Passengers Aboard Flight Delayed 18 Hours

"Malcolm Weir" wrote in message
...

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

Who gives a **** what you think? I was just trying to understand how
something like this is okay and tolerable, I was not asking for sarcasm from
a smart-ass.

LRH

"nobody" wrote in message
...

A plane coming from another country must be kept sterile and not allow any
passengers or cargo from reaching landside without first clearing
customs/immigration.

If the local airfield's facilities cannot garantee sterility, then the
aircraft remains the only sterile/secure facility as long as the doors are
kept closed so that nobody can escape.

Providing a secure area isn't very hard. But it takes someone who has
authority to set this up.

Okay, so it sounds like something I'd be unlikely to encounter doing a, say,
Tucson AZ to Dallas TX type of flight. Fine.

But still--how could it possibly take them 18 HOURS to facilitate this? No
way in heck it could possibly take THAT long. If you're that incompetent a
company, you have no business being in business.

LRH

"nobody" wrote in message
...

A plane coming from another country must be kept sterile and not allow any
passengers or cargo from reaching landside without first clearing
customs/immigration.

If the local airfield's facilities cannot garantee sterility, then the
aircraft remains the only sterile/secure facility as long as the doors are
kept closed so that nobody can escape.

Providing a secure area isn't very hard. But it takes someone who has
authority to set this up.

Okay, so it sounds like something I'd be unlikely to encounter doing a, say,
Tucson AZ to Dallas TX type of flight. Fine.

But still--how could it possibly take them 18 HOURS to facilitate this? No
way in heck it could possibly take THAT long. If you're that incompetent a
company, you have no business being in business.

LRH

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.

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

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 10:03:31 -0700, "Larry R Harrison Jr"
wrote:


"AJC" wrote in message
news
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


You may see it like that, and I can understand why, but I think you
will find that those pointing the guns at you will see it rather
differently.
--==++AJC++==--

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 10:03:31 -0700, "Larry R Harrison Jr"
wrote:


"AJC" wrote in message
news
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


You may see it like that, and I can understand why, but I think you
will find that those pointing the guns at you will see it rather
differently.
--==++AJC++==--

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.
--
Roland Perry

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.
--
Roland Perry

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.
--==++AJC++==--

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.
--==++AJC++==--