Man kicked off flight by pilot for wearing anti-TSA shirt | Hacker News Reader

Man kicked off flight by pilot for wearing anti-TSA shirt

arijitvsdelta.blogspot.co.uk

66 pointsTallGuyShort82 comments

I'd imagine the reality here is like many other times someone got "uppity" or "snarky" with people dealing in public safety: his version of expressing contempt for the situation was interpreted as belligerence and a lack of willingness to cooperate in the establishment of security.

I get what he was trying to do. I even agree with his opinions on the situation. But if that shirt represents the attitude he held in the whole encounter, it's no surprise things went to shit.

Right, just like those uppity negroes deserved to be put in their place back in the day.

We really need another version of Godwin's Law, but for slavery instead of Nazis.

> But if that shirt represents the attitude he held in the whole encounter, it's no surprise things went to shit.

It's not surprising, but it's also not right.

Cops who don't know how to deal with an antagonistic attitude aren't really useful anywhere that deals directly with the public.

I agree, they aren't. But here we're talking about TSA agents (who more or less acted appropriately, in my opinion) and Delta employees. I expect neither of these to perform well when balancing public safety against antagonistic attitudes. Especially the Delta employees.

That's what training is for. If it's ineffective, then it needs to be more effective. If the employee hasn't received it, then they shouldn't be handling customers. Same with the NFTA officers.

> we're talking about TSA agents (who more or less acted appropriately, in my opinion)

yes... the TSA acted appropriately because they were the only ones that ignored his attire (poking fun at the TSA even) and focused on checking that he had absolutely nothing on his person or in his luggage that would be a threat. It was the Airport Police and Delta Agents... both of which should be well trained in dealing with the volatile public since their jobs often involve dealing with the volatile public.

I don't see why pilots need to have the power to boot passengers. At all. That's why TSA supposedly exists. Racist objections from passengers should not be able to lead to other passengers getting booted from flights.

Racism is one possibility, but so is anxiety about the guy's shirt and his attitude. Not very rational, but a cramped airline fuselage isn't the ideal place for your political protest. A snotty disregard for the concerns of others tends to make them unsympathetic to your point of view.

As for why pilots have the power to boot people, it's because they're responsible for the safety and happiness of the passengers during the flight, and the airline is there to make money on slim margins, not to serve as a public utility. Unless an airline engages in systematic discrimination against a protected class of people, then pilots will generally be allowed to appease the majority of paying passengers.

> a cramped airline fuselage isn't the ideal place for your political protest.

Free Speech (but only when we say so)

Isn't it a privilege to fly? Not a right. It's not like an airplane is some public government arena. It's the property of the airlines, just so happens that you have to be cleared by the government to fly. Don't they have the right to refuse service to a customer, especially if that customer is making employees and other customers uneasy. I'm sure if you went into a McDonald's and were wearing some suspicious clothing or start spouting off ridiculous speeches, they'd ask you kindly to leave and tell you that you were not a welcome customer any longer. In fact, I've seen it happen.

There are places for expression and "Free Speech"... maybe sitting next to the 13 year old or grandmother (or any other paying customer) who's flying for the first time in his/her life wearing some silly t-shirt about bombs and anti-government banter isn't the right place for it.

But don't you think it would be a little bit of an overreaction if McDonalds threw you out simply for wearing a "Meat is Murder" t-shirt?

No, but what about a "Bombs in McDonalds are cool." t-shirt? Context. Context. That is all.

Huh? His shirt didn't say anything remotely like "bombs on the airplane are cool"... anymore than his second shirt said "I'm going to poop on this plane's drink cart".

As air travel has matured into infrastructure that is generally depended upon, flying has become a right. Especially a return trip. Failure to see this is a deficiency with the narrow "base primitive" view of rights.

Should airline travel be available to all, irrespective of their ability to pay? If not, then it can't be a right, since rights can not be denied based on ability to pay.

Okay, kindly perform whatever formalization is necessary to interpret my statement in your alluded-to framework (factor out payment, s/right/unrestriction/, $whatever), then get back to me.

If I don't pay for food, I die. If I don't pay for medicines, I die.

Does this then imply I don't have a right to live, because "rights cannot be denied based on the ability to pay"? That I don't have a right to property, because if I don't pay my debts my belongings can be confiscated and sold at auction?

I have a right to appoint my own counsel, but the government won't pay for the counsel I appoint. In order to use that right I have to be able to afford the lawyer I want.

US citizens have a right to run for elected office, but clearly that's not provided free of charge!

Rights are not irrespective or independent of my ability to pay. And if something is a right does not mean I get it for free.

flying has become a right

I think you need to lay out your argument in greater detail than you have done so far.

Society has evolved to the point where many people are regularly traveling long distances. Flying itself has become an integral part of this travel, to the point that driving or taking the train across the country is seen as adventurous. Flight transport is a commodity provided by many carriers in a mature market. The economics of and reliance on this market may change in the future, but as it stands, this commodity is relied upon by the modern world.

To say that carriers should be able to selectively revoke this abstraction and deny travel to specific individuals is to give them the power to force arbitrary rules on anyone who relies on this infrastructure. This would make all rights subject to the whims of the airlines.

The right to free speech is rule that restricts the power of the government only. It has nothing to do with companies or individuals. Just as I can ask you to leave my home if you insult my mother, a company can refuse you access to their airplane if they don't like your T-shirt. That's their business decision.

Hmm. thanks for the info.

Could McDonald's legally deny me entry to their restaurant if I was wearing a T-Shirt that said "I support Obama"?

Further, can they legally deny me entry for no reason at all?

(I'm not trolling, I genuinely don't know the answers)

Generally speaking, most businesses will have some sort of "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" type policy. However, they will often come under fire for (ab)using that policy however they see fit. It is a tricky situation really. It probably comes down to whether or not you fall into a group that is protected. They would be in a media/legal shit storm if they denied you entry because you were in a wheelchair. I don't know if being a Democratic is a protected group.

Edit: I guess specifically if being in that protected group played into why you were denied. Meaning, they can toss you for being drunk even if you're in a wheelchair.

The First Amendment applies to the government, not to private entities such as airlines and not on private property (such as the interior of an aircraft).

"Congress shall make no law" does not say "UAL shall make no rules"

The idea is that Congress cannot criminalize speech. But the ramifications of your free expression, with respect to those people and institutions that you interact with, is not regulated by congress in so far as a crime is not committed in reaction.

He changed his shirt and they still wouldn't let him on.

It's because when the plane pushes back from the gate, the pilot is in charge and is responsible for the safety of everyone aboard. Much like how a captain at sea is responsible for everyone on board his ship (and is held accountable should tragedy strike).

It's not a republic or democracy when you're on his plane. What he says, goes.

This isn't even about safety. It's the pilot's job (if he wants to keep it) to make the passengers as comfortable as possible also. That's why they dodge turbulence. Except in extreme cases, it has nothing to do with safety.

That's not a why. That's just you stating the fact, and it's non-responsive to my question.

In this case, the plane had not pushed back from the gate. The pilot kicked this guy off before the flight. I think it's reasonable to ask why a random, unjustified passenger complaint to the pilot should override the TSA's screening process.

Because he says so.

While agreeing with that, Delta should still be held responsible for getting him to his destination on a reasonable schedule, the costs of his accommodations, and his and his wife's wasted time.

If Delta should be reasonable (getting him accommodations) shouldn't he also be reasonable next time he gets on one of their planes?

Logical inference does not work the way you'd like.

How is one to be sure what makes others uncomfortable? In your view, in th years after 9/11, Sikhs (who wear turbans) shouldn't have traveled at all... as they looked too much like the dreaded Bin Laden.

This way leads to fundamentalism.

I am a pilot (not an airline pilot). It is absolutely mandatory for the pilot-in-command to have complete discretion when dealing with passengers on their aircraft. While I may have let this man board my own plane, this pilot-in-command used his own judgement to determine that the passenger presented too large a risk to the safety and comfort of other passengers.

It is completely within his duties to do that. It is also completely within Delta's duties as his employer to question his judgement and fire him for being a racist later.

> It is also completely within Delta's duties as his employer to question his judgement and fire him for being a racist later.

Seems like the only reasonable response.

What an immature little creep. There are plenty of people who are nervous about flying but who have to do so anyway due to family or business or what-have-you. So he shows up in this shirt-- why?? What's really the point? To get in the TSA workers' faces? To look like a tough guy to the scared grandma, who needed one less thing to worry about on the flight? Fuck off.

Kudos to the pilot who made a decision based on the comfort of the passengers. Let him walk. It's the same decision pilots make when they dodge a little turbulence. Safety? Not at all. Comfort of the passengers. Easing their mind. Pure and simple.

Exactly. The moral of this story is clearly not to wear t-shirts joking about bombs, terrorists, or killing, when you know you're going to be boarding a plane.

I think you're ranting, and did not actually read the article. This guy clearly did not have the objective of "getting in the TSA workers' faces"; the article clearly states that he had already cleared the TSA checkpoint without incident, and was then challenged by a Delta supervisor.

It sounds to me, based on all the facts we have available, that someone got in this guy's face. Not the other way around.

So basically, you are making up your entire argument.

Nope. You are reading his story without thinking. I don't buy his story. He's a punk who was getting off on the whole idea of what he was doing. There are three possibilities in this case:

(1) he woke up, possibly hung over, and dressed without thinking;

(2) he deliberated picked his shirt knowing he would be dealing with TSA agents, etc. (in your face!) and possibly knowing that he would make some folks nervous and not giving a shit; or

(3) he made the choice in #2 but with the aim to antagonize-- in essence, psychologically bullying those around him (Oh, I'm not scared, are you?).

I figure that if it was #1 the blog post would have bee a whole lot different. The best I can allow him is that it was a move of immaturity. I am not applauding, regardless of my stance on the TSA and their practices.

"based on all the facts we have available"? The only facts I get from this page are "there is this guy who is pissed because he got kicked from a plane, allegedly solely for wearing this anti-TSA t-shirt". The article contains a one-sided statement. It may be factually correct, or it may not, but we do not know which.

His point isn't particularly controversial, air security has gone too far.

But he was looking for trouble by wearing that shirt, in his words mocking the "over-reactions to terrorism by the general public". He comes off as an angry person who doesn't sympathize with the genuine (and obvious) fears people may have. Ultimately he weakens his own point by acting so ridiculous; he gave the TSA and Delta a reason to mess with him.

> he gave the TSA a reason to mess with him.

So much for free speech.

There's a time and a place for everything, including speaking freely. As another example, the time to be vocal about your disagreement with someone's policies is not by picketing their funeral.

Wearing a sarcastic t-shirt is equivalent to the Westboro Baptist Church protestors trying to shout down a funeral?

Not equivalent, but parallel -- wearing a T-shirt joking about killing and bombs on a plane is equally out of place.

Whenever I'm subjected to TSA, I'm an angry person and I don't sympathize at all with the fears people may have. Genuine though they may be, they are ridiculous. You are safer flying on an airliner than you are sitting in your living room, and that's not the TSA's doing. I shouldn't have to respect people's ridiculous and baseless fears in order to exercise my right to travel.

You can wear the shirt, but you can't be surprised when they single you out for more security checks. (Recognition and response to specific potential threats is what critics of "security theater" want, anyway.)

Once you get the check, which was not unexpected, you should expect that if you are perceived as smarting off, then the situation will get worse. Since they have all the power, it can get arbitrarily bad.

Given that this could have been foreseen, expressions of surprise and incredulity in the post don't make sense.

There is a place for this kind of protest. But if you want to advance the cause of freedom of expression, you have to be disciplined when the process you helped start starts unfolding. Do you have a strategy in this protest, or are you acting out feelings about authority figures?

If you're just acting out feelings, you're playing into their hands. The guard will be "stern daddy" (he took this job to play that role) and you will be "misunderstood child." Everyone cries in the end, but nothing changes.

I went to a how-to on public protests ran by an AIDS activist who was one of the key organizers of many ACT-UP protests in NYC in the late 80s. The particular protest that he discussed was the 1989 demonstration in St. Patrick's Cathedral in NYC, which made the national news, and has been a touchstone since (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_Coalition_to_Unleash_Power...).

According to the activist, this was a protest in which the personal feelings/animosity of many activists there towards the church, made the entire action not as productive as it should have been, and just generally a messy affair. (Protesters breaking communion wafers, etc. -- means nothing to me, but to a believer, it's a big deal.)

It's a complex topic. I came out of the workshop with a greater appreciation of how much focus and discipline it takes to really bring about change.

"You can wear the shirt, but you can't be surprised when they single you out for more security checks. (Recognition and response to specific potential threats is what critics of "security theater" want, anyway.)"

What? No. No, no, no. What we want is recognition and response to actual threats, not knee-jerk responses to anything unusual or non-conformist.

A shirt like this doesn't indicate a threat. Smart security would not single it out.

> A shirt like this doesn't indicate a threat. Smart security would not single it out.

How, again, is the goal of smart security advanced by making a big scene in a way that gets everyone who doesn't already agree with him to say "well, what did you expect"?

Why are you replying to me? I'm criticizing the response of the security people, not praising the actions of the guy with the shirt.

I said "specific potential threats". Not "threats". I agree, the man is not an actual threat, and the agents should have seen that as well, eventually. Their failure to move on is a problem, but they did not write a blog post asking for sympathy.

A red shirt with the words, "bomb", "kill", and "blood" is something that will get you noticed. It is not just "unusual or non-conformist", it specifically references security concerns -- the agents would be derelict in their duty to not take an extra look. They tell you not to joke about bombs for a reason! It is almost literally waving a red flag in front of a bull.

That's why he wore it, right? Why else would a person wear such a shirt?

I'm just saying, if one does this, one has to think ahead.

I enjoy your blog, by the way.

Thanks for your comment on the blog. Maybe I misunderstood what you meant, but I thought you were pointing to the behavior of security people in this case as something that critics of "security theater" would prefer to see, when it's not at all the case.

This protest was extremely effective. His message has reached thousands of people and I wouldn't be surprised if Delta s actually looking into their policies.

In other words, he trolled them successfully and they displayed the unprofessional, dumb conduct he expected.

I'll give him the benefit of doubt and assume he was not trying to provoke anyone, even though he could have expected the paranoid reactions of some passengers (probably a small minority that needs professional help, let's be honest).

Last time I went through airport security the TSA agent kept pestering me to empty my pockets, after I found a dollar bill in one. When I produced a kleenex (tissue), he got all indignant "You can have nothing in your pockets, sir! That's not nothing, it's something!" so I placed it in a plastic bin and told him "here, you can scan that."

I was really annoyed but I knew they stopped exercising any judgement at all when they made it illegal to bring a bottle of water through security, even if everyone is 100% certain that it contains only water.

Unfortunately the airport is not the place for this kind of activism. This should be as self-evident as the TSA's idiocy.

The terrorists have won. Americans have lost their way of life.

This has nothing to do with that. It's like wearing a t-shirt saying "rape is underrated" to a home for battered women. It's thoughtless and selfish and not funny.

And for reasons I stated elsewhere, the pilot made the right call, especially from a business perspective.

A shirt mocking the TSA doesn't come close to that analogy, even if you consider it bad taste, since it doesn't legitimize, condone or make light of terrorism. If it said "Terrorism rules!", then perhaps you'd have a point, although it's still a stupid reason to put him through what they did, especially considering his ordeal did not end with agreeing to change his clothes.

You have a point about the analogy I struck- it's not the one I intended. My analogy was intended as the thoughtless act of wearing the shirt, not the relationship of what the shirt condoned.

Once the other passengers are upset, it's the pilot's call. Same will happen on a boat or a bus. If you upset the other passengers you get to find some other means of getting where you are going.

The pilot made the right call. It sounds like he was only kicked off of one flight. That's fair.

While, I understand on principle why he thinks he should be allowed to fly wearing any political statement he wishes - it's the kind of principle I had when I was less than 30. Nowadays, I completely understand and appreciate why passengers don't want to fly on a plane with someone who was wearing a shirt that had the phrases, "Moisture BOMBS", "Terrorists gonna kill us all", "Alert Level Blood Red."

At a certain point, you really don't want, "that guy" flying on your plane, and I'm happy the pilot made the call he did.

In the future - perhaps different attire might be considered before boarding a plane.

I feel uncomfortable boarding planes with guys wearing NASCAR hats, subtly racist tattoos, etc.

Can I get those passengers kicked off, too? Or is it only non-white liberals who get booted?

What do NASCAR hats and racist tattoos have to do with this?

This person knowing full well about the hysteria around terrorism, bombs, and air flights went out of his way to cause an incident, and is now complaining about "white racists", unfair treatment, and the airlines.

All he had to do was show up dressed in a normal tee-shirt. But this wasn't good enough for him. He had to make a statement. In a cramped space of an airplane, of all the places. And it turns out the other people didn't get his joke.

They have a lot to do with it, actually. My point is that if some speech, communicated by wearing a T-shirt and nothing else, is actionable, then perhaps other forms of speech should be actionable, too.

This person did not "go out of his way" to cause an incident. He wore a T-shirt and that is all he did.

"Making a statement" is ok. This is America. We supposedly protect that right, even when we do not agree with the statement in question.

"Hysteria" resulting from events that happened 11 years ago and which will never occur again is not an excuse for abandoning that principle.

You do not stand in a theatre and shout "fire!" unless there is a fire.

You do not use the "bomb" word in an airport, unless you suspect something is a bomb.

How many people need to be pulled off flights for people to understand that sometimes you just don't need to wear the t-shirt (that looks creepily white power) covered in BOMB DEATH KILL.

> You do not stand in a theatre and shout "fire!" unless there is a fire.

Do you realize that that particular constructed example comes from an argument that protesting the draft should be illegal?

(Incidentally, Penn Jillette quite regularly stands in his theater and shouts "fire!" when there is no threat. Most people aren't idiots most of the time, so it's not a problem.)

> How many people need to be pulled off flights for people to understand that sometimes you just don't need to wear the t-shirt (that looks creepily white power) covered in BOMB DEATH KILL.

Maybe it needs to keep happening until our airport cops realize they're being idiots and return to dealing with actual security threats. Assuming they can find any.

Feel free to make statements where they are appropriate, and I'll defend your right to do so. Feel free to write material on your blog, to write books, to make speeches in public areas. Airplanes are not the places to be making statements. Actually, most public travel is probably an inappropriate place to be making statements.

If you feel the need to make statements about Bombs, terrorists, and Blood while attempting to board an airplane, don't be surprised if others feel the need to spend a bit more time talking about you based on your behavior.

And yes - there are many, many forms of speech that are actionable when crossing borders, boarding planes, entering federal buildings - one of the key jobs of a security person is to evaluate you based on things like delaying in answering simple questions, being evasive, appearing nervous, and yes - talking about bombs and terrorists killing all of us.

> In the future - perhaps different attire might be considered before boarding a plane.

In the not too distant future:

Don't wear attire supporting political party X if you plan to leave your house.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope#As_a_fallacy

I don't think it's a fallacy when you extrapolate the slippery slope from watching the political establishment slide down said slope continuously for the past decade.

The irony is that terrorists will try to remain innocuous and a guy like this is less likely to be dangerous than average.

Very much agreed. I remember once going through airport security (in New Zealand) and the guy said, "Could you please take off your jacket." So I did, then remembered I'd put on my "DANGER, EXPLOSIVE" T-shirt that morning. I looked down and said, "Oops, that was kind of a silly T-shirt to wear, wasn't it?" "Sure was," he said, "Now zip up your jacket and get on the plane!"

When I was 20 I had a pen in my pocket and it leaked all over my pants on a flight.

On the way back home, I was going through airport security and had another pen in my pocked. I picked it up from the tray, turned to my friend behind me, and without thinking said in a fairly loud voice, "I wonder if this one will explode on the plane".

Dead silence as every eye in the room turns to this young kid holding up a pen. I just stammered out an apology as my face went bright red and I shoved it back in my pocket.

I can't actually believe they let me on the plane.

The morale of the story is don't fly Delta.

They're a business and they have every right to throw someone off the plane to enhance passenger comfort. He made it through the TSA checks so we can't blame them. The only way to explain to Delta that you don't want your freedom of expression or speech violated is to not fly on their planes. Let all the passengers that want to overreact to a t-shirt, something completely benign, fly Delta and everyone else can fly one of the other carriers.

Everyone's freedom stays intact.

Never, ever, interfere or make light of their mission to prevent water from flying!

Never mind the fact that I am drinking my "bomb juice" to slake my thirst. Or take off my belt, shoes, jacket and remove my laptop (but not my iPad) to have them "screened" by experts.

I think Arijit just made the no-fly list.

Can we seriously stop with this stuff on HN...

Tend to agree... I go to reddit to waste time reading about this sort of thing...

Hmmm.... it just occurred to me... what do you think would happen if they threw the man off because he was wearing a clown outfit? That seems pretty ridiculous to me. But let's consider the number of people that have a genuine fear of clowns. Is it still ridiculous? I still think so. But if this was all about making sure that all of the passengers felt comfortable, then it would seem perfectly acceptable to toss a man for dressing like a clown. But that does not seem acceptable at all. Just like when Billie Joe Armstrong got tossed because his pants were saggy[1]. And he's a god damn rock star!

[1]http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/billie-joe-armstrong-kic...

I wonder if he would have gotten on the plane by just wearing a "TSA can go grope themselves" shirt without the word "bombs" and other uncomfortable trigger words.

I'm pretty sure everyone hates the TSA - if it's made funny or largely agreeable it becomes a real test of their authority.

Then again, I wouldn't have the guts to do what this guy or the guy who got naked did.

This is not hacker news.

Just wear a plain tee.

Or fly naked.

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-04-18/travel/travel_oregon-airp...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com