Passengers Aboard Flight Delayed 18 Hours

On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 23:22:11 +0100 "Sjoerd" wrote:

:"Binyamin Dissen" schreef in bericht
. ..

: Obviously the US has other classes (other than "guilty", whatever that is)
:of
: people that they would prefer not visit the USA.

:The US also has more and more classes of people that would prefer not visit
:the USA.

I also prefer that your neo-nazi buddies stay in Europe.

--
Binyamin Dissen
http://www.dissensoftware.com

Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.

I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.

As my final note on this thread I'll pass along the experience related
to me by an older married couple of my acquaintance concerning one of
their flights a couple of years ago on (I think it was) BA.

Flight was longish (maybe trans-Atlantic), delayed in taking off, then
as it neared the end of its flight had to divert temporarily due to
weather to some alternative airport an hour away from its intended
destination, which had all gates occupied and no suitable air stairs for
their aircraft.

At some point after an hour or so on the ground the cabin crew secured
and locked up the galley, strapped themselves into their crew seats, and
absolutely refused to respond to _any_ requests from passengers for
_anything at all_ (including several parents asking to heat formulas for
infants).

Reason given: Their _union mandated_ work time had been reached, and
they would have been subject to union fines had they rendered any
further services to the passengers.

(Hard to believe this is not an urban legend -- but I heard it straight
from a much-traveled older couple whom I know well and whose accuracy I
trust.)

(What happened when they were able to take off a few hours later -- that
is, how safety requirements relative to cabin crew were met -- I can't
say. I'll have to ask them.)

As my final note on this thread I'll pass along the experience related
to me by an older married couple of my acquaintance concerning one of
their flights a couple of years ago on (I think it was) BA.

Flight was longish (maybe trans-Atlantic), delayed in taking off, then
as it neared the end of its flight had to divert temporarily due to
weather to some alternative airport an hour away from its intended
destination, which had all gates occupied and no suitable air stairs for
their aircraft.

At some point after an hour or so on the ground the cabin crew secured
and locked up the galley, strapped themselves into their crew seats, and
absolutely refused to respond to _any_ requests from passengers for
_anything at all_ (including several parents asking to heat formulas for
infants).

Reason given: Their _union mandated_ work time had been reached, and
they would have been subject to union fines had they rendered any
further services to the passengers.

(Hard to believe this is not an urban legend -- but I heard it straight
from a much-traveled older couple whom I know well and whose accuracy I
trust.)

(What happened when they were able to take off a few hours later -- that
is, how safety requirements relative to cabin crew were met -- I can't
say. I'll have to ask them.)

Binyamin Dissen wrote:

On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 23:22:11 +0100 "Sjoerd"
wrote:

:"Binyamin Dissen" schreef in bericht
. ..

: Obviously the US has other classes (other than "guilty", whatever that
is)
:of
: people that they would prefer not visit the USA.

:The US also has more and more classes of people that would prefer not
visit
:the USA.

I also prefer that your neo-nazi buddies stay in Europe.


Not to worry - Sjoerd and his ilk prefer holidaying in such paragons of
human rights as Myanmar and Cuba...

--
Best
Greg

Binyamin Dissen wrote:

On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 23:22:11 +0100 "Sjoerd"
wrote:

:"Binyamin Dissen" schreef in bericht
. ..

: Obviously the US has other classes (other than "guilty", whatever that
is)
:of
: people that they would prefer not visit the USA.

:The US also has more and more classes of people that would prefer not
visit
:the USA.

I also prefer that your neo-nazi buddies stay in Europe.


Not to worry - Sjoerd and his ilk prefer holidaying in such paragons of
human rights as Myanmar and Cuba...

--
Best
Greg

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 12:50:44 -0700, "Clark W. Griswold, Jr."
wrote:

Malcolm Weir wrote:

"d) Emergency or forced landing. Should any aircraft carrying
passengers or crew required to be inspected under the Immigration and
Nationality Act make a forced landing in the United States, the
commanding officer or person in command shall not allow any passenger
or crewman thereon to depart from the landing place without permission
of an immigration officer, unless such departure is necessary for
purposes of safety or the preservation of life or property. As soon as
practicable, the commanding officer or person in command, or the owner
of the aircraft, shall communicate with the nearest immigration
officer and make a full report of the circumstances of the flight and
of the emergency or forced landing."

And it might be relevant to note that "landing place" is not necessarily the
aircraft.

Very true....

But as an exercise for the reader, note who gets the responsibility
for ensuring that no-one departs the landing place, and consider
whether that individual has any power over anything but the
aircraft...

Malc.

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 12:50:44 -0700, "Clark W. Griswold, Jr."
wrote:

Malcolm Weir wrote:

"d) Emergency or forced landing. Should any aircraft carrying
passengers or crew required to be inspected under the Immigration and
Nationality Act make a forced landing in the United States, the
commanding officer or person in command shall not allow any passenger
or crewman thereon to depart from the landing place without permission
of an immigration officer, unless such departure is necessary for
purposes of safety or the preservation of life or property. As soon as
practicable, the commanding officer or person in command, or the owner
of the aircraft, shall communicate with the nearest immigration
officer and make a full report of the circumstances of the flight and
of the emergency or forced landing."

And it might be relevant to note that "landing place" is not necessarily the
aircraft.

Very true....

But as an exercise for the reader, note who gets the responsibility
for ensuring that no-one departs the landing place, and consider
whether that individual has any power over anything but the
aircraft...

Malc.

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 15:01:32 -0500, nobody wrote:

Malcolm Weir wrote:
officer or person in command shall not allow any passenger or crewman
thereon to depart from the landing place without permission of an
immigration officer,

Not at all. NW was required by US law to refuse to let them
disembark, and as such litigation on *those* grounds would fail.


Landing place != aircraft.

Yes. And how, exactly, does the officer or person in command secure
anything else *apart* from the aircraft?

The way I read it, the NW crew could have allowed deplaning as long as the
crew ensured no passenger left the "landing place". I could see one FA
bringing 5 pax to washrooms inside terminal at a time, and bringing them back
to airplane vicinity (or inside aircraft).

Outside the aircraft, the NW crew have ZERO jurisdiction. Inside,
they're covered by federal regulations the preclude interfering with
them in the exercise of their duty (e.g. the duty to prevent people
departing).

The definition of "landing place" is important here.

Sure. As is the definition of "person in command".

Perhaps what passengeers need when travelling on northwest is to have the full
on-line FARs and anoy other relevant regulations so that theyc ould consult
them and them show them to the crew to give the crew the ability/confidence
that they can do something about the situation.

Or perhaps not.

By the way, the Code of Federal Regulations are distinct from the
FARs.

Malc.

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 15:01:32 -0500, nobody wrote:

Malcolm Weir wrote:
officer or person in command shall not allow any passenger or crewman
thereon to depart from the landing place without permission of an
immigration officer,

Not at all. NW was required by US law to refuse to let them
disembark, and as such litigation on *those* grounds would fail.


Landing place != aircraft.

Yes. And how, exactly, does the officer or person in command secure
anything else *apart* from the aircraft?

The way I read it, the NW crew could have allowed deplaning as long as the
crew ensured no passenger left the "landing place". I could see one FA
bringing 5 pax to washrooms inside terminal at a time, and bringing them back
to airplane vicinity (or inside aircraft).

Outside the aircraft, the NW crew have ZERO jurisdiction. Inside,
they're covered by federal regulations the preclude interfering with
them in the exercise of their duty (e.g. the duty to prevent people
departing).

The definition of "landing place" is important here.

Sure. As is the definition of "person in command".

Perhaps what passengeers need when travelling on northwest is to have the full
on-line FARs and anoy other relevant regulations so that theyc ould consult
them and them show them to the crew to give the crew the ability/confidence
that they can do something about the situation.

Or perhaps not.

By the way, the Code of Federal Regulations are distinct from the
FARs.

Malc.

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 15:08:43 -0500, nobody wrote:

Malcolm Weir wrote:
No-one deemed Cat Stevens guilty of anything. They just denied him
entry. Ridiculously dramatically, I agree, but nations (not just the
USA) can, and do, deny entry for all sorts of reasons.

This is where the USA is blurring the lines. Cat Stevens was not denied entry.

Yes, he was, and pretending otherwise is stupid of you.

He was arrested probablty under suspicious of terrorist activity (patriot act
allows police to arrest anyone without cause by just using that excuse) and
deported back to UK.

You're wrong. Cause is required. And, apparently, it exists, but
they're not telling us what the cause is.

They forced the plane down prematurely, arrested him,
kept him in prison until they could arrange transport back to UK from Maine
where he was held.

You're confused. They detained him in a detention facility.

And then repatriated him.

Denying entry simply means that when person reaches the immigration desk at
her destination airport, the agent refuses entry and she is then accompanied
to the next flight back home.

No, that's how some countries do it, but if the next flight is not
until 7 days, don't delude yourself into thinking that, say, the UK
would NOT detain someone in a secure facility.

That person is not arrested nor kept in a
prison, nor handcuffed nor deprived of any human dignity.

Don't be fatuous. Do you *really* want to allege that if the next
flight is not for a week, the UK would happily let the individual
wander around without restriction?

Are you *that* naive?

Denied entry means
the person never actually enters the USA and thus is never under USA
jurisdiction and is protected under international treaties to which the USA
has agreed to enforce on the airside side of airport.

Interesting in theory, but in practice total nonsense and unsupported
by anything approximating law.

Go read the damn law on the subject. It's not difficult. Here's a
hint: 8 CFR.

Malc.