Maybe I'm overreacting, but this tale of an unexpected turn of events aboard a routine Paris-to-New York flight has my blood boiling

Am I overreacting here?

The very fact that The New Yorker published this piece--about which I don't want to say too much before you read it-- in the "Talk of the Town" section of the new (Sept. 25) issue tells me that other people weren't just curious but were flat-out outraged.

I read it having no idea where it was going, and I'd like you to have the same opportunity. It starts out as if it's going to be one of those quaint, harmless ain't-life-somethin' stories, but turns out to be . . . well, again, I've probably already said too much. If you need some prompting as to whether this is worth your time and attention, you can skip to my notes at the end.

THE TALK OF THE TOWN
HERE TO THERE DEPT.
AIR KISS

by Lauren Collins

American Airlines Flight 45--departing Charles de Gaulle at 10:40 A.M., arriving J.F.K. at one each afternoon--is a tourist's delight: timed just right to avoid late checkout, leaving time for one last Kir Royale at Les Deux Magots. On August 22nd, the coach cabin was packed with vacationing New Yorkers. Ralph Jackson (21A) and David Leisner (21B) were returning from two weeks in France, while Huffa Frobes-Cross (21F) had stopped over in Paris on his way back from South Africa. Assigned to seats 20A and 20B were George Tsikhiseli, a television journalist, and his writer boyfriend, Stephan Varnier. "We've been together only four months," Tsikhiseli said last week. "So it felt like a honeymoon."

Twelve days earlier, British police had foiled a terrorist plot to blow up airliners. Heightened security had delayed the flight by about two hours, and passengers, by the time they boarded, were ready to relax. "I had a José Saramago book I was looking forward to reading," Leisner said. "And then I was going to take some melatonin and have a little nap."

Shortly after takeoff, Varnier nodded off, leaning his head on Tsikhiseli. A stewardess came over to their row. "The purser wants you to stop that," she said.

"I opened my eyes and was, like, ‘Stop what?' " Varnier recalled the other day.

"The touching and the kissing," the stewardess said, before walking away.

Tsikhiseli and Varnier were taken aback. "He would rest his head on my shoulder or the other way around. We'd kiss--not kiss kiss, just mwah," Tsikhiseli recalled, making a smacking sound.

In the row behind them were Leisner and Jackson. "They were like two lovebirds," said Leisner, who is a classical guitarist. Frobes-Cross, a Columbia grad student who was sitting across the aisle, had overheard the stewardess's decree, too. "First thing I catch is ‘You have to stop touching each other,' " he said. "And I'm, like, Whoa, that's really weird."

Leisner and Jackson, who were "astounded," leaned forward to ask if they'd heard correctly. When Tsikhiseli and Varnier confirmed that they had, the four men summoned a stewardess and asked to speak with the purser.

A little later, the purser appeared at Row 20. She was, by all accounts, calm and professional; to the men's surprise, she said that she knew nothing about the incident and had not instructed the stewardess to tell Tsikhiseli and Varnier to stop touching each other.

"Which stewardess was it?" she asked.

One of the men pointed out the stewardess--a woman with, as Jackson put it, "Texas hair, like from the nineteen-sixties." According to Leisner, the purser rolled her eyes and said, "Oh, say no more. I know."

The purser asked the men to describe what they'd been doing, and she acknowledged that their behavior had not been inappropriate. Tsikhiseli then asked if the stewardess would have made the request if the kissers had been a man and a woman. Suddenly, Leisner said, the purser "became very rigid." Contradicting what she'd told them before, she stiffly said, "Kissing is inappropriate behavior on an airplane." She then said that she was busy with the meal service and promised to come back.

Half an hour later, the purser returned, this time saying that some passengers had complained about Tsikhiseli and Varnier's behavior earlier. The men asked more questions. Who had complained? (She couldn't say.) Could they have the stewardess's name, or employee number? (No.) Would the purser arrange for an American Airlines representative to meet them upon landing at J.F.K.? (Not possible.) Finally, the purser said that if they didn't drop the matter the flight would be diverted. After that, Leisner said, "everyone shut up for a while."

Maybe an hour later, the purser approached Tsikhiseli and said that the captain wanted to talk to him. Tsikhiseli went up to the galley and gave the captain his business card. The captain told Tsikhiseli that if they didn't stop arguing with the crew he would indeed divert the plane. "I want you to go back to your seat and behave the rest of the flight, and we'll see you in New York," he said. Tsikhiseli returned to coach.

Tim Wagner, a spokesman for American, said that the stewardess's injunction to the men was reasonable, and would have been made whether the couple was gay or straight. "Our passengers need to recognize that they are in an environment with all ages, backgrounds, creeds, and races. We have an obligation to make as many of them feel as comfortable as possible," he said. (He added, "Our understanding is that the level of affection was more than a quick peck on the cheek.") But a customer-service representative named Terri, reached last week on the telephone, offered the opinion that kissing on airplanes is indeed permissible. "Oh, yeah! Sure. I've seen couples who are on honeymoons," she said. "They just don't want you to go into the bathroom together."

- - - - - - - - - - -

First there is the casual, reflexive homophobia. Whatever the actual behavior of the "offending" male couple, does anyone have less than 100 percent certainty that it is trivial compared with all sorts of genuinely offensive not to mention torturous in-flight behavior that flight crews will never interfere with?

As regards expressions of affection in particular, is there anyone who doesn't have in mind clear images of the order-of-magnitude difference in the "offenses" perpetrated by same-sex and opposite-sex couples which would be needed to produce this result?

Not to mention the way the offending behavior was dealt with. If in fact a passenger complained, and one of the crew members felt that some intervention was required, an attendant with some sense of proportion and tact (and perhaps even humor) could have said something like: "Sorry, guys, but some of the passengers are a little uncomfortable with your expressions of affection. Could you tone it down?"

Instead we got the lady storm trooper who comes armed with her own bigotry and a pack of lies. But then, lying seems to come naturally to the whole pack of American Airlines storm troopers. From here on in, it's all lying and stonewalling, except the part that's bullying and threatening.

You could say that the captain didn't actually lie; he acted on information provided by his crew, and it's hardly his fault that he has a crew of bigoted compulsive liars. Well, if Sky King is going to throw his weight around, then why isn't he responsible for the quality of the information he bases his bullying and threats on?

And speaking of threats, what is with this recurring threat to "divert" the plane? Like land the plane in Cincinnati instead of New York and hope that the "regular" passengers will be so steamed that they'll lynch the faggots responsible?

Finally, standing above it all is the gutless, lying airline itself, which from start to finish manages to maintain its distance from decency, truth and simple sense, not to mention the slightest hint of responsibility for its own behavior. Myself, I can't imagine ever taking an American Airlines flight again. Then again, I can't recall the last AA flight I took. The loss of my business isn't going to rock the bottom line.

In the end, I guess it's just the very casualness--okay, maybe that and the stupidity--of the bigotry that's so infuriating. And the fact that there appears to be no price to be paid. You know from the very first lie, which is to say the first flight attendant's lie about the purser demanding compliance, and then from the immediate closing of ranks behind the official AA stonewalling, that all the participants know they're engaged in something that's not only wrong but indefensible on the facts.

I don't have any problem with the idea that all of the AA personnel involved, with the lone exception of customer-service rep Terri (who seems actually to have been in an airplane), should be fired and banned from further employment in the airline industry. I suppose it's possible that as a result they'll wind up sinking into the gutter, rotting and dying. Wouldn't that at least teach them a lesson?