WASHINGTON – AirTran Airways apologized Friday to nine Muslims kicked off a New Year’s Day flight to Florida after other passengers reported hearing a suspicious remark about airplane security.
One of the passengers said the confusion started at Reagan National Airport just outside Washington, D.C., when he talked about the safest place to sit on an airplane.
Orlando, Fla.-based AirTran said in a statement that it refunded the passengers’ air fare and planned to reimburse them for replacement tickets they bought on US Airways.
AirTran also offered to take the passengers back to Washington free of charge.
“We apologize to all of the passengers – to the nine who had to undergo extensive interviews from the authorities and to the 95 who ultimately made the flight,” the statement said. “Nobody on Flight 175 reached their destination on time on New Year’s Day, and we regret it.”
AirTran said the incident was a misunderstanding, but the steps taken were necessary.
Two U.S. Muslim advocacy groups, however, were critical of the airline’s actions. The Muslim Public Affairs Council called on federal officials Friday to open an investigation. And the Council for American-Islamic Relations filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Transportation, saying “It is incumbent on any airline to ensure that members of the traveling public are not singled out or mistreated based on their perceived race, religion or national origin.”
Bill Adams, a DOT spokesperson, said the department thoroughly investigates discrimination complaints but would not comment further.
One of the Muslim passengers, Atif Irfan, said the family probably would not fly home with AirTran because members had already booked tickets on another airline, but appreciated the apology.
“It’s definitely nice to hear,” he said.
Irfan said when he boarded the flight Thursday, he mentioned something to his wife and sister-in-law about having to sit in the back. His sister-in-law replied that she believed the back of the airplane was the safest, but Irfan believed it was better to be by the wings.
“She said, ‘Yes, I guess it makes sense not to be close to the engine in case something happens,’” Irfan recalled Friday. “It was a very benign conversation.”
Shortly after taking their seats, members of the group were approached by federal air marshals and taken off the plane, Irfan said. They stood in the jet bridge connected to the airport and answered questions while other passengers exited and glared at them.
Irfan said he thought he and the others were profiled because of their appearance. The men had beards and the women wore headscarves, traditional Muslim attire.
“My wife and I are generally very careful about what we say when we step on the plane,” he said, adding that they have received suspicious looks in the past. “We’re used to this sort of thing – but obviously not to this extent.”
Irfan, 29, is a lawyer who lives in Alexandria, Va. He was traveling to a religious retreat in Florida with his wife, along with his brother and his family, including three children, ages 7, 4 and 2. They were joined by his brother’s sister-in-law and a family friend.
Federal officials ordered the rest of the passengers from the plane and re-screened them before allowing the flight to depart about two hours behind schedule. The family and friend eventually made it to their destination on a US Airways flight.
Family members were upset that AirTran didn’t allow them to book another flight. The airline said in a news release Friday that one of the passengers became irate, made inappropriate comments and had to be escorted away from a gate podium by local law enforcement.
“We felt very disrespected,” Irfan said. He said FBI agents had cleared their names and asked AirTran to put them on another flight, but to no avail.
Christopher White, a federal Transportation Security Administration spokesman, said the security concern on the plane was handled appropriately.
White said the pilot, after being informed of the remarks, requested that two federal air marshals on board remove the nine passengers. TSA then alerted authorities, including the FBI, which conducted an investigation.
“Our role, basically, is to determine whether (those) in question pose a threat,” FBI spokesman Bill Carter said.
He and White said that once authorities determined there was no security threat, it was up to the airline on how to proceed.
“If the pilot is uncomfortable with someone flying on their plane, that’s their decision,” White said.
Discount carrier AirTran Airways is a subsidiary of AirTran Holdings Inc. Its hub is in Atlanta.
Associated Press – January 2, 2009
Associated Press Writer Jennifer Kay in Miami contributed to this story.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed



posted January 5, 2009 at 6:24 pm
The lawyer’s friend was a Dr., they were talking to a friend who happened to be Federal lawyer at the Library of Congress in Wash D.C. But these people looked like arabs, and someone was frightened by their appearance and made a whole senario out of them chosing the safest place to sit. My poor husband goes through this everytime I board a plane with him. But my green eyes, and blonde hair would pass muster. Because the Federal lawyer at the Library of Congress was seen speaking to the family, he had to leave with them. I hope they sue.
posted January 5, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Forgot again.
posted January 5, 2009 at 7:33 pm
“I hope they sue.”
Same here. Would someone who was planning to blow up a plane act concerned about the safest place to sit? I guess you could argue they might do so to avoid suspicion, but with that kind of reasoning, you might as well stay on the ground.
posted January 5, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Interesting. Thanks, Henrietta. I, too, hope they sue.
posted January 6, 2009 at 10:32 am
This whole profiling thing has gotten way out of control. These folks were simply pondering points that have been emphasied lately on the national news – especially in regards to the Denver airport problem. I find the hyper-sensitivity to be far beyond common sense.
They should sue – but I am not sure suing the airline is as appropriate as suing the governmental agency who issues the profiles and conducts the interviews. They certainly have a large segment of the general population behind them on this matter. It has gotten so you don’t want to talk at all at an airport – their paranoia has become so profound that even a simple discussion of the weather might get you in trouble.
posted January 6, 2009 at 12:48 pm
I forgot to mention the F.B.I. were instrumental in finding these people another airline, I think it might have been U.S. Airways, to get them on their vacation, etc. As I remember the F.B.I. checked them out and said they could go back on the orig. flight and the Pilot refused. If we can’t keep super slueths from listening to others conversations perhaps the Airlines can instill a new rule for all passengers, no talking out loud. Just whisper to the person you are with, making it impossible for anyone to hear anything. The only exception to talk is to the air attendent. Most people would be happy about this, it would insure they would arrive at their destination on time, also they wouldn’t have to engage in conversation with a stranger sitting next to them, when they’d rather sleep, read, watch a movie, or work. As far as the waiting area, if you look different than a caucasian, walk away from them and talk so they can’t hear you. That should drive them batty.
posted January 6, 2009 at 12:56 pm
I see the airline as somewhat caught in the middle of this. I’d like to see them also sue the gutless wimp who reported them for Flying While Arabic.