PDA

View Full Version : Continued U.S interfering with foreign airlines


Pages : 1 [2]

El Grifo
12th Jan 2004, 06:22
There is a lot of justifiable anger and frustration within this thread, aimed at the Americans.

If we, their allies and friends feel this way. Imagine how their enemies must feel. It makes their position ever so slightly easier to comprehend

Sadly, the USA has a very steep hill to climb before it will ever regain the respect it held, prior to the George W Bush days.

:confused:

411A
12th Jan 2004, 06:52
ElGrifo,
No, you and others will toe the practical USA line, because IF you don't, rather big problems will develop.

In short, you WILL do as you are told, like it or not....and many will not.

Tough beans.

Tony_EM
12th Jan 2004, 07:06
411A , does it not strike you as ironic, that posts just like that one is the very thing that is destroying the support and respect America once had?

BTW, personally, I will NOT do what the USG or its subjects tell me to do, on principle. If that means staying away from the USof A, then it is little price to pay for freedom from oppression.

El Grifo
12th Jan 2004, 07:17
411A, your statement is revealing and very worrying, I rest my case.
:ooh: :yuk:

stagger
12th Jan 2004, 08:19
I'm not a professional aviator - but a scientist. A couple of years ago I was seriously considering moving to work in the US - but given the current climate that's looking increasingly unlikely. As a non-citizen living in the US the Dept of Homeland Security would no doubt make my life as difficult as possible. I hate to think what it would be like if I was a scientist from a non-Western country.

411A – you want to talk about big problems developing? Well over many decades the US academic and scientific community has been invigorated by the flow of highly qualified immigrants from overseas. Much of your nation's economic, industrial and military power has been derived from the work of people born outside the US who chose to come and work there.

I don't for one minute believe that I would be a great loss to the US - but there are thousands of good scientists who would be - and the way things are going many just won't come.

Huck
12th Jan 2004, 10:37
Stagger - don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Much of what you read here is anecdotal. Come see for yourself.
And I can't believe you lot let 411 wind you like you do. He is the USA's revenge for the (departed) Guvnor, I guess.

411A
12th Jan 2004, 10:57
stagger,
rest assured, you won't be missed.

Tony-EM, stay away if you must, but on the other hand, Blair (Americas lap dog, it would appear) will do what is required, and you indeed will not have much to say about it...unless you vote him out of office, an unlikely scenario, at best.
As for Howard...he will do as he is told as well.

Europeans (and this includes the UK) will just have to accept the fact that America calls the shots these days...and has the fortitude to back up its opinions.

Have personally been of the opinion that the USA should keep its oar in its own waters ....but if necessary to extend same elsewhere, it will do so....period.
Get used to it.

Wino
12th Jan 2004, 17:22
BJCC,

Sorry was out on a trip so I couldn't get back to you right away.

So lets for the sake of arguements say that the year is 1998 and the government wants to grant Airworld, and Airworld only the right to have airmarshals on their aircraft. So they ammend the ANO to put an asterix in and it says "Airworld" is exempt.

Now Airworld rebrands 3 times in 3 years (they did by the way). Do they have to get back every year and do that? How does that make sense? Instead a letter of exemption would be issued for the duration of the operating certificate and its successors... The ANO would be an absolute mess if it was done your way. Imagine having to go through it every year and change the name of every rebranded airline for every little waiver or exemption...

The way you are proposing would seam to be unworkable.

I am sure that there are areas of the ANO that are quite specific about things such as flying low. Yet I am also sure that there are powerline inspection planes holding various waivers of the ANO that allow them to violate the low flying provisions to do their job. (there must be, it can't be done any otherway) Again, I am sure the operator would hold the waiver of the ANO, rather than the ANO holding the waiver of the operator...

Cheers
Wino

Nigel Molesworth
13th Jan 2004, 01:39
411A

Answer my previous question .....

The UK has got a "Special Relationship" with the US of A - your President said so and so does our President (Rt Hon Member for Texas North).

So that makes it OK; why do you have to apply your silly rules and procedures to us, jolly good British chaps. We should be exempt,
and we should be allowed to que for the toilet.

Luv

Nige

PPRuNe Radar
13th Jan 2004, 01:58
The freedom to queue is in the British Constitution isn't it ??? :p

Faire d'income
13th Jan 2004, 02:22
411A is absolutely spot on. The Bush Admin will tell countries what they want them to do regardless of International Law their internal laws or the democratic wishes of their populations. It has nothing to do with security, terrorism or any political ideal.

The school bully will take everyone else's lunch money, its as simple as that. Nigel Molesworth...trying to make friends with the bully is the standard reaction and always ends in tears. :bored:

411A
13th Jan 2004, 07:19
Nigel M,

This 'queue/or not' lav business will fade away rather quickly, don't let youself (as many others do) get all in a lather, it simlpy will not do anything but fan the fires of discontent.

The USA has taken a rather public pro-active stance about worldwide aviation/airline terrorism, and it seems to have a few noses out of joint.
It comes, sad to say, with the territory of being the worlds policeman....something Europe (except Blair/UK) have been unable to understand.
Even Europe (except the UK and a very few others, Spain for example) seem unable to keep the plot, the others will need to just 'go with the flow', or follow along waaaay behind.

paulo
13th Jan 2004, 22:05
Can one of our US friends tell us whether Tom Ridge is more a politician or a security guy? e.g. Was he doing his current job under the previous administration, or is he part of the republican machine?

Not trying to fish for an argument per se, just trying to get a handle on the players here.

Lu Zuckerman
13th Jan 2004, 22:34
To Paulo

Tom Ridge was the Governor of the State of Pennsylvania when George Bush tapped him for the head of Homeland Security. He had no previous experience in the position. It has been mostly on-the job training. The functions of Homeland Security increased at a very rapid rate far beyond anyone’s capability to grasp the various areas of responsibility. Add to that mix the fact that the lines of communication between the various departments are yet to be established.

:E :E

homesick rae
14th Jan 2004, 00:48
The Lav announcement was made on my flight BOS-CLT/ CLT-LGW, but not on the return from LGW PHL and on to BOS.

What concerns me more is that the ICTS guy at the US Airways check-in asked me the usual security questions and a few more...very thorough, which is good...but he also pointed out that I will need a new passport by October even though it expires in May 2008!!! Now that REALLY p****s me off!

What right have they to insist that a foreign national (who is living in the US) should give up a perfectly valid passport? I'm all for security and all that, but they have my fingerprints and photo graph on their records what more do they need?:mad: :mad:

Grandpa
14th Jan 2004, 01:23
They need your DNA, the shape of your iris for the moment.
Next....: may be your religion, which dance you practice, have you been in holiday in Morocco, do you eat French or Freedom fries, which is your favorite position with your(s) partner(s), how long can you stay eyes opened in front of american TV channels, do you laugh or cry when you have to watch Big Brother Dubya....?

stagger
14th Jan 2004, 01:35
homesick rae

My understanding of the new rule for British passports is that it simply means that IF you have a passport issued after October 26th it must contain biometric information or else you'll need a visa.

However, if the passport is issued before October 26th it doesn't have to contain biometric information for you to continue using the visa waiver scheme.

The US Embassy website states.... Those travelers who use passports issued after October 26, 2004, that do not contain a biometric identifier, will be required to obtain a U.S. visa. That visa will contain biometric information. Those UK travelers who use machine-readable passports lacking a biometric chip but issued before October 26, 2004 will be able to continue to use the Visa Waiver Program until that passport expires. http://www.usembassy.org.uk/ukpa08jan04.html

InTheAir
14th Jan 2004, 05:20
Just pulled this of NBC:

Report: All Air Fliers To Be Assigned Threat Ranking

POSTED: 6:09 AM CST January 12, 2004
UPDATED: 6:38 AM CST January 12, 2004

WASHINGTON -- As early as next month, the government could order airlines and airline ticket bookers to hand over all their passenger records.

The Washington Post reported that the government is moving ahead with plans for background checks, despite a lack of cooperation from airlines.

The computerized system would assign all travelers a number and a color code that ranks their potential threat. A separate program would speed business travelers and other frequent fliers through security lines if they volunteered personal information.

Critics say the system of background checks will create two classes of airline passengers. People who are not U.S. citizens could face additional questioning. But the Transportation Security Administration says even people classified as "trusted travelers" will have to go through security screening at airports.

http://www.nbc5.com/travelgetaways/2757093/detail.html

"Hello there Mr Peachy-orange-345, please step this way" :\ :ouch:

homesick rae
14th Jan 2004, 06:36
Stagger, thanks for that! That's what I thought. I tried to explain this to the security guy, explaining that I have a visa..he even handed me the I-94...it certainly threw me for a bit I must admit.
I guess that I can "carry on as normal" then?

cb9002
14th Jan 2004, 09:39
As a biochemist who just finished a research contract at a US medical school, I can promise you that your feelings are shared by many

Fellowship holders and other talented staff have been turned away after going home for holidays, visas are taking many months to come through and have been issued with conflicting conditions by USCIS (formerly BCIS, formerly INS - three name changes in as many years, what does that say?).

Now, like the other foreign workers the US depends on, we have to get fingerprinted etc... foreign applications to my place of work are down significantly and probably to others too.

Science is definitely feeling the downturn. I can't believe that other industries aren't as affected. By the way, my car license plate used to say "Live Free or Die". Ironic, isn't it?

Jim Morehead
14th Jan 2004, 16:40
I am sure glad that these big developments have given some something to whine about. I just came into LAX tonight and I did not have to do the fingerprinting nor the camera thing as a US citizen. Everybody including crew has to do it once and it is no big deal. The customs lady was very pleasant as was the crew. They may not ahve been happy,but this is the price of freedom as deemed by some.

Perhaps if you don't like camera, you might get sick (as I do) of looking at the idiot terrorists as they were photographed going through BOS, PWM, or wherever they boarded airplanes prior to hijacking when they stole two United and two American Airlines airplanes. Perhaps you didn't know any of the pilots, the crew members, any of the passengers nor anyone who died in NYC or Washington or Pennsylvania. Maybe if you did, you would feel different.

And on the other posting about have to make the announcement about non-congregating in big areas, I did my first one and it was no big deal. It may not do much,but I just did it in the middle of some other public nservice announcements.

bjcc
14th Jan 2004, 17:25
Wino

You misunderstand, I am not proposing anything, thats what UK Legislation says on the subject.

To Grant an exception the the legislation would be changed to empower the CAA or the Sec of State for Transport to issue exceptions as they see fit, thus avoiding the problem of constant change of name as you give in your example. As things are at the moment, I can't find any such power to issue an exception contained in this act.

What you are suggesting things are like at the moment would be like saying a theft is against the law, but if you can get a dispensation from the Goverment to say in your specific case its not.

Its more of a worry to me that a private security company seems to be the ones providing sky marshalls, and if they are to be armed that is a huge step beyond the norm in the UK, where there are still very few Police armed.

stagger
14th Jan 2004, 17:32
Jim wrote...Perhaps if you don't like camera, you might get sick (as I do) of looking at the idiot terrorists as they were photographed going through BOS, PWM, or wherever they boarded airplanes prior to hijacking when they stole two United and two American Airlines airplanes. Perhaps you didn't know any of the pilots, the crew members, any of the passengers nor anyone who died in NYC or Washington or Pennsylvania. Maybe if you did, you would feel different.

A relative of mine was killed in the World Trade Center on Sept 11th. That doesn't make any difference to the fact that I think things like the "no congregation" rule are idiotic and pointless.

soothfast
15th Jan 2004, 01:04
Could cause issues with DVT keep your body constantly moving throughout the flight .:confused:

Grandpa
15th Jan 2004, 01:28
....made his first announcement (no congregating...) and "it was no big deal".
Did you go in passenger's cabin then Jim?
How many hours of flight endure your passengers without congregating to have a chance to reach toilets on time?
You are entitled to make any announcement approved by FBI, such as:
"It's forbidden to breathe"...
The problem is not to announce any ukase, it's how it's carried out when the loudspeaker has got back to silence.
If everybody is complying with your orders, it's OK, you managed to have the human race climb another step on Darwin's stairs when they are able to control themselves as they never did before!
If your rules are ignored, you are just ridiculous and US Administration too.