Passengers Aboard Flight Delayed 18 Hours

"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

"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

"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

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.

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

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

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

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

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®

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®