Passengers Aboard Flight Delayed 18 Hours
 

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...layed_flight_1

You probably already have heard about that--people weren't allowed to leave
the plane for some 18 hours while numerous things kept proper procedures
delayed.

My question is: isn't this kidnapping? It seems it surely could be called
that. Another thing--I recently flew (I rarely do) and I was fortunate to be
seated next to the emergency exit. Couldn't someone have just opened that
and taken off? One thing is for sure--that is absolutely what I would have
done. It's ridiculous to think anyone is supposed to just sit there & wait
18 HOURS while they straighten out their own nonsense.

Comments?

LRH

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 06:57:31 -0700, "Larry R Harrison Jr"
wrote:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...layed_flight_1

You probably already have heard about that--people weren't allowed to leave
the plane for some 18 hours while numerous things kept proper procedures
delayed.

My question is: isn't this kidnapping? It seems it surely could be called
that. Another thing--I recently flew (I rarely do) and I was fortunate to be
seated next to the emergency exit. Couldn't someone have just opened that
and taken off? One thing is for sure--that is absolutely what I would have
done. It's ridiculous to think anyone is supposed to just sit there & wait
18 HOURS while they straighten out their own nonsense.

Comments?

LRH



I wonder if the emergency slides will have been disengaged, if so the
jump from a DC10 door to the ground would most likely lead to broken
bones. In any case don't forget this happened in the US. With the
state of nervousness there, the likely presence of armed air marshalls
on the aircraft, and almost certainly the presence of armed police on
the ground, opening a door and jumping out could well be the last
action you took.
--==++AJC++==--

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 06:57:31 -0700, "Larry R Harrison Jr"
wrote:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...layed_flight_1

You probably already have heard about that--people weren't allowed to leave
the plane for some 18 hours while numerous things kept proper procedures
delayed.

My question is: isn't this kidnapping? It seems it surely could be called
that. Another thing--I recently flew (I rarely do) and I was fortunate to be
seated next to the emergency exit. Couldn't someone have just opened that
and taken off? One thing is for sure--that is absolutely what I would have
done. It's ridiculous to think anyone is supposed to just sit there & wait
18 HOURS while they straighten out their own nonsense.

Comments?

LRH



I wonder if the emergency slides will have been disengaged, if so the
jump from a DC10 door to the ground would most likely lead to broken
bones. In any case don't forget this happened in the US. With the
state of nervousness there, the likely presence of armed air marshalls
on the aircraft, and almost certainly the presence of armed police on
the ground, opening a door and jumping out could well be the last
action you took.
--==++AJC++==--

A Thu, 30 Dec 2004 06:57:31 -0700, "Larry R Harrison Jr"
escribió:
My question is: isn't this kidnapping?

It would have been a violation of US law to let folks off
the aircraft without adequate security measures in place.
Government officials enforcing the law are immune from
accusations of felonies such as this.


--
bicker®

*bicker* wrote:
My question is: isn't this kidnapping?

It would have been a violation of US law to let folks off
the aircraft without adequate security measures in place.

Where there is a will, there is a way. Remember that northwest is also the
airline that had kidnapped passengers at Detroit airport some years ago
because they were unwilling to bring airstairs to the plane and there were no
gates available due to a snow storm.

Where the airline should be held responsible is in using some inadequate
airfield. They could have diverted to Portland, Victoria or Vancouver and not
wait until they had runned out of fuel and needing to land at the nearest
piece of runway they could find.

In fact, in hindsight, they would have been better off landing at vancouver
and busing passengers to seattle, or land at victoria and hop on the ferry to seattle.

Surely this wasn't the only intl flight coming into Seattle ? How di dother
flights get handled ?

"AJC" wrote in message
...

I wonder if the emergency slides will have been disengaged, if so the
jump from a DC10 door to the ground would most likely lead to broken
bones. In any case don't forget this happened in the US. With the
state of nervousness there, the likely presence of armed air marshalls
on the aircraft, and almost certainly the presence of armed police on
the ground, opening a door and jumping out could well be the last
action you took.
--==++AJC++==--

And that would be KIDNAPPING. To not allow me to leave unless I'm under
questioning for having committed a crime, or I'm under oath in court giving
crucial testimony, or I'm at work performing a delicate life-dependent type
of occupation, those things excepted--to not allow me to leave is flat-out
KIDNAPPING, I don't care what the law says.

How can we get this changed?

LRH

"AJC" wrote in message
...

I wonder if the emergency slides will have been disengaged, if so the
jump from a DC10 door to the ground would most likely lead to broken
bones. In any case don't forget this happened in the US. With the
state of nervousness there, the likely presence of armed air marshalls
on the aircraft, and almost certainly the presence of armed police on
the ground, opening a door and jumping out could well be the last
action you took.
--==++AJC++==--

And that would be KIDNAPPING. To not allow me to leave unless I'm under
questioning for having committed a crime, or I'm under oath in court giving
crucial testimony, or I'm at work performing a delicate life-dependent type
of occupation, those things excepted--to not allow me to leave is flat-out
KIDNAPPING, I don't care what the law says.

How can we get this changed?

LRH

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 11:39:29 -0500, nobody wrote:

*bicker* wrote:
My question is: isn't this kidnapping?

It would have been a violation of US law to let folks off
the aircraft without adequate security measures in place.

Where there is a will, there is a way. Remember that northwest is also the
airline that had kidnapped passengers at Detroit airport some years ago
because they were unwilling to bring airstairs to the plane and there were no
gates available due to a snow storm.

Where the airline should be held responsible is in using some inadequate
airfield. They could have diverted to Portland, Victoria or Vancouver and not
wait until they had runned out of fuel and needing to land at the nearest
piece of runway they could find.

In fact, in hindsight, they would have been better off landing at vancouver
and busing passengers to seattle, or land at victoria and hop on the ferry to seattle.

Surely this wasn't the only intl flight coming into Seattle ? How di dother
flights get handled ?

I believe one issue is that it was a DC10 and therefore unable to land
when other better equipped aircraft could have done. From what I've
read elsewhere, if it had been one of NW's new A330s they could have
landed at SEA.
--==++AJC++==--

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 11:39:29 -0500, nobody wrote:

*bicker* wrote:
My question is: isn't this kidnapping?

It would have been a violation of US law to let folks off
the aircraft without adequate security measures in place.

Where there is a will, there is a way. Remember that northwest is also the
airline that had kidnapped passengers at Detroit airport some years ago
because they were unwilling to bring airstairs to the plane and there were no
gates available due to a snow storm.

Where the airline should be held responsible is in using some inadequate
airfield. They could have diverted to Portland, Victoria or Vancouver and not
wait until they had runned out of fuel and needing to land at the nearest
piece of runway they could find.

In fact, in hindsight, they would have been better off landing at vancouver
and busing passengers to seattle, or land at victoria and hop on the ferry to seattle.

Surely this wasn't the only intl flight coming into Seattle ? How di dother
flights get handled ?

I believe one issue is that it was a DC10 and therefore unable to land
when other better equipped aircraft could have done. From what I've
read elsewhere, if it had been one of NW's new A330s they could have
landed at SEA.
--==++AJC++==--

AJC wrote:

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 11:39:29 -0500, nobody wrote:

Where the airline should be held responsible is in using some inadequate
airfield. They could have diverted to Portland, Victoria or Vancouver and not
wait until they had runned out of fuel and needing to land at the nearest
piece of runway they could find.

In fact, in hindsight, they would have been better off landing at vancouver
and busing passengers to seattle, or land at victoria and hop on the ferry to seattle.

Surely this wasn't the only intl flight coming into Seattle ? How di dother
flights get handled ?



I believe one issue is that it was a DC10 and therefore unable to land
when other better equipped aircraft could have done. From what I've
read elsewhere, if it had been one of NW's new A330s they could have
landed at SEA.

But that still doesn't explain why they couldn't have landed at an
airport equipped to deal with the customs issues. PDX had gorgeous
weather that day. They could have landed there.