Passengers Aboard Flight Delayed 18 Hours

In message , at 10:33:07 on Sat, 1 Jan
2005, JohnT remarked:

The validity of their Passports was checked by Airline staff at AMS.

The staff at AMS don't have access to the records of US Immigration, nor
specialist training, and can therefore only check that the person has a
plausible facimile of a passport.

Their details were passed in advance to the US Dept of Homeland Security
in advance.

Who may then be able to identify several travellers who they'd like to
question further before admitting them.

All they need to do, surely, is to show their (US) Passports
to (for example) the Director of Cabin Services.

Who would need to have been briefed by DHS on which travellers to detain
for further questioning. Do you think he'd have the necessary resources
to do that?

If NW refuse to let US Citizens deplane in their legal Country of
residence then surely they are very vulnerable to litigation by
aggrieved Americans.

The citizens aren't deplaning in their country of residence. They are in
International Air/Ground space. Be careful what you wish for, if US
immigration halls were really US soil (in the sense of US law applying
in the way you imply), then I think they'd need to reconsider some of
their practices.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 10:33:07 on Sat, 1 Jan
2005, JohnT remarked:

The validity of their Passports was checked by Airline staff at AMS.

The staff at AMS don't have access to the records of US Immigration, nor
specialist training, and can therefore only check that the person has a
plausible facimile of a passport.

Their details were passed in advance to the US Dept of Homeland Security
in advance.

Who may then be able to identify several travellers who they'd like to
question further before admitting them.

All they need to do, surely, is to show their (US) Passports
to (for example) the Director of Cabin Services.

Who would need to have been briefed by DHS on which travellers to detain
for further questioning. Do you think he'd have the necessary resources
to do that?

If NW refuse to let US Citizens deplane in their legal Country of
residence then surely they are very vulnerable to litigation by
aggrieved Americans.

The citizens aren't deplaning in their country of residence. They are in
International Air/Ground space. Be careful what you wish for, if US
immigration halls were really US soil (in the sense of US law applying
in the way you imply), then I think they'd need to reconsider some of
their practices.
--
Roland Perry

"Dennis G. Rears" wrote:
There was no intermediate point. Under US law, *all* passengers must
clear immigration at the first landfall,

exceeded FAA regulations for crew rest. We were on the ground for at least
90 minutes. In addition to a new crew, we were refueled, had garbage
removed and ore food brought in. We were not allowed off the plane.


"landfall" did not necessarily mean first place of contact with US Soil. In
practice, it meant first access to landside. There were flights which operated
internationally inside the USA (for instance, land at LAX and continue to New
York and only pax getting off at LAX cleared customs at LAX, and NYC bound pax
cleared at NYC).

After 9-11, the practice was disallowed, and even flights which did not enter
the USA were forced to empty pax and baggage to clear USA customs/immigration
before pax who had no intentiosn to enter the USA could reboard the flight.
This has now been relaxed to a point where Air Canada can now land at HNL for
refueling, but pAX not allowed to leave the aircraft. (AC now has non-stop
from Syd to YVR, but southbound, it still needs a refueling stop at HNL).

Anchorage also lost whatever business it had left because under the Bush
regime, aircraft were no longer allowd to stop for refueling, they had to
clear all pax there.

Does anyone know whatever ahappened to the Iberia threats to moving its hub
from Miami to Havana because of those policies ?

Roland Perry wrote:
[1] And not just planes, Eurostar trains from Paris to London have had
similar extended imprisonments of the passengers when technical faults
have happened at an inconvenient place.

If a train is stuck in the middle of nowhere without any platforms to allow
pax to safely disembark, and if the tracks aren't "protected" (eg: all train
traffic stopped), then it truly is unsafe to allow many passengers off the
train, especially on the british sectiosn with the 3rd rail carrying
electricity on the ground, as opposed to overhead wires).

In the airline case, it wasn't a safety issue, it was an administrative issue
where someone made decision that they could not allow pax off the plane.

Roland Perry wrote:
[1] And not just planes, Eurostar trains from Paris to London have had
similar extended imprisonments of the passengers when technical faults
have happened at an inconvenient place.

If a train is stuck in the middle of nowhere without any platforms to allow
pax to safely disembark, and if the tracks aren't "protected" (eg: all train
traffic stopped), then it truly is unsafe to allow many passengers off the
train, especially on the british sectiosn with the 3rd rail carrying
electricity on the ground, as opposed to overhead wires).

In the airline case, it wasn't a safety issue, it was an administrative issue
where someone made decision that they could not allow pax off the plane.

JohnT wrote:
It is no problem at all. They have US Passports. That proves their right
to re-enter their Countru of citizenship.

Lets say terrorist Tim McVeight had gho on holidays after doing his big job in
Oklahoma City. Upon his return to the USA, under normal circumstances, the
immigration agent would get a big red message on his screen "this is a wanted
terrorist, capture and send to jail immediatly".

A cursory look at a passport from some small town policeman wouldn't be sufficient.

nobody wrote:
Does anyone know whatever ahappened to the Iberia threats to moving its hub
from Miami to Havana because of those policies ?

They didn't go to Havana, but they largely pulled out of Miami. They more or
less dehubulated for Latin America, adding several nonstops from Madrid to
destinations that used to require a change of planes in Miami.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 32 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu

Roland Perry wrote:
International Air/Ground space. Be careful what you wish for, if US
immigration halls were really US soil (in the sense of US law applying
in the way you imply), then I think they'd need to reconsider some of
their practices.

Treatment of airside passengers is governened by treaties which the USA signed
and adopted.

Technically, what the USA has been doing since 9-11 is actually allow entry to
the person, and then immediatly arrest and deport them without proper hearing
and to a country of their choice. Civilized nations will refuse entry, at
which point the pax stays airside and is accompanied to the next flight back
to origin. (not as a prisoner in hancuffs, but as a real human being).

Because the Bush regime has decided that the USA constitution applies only to
USA citizens as opposed to "people", it feels it can treat non citizens like dirt.

There are many airports in the USa that make the claim of "International", but
the vast majority are not able to handle intl passengers. Some may be able to
clear cargo, but most just say international because they get at least one
pre-cleared flight per month from Canada.

"Dennis G. Rears" wrote in message
...
"Malcolm Weir" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 01:41:09 -0600, (Miguel Cruz)
wrote:

Malcolm Weir wrote:
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.

Is this true? In Nov, 1999 I flew from AKL-LAX. Because of mechanical
problems prior to the flight we had to divert to HNL for a replacement
crew. They announced this before we took off. Evidently the crew
had/would had exceeded FAA regulations for crew rest. We were on the
ground for at least 90 minutes. In addition to a new crew, we were
refueled, had garbage removed and ore food brought in. We were not
allowed off the plane. We did not do customs or immigration in HNL. This
was a UA flight. What should have been only a 14 hour flight turned in 18
hours.

But the plane was maintained because UA has a major operation at HNL and can
easily service a 747 there. Not so for Northwest at Moses Lake, Washington.
Frankly, I think Northwest should have tried to divert to some place where
they had a ground operation, or where they could contract with somebody else
on short notice, but that is the major difference between your situation and
this one.

dennis

"Dennis G. Rears" wrote in message
...
"Malcolm Weir" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 01:41:09 -0600, (Miguel Cruz)
wrote:

Malcolm Weir wrote:
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.

Is this true? In Nov, 1999 I flew from AKL-LAX. Because of mechanical
problems prior to the flight we had to divert to HNL for a replacement
crew. They announced this before we took off. Evidently the crew
had/would had exceeded FAA regulations for crew rest. We were on the
ground for at least 90 minutes. In addition to a new crew, we were
refueled, had garbage removed and ore food brought in. We were not
allowed off the plane. We did not do customs or immigration in HNL. This
was a UA flight. What should have been only a 14 hour flight turned in 18
hours.

But the plane was maintained because UA has a major operation at HNL and can
easily service a 747 there. Not so for Northwest at Moses Lake, Washington.
Frankly, I think Northwest should have tried to divert to some place where
they had a ground operation, or where they could contract with somebody else
on short notice, but that is the major difference between your situation and
this one.

dennis