US government bans toilet queues

"jcoulter" wrote in message
. 199.17...
Furthermore the US government must generally give permission to be sued.
In a case of "national security" don't hold your breath, witness the
years of waiting for reparations for the Japanese American detainees
from WWII.

I wonder what would happen if if countries let their citizens sue the USA
in thier courts. The USA allowed USA citizens to sue Cuba in American
courts. I would like to see Australia let thier citizens sue the USA in OZ
courts. If Aussies are successful they could then attach USA assets in OZ.

dennis

but only for forward toilets
"PTRAVEL" wrote in message
...
Most US airlines that I've flown recently have implemented the same
procedure.


"Arthur Jackson" wrote in message
...
Just when you thought they'd got as silly as they could get............


http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...268035697.html


US wants Qantas passengers to be toilet-trained.

Qantas passengers have been ordered not to queue outside toilets while
making the 14-hour flight to and from the United States.

The directive was issued late yesterday by the US Transport and Security
Administration, which is demanding that pilots make a pre-flight
announcement banning passengers from "congregating in groups around
toilets
or anywhere else in the aircraft".

Flight attendants will be expected to police the toilets, including
checking
every two hours for "suspicious packages".

Qantas last night confirmed the directive, which has also been issued to
flights travelling to and from Europe.

The chief executive of the Board of Airline Representatives of
Australia,
Warren Bennett, said the decision bordered on American paranoia. He said
it
would place "enormous stress" on flight crew.

"Passengers are caught between a rock and a hard place. On one hand they
are
advised to move around an aircraft during flights for health reasons but
now
they are being told not to congregate. It doesn't make sense," he said.

Despite the massive upgrade in airborne security, the flights between
Australia and the US will continue without sky marshals for the time
being.



Qantas spokeswoman Jodie Taylor said discussions were continuing with
the
US
but no request for marshals on US-bound flights had yet been made.
Meanwhile, Qantas confirmed yesterday that it was providing information
on
passengers to the US Department of Homeland Security.

Ms Taylor said it was supplying passenger lists "and other information"
but
declined to reveal details. Passenger lists include names, departure
points,
destination and most likely nationalities.

She said Qantas was supplying the information because it was its policy
"to
comply with the regulation requirements of foreign governments where we
operate".

Australia's Privacy Commissioner, Malcolm Crompton, said last night: "It
is
important to find the right balance in respecting privacy while ensuring
security."

He said Qantas's action conformed to the federal Privacy Act but
collecting
private information for security purposes needed to be secure, with
access
restricted and an accountability process in place.

"Dennis G. Rears" wrote in
:


"jcoulter" wrote in message
. 199.17...
Furthermore the US government must generally give permission to be
sued. In a case of "national security" don't hold your breath,
witness the years of waiting for reparations for the Japanese
American detainees from WWII.

I wonder what would happen if if countries let their citizens sue
the USA
in thier courts. The USA allowed USA citizens to sue Cuba in American
courts. I would like to see Australia let thier citizens sue the USA
in OZ courts. If Aussies are successful they could then attach USA
assets in OZ.

dennis




OZ would likely not go along as the resulting diplomatic war among
traditional allies and trading partners would be devastating. Cuba could
reciprocate but since there are no trade ties . . .

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 21:16:39 -0500, Fly Guy wrote:

Arthur Jackson wrote:

Just when you thought they'd got as silly as they could get.......

Does this apply to all flights to/from/within the US, or just Quantas?

I was not aware that Quantas flew to the US.

Dave

=====

NSW Rural Fire Service - become a volunteer today.

http://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/

In article ,
Go Fig wrote:

In article , Fly Guy wrote:

Casey wrote:

Furthermore the US government must generally give permission
to be sued. In a case of "national security" don't hold your
breath ...

And before this thread degrades to the usual American bashing

The bashing has yet to begin. Forget the WW2 thing with the Japs.

Please explain a more recent, perhaps more insidious behavior of the
US gov't wrt to it's citizens.

I refer to US citizens who have sued Iran and Iraq over their
treatment by those countries (the former during the Iranian hostage
taking and the latter the treatment given to some POW's during the
1991 Gulf war). In both cases, US courts have awarded dammages to US
citizens that were to be paid out of Iranian and Iraqi assets frozen
by the US gov't. In both cases the US gov't argued on behalf of the
defendants and in the end quashed the rulings and denied the
plaintiffs the awards.

Again, please explain why the US gov't defended Iran and Iraq in these
situations to the detriment of it's own citizens (and soldiers!).

They haven't. The judgements stand, it is just they don't have access
to the assets frozen in the U.S... In the case if Iraq, that money has
been returned to the iraq. Some of it is being used for reconstruction
purposes though. The plaintiffs have gotten a bad deal IMO.


Bush had o ther designs on the money -- needed it to pay Halliburton

to add insult to injury his flak repeatedly mouthed the ridiculous
phrase [to paraphrase] 'no amount of money can compensate these
citizens for their suffering' i.e. the President has decided that
although you were tortured and have been awarded these funds you are SOL

"S Viemeister" wrote in message
...
Steve wrote:

Additionally, upon returning to the US with this recent trip, there were
additional security policies in place which included an ID check in the
jetway in order to deplane and full secondary US customs for all ~300
passengers on the flight. I made it though quickly and jumped queue as
a
business class passenger, but it took others hours to get through
secondary
US customs and most passengers missed their connecting flights (and had
to
overnight at DTW).

What do you mean by 'secondary US Customs'?

When you clear US Customs upon entering the United States, as long as you
have nothing to declare, you are typically waived through after picking up
your luggage. Some passengers will be profiled or randomly subjected to
secondary, which requires they unload their luggage onto a belt (or table)
and endure a full baggage check and additional questioning before being
allowed to proceed. The process involves all suitcases, carry-ons, etc.,
being opened, unpacked and searched.

On my flight, ALL PASSENGERS were forced to queue up and one-by one go
through the complete (secondary) US Customs inspection, which included the
opening & searching of ALL baggage, emptying of pockets, etc., in addition
to extra questioning. No one had the option of lining up to exit in the
green line with "nothing to decare"... in other words, everyone got the full
treatment, so to speak.

To do this with a full load of pax from just one widebody aircraft takes
*hours*.

Steve

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 17:40:56 -0800, "PTRAVEL"
wrote:


"Peter L" wrote in message
...

"PTRAVEL" wrote in message
...
Most US airlines that I've flown recently have implemented the same
procedure.

I have not encountered that. What's the purpose?

I assume to prevent terrorists from massing in the aisles. It's happened on
board United and Continental flights that I've taken recently.

Ridiculousness, what happens come morning on an overnight flight when
everyone needs to go?

What threat scenario is it supposed to protect against anyway?

Jim.

We wouldn't have this problem of people congregating around the lavs
if the passengers could have learned to be more efficient and
considerate about using them. I see airplane bathrooms as places I do
not want to spend much time in. I'm in and out. However, it seems
like 99% of passengers on a plane spend at least 5 minutes a pop in
the bathroom. I can't iamgine what they're doing in there that takes
so long. It is as if one person takes forever and then the next
person feels he/she can take forever since he/she has earned that
right by waiting for so long. I know it is hard to force people to
keep thier bathroom time short. Perhaps they should post a policy on
the bathroom walls saying that people shou;ld be considerate and keep
their time in there to a minimum.

"Gene J. Yao" wrote:

I can't iamgine what they're doing in there that takes so long.

The 1/2 mile high club, perhaps?

Perhaps they should post a policy on the bathroom walls saying that
people shou;ld be considerate and keep their time in there to a minimum.

It would probably have as much effect as the signs that suggest keeping
the sink clean out of respect for other users.

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 21:05:51 GMT, James Robinson
wrote:

"Gene J. Yao" wrote:

I can't iamgine what they're doing in there that takes so long.

The 1/2 mile high club, perhaps?

Perhaps they should post a policy on the bathroom walls saying that
people shou;ld be considerate and keep their time in there to a minimum.

It would probably have as much effect as the signs that suggest keeping
the sink clean out of respect for other users.

The sign in there that gets me is the one that says "Do not drop
foreign objects into the toilet". Why the xenophobia? Don't locally
made objects block it just as much?