Passengers Aboard Flight Delayed 18 Hours

"AJC" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 11:04:55 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 16:36:13 on
Thu, 30 Dec 2004, AJC remarked:
and almost certainly the presence of armed police on the ground,

The article suggests there *weren't* any police at the rural airport,
which is apparently why the people had to be kept on the plane until
some could be found to secure the terminal.


I wonder just how remote this place is. In the US you are usually not
far from at least a local sherrif and a few deputies, who could be on
site in an hour.

But are they the right sort of police ?

I remember a car accident I was in in Florida, we were 'babysat' by two
different types of police before the one who was allowed to investigate
showed up.

(It took about 3 hours)

"AJC" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 11:04:55 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 16:36:13 on
Thu, 30 Dec 2004, AJC remarked:
and almost certainly the presence of armed police on the ground,

The article suggests there *weren't* any police at the rural airport,
which is apparently why the people had to be kept on the plane until
some could be found to secure the terminal.


I wonder just how remote this place is. In the US you are usually not
far from at least a local sherrif and a few deputies, who could be on
site in an hour.

But are they the right sort of police ?

I remember a car accident I was in in Florida, we were 'babysat' by two
different types of police before the one who was allowed to investigate
showed up.

(It took about 3 hours)

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 23:24:33 -0700, "Larry R Harrison Jr"
wrote:

"Malcolm Weir" wrote in message
.. .

I think your brain went to hell in a handbasket a while ago.

Who gives a **** what you think?

Probably fewer people who think you have a clue.

I was just trying to understand how
something like this is okay and tolerable,

No, you were making false and stupid claims.

I was not asking for sarcasm from
a smart-ass.

Who cares what you were asking for, idiot?

We've already established that you're stupid.

I'm still amused at the idea that you use legal terms and claim you
don't care what the law says!

LRH

Malc.

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 01:41:09 -0600, (Miguel Cruz)
wrote:

Malcolm Weir wrote:
"Larry R Harrison Jr" wrote:
And I'm arguing that even THAT shouldn't happen, Patriot Act or no. Since
when is getting off a plane which has landed where you're headed such a huge
offense?

It's two huge offenses (at least).

1. It's a violation of border security (immigration laws).
2. It's a violation of airport security (FARs).

However, clearning the plane is something that any international airport
should be able to do as a matter of routine. If they knew it was going to be
18 hours, it seems reasonable to start the process at their intermediate
point (Minneapolis in this case, right?) so people can be routed to their
final destinations in other ways.

There was no intermediate point. Under US law, *all* passengers must
clear immigration at the first landfall, so by definition, SEA would
have been the first landfall.

Had the plane landed in MSP, all passengers would have cleared
immigration before continuing to SEA.

So a quick peek confirms this: NW033, AMS-SEA, flight time 10h15.

(And there'd have been no real issue, beyond bussing the passengers
from Moses Lake to Seattle, and dealing with the hysterical whines of
people like Larry R Harrison Very Jr.)

miguel

Malc.

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 01:41:09 -0600, (Miguel Cruz)
wrote:

Malcolm Weir wrote:
"Larry R Harrison Jr" wrote:
And I'm arguing that even THAT shouldn't happen, Patriot Act or no. Since
when is getting off a plane which has landed where you're headed such a huge
offense?

It's two huge offenses (at least).

1. It's a violation of border security (immigration laws).
2. It's a violation of airport security (FARs).

However, clearning the plane is something that any international airport
should be able to do as a matter of routine. If they knew it was going to be
18 hours, it seems reasonable to start the process at their intermediate
point (Minneapolis in this case, right?) so people can be routed to their
final destinations in other ways.

There was no intermediate point. Under US law, *all* passengers must
clear immigration at the first landfall, so by definition, SEA would
have been the first landfall.

Had the plane landed in MSP, all passengers would have cleared
immigration before continuing to SEA.

So a quick peek confirms this: NW033, AMS-SEA, flight time 10h15.

(And there'd have been no real issue, beyond bussing the passengers
from Moses Lake to Seattle, and dealing with the hysterical whines of
people like Larry R Harrison Very Jr.)

miguel

Malc.

"AJC" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 11:47:01 -0000, "Miss L. Toe"
wrote:


"AJC" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 11:04:55 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 16:36:13
on
Thu, 30 Dec 2004, AJC remarked:
and almost certainly the presence of armed police on the ground,

The article suggests there *weren't* any police at the rural
airport,
which is apparently why the people had to be kept on the plane until
some could be found to secure the terminal.


I wonder just how remote this place is. In the US you are usually not
far from at least a local sherrif and a few deputies, who could be on
site in an hour.

But are they the right sort of police ?

I remember a car accident I was in in Florida, we were 'babysat' by two
different types of police before the one who was allowed to investigate
showed up.

(It took about 3 hours)


Your experience confirms the point I was making, that some form of
police would have been around to 'babysit' this DC10 full of agitated
travellers, maybe not empowered to do anything very much, other than
prevent anyone leaving the aircraft.
--==++AJC++==--

Isn't it likely that many of the occupants of the aircraft were citizens
of the USA? And, if so, don't they have the right of entry to the United
States?

JohnT

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 11:47:01 -0000, "Miss L. Toe"
wrote:


"AJC" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 11:04:55 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 16:36:13 on
Thu, 30 Dec 2004, AJC remarked:
and almost certainly the presence of armed police on the ground,

The article suggests there *weren't* any police at the rural airport,
which is apparently why the people had to be kept on the plane until
some could be found to secure the terminal.


I wonder just how remote this place is. In the US you are usually not
far from at least a local sherrif and a few deputies, who could be on
site in an hour.

But are they the right sort of police ?

I remember a car accident I was in in Florida, we were 'babysat' by two
different types of police before the one who was allowed to investigate
showed up.

(It took about 3 hours)


Your experience confirms the point I was making, that some form of
police would have been around to 'babysit' this DC10 full of agitated
travellers, maybe not empowered to do anything very much, other than
prevent anyone leaving the aircraft.
--==++AJC++==--

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 13:32:52 -0000, "JohnT"
wrote:


"AJC" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 11:47:01 -0000, "Miss L. Toe"
wrote:


"AJC" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 11:04:55 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 16:36:13
on
Thu, 30 Dec 2004, AJC remarked:
and almost certainly the presence of armed police on the ground,

The article suggests there *weren't* any police at the rural
airport,
which is apparently why the people had to be kept on the plane until
some could be found to secure the terminal.


I wonder just how remote this place is. In the US you are usually not
far from at least a local sherrif and a few deputies, who could be on
site in an hour.

But are they the right sort of police ?

I remember a car accident I was in in Florida, we were 'babysat' by two
different types of police before the one who was allowed to investigate
showed up.

(It took about 3 hours)


Your experience confirms the point I was making, that some form of
police would have been around to 'babysit' this DC10 full of agitated
travellers, maybe not empowered to do anything very much, other than
prevent anyone leaving the aircraft.
--==++AJC++==--

Isn't it likely that many of the occupants of the aircraft were citizens
of the USA? And, if so, don't they have the right of entry to the United
States?

JohnT


Bound to have been a lot of US citizens on board, but they still need
to be 'processed' before being allowed back in. Their government has
to have a chance to check that they haven't been anywhere they are not
allowed to go, or done anything they are not allowed to do. Remember
Americans even have to fill in government forms before being allowed
to enter their own country.
--==++AJC++==--

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 13:32:52 -0000, "JohnT"
wrote:


"AJC" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 11:47:01 -0000, "Miss L. Toe"
wrote:


"AJC" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 11:04:55 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 16:36:13
on
Thu, 30 Dec 2004, AJC remarked:
and almost certainly the presence of armed police on the ground,

The article suggests there *weren't* any police at the rural
airport,
which is apparently why the people had to be kept on the plane until
some could be found to secure the terminal.


I wonder just how remote this place is. In the US you are usually not
far from at least a local sherrif and a few deputies, who could be on
site in an hour.

But are they the right sort of police ?

I remember a car accident I was in in Florida, we were 'babysat' by two
different types of police before the one who was allowed to investigate
showed up.

(It took about 3 hours)


Your experience confirms the point I was making, that some form of
police would have been around to 'babysit' this DC10 full of agitated
travellers, maybe not empowered to do anything very much, other than
prevent anyone leaving the aircraft.
--==++AJC++==--

Isn't it likely that many of the occupants of the aircraft were citizens
of the USA? And, if so, don't they have the right of entry to the United
States?

JohnT


Bound to have been a lot of US citizens on board, but they still need
to be 'processed' before being allowed back in. Their government has
to have a chance to check that they haven't been anywhere they are not
allowed to go, or done anything they are not allowed to do. Remember
Americans even have to fill in government forms before being allowed
to enter their own country.
--==++AJC++==--

"AJC" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 13:32:52 -0000, "JohnT"
wrote:


"AJC" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 11:47:01 -0000, "Miss L. Toe"
wrote:


"AJC" wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 11:04:55 +0000, Roland Perry

wrote:

In message , at
16:36:13
on
Thu, 30 Dec 2004, AJC remarked:
and almost certainly the presence of armed police on the ground,

The article suggests there *weren't* any police at the rural
airport,
which is apparently why the people had to be kept on the plane
until
some could be found to secure the terminal.


I wonder just how remote this place is. In the US you are usually
not
far from at least a local sherrif and a few deputies, who could be
on
site in an hour.

But are they the right sort of police ?

I remember a car accident I was in in Florida, we were 'babysat' by
two
different types of police before the one who was allowed to
investigate
showed up.

(It took about 3 hours)


Your experience confirms the point I was making, that some form of
police would have been around to 'babysit' this DC10 full of agitated
travellers, maybe not empowered to do anything very much, other than
prevent anyone leaving the aircraft.
--==++AJC++==--

Isn't it likely that many of the occupants of the aircraft were
citizens
of the USA? And, if so, don't they have the right of entry to the
United
States?

JohnT


Bound to have been a lot of US citizens on board, but they still need
to be 'processed' before being allowed back in. Their government has
to have a chance to check that they haven't been anywhere they are not
allowed to go, or done anything they are not allowed to do. Remember
Americans even have to fill in government forms before being allowed
to enter their own country.
--==++AJC++==--

Without disagreeing with what you say, they were already IN their own
Country when the DC10 landed at the airport way out in the sticks in
Washington State. If they (US Citizens) are found to have been naughty
boys or girls when returning to the U S of A they aren't denied entry.
The worst that is going to happen to them is detention or imprisonment or
a free holiday at Guantanamo.

JohnT