A Travel and vacations forum. TravelBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » TravelBanter forum » Travelling Style » Air travel
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Passengers Aboard Flight Delayed 18 Hours



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #291  
Old January 9th, 2005, 08:02 AM
Roland Perry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In message , at 12:56:14 on
Sat, 8 Jan 2005, Malcolm Weir remarked:
The only "evidence" might be that they were in the wrong place at the
wrong time, or had a foreign-sounding name. That's evidence, Jim, but
not as we know it.

You have no basis for that statement. None whatsoever.


I read the papers (for example, when some UK detainees were finally
repatriated; but also generally regarding the camp), there's enough in
them to justify the "might" in my statement.


But not the "only".

My statement stands: you have no basis for your statement. None
whatsoever.


Erm, the "might" refers to the "only", old chap.
--
Roland Perry
  #292  
Old January 9th, 2005, 08:02 AM
Roland Perry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In message , at 12:56:14 on
Sat, 8 Jan 2005, Malcolm Weir remarked:
The only "evidence" might be that they were in the wrong place at the
wrong time, or had a foreign-sounding name. That's evidence, Jim, but
not as we know it.

You have no basis for that statement. None whatsoever.


I read the papers (for example, when some UK detainees were finally
repatriated; but also generally regarding the camp), there's enough in
them to justify the "might" in my statement.


But not the "only".

My statement stands: you have no basis for your statement. None
whatsoever.


Erm, the "might" refers to the "only", old chap.
--
Roland Perry
  #293  
Old January 9th, 2005, 12:03 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Until all this airport security settles down, we are all going to be
subject to these annoying adventures. You are still getting people who
are suspicious of every little thing that is happening, or what they are
seeing.....and this is going to slow down everything.....also power
hungry attendents.....

  #294  
Old January 9th, 2005, 12:03 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Until all this airport security settles down, we are all going to be
subject to these annoying adventures. You are still getting people who
are suspicious of every little thing that is happening, or what they are
seeing.....and this is going to slow down everything.....also power
hungry attendents.....

  #295  
Old January 10th, 2005, 08:53 PM
Malcolm Weir
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 16:49:07 -0500, nobody wrote:

Malcolm Weir wrote:
.In the US classified info is supposed to based upon
damage to the national security to the US.


Gantanamo has ZERO to do with national security.


False. *You* may happen to believe that everyone there is innocent,
but I don't.

I *also* don't believe that everyone there is guilty.

Some are one, some are the other.

They took random afghans from the street and sent them there to be detailed
without charge,


Kinda true, but not correct anymore.

without any evidence,


Categorically false.

without due legal process.


Kinda true, but not any more.

When your country is being invaded by foreigners (whether the invasion is
sanctioned by UN or not), citizens have a right to fight back.


Right? Maybe.

But that's not what those detained at Guantanamo are largely charged
with. Only a complete moron would conclude that only 600 or so people
fought back!

Heck, the USA is the last country that should complain about citizens bearing
arms since this is written into their constitution for that very reason.


I agree. So what?

So just because some citizens had guns and fought the invading force doesn't
make them terrorists.


True. However, some terrorists *also* had guns and *also* fought the
Northern Alliance (who weren't, in fact, an invading force, but let's
not quibble over facts like that).

It's undeniable that there were lots and lots of terrorists/terrorist
supporters in Afghanistan.

You can be assured that the serious al qaeda folks had long ago fled
Afghanistan since they knew that the country would be invaded by western nations.


Maybe. But maybe not.

Gantanamo was purely a PR exercise by the Bush regime directed towards
domestic media consumption and part of their scare tactics and to show how
Bush had captured "terrorists".


Get off your sad little conspiracy horse...

Americans consumed this because they are so gullible. The rest of the world
seen Gantanamo as a horrible human righst violations by an authoritarion
police state regime.


Compare and contrast Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, with HMP Belmarsh. (e.g.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4100481.stm)

Malc.
  #296  
Old January 10th, 2005, 11:31 PM
Malcolm Weir
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 03:01:50 GMT, Adam Weiss
wrote:

[ Snip ]

If it really would be too expensive (and I'd be interested in a cite
showing exactly how expensive it would be), then perhaps we might enact
laws to make it illegal for an airport in the US to have the word
"international" in its name without being a point of entry for US
Customs. Airports that are not in compliance (such as Moses Lake's
Grant County International Airport) could either change their names or
spend the money to become a point of entry - it's up to them.


Good News! Grant County International Airport *is* a point of entry!!

It would be logical to prohibit airports from calling themselves
"international" if they are not equipped to handle international
flights. And the law already works this way for professionals - for
example it is illegal for someone who is not licensed to practice
architecture to refer to themselves as an architect.


You've confused the whole issue of whether Grant County/Moses Lake is
"equipped" to handle "international flights" with the issue of whether
the airport is equipped to handle the no-notice diversion of a DC-10
full of international passengers...

At least then it would be easy for a pilot whose international flight is
diverted to know before-hand if they're diverting to an airport that can
handle their passengers, or if they're heading for more delays.


Why bother? Commercial pilots divert under two circumstances: either
under an emergency procedure, where ATC provides assistance, or under
a non-emergency procedure, where the company flight operations provide
input.

I was on a (domestic) flight that was operating from DEN to LAX, when
the captain saw anomalies with one of the engines. So they planned a
diversion (to SLC, as it happens), as a reasonably close airport with
airline staff and so on. Shortly afterwards, she (the captain)
decided that the anomaly had reached the point that she didn't want to
fly any further, and did an emergency diversion to Grand Junction, CO,
which is an airport which that airline doesn't normally serve, and
which usually handles nothing much larger than a regional jet.

We sat on the ground for about 4 hours until they flew in a
replacement (the last hour or so was after the time the airport
normally closed!)

The point being that the airline's systems had us where they expected
us to go (SLC), not where we were (Grand Junction), for most of the
time we were on the ground...

Lastly, I'd point out that the situation in Moses Lake was (a) no big
deal: no-one was hurt, no-one suffered any injury, and (b) is
incredibly rare.

So let's not get all worked up about something that was a undoubtedly
a screwup, but not a serious one, and it is best fixed by having the
airline try harder to avoid diversions to airports where they don't
have a presence.

All the while remembering that if international flights start
diverting more pro-actively, then the screams of rage about the horror
of being delayed will increase.

(i.e. Pick one!)

Malc.
  #297  
Old January 10th, 2005, 11:31 PM
Malcolm Weir
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 03:01:50 GMT, Adam Weiss
wrote:

[ Snip ]

If it really would be too expensive (and I'd be interested in a cite
showing exactly how expensive it would be), then perhaps we might enact
laws to make it illegal for an airport in the US to have the word
"international" in its name without being a point of entry for US
Customs. Airports that are not in compliance (such as Moses Lake's
Grant County International Airport) could either change their names or
spend the money to become a point of entry - it's up to them.


Good News! Grant County International Airport *is* a point of entry!!

It would be logical to prohibit airports from calling themselves
"international" if they are not equipped to handle international
flights. And the law already works this way for professionals - for
example it is illegal for someone who is not licensed to practice
architecture to refer to themselves as an architect.


You've confused the whole issue of whether Grant County/Moses Lake is
"equipped" to handle "international flights" with the issue of whether
the airport is equipped to handle the no-notice diversion of a DC-10
full of international passengers...

At least then it would be easy for a pilot whose international flight is
diverted to know before-hand if they're diverting to an airport that can
handle their passengers, or if they're heading for more delays.


Why bother? Commercial pilots divert under two circumstances: either
under an emergency procedure, where ATC provides assistance, or under
a non-emergency procedure, where the company flight operations provide
input.

I was on a (domestic) flight that was operating from DEN to LAX, when
the captain saw anomalies with one of the engines. So they planned a
diversion (to SLC, as it happens), as a reasonably close airport with
airline staff and so on. Shortly afterwards, she (the captain)
decided that the anomaly had reached the point that she didn't want to
fly any further, and did an emergency diversion to Grand Junction, CO,
which is an airport which that airline doesn't normally serve, and
which usually handles nothing much larger than a regional jet.

We sat on the ground for about 4 hours until they flew in a
replacement (the last hour or so was after the time the airport
normally closed!)

The point being that the airline's systems had us where they expected
us to go (SLC), not where we were (Grand Junction), for most of the
time we were on the ground...

Lastly, I'd point out that the situation in Moses Lake was (a) no big
deal: no-one was hurt, no-one suffered any injury, and (b) is
incredibly rare.

So let's not get all worked up about something that was a undoubtedly
a screwup, but not a serious one, and it is best fixed by having the
airline try harder to avoid diversions to airports where they don't
have a presence.

All the while remembering that if international flights start
diverting more pro-actively, then the screams of rage about the horror
of being delayed will increase.

(i.e. Pick one!)

Malc.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
My terrible Dragoman experience in Africa Nadine S. Africa 5 April 26th, 2004 06:54 PM
Trip Report LHR-DXB-SYD-OOL-SYD-WLG-AKL-WAIHEKE-AKL-SYD-DXB-LGW Howard Long Air travel 3 March 29th, 2004 12:35 AM
Trip report CPR-LAS/LAS-CPR Michael Graham Air travel 4 October 27th, 2003 01:09 AM
Air Madagascar trip report (long) Vitaly Shmatikov Africa 7 October 7th, 2003 08:05 PM
Passengers tell of Concorde horror Chanchao Air travel 7 September 22nd, 2003 04:04 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 TravelBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.