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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
"JohnT" schreef in bericht ... "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. Regardless of citizenship, I'd rather be denied entry than enjoy a free holiday of unlimited duration at Guantanamo. Sjoerd |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
"JohnT" schreef in bericht ... "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. Regardless of citizenship, I'd rather be denied entry than enjoy a free holiday of unlimited duration at Guantanamo. Sjoerd |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
JohnT wrote:
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? Nop. On an international flight, there are no nationalities. Nationality is only ascertained once you get off the plane and go through immigration. Until that time, there is nobody empowered to verify your passport and grant you entry or not into a country. The real fault here lies with the northwest pilot and/or Northwest operations. The plane should have diverted to a "real" airport capable of handling an international flight well before its fuel was so low that it had to land at the nearest airfield knowing that passengers there would be emprisoned due to lack of immigration/customs facilities. (and the USA should really apply some standard to the use of the word "international airport" which should apply only to airports with real customs/immigration facilities. Secondly, if landing at that run of the mill airfield was truly the only option, then the plane shoudl have refueled and gone from there to a real airport, clear the pax, and then, hope seattle was re-opened and fly the pax domestically to seattle. Northwest seems to consistently make such large and stupid mistakes, so I find it amazing that they are relatively well off compared to Untied and US Air. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
In message , at 12:45:57 on
Fri, 31 Dec 2004, AJC remarked: 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. There are many things that "could" be done in an hour. The airline industry seems to regularly fail to achieve this. I once spent over an hour on a BA plane at Gatwick (which had gone tech before takeoff) waiting for the airline to find their arse (sorry, a bus to take us to the terminal) with both hands... I'm sure they "could" have found one in a few minutes, it's not as if Gatwick is short of buses. -- Roland Perry |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
In message , at 12:45:57 on
Fri, 31 Dec 2004, AJC remarked: 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. There are many things that "could" be done in an hour. The airline industry seems to regularly fail to achieve this. I once spent over an hour on a BA plane at Gatwick (which had gone tech before takeoff) waiting for the airline to find their arse (sorry, a bus to take us to the terminal) with both hands... I'm sure they "could" have found one in a few minutes, it's not as if Gatwick is short of buses. -- Roland Perry |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
In message , at 13:32:52 on Fri, 31 Dec
2004, JohnT remarked: 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? Yes, bit only through the correct channels. Which in this case is *not* across the tarmac at a rural airport. You seem to forget that the USA now treats all arriving passengers as potential terrorists, even those who turn out to have US passports. -- Roland Perry |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
In message , at 13:32:52 on Fri, 31 Dec
2004, JohnT remarked: 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? Yes, bit only through the correct channels. Which in this case is *not* across the tarmac at a rural airport. You seem to forget that the USA now treats all arriving passengers as potential terrorists, even those who turn out to have US passports. -- Roland Perry |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
A Thu, 30 Dec 2004 10:03:31 -0700, "Larry R Harrison Jr"
escribió: 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. And that would be KIDNAPPING. You are mistaken. Government officials are supposed to maintain secure areas secure. Kidnapping describes a felony, committed by a criminal, not a control action taken by an authorized official. I don't care what the law says. Denial of truth doesn't make your fantasy true. How can we get this changed? Eliminate all hate in the world. -- bicker® |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
A Thu, 30 Dec 2004 15:05:12 -0800, Malcolm Weir
escribió: 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. Then you're stupid. Using legal terms and then claiming you don't care what the law says is the mark of an idiot. And this is really the key point. It is one thing to not like something, or to object to it on principle. The problem here is denying reality, and then claiming that people who don't deny reality are the ones who have something wrong with them. It hubris and psychosis all wrapped up together. -- bicker® |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 12:09 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 |