PDA

View Full Version : Toilet Queues a Terrorist Threat ??


pullock
7th Jan 2004, 06:53
Someone please tell me that this isn't true. My friend has told me that she has heard a lot of chat on talk back radio about airlines wanting to limit toilet queues on long haul flights to two people because more than that is a security threat.

People, it's time to stop living your lives in the fear that the security industry thrives on, and look at reality – I am yet to see an aeroplane disaster that was caused by long toilet queues

Icarus2001
7th Jan 2004, 08:53
I think you could even go one step further and ask if all the "new" security measures implemented since 11 Sept 2001 would have stopped the events of that day occurring?

The answer is a resounding NO.

On one point alone, broken wine bottles make effective weapons.

I am not saying we do nothing but some of the BS that DOTARS has thrown up is just ridiculous. There are more holes in the security net of aviation than you could list, or would want to list. We know where they are, Mr Anderson knows where they are. He needs to be seen to do something, anything. That is government mentality. So that when the next hijack occurs and it will. They can put their hand on their black heart and say that they did something. Ineffectual, misdirected, expensive and self-serving but they did something.

404 Titan
7th Jan 2004, 08:58
This is something that the US authorities have thought up, not the airlines or Australian authorities. If Dotars are mandating it, it is because of the US, yet again:

The following United States Government Security Directive has been received. This Directive is binding on ****** Airways as to outcome.

Quote:

'The pilot of the aircraft must make a pre-flight announcement requesting the cooperation of all passengers to not congregate in groups in any area of the aircraft cabin, especially around lavatories. The pilot should repeat the announcement in-flight, as the pilot deems appropriate.'

Unquote.

Action

Captains of all passenger flights originating in, transiting through or departing for the United States of America are to make the following Public Address Announcement:

'Ladies and Gentlemen, I am required by the United States Government to instruct you that congregating in groups in the aisle, galley or toilet areas during the flight is not permitted', or

words to that effect.

Hopefully, this will be the last of such mandated requirements.

Captain ******** ******
General Manager Operations

Northern Chique
7th Jan 2004, 09:22
other couple of remedies

.... put more loos in! especially out of Bali and Africa!!!!

increase the space between seats so you dont have to plan those loo breaks 1/2 hour before you need to clamber over the punters next to you ....

and for the lads.... no reading in the loos! :D

*Lancer*
7th Jan 2004, 09:56
The whole thing is ridiculous!

What about the almost 'self-serve' bar area now on Q (and a lot of other airlines)? BA has a self-serve snack bar! If it's not the toilets, it will be the aisles, or the bottom of the stairs, or the bulkheads...

Doesn't it contravene their own consitutional right to free assembly anyway?!

Wouldn't it be great if the airlines could just say NO.

Lancer

Wirraway
7th Jan 2004, 10:12
Wed "Sydney Morning Herald"

Attention, passengers: queuing for the loo is forbidden for 14 hours
By Robert Wainwright and Joseph Kerr
January 7, 2004

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

The directive was issued late yesterday by the US Transport and Security Administration, which is demanding 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".

Last night, Qantas confirmed the directive - also issued to flights travelling to and from Europe - without commenting on how it would affect thousands aboard the 37 flights each week to the US.

This came as the US began fingerprinting and photographing visitors from all but 28 exempted countries, Australia included, at 115 airports and 14 ports.

The chief executive of the Board of Airline Representatives of Australia, Warren Bennett, criticised the US directive on toilets.

"It gives the impression paranoia is taking over, and is going to place enormous stress on flight crew to be toilet police and serve passengers," Mr Bennett said.

"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."

In other developments, flights between Australia and the US will continue without sky marshals until at least next month.

Despite agreement on the marshals' necessity and cost, the Customs Minister, Chris Ellison, is preparing to go on holidays without finalising terms.

Qantas also signalled yesterday it would provide more up-to-date information on request about passengers travelling to the US.

Basic passenger manifests are provided routinely to the US after flights leave their originating ports, says Jock Ritch, a spokesman for CPS Systems, which screens Australia-bound passengers for the Federal Government.

In recent weeks the US has intensified its efforts to get information on incoming travellers by seeking passenger information on flights coming from foreign ports just before they leave, he said. Qantas's security chief, Geoff Askew, said the airline would provide passenger information to the US faster if required.

==========================================

DomeAir
7th Jan 2004, 13:00
I can just see the horror on FA's faces when the "Occupied" light extinguishes and there is a sudden rush for the lav by many people from several directions...a well thought out security enhancement... :hmm:

Ushuaia
7th Jan 2004, 13:03
The United States has completely lost the plot and bin Laden is sitting on the Afghan/Paki border laughing his head off at us all.....

:(

raft rower
7th Jan 2004, 13:16
Perhaps passengers could take a ticket and when it's your turn an announcement would be made over the P.A :O

If it only allows for one at a time, I guess the days of the 'Mile High Club' are numbered! :eek: :rolleyes:

lame
7th Jan 2004, 13:37
What on Earth is the logic for it anyway? :confused:

They want to prevent passengers from hanging around in groups, like the terrorists or someone are going to meet outside the toilets to plan their hijacking. :rolleyes:

IF they are serious, it would be more of a problem what passengers (terrorists) are doing IN the toilet, out of view. :sad:

They should instead bring in a rule that every time a passenger visits the toilet, they are accompanied by a crew member, to make sure that they are not up to anything. (pardon the pun). :ok:

Islander Jock
7th Jan 2004, 14:33
Ushuaia,

You summed it up exactly mate.

Why not modify the seat control consols to include a dunny request button which queues you to the next avaiable loo. Have an overhead display come up with your seat number to tell you it's you're turn. Too bad if you're in seat A or K (cattle class) during meal times though, it's a ****** moving all those drinks and meal trays as you try and scramble over your fellow travellers.

For those with a perhaps an alcohol or altitude induced case of constipation, will the skymarshals be kicking the dunny doors down with Gloks drawn? screaming "too long @arsehole, get back to your seat"


One has to wonder how is all this going to tie in with the airline health advisory wrt DVT prevention where it tells us to get up and take a walk at least every two hours. Not unusual for other pax doing the same to wander down the back where there is a bit of room to have a stretch and look out the window. Hmm maybe they will mandate only clockwise down the aisles (applicable to wide bodied jets only) to stop the possibility of two persons meeting, stopping and heaven forbid, discussing anything untowards.

Yup, Al Queda really achieved its aim.:mad:

Capt Claret
7th Jan 2004, 14:33
Talk about paranoia. Where's Ozzie & Black Sabbath????

This utter [email protected] makes Bill Leak's cartoon the the Weekend Australian all the more prophetic.

When are the American's going to wake up to what they're doing to the world. They'll be sh!t scared of their own shaddow soon. :mad: probably already are! :ooh:

kavu
8th Jan 2004, 02:53
The American's at their best.

If we can't meet in groups at the toilet then why are they seating us together in groups of hundreds?

Tell the Americans to F^CK OFF. They think they are the world police and world authority in EVERYTHING.

There's going too far and then you fall off the edge of the world and the yanks have certainly done that.

What next? Individual seats in fully enclosed cage? No more than 2 people seats next to each other with a row gap between them?

First the Air marshalls with their special bullets, now no congregating in groups? Come on and give us a break.
:mad: YANKS

Feeton Terrafirma
8th Jan 2004, 06:59
would be that the person next to you doesnt get to the dunny in time..... woof :yuk: .....and you have to put up with that for the rest of the flight!

The queues form just after the meal remains are collected, very predictably because 1/2 the pax are asleep :zzz: before that that and the other 1/2 can't get to the dunny with the food trolly blocking the aisle for a 1/2 hour prior to the food being delivered :* , then as someone pointed out, your stuck in your seat until the trays are collected again :uhoh: and the aisle is blocked by the trolly..... still :\

There is also the thought that many ppl get up and go for a walk, something to do with the advice about avoiding DVT and often these ppl gather in groups at the emergency exit doors, where there is a little space, and potentially something dangerous to do, like open the door! I havent heard of this mentioned yet? :ouch:

Wirraway
8th Jan 2004, 09:40
KDFX News

FLIGHT DISTURBANCE
Wednesday, January 07, 2004

A female passenger on an American Airlines flight from Miami to Los Angeles was taken into custody last night when the plane landed at LAX. Airport officials say the unidentified woman was aboard American Flight 823 when she reportedly attacked a flight attendant.

An airport official says the problem started when the attendant told the woman she couldn`t stand beside a lavatory near the cockpit due to security issues. That`s when a witness reportedly said he heard screaming and saw two women in a scuffle. The passenger was taken into custody by the FBI when the plane landed. She was released because the incident was not viewed as a security issue.

=========================================

kavu
8th Jan 2004, 11:03
So after the following incident that Wirraway reported they issue the statement about congesting outside a loo but after this incident they let it go because it wasn't considered a threat?

THe Yanks really need to start thinking for themselves and not let the bureaucratic (sp?) government make stupid decisions for them. It makes them both look dumb.

To follow on the same subject does this now mean that a family of say mum, dad and the two babies can't queue for toilet?

Do they think the baby will whip out his dummy and attack the nearest hostie?

pullock
8th Jan 2004, 11:30
The fact that the so-called civilised world is carrying on like this at all just shows that the terrorists have won. Terrorists win by dumb people acting merely on the threat of terror, and this is the best example of it.

I am glad to see so many people reading this and beginning to draw the line in the sand as to how much freedom governments can take from us.

Personally if a power mad FA came up to me and asked me not to congregate in groups, I would tell her to ****** off and go read George Orwells 1984.

ReadMyACARS
8th Jan 2004, 12:17
Few of points. First, if there is a terrorist has made it onto the aircraft and is intending to bomb the dunnies, there have been far more serious breaches of security occuring before the aircraft even moved. Same applies to having armed marshalls on aircraft. If the baddies have got that far given all the security in place, there are much bigger problems on the ground.

Second, this is no more stupid than the Australian Govt charging pilots $200 to pay for a security vetting prior to getting a new photo license. It implies that aust pilots are a security risk already.

Given the number of lavs available in some aircraft, especially 777's, it's basically a case of wait or wet. Those long flights to Dubai last year were the pits

RMA

Pinky the pilot
8th Jan 2004, 16:03
My only comment to this latest edict from some obviously non aviating intellectual pygmy is that he/she needs to have a Bex and a good lie down.

You only live twice. Once when
you're born. Once when
you've looked death in the face.

On Track
8th Jan 2004, 16:36
No dunny queues allowed?

That sounds like a load of crap to me.

This proposal is conclusive evidence that the lunatics are running the asylum, and the rest of the world should treat the American authorities with the contempt that they now deserve.

400librarian
8th Jan 2004, 17:25
I have just been reliably informed (and through a very good source I might add!) that on just about every B744 flying today there are anywhere up to 400 people congregating in an extremely organised fashion!

Apparently what all these dodgy folk do is get aboard the aircraft and congregate ,queue if you will, in rows and heres the dodgy bit THEY ARE ALL SEATED!!!

Who knows what they could be conjuring up? What plans could be hatched? ( if she's good looking I know what plan I would be cooking up!)

My suggestion to the FAA is;
1. Gag and blindfold all these shady characters,

2. frog march them (individually, mind we have rules you know!!!) to the loo under the guard of a sky sheriff armed to the teeth once, repeat, once in the flight,

3.Make them all wear orange boilersuits so if there is any argy-bargy, they are easily recognised.....


But on a serious note tho, I think we have to start to speak up a bit more as professional airmen/women and talk about the real issue here, namely stopping this sort of madeness before it gets to the aircraft.

Although not completely avoidable we the powers that be should be concentrating on security on the ground first and foremost. And if anyone has been through LAX recently, you would see that in alot of areas there is a frightening degree of lip service being paid to the issue.

Am I alone on this?

Comments?

capt cynical
8th Jan 2004, 18:01
This "directive" proves one thing to me.

There is someone in the USA administration with an IQ lower than G.W.B.

Arnie as Govenor of California begins to make sence!!



:rolleyes: :*

*Lancer*
8th Jan 2004, 18:17
Most of the 'madness' on board aircraft these days seems to come from the US DOT/DOHS rather than would-be terrorists. :rolleyes:

pullock
8th Jan 2004, 21:06
So where is the media in all of this - come on write about what you read here and help stop the stupidity, there is a better story in this thread alone than most of the crapola that I read in Fridays Australian :eek:

On Track
9th Jan 2004, 04:26
Check out the cartoon in today's edition of The Australian.

Barbers Pole
9th Jan 2004, 04:57
F#cking hell,

Why don't the yanks stop p#ssing around and just ban all pax from travelling!! The comedians are gonna have a field day...

Wirraway
9th Jan 2004, 07:02
Thurs "The Australian"

Anger at flight duties in loo of security
By Steve Creedy, Aviation writer
January 08, 2004

Qantas flight attendants irate at new US requirements to patrol toilets on aircraft will push for wage rises to compensate them for an increasing burden of security-related tasks.

A bizarre new US Transport Security Administration requirement means passengers on flights to and from the US will be told in a pre-flight announcement not to queue outside toilets.

The directive also requires attendants to police toilets every two hours and check for suspicious packages.

But Qantas indicated yesterday it was still likely to allow passengers desperate to heed the call of nature to loiter outside the loos. "People can still stand in line . . . they are talking about not congregating in large groups that block access," a Qantas spokeswoman said.

Flight Attendants Association of Australia international division assistant secretary Michael Mijatov said flight crew already unhappy about changes at Qantas, including a 2001 decision to reduce crew numbers on international flights, were worried they were being co-opted as a cheap security force on board aircraft.

Mr Mijatov said flight attendants would look seriously at compensation for the extra responsibilities, in enterprise bargaining later this year.

"If on top of the extra workload for people all these additional things are being overlaid by governmental authorities, I just think it's reaching the point of being unreasonable in terms of what's expected of flight attendants on board an aircraft," he said.

However, he was at a loss to explain the logic behind the US requirement.

Transport Minister John Anderson also expressed surprise at the directive, which he said would have to be handled with sensitivity.

Mr Anderson said he supposed US authorities were looking for a suspicious congregation of people, who could be preparing to launch an attack.

"This is going to require a bit of common sense and bit of tact, and I wouldn't want to overreact, I'd have to say, because the reports at the moment do sound a bit hard to handle," he said.

Board of Airline Representatives of Australia executive director Warren Bennett said the directive was "particularly silly" and people on long flights were expected to move around for health reasons.

"It's totally unenforceable," he said. "The US authorities can't effectively monitor it or police it or audit it."

Air New Zealand denied yesterday that it had agreed to allow marshals on its flights. It was still talking to New Zealand authorities about the issue.

===========================================

Ushuaia
9th Jan 2004, 08:51
Great - that's all we need: the bloody FAAA to try and make this an industrial issue. For ####'s sake....

HotDog
9th Jan 2004, 09:06
It's standard operating procedure for Cathay Pacific cabin crew to do scheduled checks on lavatory cleanliness in flight. They certainly don't expect or get paid extra for this simple chore.

poteroo
9th Jan 2004, 11:01
Terrorists in the Dunnies!

I'm more concerned by the 'terrorists' who leave the toilets in a filthy mess.

As long as the swarthy, bandlolier clad and AK-47 accessoried crowd loitering about in the immediate area allow me access in my time of need - what's the problem?

To my mind, if a bunch of would be hijackers have to do a rugby huddle in order to revise 'the plan' - then we don't have too many worries.

At least they present an easy target for the 'sky marshall' - provided he's not moonlighting on higher duties allowance cleaning the dunnies.

Typical over-reaction by a bunch of absolute sooks

happy days

OzExpat
9th Jan 2004, 11:53
I present the following with grateful acknowledgement to the anonymous wit who first conceived it...

ATC

I can see it all now, soooo clearly... Airlines will obviously now have to institute full ATC (Aircraft Toilet Control), complete with the following FAA-style communications between the pax and the... errrm... "Flow" Controller(?)... :}

"Flight Attendant, this is seat 47Alfa, requesting clearance for toilette 4Bravo"
"47Alfa, Roger, eye contact, please advise estimate time to p!ss"
"FA, ahh... estimating 10 minutes, I think I can hold 5 minutes more, 47Alfa."
"Copy, please stand-bye"
"37Delta, please confirm vacate toilette 4Bravo."
"Affirm, vacating via right aisle to seat as cleared"
"49Hotel, you are cleared to p!ss at 4Bravo, please expedite I have traffic almost overflowing"
"Roger, cleared for 4B, will do it swiftly, no solids foreseen, 49Hotel"
"47Alfa, you cleared to line-up right aisle, facing toilette 4Bravo, maintain visual with traffic passing heading row 37"
"Roger, line-up right aisle facing 4Bravo, I have traffic in sight, seems much relieved, 47Alfa"
"Mayday, mayday, mayday, this is 33Echo with solids turning into liquid, request immediate toilette"
"33Echo, got your mayday, cleared direct toilette 4Bravo, please advise passing row 45 break break 49Hotel, please expedite and confirm status break break 47Alfa, sorry I have to put you on hold, please turn right 1-8-0 degrees and walk to the front of the plane, when reaching the galley turn left and execute a left circuit between galley and wall, beware of traffc on hold 2 rows below"
"FA, 49Hotel has vacated the toilette 4Bravo"
"Roger, 49Hotel cleared for seat and thank you"
"33Echo you are cleared direct to toilette 4Bravo, if you require further assistance please contact regular FAs by ringing the toilette chime. Good luck, sir"
"Roger, dir... to... bravo... oh my god"
"33Echo, comm broken, any problem, sir? Please confirm status."
"Well, let's just say the sh!t already hit my props, and yes, I will need further assistance now, 33Echo" (with a final sigh)

SydGirl
9th Jan 2004, 12:34
Listen to you lot crying like a bunch of babies.

You're the people flying these aircraft, the ones that are put in charge of all of the lives on board. YOU are the ones that the FAs are told to protect at all costs, to do whatever we can to stop hijackers entering the cockpit.

FAs don't like having to patrol around like a bunch of security guards and tell little 2 year old Johnny who wants to take a pee pee that he has to go to his seat because he's not allowed to queue. You think that goes down well?

Like Cathay, the toilets are checked regularly for cleanliness and any suspicious items. This is already part of the industrial agreement. Policing the number of people in the queue is NOT part of our industrial agreement, hence the statement by the FAAA. When pilots are given extra responsibilities then their pay is adjusted accordingly, why Ushuaia do you expect the FAs not to be given the same treatment?

For pullock : Don't go attacking the messenger - if you have a problem with an FA just doing his/her job, then maybe you're the one that should **** off.

Pilots don't like this new legislation and neither do FAs, either do something about it or shut yer mug.

SG
:}
(Preparing for the onslaught)

Capt EFIS
9th Jan 2004, 18:08
Sounds like Uncle Sam is getting a little bit paranoid.

What a joke this is, if the US doesn't want passengers to queue near a toilet, then why don't we only do it while the aircraft is in US airspace. Then again, isn't it about time that Australia turned around and asked the US just how this is going to help lower the risk of terrorism, instead of just following them blindly into everyting that they do.

Like others have posted, if the passenger screening on the gound is doing their job than there should be minimal internal risk while the aircraft is in the air.

I'm curious to know just what Aviation is going to be like in 5 years time if we keep going down this latest road of anti-terrorism measures.

Capt EFIS.

Wirraway
9th Jan 2004, 21:18
Sat "Melbourne Age"

Qantas staff receive toilet training
By Robert Wainwright
January 10, 2004

Qantas has instructed its pilots and flight crew to use aircraft fasten seatbelt signs if necessary to help break up toilet queues aboard flights to the US.

A notice issued to cabin crew, obtained by The Age, warns them to take seriously the controversial US directive to stop passengers from congregating around toilets during the 14-hour flight across the Pacific.

But the memo, confirmed by Qantas as authentic, has upset the Flight Attendants Association, which warns that using the seatbelt warning could lead to a "boy cried wolf" scenario in which passengers ignore the sign when a real mid-air safety problem occurs.

The memo states: "Under the captain's direction, flight crew will make the following pre-flight PA on flights to the US: 'The US Transport Security Administration requires that for flights to the United States, passengers are not to congregate in groups in any area of the aircraft, especially near the lavatories. Your co-operation with this policy is greatly appreciated.'

"Customers need to be directed to use the lavatories that are in their class of travel. The lavatories need to be inspected at least once every two hours inflight . . .

"If you are uncomfortable with a group of customers forming in the cabin, contact the customer service manager who will make an assessment and notify the captain if genuine concern exists. The captain then has the option of either restating the preflight announcement and/or turning on the fasten seatbelt signs."

International secretary of the FAAA Michael Mijatov said the union was discussing how its members should react to the "confusing" directive but would oppose using the fasten seatbelt sign for anything other than a legitimate safety issue.

============================================

CHAIRMAN
9th Jan 2004, 21:25
George Orwell is coming!!
The worst thing we can do is abrogate our personal standards to our bureaucrats.
If the US airlines continue the path dictated by the Dubya administration we will shortly all be going by QM2 to the States.

lame
10th Jan 2004, 02:43
As pointed out in that news story, the seat belt sign is also ridiculous. :uhoh:

IF you were to turn on the seat belt light somewhere over the Pacific, even if it was because of approaching turbulence, the passengers standing up waiting for a toilet, are just going to think you are trying to put them off standing there, and ignore it. :rolleyes:

Could be very dangerous. :(

chockchucker
10th Jan 2004, 06:05
One of the funny points about all this not wanting pax to congregate around toilets is, Qantas is now spending a huge amount of money on it's 747-400 skybed program.

One of the features is a self service bar for al those in J class to get up and help themselves to a drink or six. Long haul being long haul, and bars being bars, people will tend to congregate no doubt to share in a drink or two.

I just wonder what these new regulations will do to the $250,000 feature ( that's per bar unit per aircraft) that is being fitted to these aircraft? (a silly feature if you ask me. Allowing pax to meter their own alcohol intake. Just asking for trouble)

Anybody flown on any of the new skybed aircraft yet? How are they being recieved?:ok:

Jetsbest
10th Jan 2004, 11:17
Pullock, you really have missed the point.
All this is a US directive. They CAN police compliance with just one FAA observer anonymously on a flight who, if they report non-compliance with the policy, could cost an airline like Qantas / Air NZ / United their rights to fly to the USA. And as for 'power-mad flight attendants', enforcing these rules is about the last thing to make me feel 'powerful' (if I were a F/A!).
I flew within the States on Southwest Airlines twice last year and they were repeatedly making PAs about not congregating near the fwd lavatory due to the terrorist threat to the flight deck door... and no-one gave them gfrief about it that I observed.
I do still think it's all a major over-reaction and I resent the intrusive imposition of same, but the USA was on the receiving end of the worst terrorist attack in history, so I can understand a certain 'fragility' over being seen to be doing something.

Chill out when you next fly pal.

Left2primary
10th Jan 2004, 12:56
Chock Chuker,

the business class "self service "bar is to be monitored at all times between meal services by a dedicated crew member as per management instructions.
The flight attendant concerned makes and delivers the drink/snack to the waiting passenger who then must return to their seat.
The bar is placarded with these instructions. [In very small writing]

I have flown on the skybed A/C several times with very favourable comments from passengers.
They have suggested that it is superior in all aspects to the competion's product. [ BA, SQ etc ]

Cheers

Left2primary

Ushuaia
10th Jan 2004, 18:42
Can somebody please explain to me how passengers congregating around the aft toilets on a B747-400 could even remotely be considered a threat to the flight-deck.....

Capt Claret
11th Jan 2004, 06:31
They could all pull innocuous looking bits of equipment from their pockets. Connecting them together might make a high powered, silent saw that they’d use to cut through the cabin wall, gaining access to the flight control cables, thus allowing them to control the aircraft so that it could be used as a missile to take out George Wubbaya. :zzz:

pullock
11th Jan 2004, 09:52
One person here has certainly got the point - George Orwell saw it coming in the 1950's. His book talks of people having to adopt a positive stance lest big brother would come to get you. Now we have that in the airlines.

The presumption of innosence is the cornerstone of a free society, yet it is one tha thas gone out the door now.

The stupidity of it all is that congregating standing up is less incideous than congregating sitting down. People book filghts to be seated in groups together, and seated they have much more opportunity to engage in foul play than standing up (they could more readily talk, plot, observe, and assemble equipment when seated, hiding behind the seats).

I havn't missed the plot entirely with a shoot the messenger concept - a person who is policing a bad law purely because it's a law is just as bad as those who made the bad law. With all situations there is a large degree of levity in the application of regulation.

Where a law like this is rediculous to all, then it should be resisted. Someone suggested that we should stop bleating about it or do something about it - well all that there is in my power to do something about it is to bring it's stupidity to public attention - and that is what I have done here, people who matter just may read this thread and re-assess their thinking.

Secondly, whilst this stupidity remains, I will be very reluctant to fly to the USA, thus I will similarly be casting my vote against the stupidity with my hip pocket.

Lastly, the words that were starred out were b *****. Dont go getting your sensitive little FA n ickers in a knot love - I hope you have more intestinal fortitude when you deal with passengers :ok:

BrisBoy
11th Jan 2004, 15:37
Three days ago I piloted an aircraft to the country that invited the Taliban to Texas to discuss an oil pipeline across northern Afghanistan, supported Saddam through his worst atrocities and has an uncanny ability to differentiate between “Good” WMD and “Bad” WMD. A country that would chastise a small democracy for practicing that which it claims to foster throughout the world for fear of upsetting another, of greater economic importance, that would use tanks against it’s own people.
I was photographed and fingerprinted.
If the school bully didn’t pick on others, punch smaller kids on the nose or steal play lunches then perhaps the schoolyard would be a more harmonious, peaceful and safer place. Not to worry though, fingerprinting pilots, colour code alerts and requesting passengers not to congregate in groups in any area of the cabin, especially around the lavatories should fix everything.
Jetsbest, the atrocity of 11th September, 2001 deserves nothing less than universal condemnation. However, with a little research it could be found that this terrorist attack whilst arguably the most disgustingly spectacular is far from the worst.

SydGirl
11th Jan 2004, 16:27
Pullock amazingly enough we do agree on one thing. The law is ridiculous (although I know how to spell the word :p ).

My problem is not with your opinion of the law. My problem is with how you treat those who, due to their employment must obey it. Will you also be going into the cockpit to tell the pilots to **** off? They too will be making the announcement advising passengers of such, abiding by a law that maybe they don't necessarily agree with.

Such is life. If you want to express your opinion, by all means do so - however your denigration of your fellow colleagues is disgraceful and disgusting. Grow up.

Express your thoughts to the relevant government authorities. Throwing a tanty will achieve naught. Even the Brotherhood would not accept that kind of behaviour.

SG
:)

pullock
11th Jan 2004, 22:14
As I said, there are ways to apply the laws that we all work with. What I have been trying to say is that if someone tried to enforce an unreasonable rule (requirement) upon me then I would tell the enforcer to b u g g e r off (NOTE YOU ARE MISS QUOTING ME WITH ****). I don't care whether you are a FA, CSM, pilot, police or nazi

On the other hand you will also receive my respect if I see you aplying the power of your position in an effective manner that isn't just wrote verbatum following of what you percive the law to be that ends up in simply you exerting "power" over another to prove that you could. Go the Celestine prophecy power pinching concept here..............

My previous post about power hungry FA's is a bad generalisation - because certainly that's not always the case, and I have met many many people within airline customer service who are excellent in every way (and I tell them when they are great - not enough people do). I still see way way way too many people who are looking to boost their ego's by exerting un-necessary power - and those people do not have my respect. this law gives those people too much, and in saying what I did, I didn't mean to bag out good operators - but to show the bad ones ............i hope u get the idea.

Feeton Terrafirma
14th Jan 2004, 05:58
There was a time when I would have just shut up and gone on in ignorance, but now that I'm an old fart I don’t really care if I embarrass myself by asking an apparently stupid question so here goes...

What jurisdiction does the US have over an Australian registered aircraft? Whose laws do the PAX fall under whilst in transit, particularly over international waters?

I could also ask if this is another case of the big boy with the bat ‘n ball making the rules (because he can) to suit himself (as he frequently does eg: Iraq) regardless of actual legalities?

I guess you can see where I am heading with this, but I think it’s worth asking the question. The answer will also be interesting in terms of the usage of Sky Marshals in that they must know what laws they are enforcing and which specific statues are being broken before they act.

Aksai Oiler
14th Jan 2004, 13:47
I have a suggestion.

Why don't Boeing redesign the cabin with a toilet in each seat, hand cuffs and leg braces. The PAX board the aircraft are seated and are strapped into the seat (literally) - you are given special trousers or better still a Kilt so you can go there and then; oh and food & beverages are given by introvenous drip - to save the trolly dollies cracking their finger nails. Improves safety in the cabin because Air Rage cannot happen and reduces the mess because the PAX can't do nada, just eat, 'sleep' & well I'll leave you to guess the rest.

A little sick - but Uncle Sam is getting just a little too paranoid.

:yuk:

OzExpat
14th Jan 2004, 15:24
Feeton, maaaaate! Long time no see. Jurisdiction isn't really the issue here. When the FAA mandates that something has to be done, all aircraft entering their airspace must comply. If they don't, they'll be denied entry. :eek:

In the case of an airline like Qantas, this would mean termination of their approval to operated to the USA. That is clearly not an option for them, esepcially as they have pretty much a monopoly on the routes these days. So they have to go along with it.

Yes, I too think it's a ludicrous ruling that the FAA has made, but they will not be swayed by public opinion from other countries. They never have been in the past... :yuk:

Torres
14th Jan 2004, 15:38
Feeton. Your name reminds me........ A few weeks ago I tried to go into a club, respectably dressed, but had leather sandals and socks. I was denied entry, presumably because the club paranoia indicated those who wear sandals cause problems.

The moral of the story? At home I was respectably dressed. In the street I was respectably dressed (probably because I had pants on!). But in the club I failed to meet their dress standards.

Does that answer your question?

Poor old OzExpat – he wears sandals and thongs because he’s forgotten how to tie shoe strings!

HotDog
14th Jan 2004, 18:15
Pillock, if it was me, I would definitely prefer **** to b u g g e r but not everybody is of the same inclination, I guess. I also think you should have made a further edition to your post.

isn't just wrote verbatum following of what you percive

Feeton Terrafirma
15th Jan 2004, 15:11
Oz ya old [email protected]@rd!! its been a while mate.

From what you say the FAA can only really control the situation legally within the US airspace, so on a trip from SYD to LAX for example the toilet queue restriction would only apply for the last 10 or 15 mins tops? And that would be in the latter stages of decent when the PAX should be strapped to the seat anyway.

I also understand from what you suggest that the FAA can bring considerable political pressure to bare which would in fact induce QF to police the queue for the entire trip.

Torres, from what you say it is the choice of the club management to dictate the dress policy and you must abide IF you wish to enter their premises. In this analogy QF own the premises, not the US / FAA. To use that example further, inside the Club there maybe topless waitress's who would not be decently attired on the street, and the police (authority with jurisdiction) would prevent them walking down the street, but those same police cannot dictate the dress code for the club, and last time I checked QF management didn’t have a problem with toilet queues.

The whole thing stinks of bureaucracy gone to bug-gary!


Just another thought.... I wonder how long it will be before some US citizen sues some US airline / and the federal government for resticting their personal freedom to go to the dunny.

dghob
16th Jan 2004, 13:33
Torres - God luv ya! Sandals & sox? OK at Butlins Camps in the UK, but even in the deep north of Queensland they'd wince.
Cheers
dghob

CHAIRMAN
16th Jan 2004, 21:49
Torres,
You're obviously in serious need of resuscitation!
The sandals and socks would shorten the queue at any self-respecting OF dunny

Nipper
19th Jan 2004, 10:01
If restricting your freedom to use the dunny is one thing, just ponder this scenario.

All people entering the U.S, will be required prior to boarding the aircraft:

1. Remove ALL forms of clothing, which will be sealed in an explosives proof bag.

2. You will then be given those paper disposable white overalls to put on, with the cotton slippers similar to what surgeons wear.

3. You will be reunited with your clothes once you have cleared immigration.

4. This is to safe guard you against a person who may be attempting to smuggle weapons concealed inside their clothes.

While on my soap box I can't help but ponder a line from Dubbya speech on the U.S expansion into space:

We'll make steady progress -- one mission, one voyage, one landing at a time.

Seems to me that in the 1930's another person made a similar speech it went something like this:

Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Furher. "One people, one country, one leader"

I'll step down off my soap box, and if we all end up wearing white suits it means that the FAA monitor this site.

HotDog
19th Jan 2004, 10:42
A bit dramatic I would say; comparing Bush to Hitler.:rolleyes:

slamer
19th Jan 2004, 12:05
I think, there is a concern that a bomb may be brought onboard in pieces, then assembled by that group ( I appreciate this may be possible in their seats) Of course there is also the possibility of a group rushing the Cockpit from the Lav area. Problem is, a Pax carrying Aircraft by Design becomes a congregation of seated People (on/in/around the Toilets!)
Only Time will tell if these measures work... or not, In the meantime it's difficult to see how they can!

oicur12
21st Jan 2004, 12:34
At least some countries had the balls to stand up to hitler.

Capt Claret
21st Jan 2004, 12:41
Not like us, huh, Oicur12. Any further up the American rectum and we'll see daylight through dubya's teeth. :yuk:

Torres
21st Jan 2004, 13:20
Indeed, the terrorist paranoia is getting a little rampant in the USA.

Claret, love your comment. If it were not so true, it could be amusing.

I see Mollie Meldrum got knocked back at LAX last night. *snicker, snicker* Nah Torres, don't go there........... :}