December 6, 2009, - 3:32 pm
Why is AirTran Lying About & Attacking Its Customers?: The Answers, Documents AirTran Won’t Provide
Why is AirTran lying about its passengers? And why would you believe the company that refuses to answer important questions or release documents to back up their claims? The airline may face a lawsuit, which will finally uncover the proof that a dry run was conducted by 11 Muslim men, and it tried to force passengers to fly with them, anyway.
As readers know, on Thursday, I posted an e-mail written by Tedd J. Petruna, a NASA employee who was on AirTran Flight 297 from Atlanta to Houston on November 17th of this year.
He recounted in the e-mail–which he never intended to go public all around the internet–how 11 Middle Eastern men, likely Muslims, conducted what appeared to be a dry run. He wrote the e-mail to dispute the lie AirTran told the press that the flight was canceled because a man refused to stop talking on his cell phone. AirTran, by the way, has never released the name of that man. (Gee, could it be because his name is Mohammed or Ahmed, and he isn’t “a Spanish gentleman” as the airline claims? Hey, Spanish, Muslim–“they all look alike,” right AirTran?)
Since then, I noted that Chaplain Dr. Keith A. Robinson has come forth to describe his experience as a passenger on that same flight, writing about it and giving an exclusive interview to nationally syndicated radio talk show host, Steve Gill.
And now, the long knives of AirTran public relations have come out. AirTran told the Atlanta Urinal-Constipation, er . . . Journal-Constitution that Petruna was not on the flight (well, at least in this case, there’s no constipation, as the paper is full of crap). And instantly, everyone believes AirTran, without seeing the official passenger manifest or any documentation whatsoever. Everyone, except me and most of my readers (not the trolls who are now commenting).
Tedd Petruna tells me he was indeed on the flight and, afterward, wrote a long report for the airline about what happened on the flight. He says he’s shocked that AirTran is saying the TSA officials were never there, that the airline has the guts to flat out deny what happened on that flight and in the aftermath. There are plenty of records of his being on the flight and what happened, and he’s considering suing AirTran for lying about it and defaming him. Petruna predicted he’d be attacked for telling the truth about what happened on Flight 297, and he was right. But he told me that he never thought AirTran would lie and claim he wasn’t on the flight.
In my view, it’s not up to Tedd Petruna to prove he was on the flight. It’s AirTran’s move to prove he wasn’t. Merely saying so (and lying) isn’t enough.
Since the AJC’s report of AirTran’s lie, er . . . “claim” that Petruna wasn’t on Flight 297 on November 17th, I’ve come under attack by mostly far-left blogs, like Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, Joshua Micah Marshall and his Talking Points Memo, and the like, and many of their blind follower trolls have posted attack comments on this site. I find that extremely interesting, since this bunch is almost always anti-corporate America. They never believe a single thing an American corporation says and always see the worst in them, including cover-ups (like this one). But suddenly, when it will help lull us back into the pretense that Muslims are not a threat in America and aren’t constantly planning attacks on planes and elsewhere and testing the system, these far-lefties have put blind faith into the claims of AirTran, a corporation.
But I don’t put blind faith into it. Sooner or later, crew members who left Flight 297 and refused to fly–and who had to be replaced–will come out and tell the truth about what happened on that flight. Sooner or later, AirTran and the TSA will have to release documents detailing what happened on that flight, documents that will include Tedd Petruna’s report they asked him to write for them, and the agreement they forced him to sign agreeing not to speak about what happened to the media, while they “investigated” . . . and apparently while they engaged in character assassination of their customers.
But the fact is, you don’t cancel a flight, and a crew doesn’t refuse to fly a plane because a man refused to stop talking on his cell phone and was escorted off the plane. That’s clearly not what happened on Flight 297. Yet, that was the lie AirTran told the press. And AirTran is consistent. The airline is still lying. And it’s story is constantly changing. First, it was one man who wouldn’t get off his cellphone. Now, it’s a whole group of “Spanish-speaking men.” Uh-huh. Sure.
Here are the questions and documents on which AirTran has yet to be forthcoming:
1) A full passenger manifest for Flight 297 from November 17th: I’d bet it will not only show that Tedd Petruna was on the flight, but also that at least 11 men with Middle-Eastern and/or Muslim names were on it, too. I doubt there will be 11 “Spanish” names on the manifest. If AirTran has privacy concerns about passenger’s names, the Airline certainly didn’t have any privacy concerns about releasing (and faking) Tedd Petruna’s itinerary without his premission. Sorry, I don’t believe AirTran, and I’m not going to take it’s word that Petruna wasn’t on the flight. I need to see the official manifest, with proof that it wasn’t doctored.
2) The name of the passenger AirTran claims was the reason the flight was cancelled–the man who refused to stop talking on his cellphone.
3) The names and contact information of all crew members of AirTran Flight 297 from November 17th, including the first crew that got off the plane and refused to fly.
4) Why did AirTran cancel Flight 297 on November 17th, if it was just a problem of a man not talking on his cell phone? Once he was escorted off the flight, why didn’t they fly? AirTran officials were willing to suffer the cost of a canceled flight because a passenger wouldn’t get off his cell phone? If you believe that, I have some land on the runway at Atlanta Hartsfield to sell you.
5) Why did an entire flight crew, including the captain and co-pilot, get off the flight and refuse to fly, if it was merely a problem of a single passenger refusing to stop talking on his cellphone? Why was the entire crew replaced?
Why would AirTran lie and resort to attacking its own passengers, its own customer base? It’s all about money. No-one wants to fly on an airline that tries to force its passengers to fly with terrorists, even after the crew has evacuated the plane and refuses to fly it. No-one wants to fly on an airline that cares that little about the safety of its passengers.
And, now, no-one should want to fly on an airline that will go so far to cover it up–so far to pretend that a dry run or testing the system of some sort was not conducted on its flight by 11 Muslim passengers–that it will now attack its passengers and engage in the character assassination of its customers.
I certainly won’t.
***
By the way, Tedd Petruna admits that he is unsure of some details in his e-mail–and e-mail he never intended to be distributed throughout the internet, like that the men were Muslim as opposed to “Arabic.” But how many men speaking Arabic, conducting a dry run of a hijacking are Christian Arabs? In the old days, yes, there were Christian Arab terrorists, like George Habash of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and others. But today, they are either Muslims or working for them. It was a fair assumption on Petruna’s part, and likely an accurate observation.
But we’ll never know for sure, until AirTran voluntarily releases the passenger manifest . . . or it comes out as part of discovery in a lawsuit, the latter of which is more likely to happen.
Tags: AirTran, AirTran Attacks passengers, AirTran Flight 297, AirTran is lying, AirTran's character assassination, Atlanta to Houston, Chaplain, Dr. Keith A. Robinson, Driving While Muslim, dry run, Flight 297, Flying While Muslim, hijackers, hijacking, Islam, Jihad, Keith A. Robinson, Keith Robinson, Muslims, November 17, Steve Gill, Tedd J. Petruna, Tedd Petruna, testing the system, Tuesday
BIlly, a well reasoned reply. I agree with the state of our political debate–hurling insults then running back to the safety of “our side.” You can be entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. And the facts of this case simply do not pass the smell test.
There was a disturbance on the plane. It was addressed. The flight took off two hours later than scheduled. Happens a lot, actually.
Let us both hope for an increase in civil discourse.
PS I’m currently reading “Where Men Win Glory.” I highly recommend it.
Henry on December 7, 2009 at 3:31 am