Slashdot Mirror
Overzealous AirTran Boots 9 Passengers Off
An anonymous readerwrites "On Friday the wonderfully customer centric AirTran decided to remove a family of 9 US born Muslims after a comment between two family members regarding how close to the Jet engine they had been seated. The wonderful part is that after the FBI cleared the family 2 hours later, AirTran refused to fly the family, and refused to rebook them on their way from Washington to Orlando, Florida. The family purchased additional tickets on US Airways later that day, after AirTran requested that the irate father be escorted from their booking podiums by security. This whole story highlights the pathetic customer service we are getting from the Airlines these days — they actually treat us like criminals first and ask questions later. Just don't get me started on Delta." It's nice to see that stupidity still knows no bounds.
Apparently, they have now received a refund:
Linky
AT&ROFLMAO
That should be AirTran, not AirTrans.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Be careful what you say at airports and on planes. Never get irate or argue at airports and on planes. My mother who is white, has made both mistakes and ran in to similar reactions from airline and airport employees.
Actually, you misread. The article at CNN explicitly stated: "The conversation did not contain the words "bomb," "explosion," "terror" or other words that might have aroused suspicion, Atif Irfan said."
See linky: http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/01/02/family.grounded/index.html
Not to mention that merely saying the word bomb and attack is not cause for concern. Are we really less capable than the various chat bots for understanding context?
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
The article does not say that the airline paid for the other flight. It says that the airline offered to pay for the other flight. I'm guessing that the offer requires the family to release the airline of all liability.
Also, other reports stated that the airline was refusing to pay the family's extra cost of taking the other flight, which implies that the offer only came after this became a national news issue. In other words, the offer of a refund only came about because people did not get over it.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Is there any indication if the decision to not let them back on the plane after the FBI okayed them was made by a low or high level employee?
If some clerk/pilot made the call, then there's no indication it's "systemic" with the airline, and they can be fired and we can see if the problem goes away. However, if a higher-up in AirTran made the decision, there may be a real reason for backlash from the Muslim community (or anyone that disapproves of racism).
I was born in the 80s so I don't know what the days were like in this country when "blacks" had to sit at the back of the bus, but man this whole anti-muslim thing, while not believed by a majority of Americans, is still prevalent enough for me to not want to be a Muslim living in this country. And a race of people not wanting to live in this country due to prejudice is the opposite of the American Way, and is the opposite path to us maintaining our world strength.
I've not read a more ignorant, mis-informed, and downright stupid account of the Montgomery Bus Boycott, than yours.
It did not end because the free market got tired of losing money. It ended because the Federal Government came in (in the form of the Supreme Court) and smacked them upside the head. Said:"Idiots, we already told you to stop that, do it. Now!"
There had been two previous cases where someone did the exact same thing as Rosa Parks and the legal decision had been in their favor.
What the 'free' market did was attempt to use the civic governments to crack down on the boycott. They tried to force insurance companys to drop the policies of the folk carpooling. They attempted to fine the taxi drivers who were charging fares the same amount as the normal bus fare. They then firebombed two people's houses (including MLK's) and four black churches. They physically attacked the boycotters.
Not ONCE did they say "Oh dear, we are losing money, we should stop this crazy thing and act like human beings"
According to Wikipedia "Black taxi drivers charged ten cents per ride, a fare equal to the cost to ride the bus, in support of the boycott. When word of this reached city officials on December 8, 1955, the order went out to fine any cab driver who charged a rider less than 45 cents."
So the market tried to solve the problem, but they were over-regulated!
"The fact that you ignorant asshats refuse to wake up from your delusional world of hate and bigotry, and perhaps read why people hate the US instead of believing the line "because we're not muslim" is why we've had muslim terrorist attacks on this country and its consulates. Look up the term blowback."
So American consulates were attacked by muslim extremists because of blowback. Why were Danish consulates attacked by muslim extremists? Blowback as well? Making political caricature cartoons is an act of war now?
Why was Theo van Gogh killed by a muslim extremist?
Since you might be Canadian(inferring from GYBE! mention), maybe you'll appreciate this one. Why was Tarek Fateh attacked by muslim extremists? Being an apostate from Islam in an act of war now?
My opinion is that there are plenty of muslim extremists who do use violence on people pretty much just "because [they're] not muslim."
If you read Sayyid Qutb's Milestones, which at least Wikipedia, citing something, calls a "major influence" on Islamic terrorism, there is this message that violence should be used to destroy non-muslim institutions which output vulgarities like pornography, blasphemy, and other haram things.
From Milestones:
"But any place where the Islamic Shari'ah is not enforced and where Islam is not dominant becomes the home of Hostility (Dar-ul-Harb) for both the Muslim and the Dhimmi. A Muslim will remain prepared to fight against it, whether it be his birthplace or a place where his relatives reside or where his property or any other material interests are located.
And thus Muhammad - peace be on him - fought against the city of Mecca, although it was his birthplace, and his relatives lived there, and he and his Companions had houses and property there which they had left when they migrated; yet the soil of Mecca did not become Dar-ul-Islam for him and his followers until it surrendered to Islam and the Shari'ah became operative in it."
I would say that such an interpretation of Islam is basically the same for Al-Qaeda and other Islamist groups: Use any means necessary to establish the rule of God.
As reported by the Associated Press (via yahoo.com) (via fark.com)
As I understand it, the Irish problem largely went away with 9/11. Suddenly a lot of "well meaning" (?) Irish Americans sympathetic to terrorism discovered that ... um ... terrorism is bad, and funding ceased.
I'm assuming that the specific Irish problem you refer to is the IRA (and others) campaign to reunite Northern Ireland with the rest of Ireland. We do have other issues ...
9/11 had nothing to do with the IRA's cessation of hostilities: they realised a long time ago that violence wasn't going to achieve their objectives and decided to take the democratic route. I am in no way a fan of the IRA or Sinn Fein (their political wing), but I give them credit for realising that democracy and negotiation was the way to go.
UK border installations (watch towers, armoured checkpoints on roads) were being dismantled in the early 1990s. I remember crossing the border in 1987 or thereabouts and seeing bunkers and machine gun posts. 5 years later, no installations at all.