Southwest Airlines is taking heat for removing a Muslim passenger wearing a hijab from the exit row while leaving her sister, who was not wearing a hijab, in the same row. Is this simply a case of unjustified discrimination or is there more to the story?
Southwest Airlines Muslim Discrimination – What Happened Onboard?
I’ve reported on discrimination against Muslim passengers for years on Live and Let’s Fly. In many cases, it is both unreasonable and indefensible. In this case, the following occurred onboard:
- Fatima Altakrouri and her sister were traveling from Ft. Lauderdale (FLL) to Dallas (DAL) on May 22nd on a Southwest Airlines flight
- Upon boarding, they found seats apart but later moved to two open seats next to each other in the exit row
- Altakrouri, who wears a hijab, was ordered by the flight attendant to move out of the exit row while her sister, who did not wear a hijab, was permitted to stay
- Both ended up moving
Altakrouri has filed a Department of Transportation Complaint and is exploring legal options with CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations. In a press conference earlier this week, she explained what happened and claimed the flight attendant said she “couldn’t speak English and would bring the whole plane down in an emergency.”
Southwest Airlines isn’t providing any further detail right now:
Southwest neither condones nor tolerates discrimination of any kind. Since Southwest Airlines’ inception, we have put People first and maintain a mutual respect for our fellow Southwest Airlines Employees, our Customers, and the diverse communities that we serve. We apologize to any Customer who has a less than positive travel experience on Southwest and will look into the specific passenger situation referenced.
But a passenger on the flight reached out to Live and Let’s Fly and provided the following statement:
I was on the flight and these ladies are lying. After taking their exit row seats, a flight attendant approached them to perform a safety briefing. Upon completion, she asked the three exit row passengers, including the two women, whether they understood the instructions. The one wearing a hijab responded in Arabic. The flight attendant immediately asked the passenger to move and an argument ensued. She suddenly began speaking English, but the flight attendant was clearly skeptical that she would be willing to help in an emergency and it seemed the two were playing a game by deliberately looking for discrimination when there was not any present.
Take this with a grain of salt – the passenger refused to go on the record. Nevertheless, I share it with you because it is a plausible explanation for why a woman who clearly speaks very good English (see video above) may have been removed. Another very plausible explanation is that the flight attendant simply felt uncomfortable with the Muslim passenger, something that has happened often over the years.
CONCLUSION
I was once removed from an exit row on Avianca because my Spanish was not strong enough. The flight attendant felt I may be a hindrance not a help in case of emergency. Here, however, there is no dispute the passenger spoke English very well. The question is instead whether or not the initial conversation gave the flight attendant legitimate concern to move the passenger or whether it was simply unjustified prejudice.
image: WFAA
It is plausible that the passenger was combative. Perhaps she wanted to assert her perceived right to sit there but did not convey to the flight attendant that she spoke English at first? It then became an argument. I agree that argumentative people often shouldn’t sit in the exit row but the extremely passive people shouldn’t.
Too often, I see people mumble “yes” to the question if I am willing to open the exit in an emergency. If it were asked in a dozen languages, I could say the equivalent of “yes” even though I don’t speak the language.
What I do is establish eye contact, have a little smile, and reply in a full sentence even though not required. “Yes, I’m willing to open the door in an emergency.” That establishes fluency more than 12 people mumbling “yes”.
I guess airlines need to start recording all activities on the airplane.
The possibilities here are anything from the FA hating on a Muslim to passengers trying to look for trouble to a simple misunderstanding.
More importantly, were they wearing masks? 🙂
Seat choice is a priviledge, not a right. Pax who do not respond “yes” when asked by a FA should be moved to another seat. This lady was not kicked off the flight, just moved to another row.
I have been kicked out of my First Class seat (I am 1K with UA) because a GS had a non-functioning seat. Can I sue?
Children and pets are not allowed in exit rows. Anyone not physically able to assist in emergencies is not allowed in exit rows.
Sleepers, drunks, and pax who refuse to remove earphones and others can be moved from exit to another row.
Should all of the above be allowed to sue the airlines?
As we’ve all heard from the FA’s dozens of times, you MUST speak excellent English. Don’t play around with answering in another language.
Dah. I agree that these two were probably looking for an excuse to claim “racial” or “ethnic” discribmination.
Go get a life, shut up, follow instructions and learn that these little things do not matter – take your agenda elsewhere! (Or maybe you were leaving the USA, so that is a good thing?? LOL!!)
Deal with it people.
@DC not in DC
You’re applying a false equivalency. No one in your examples constitute a protected class by law. An airline’s decision to move you based on loyalty program status does not fit the legal definition of discrimination.
However, a passenger forced to move seats due to race or religion IS by definition experiencing a violation of that person’s civil liberties.
Your indignity seems to lie with the perceived frivolousness of this lawsuit. However, that fails to identify the actual issue. Yes, an individual SHOULD be allowed to sue the airline in this situation. That’s the framework that enables us to determine if the airline wronged her by discriminating based on race or religion. It’s also the tool we use to establish what this woman is owed if she needs to be made whole again.
No, an individual SHOULD NOT be allowed to sue the airline if he’s moved on the basis of loyalty program status. It’s not against the law to do that.
I feel this type of conversation can be solved by the flight attendants applies Transactional analysis (TA) is a psychoanalytic theory and method of therapy wherein social transactions are analyzed to determine the ego state of the communicator (whether parent-like, childlike, or adult-like) as a basis for understanding behavior.
Only tangentially related, but I’ve always found the need for a “verbal yes” to be quite odd, and certainly only something that occurs in the USA. Regular travelers know the drill. but I feel bad for infrequent travelers who nod, or mumble affirmatively only to be shouted at by FAs because they don’t fly in exit rows every day.
@Masao Aochi – This could have been solved by the passenger saying “Yes,” in English (a language she obviously speaks), rather than being a jackass and claiming discrimination when there obviously wasn’t any.
Maybe someone at the airline should check what kind of biases the sear-displacing FA may have demonstrated on social media over the years.
I definitely wasn’t on the flight with those two sisters, but I’ve been on numerous other flights in the US where FAs have assumed that visible ethnic/religious minorities couldn’t speak English despite those passengers being more articulate in English than the average natural-born American and probably also a natural-born American at that. Some people think “foreign” when they see or hear some people and then assume things that don’t hold up to reality. Then this kind of thing happens.
I assume all reports of discrimination made on aircraft are false. I base this on the fact that every claim I have ever been witness to is false.