formal disciplinary action, let alone discharge.

art · Wed Apr 20, 2016 6:58 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 140):
I very much doubt that will happen. Southwest has closed ranks and is insisting it is a "safety of aircraft" issue.

In the other case, the Muslim man kicked off the plane for speaking Arabic, Southwest is even pushing back, saying that the complainant spoke Arabic as well, and thus understood what the suspected man was saying.

However, the cops haven't really helped Southwest's case by declaring that the off-loaded student "did nothing wrong."

What baffles me is why flight attendants at US airlines are apparently so deeply uncomfortable about Muslim passengers being on their flight, which seems to provoke bizarre, abberant behaviour by the air crew concerned. Perhaps US airlines should send staff on courses to educate them away from ignorant fear. That may not be abnormal where pax are concerned but flight crew should be level headed and professional, not people whose behaviour is governed by their psychological problems.

EA CO AS · Wed Apr 20, 2016 7:51 am

Quoting art (Reply 143):
What baffles me is why flight attendants at US airlines are apparently so deeply uncomfortable about Muslim passengers being on their flight

You only assume they are. Here's a quick read from my friend Heather, a flight attendant and published author:

Just answered a few questions about flight attendants being racist for an upcoming story in the Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times. I hate when people are quick to accuse flight crew of being racist. It's really hard to be a racist in this industry. My coworkers are from all around the world. Our passengers come from different countries. Flight crew spend more time getting to know people from different races, religions, cultures than regular people. Flight attendants don't live in a bubble. We don't get to pick and choose who we associate with. We rub elbows with the world. This is one of the many reasons I love my job - the people. Passengers and crew.
Might be a good time to share this again:

Want to know how NOT to get kicked off a plane?

scbriml · Wed Apr 20, 2016 8:42 am

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 144):
Here's a quick read from my friend Heather, a flight attendant and published author:

One has to wonder just how much 'rubbing elbows with the World' the average WN FA does?

EA CO AS · Wed Apr 20, 2016 9:38 am

Quoting scbriml (Reply 143):
One has to wonder just how much 'rubbing elbows with the World' the average WN FA does?

Far more than the average person, I'd say.

scbriml · Wed Apr 20, 2016 9:47 am

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 144):
Far more than the average person, I'd say.

Maybe the 'average American' with all due respect (given how few have passports). However, compared to FAs from major international airlines, they'd obviously be exposed to a far narrower range of human diversity.

Maybe WN needs to run some diversity training?

art · Wed Apr 20, 2016 10:17 am

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 142):
Quoting art (Reply 143):What baffles me is why flight attendants at US airlines are apparently so deeply uncomfortable about Muslim passengers being on their flight

You only assume they are

Not so. I have read of flight attendants not wanting Muslim pax on their flight because they (the flight attendants) felt uncomfortable with them being on the flight. And I read of a flight attendant not wanting a Muslim pax opening a can of drink due to a fear the opened can might be used as a weapon. It seems Muslims are perceived as a threat per se - they don't have to do anything threatening to be perceived as a threat.

I think the air crew subject to these irrational fears need remedial training. If one argues that other pax are alarmed by the presence of Muslims then perhaps US airlines should let potential pax know - before taking their money - that the airline may wish to disembark them if they speak Arabic, look Muslim, perhaps simply talk in a foreign language the flight crew or pax cannot understand etc.

[Edited 2016-04-20 03:20:08]

bgm · Wed Apr 20, 2016 12:14 pm

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 144):
Far more than the average person, I'd say.

That's hardly a ringing endorsement.

Considering that the vast majority of WN flights are domestic, I'd hardly say they are rubbing elbows with the world. Amazing as it may sound, there is a real and very different world outside of the United States.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 138):
Frankly, I would encourage both passengers to sue. For a LOT of money. WN needs to decide whether it wants to do business in the U.S.A. as an airline under the CRA of 1963 or not.

This. Unfortunately this is the only language that large companies like WN understand.

WPIAeroGuy · Wed Apr 20, 2016 1:12 pm

Man, all of you judging an airline with thousands of employees based on the actions a few...you sound just like the people you're condemning. Do you not see the hypocrisy?

The FA may very well be incredibly racist. Or she may not be. I have no idea, because I prefer not to jump down anyone's throat based off an article looking to stir up controversy. The story presented is very one-sided, and like all of these stories, seems to leave out a lot of the detail that would paint the picture of what actually happened.

In the related story about the man kicked off for speaking Arabic - the woman who reported him also spoke Arabic. Now I know everyone is assuming its a white woman who reported him, but what she was also Middle Eastern, or Muslim? No article that I've read has mentioned her race. Also, and now this is a Fox News article so take it with a grain of salt, but they reported he mentioned ISIS in his conversation. Now I'm a lily white guy and I probably wouldn't be talking loudly about ISIS on an airplane, let alone in Arabic.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/04/18...es-flight-for-speaking-arabic.html

I'm not picking sides in these stories, I"m just saying if you want to judge people or a company based on a catchy headline or a single quote, then you're no worse than the people you think you're judging.

N1120A · Wed Apr 20, 2016 2:30 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 138):
There is an alternative, which is to formally discipline the F/A up to and including termination and to offer redress to the passenger. It's a lot harder to win a suit under such circumstances.

No, that wouldn't make it harder to win. Southwest is strictly liable for the acts of their employees on duty.

Quoting WPIAeroGuy (Reply 148):
Man, all of you judging an airline with thousands of employees based on the actions a few...you sound just like the people you're condemning. Do you not see the hypocrisy?

No, I think most are condemning the stone wall response by Southwest to both incidents.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net