Passengers Aboard Flight Delayed 18 Hours

Malcolm Weir wrote:
(Miguel Cruz) wrote:
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.

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.

Had the plane landed in MSP, all passengers would have cleared
immigration before continuing to SEA.

Yeah, sorry, for some reason I'd gotten it into my head that the nonstop to
Seattle came down in Minneapolis and sat on the tarmac there for 18 hours.
But it didn't.

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

Larry R Harrison Jr wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...layed_flight_1

You probably already have heard about that--people weren't allowed to leave
the plane for some 18 hours while numerous things kept proper procedures
delayed.

My question is: isn't this kidnapping? It seems it surely could be called
that. Another thing--I recently flew (I rarely do) and I was fortunate to be
seated next to the emergency exit. Couldn't someone have just opened that
and taken off? One thing is for sure--that is absolutely what I would have
done. It's ridiculous to think anyone is supposed to just sit there & wait
18 HOURS while they straighten out their own nonsense.

Comments?

LRH



Interesting that it was a flight from Amsterdam that was treated in such
a way.

From the article: "Passengers initially were not allowed to get off the
plane because the Grant County International Airport was not equipped to
screen international travelers."

I'd suspect that had the flight originated somewhere else - Toronto
Canada perhaps, or maybe Frankfurt Germany, the rules might have been
bent to allow passengers off the plane and processed in some manner.
But one can guess that in the US the assumption is that any flight from
Amsterdam must have passengers carrying illegal substances, and so they
must have not only INS officials in place but also drug sniffing dogs
and FBI agents.

Farfetched? Not really. French authorities place trains from Holland
under much greater scrutiny than trains from Italy, Germany, Spain,
Belgium, or other nations. (Learned this firsthand as a college student).

AJC wrote:

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.


Most small - town US cops are fairly bumbling and inept (think "Keystone
Kops")...handling this situation would have surely been beyond their
capabilities (or even understanding).

--
Best
Greg

Sjoerd wrote:

Regardless of citizenship, I'd rather be denied entry than enjoy a free
holiday of unlimited duration at Guantanamo.


Why Sjoerd I think you'd like Gitmo, I'm surprised you haven't petitioned
the Pentagon to make it your permanent domicile. Just think of all the fun
you could have with those young Muslim guys, you'd be squealing like a
stuffed pig :-)

--
Best
Greg

"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.


dennis

"AJC" wrote in message
...
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++==--

But will local police be willing to do the work for the Feds? Especially
since they probably would not be reimbursed.

dennis

"AJC" wrote in message
...
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++==--

But will local police be willing to do the work for the Feds? Especially
since they probably would not be reimbursed.

dennis

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 21:25:26 -0500, "Dennis G. Rears"
wrote:

"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?

Yes.

In Nov, 1999 I flew from AKL-LAX.

Things change. Does the date September 11, 2001 mean anything to you?

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.

Yep. They used to do that at HNL a lot. But even back then, HNL was
a bit of a special case, and did things that wouldn't have been
permitted in the lower 48 (ANC was a similar case to HNL).

The rationale for the exceptions was that HNL and ANC were used
extensively for tech stops at one stage.

dennis

Malc.

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 21:25:26 -0500, "Dennis G. Rears"
wrote:

"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?

Yes.

In Nov, 1999 I flew from AKL-LAX.

Things change. Does the date September 11, 2001 mean anything to you?

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.

Yep. They used to do that at HNL a lot. But even back then, HNL was
a bit of a special case, and did things that wouldn't have been
permitted in the lower 48 (ANC was a similar case to HNL).

The rationale for the exceptions was that HNL and ANC were used
extensively for tech stops at one stage.

dennis

Malc.

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 12:10:56 -0500, nobody wrote:

*bicker* wrote:
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.

Sorry, but detaining anyone against their will without any legal reason is
kidnapping.

Nope. Unlawful detention is what you mean.

The USA government may wrap itself into its onw flag, but the
kidnapped victims are Gantanamo have been detained against their will, without
any legal reason,

The United States Supreme Court disagree with you. And, kiddo,
they're pretty good at that "legal reason" stuff.

haven't been charged with any crime and have been tortured.

Maybe on the latter. The actual facts are somewhat in dispute.

I'm no fan of the Guantanamo situation, but there's a difference
between thinking that the legal argument is unsound and the claim that
there is no legal argument.

Not only that, but they were taken from their place of residence against their
will and transported across the world where they are kept in dog cages and
treated as dogs.

They are not kept in dog cages.

At some stage and to some degree, detention without trial is a
necessary part of civilization. No-one would reasonably object to
detention for a matter of hours (e.g. until the next business day)...
and I think most of the civilized word would begin to ask questions if
the detention lasts months or years.

The problem with Guantamo Bay is not the detention, the
transportation, or the conditions so much as the absence of a legal
process that the detainees can work within.

Malc.