Attempted ? Hijack KU102 JFK to LHR????

[Paladini]

Anyone got any info on "Joke" hijack of Kuwait 102 from JFK last night?

Rumour has a Ghanain male joking about hijack while boarding? Apparently, the Port Authority police extended their hospitality for the evening.

When will these idiots get the message? It is NOT funny!!!!!
:eek: :eek: :eek:

[Kato747]

I can confirm that the incident did, indeed, take place (I was aboard). However, I think it's a bit premature to start throwing rocks until the investigation is complete. The 'gentleman' involved was overheard by cabin crew stating that, since the cabin door was open during boarding, that he should/could go ahead and Hijack the Captain "right now"...... before taking his seat.

KUDOS to the NY Port Authority Police in responding to this incident... It could not have been more than 45 seconds, or so, from initial notification til armed response showed up at the gate. Boarding was suspended til the "Jokester" was removed from the aircraft. His seat area was searched extensively and, presumably, he spent a few hours, at least, in custody. He did not continue with the flight to LHR!!!!

The flight arrived LHR only about one hour late! A petty price to be paid...... Excellent job, PAPD AND KAC! :)

[Kato747]

Just out of curiosity, Paladini, where'd you get your info? Did this make the NYC news?
Nothing on CNN or BBC world here in Kuwait!

[rustbucket732]

Kato747
"The 'gentleman' involved was overheard by cabin crew stating that, since the cabin door was open during boarding, that he should/could go ahead and Hijack the Captain "right now"...... before taking his seat"

An armed escort off the a/c because of this?
A flippant if thoughtless (and certainly ill-timed) remark I agree. If he said this as constructive advice (he "could" as opposed to "should") its a remark I can imagine a few people making.

Flying certainly isn't fun anymore for the PAX thats for sure.

[windspeed]

Rustbucket 732,
You are a T*sser!!

[HugMonster]

Flying certainly isn't fun anymore for the PAX thats for sure.Yep, rustbucket, you're right - flying certainly isn't any fun at all when you're taken off the aircraft for making remarks about hijacking (and consequently murdering innocent civilians). All the harmless fun has gone - we can no longer make careless fun from slitting cabin crews' throats - we can no longer have fun with shooting pilots in the head... :rolleyes: :mad:

[sirwa69]

Perhaps "Rules for SLF" should be printed on the tickets and displayed prominently at the gate.
1. Upon entering the aircraft say "Good morning/afternoon/evening (select as required), Can you indicate where my seat is please" DO NOT under any circumstances say ANYTHING else to the cabin crew. If the flight crew happen to look at you then immediately leave the aircraft and go straight to the nearest security officer and turn yourself in.
2. If you successfully make it to your seat then sit down, sit still and say nothing, if you must read then DO NOT read the safety card as it may be construed that you are 'casing the joint'. Probably the safest book to read is 'The Satanic Verses' by Salman Rushdie.
3. When offered a meal make sure to refuse the plastic cutlery and eat with your hands.
4. If offered a drink ensure that you ask for lots and lots to prove that you do not avoid alchohol for religious grounds and that being drunk you will be in no fit state to 'try anything'
5. If you have to rise from your seat to go to the toilet or to exercise to avoid DVT then activate the call bell and wait for the FA to come to your seat. WARNING! it is a grave offence to activate the call bell more than once even if the FA's totally ignore you. Sit with your legs crossed and they will eventually get to you. When they do come to you. Tell them you wish to rise from your seat and ask them if they can alert the skymarshall to the fact so that he can 'cover you' discretely.

We hope you enjoy your flight with ABC airlines and hope that next time you will take the train!!

:D ;) :D

Since when has flying ever been fun!!

[Fool's Hole]

sirwa69

You're not even funny.
What job do you do?

[sirwa69]

FH

One that allows me to see the 'bigger picture'.
No tunnel vision here!
:rolleyes:

[rustbucket732]

HugMonster
I didn't intend to imply that flippant remarks are "fun" for pax. Obviously.

Only that exercising a degree of common sense in situations such as this might help things return to some sense of normality and make people more comfortable.

Overt paranoia over what could have been an almost innocuous remark (perhaps even trying to be helpful) just breeds more bad feeling and malaise.

Where do you draw the line here? It's not an easy question to answer. But a bit of common sense goes a long way.

RB732

[daidalos]

Do you, honestly, believe that the hijacker will joke about it?
I believe not. The hijacker will be the serious guy with the suit and - probably - expensive tie, riding in First or Business class!
That's IMHO.
This is getting out of control!

[Warthog]

I think that the days of common sense probably disappeared with the events of September 11th. I'm sure that prior to this date 'common sense' stated that no one would attempt to hijack an aircraft and deliberately fly it into a building, with catastrophic loss of life, in order to make some kind of political or religious point.

These are increasingly dangerous times and should be treated as such. Who is to say that our 'joker', while perhaps not part of some fanatical terrorist cell, was not a threat? Who knows what goes on in anyone's mind and what they might be capable of?

[HugMonster]

Overt paranoia over what could have been an almost innocuous remark (perhaps even trying to be helpful) just breeds more bad feeling and malaise.And do you feel there should be good feeling about the events of 11/09/01? And how, exactly, do you think that such a remark could have been "helpful"? Under the circumstances, how do you call such a remark "inocuous"?

Sorry, but the world is now a very different place from pre-WTC. If anyone can't handle the fact that aviation security is going to be very, very sensitive, then tough. The world right now is (however much we would like otherwise) on the brink of some horrific possible scenes of inter-cultural mass warfare.

If anyone thinks it is possible to make "jokes" about the general situation, then I'll support anyone who puts them off their aircraft.

Any remarks about security on board my aircraft will not be taken as a joke. They'll be taken very seriously indeed. Anyone who cannot see the possible consequences of treating remarks as a joke when they might not be does not deserve to be in a position of responsibility.

[Max Continuous]

What the "funless wonders" on these threads should realise is that the logical extension of their views takes us straight to Sirwa 69's "Advice to SLF" above.

Flying is absolutely no fun anyway to the vast majority of the travelling public, uncomfortable and unpleasant as it is with its confined spaces and inedible food, deprivation of personal belongings and all the bloody rules which have to be obeyed all the time, not to mention the intrusive security searches and increased check-in times, being herded around like sheep and the continual patronising banter one is force-fed through extremely loud-speakers by disinterested Essex girls (or equivalent).

Do the likes of Hugmonster really believe that passengers are going to put up with this treatment if there's any possible alternative? Possibly your once-a-year to Tenerife types might go along with it but what about the high-yielding business passengers? I think they've just about had enough of it and the recent atrocities may very well drive them (and our jobs) away for good. They'll invest in video-conferencing equipment to reduce the need for travel in the first place or they'll go by comfortable 1st class rail for domestic travel, straight to the city centre.

So if the day of common sense is truly dead, we can look forward to a greatly reduced aviation industry.

[RATBOY]

Go to the head of the class Max Continuous.

Sorry that in addition to being uncomfortable, boring, inedible food, intrusive security procedures, etc. flying as pax also has meant that pax have had to storm the cockpit after armed terrorists take it over and pay with their lives to keep it from being used as a cruise missile. Downright annoying, isn't it?

The big shot businessman from outside the U.S. haven't had a choice but first class airliner seats since Part 91 operations by foreign flag civil aircraft have been prohibited into US. A few very high powered people have managed a few very special exceptions by going right to the top, but we are talking chairment of board of Fortune 10 or whatever the Euro equivilant is.

Airline economics have just changed and things are in flux right now. What shakes out will probably not be as exremeand costly and intrusive as El Al, but it won't be as easy as it was before. It will take more labor and equipment and thus cost more and the pax will pay and that's the way it is. Because of this maybe more people will either not take trips, use a different mode, or whatever. It is a sure thing that there will be fewer flights for awhile, and fewer jobs in aviation. What is still unclear is how much of this is a result of September 11 or the world economic downturn and was coming anyway.

May be lots of jobs with Fed Ex when the get the World Food Program contract to fly the american food to Afganistan "When they absolutely, positively have to be fed overnight" makes a good advert.

[HugMonster]

Ratboy and Max Continuous, you both miss the point entirely, and consequently your posts make you come across as a pair of pr*ts.

Whether the food is edible or not is irrelevant. What the terminal is like is irrelevant.

For the purposes of this thread, the only point is whether a remark made by a passenger about possibly hijacking the aircraft should be taken seriously or not. If you want to treat any remark as a joke, that's up to you. But you won't do it on board my aircraft. And you won't do it with me sitting in the back either.

Under the current circumstances, aircraft safety and security is not a joking matter.

If passengers want edible meals, then they pay for them. If they want nice terminals with nice staff who smile and say "Yes, sir", "No, sir", then fine.

Right now, if people have to fly, the main thing that's on their mind is security. Good. Airlines can provide that. But there is a price to be paid in security checks, in baggage searches, etc. etc. If Max Continuous thinks dispensing with such inconveniences would raise the level of "common sense" (as he puts it) then I'd rather not fly with him.
And finally, yes, the airline industry will be a lot slimmer than it was - that's happened already, if you hadn't noticed. So what? You want less security at a time like this? What may have escaped your notice is that, unless airlines are seen to respond to the heightened rick in the world in general at the moment, far fewer passengers will travel for fear of hijacking than will stop travelling by air because of the inconvenience of their flight being secure.

[sirwa69]

From Gulf Daily News Saturday 6th October

Airline to probe student's ordeal



American Airlines last night promised to investigate the incident in which Mohammed Al Faqihi, a Bahraini student, was ordered off a flight at Kennedy airport, New York, shortly before it took off for London.

An airline spokesman apologised for any misunderstanding or inconvenience caused to Mohammed who was desperate to reach London where his father Ibrahim was dying.

The spokesman said he was aware of the incident but did not have specific details.

"We have had several reported cases like this since September 11 across our entire network," he said from the airline's headquarters at Dallas-Fort Worth airport.

"It is definitely unfortunate ... and not a pleasant situation for any of us. But ultimately, the captain calls the shots. He has the final word on who will fly aboard his aircraft."

He said he would investigate the incident further and contact the GDN when he could provide more information.

Mohammed was a victim of one of many unfortunate incidents involving people of an Arab and Muslim background that have occurred across America since the terrorist attacks in Washington and New York on September 11.

Mohammed is now back in Bahrain where he has spent the last three days receiving condolence calls from hundreds of relatives and friends following the death of his 50-year-old businessman father who died in London on Tuesday after a four-month battle with lung cancer.

Mohammed became the centre of media attention last month, both in America and in the Gulf, after he was taken off an American Airlines flight from New York Kennedy to London Heathrow for no apparent reason.

In a desperate move to reach his ailing father in London, he then unsuccessfully attempted to board a second American Airlines flight five hours later.

Mohammed eventually reached London aboard a British Airways flight in time to be with his father during his final days.

Speaking to the GDN last night from the family residence in Adliya, he said his ordeal began on July 7 when he left Bahrain for the United States with his father who was to undergo medical treatment at several cancer specialist facilities in Detroit, Cleveland and New York City.

Mr Faqihi's treatment at New York's Sloan Kettering Institute in Manhattan, one of America's most advanced cancer research centres, finished early in September.

The prognosis was not promising, so the family decided to go to London for Mr Faqihi to undergo chemotherapy.

Mr Faqihi and several other family members left New York for London on September 7, four days before the terrorist attacks.

Mohammed decided to stay behind for several days at the family apartment in neighbouring New Jersey. He had planned to travel to London on September 12.

But everything changed with the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington the day before his scheduled departure, and the first available outbound flight was on September 19.

Mohammed, who already held first-class tickets issued in Bahrain, was re-confirmed on American Airlines Flight 116, which was to have departed fom New York Kennedy at 8:45 pm.

Mohammed said he arrived at the airport several hours in advance.

"I was issued a boarding pass without incident, cleared immigration procedures, and went to American's first-class lounge," he continued. "I no sooner sat down with a drink when I was paged to return to the immigration office."

Mohammed was met by two uniformed Port Authority inspectors who asked him a series of routine questions. He was then approached by two Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents who continued this line of questioning.

"Nothing was out of the ordinary," Mohammed continued. "They were all polite and pleasant. In fact, by the end of the session, we were on a first-name basis. One of the FBI agents even gave me her business card."

Mohammed was escorted to the plane by all four law enforcement officials, and he boarded the aircraft without incident.

"Once aboard and settled, I unpacked my video camera recorder and set it up in the seat next to me," he said.

"I began recording myself, speaking into the camera in both English and Arabic. There were only a couple of other passengers in the first-class cabin, so I don't believe I was disturbing anyone."

But Mohammed apparently upset someone. Several minutes later, the American Airlines ground services manager boarded the plane and asked him to step out onto the concourse.

"Once outside, I was told that the captain wanted me to leave the aircraft," he explained. "I never even saw the captain ... I don't believe that he'd even arrived at the gate."

Mohammed said his four law enforcement friends returned to the scene.

"They were puzzled," he added. "They asked, me: 'Mohammed, what happened?'

Risk

"I wouldn't have thought they would have even let me on the plane if I posed a security risk."

Mohammed said there were other Muslims on the flight.

"I know of at least one couple, who were taken off shortly after I left the plane. The woman was wearing a scarf," he continued. "Agents briefly questioned them and they returned to the aircraft."

American Airlines ground crew then re-booked Mohammed on another flight five hours later.

"They put me into a nearby hotel," he said. "I returned several hours later, this time packing my video camera recorder inside my suitcase. Everything seemed all right. But when I arrived at the gate, the airline ground agent refused to let me board the aircraft."

Mohammed said the agent told him the captain from the previous flight had relayed the incident to colleagues, and that the new captain was apparently not prepared to have him on the flight.

"By now, I was feeling let down by the airline," he admitted. "I asked them for a solution and they managed to get me a seat on the British Airways flight that evening."

Mohammed said he boarded the third London-bound flight 12 hours later without incident.



Airport security had checked him out. FBI had checked him out. He did not make any threats to anyone. Paranoid Captain not only threw him off but called around his mates and made sure they would not take him.
Obviously the Captain had not listened to his President who has said repeatedly that this is not a war on Muslims. :eek:
Good recovery Nigel!

[Flashgit]

a bit of perspective required, I think.

Just because the US had the worst domestic security arrangements around the place pre 11th sept, doesnt mean that they can bolt the door now the horse has bolted.
Like someone said, if this bloke was going to hijack the plane, obviously he wouldnt have made a stupid comment.


go on ....hit me now

and by the way, passengers do pay for edible food

[malanda]

So, what should a pax do if they think safety procedures aren't being followed correctly? eg cabin lights not dimmed for T/O in darkness; pax not told to stop using mobiles when refuelling, to name a couple of recent examples.

Tell a crew member and risk being whisked away, or just keep quiet?

[sanjosebaz]

Sirwa69: The incident you describe in the GDN article is clearly not the same one discussed in this thread. Seems your guy had been ordered off a different flight (says Sep 19 in the article) for some undisclosed reason. Fortunately, he made it to his father's side.

The subject of this thread happened much more recently and he was (correctly, IMHO) ordered off because he made a stupid comment. Strangely, this seems to have gone unreported anywhere in the world. This one seems to have similarities with the pr@t who shouted "death to Americans" when he was caught smoking in the lav.

The moral is obvious - do not make flippant remarks that may be taken as a threat. Seems easy to me! There was a guy from Chicago (long before Sep 11) who was carrying a violin case through Heathrow. When asked what it contained, he said "machine gun" (Chicago mafia joke), which was taken seriously and he was marched off to be grilled for a while. Tw@t missed his flight - you cannot joke with airline security. It is not (and never should be) a joking matter.

[ 09 October 2001: Message edited by: sanjosebaz ]

[aviator]

So exactly warning signs should we ingnore from now on?

If you are old enough and have enough mental capabilities to buy an airline ticket, you clearly must comprehend that hijack/terrorist remarks will not be ignored.

From the Chicago Tribune regarding the incident on American Airlines yesterday:


<<<It was not long after Flight 1238 took off from Los Angeles with 153 passengers and 9 crew members that some began to notice Coburn, a man with sandy blond hair, wearing a T-shirt, jeans and brown work boots, sitting in row 21 next to his father. Throughout the flight, Coburn was whispering and talking abnormally, said Mark Jacoby, an accountant from Los Angeles who sat in the row behind them.>>>

<<<Then as the plane was about 40 minutes from landing at O'Hare, the man got up from his seat, ran through the aisle, burst into the cockpit and grabbed the pilot, passengers said.

The plane immediately lurched downward, said JoAnn Rockman's husband, Howard Rockman, an attorney. "We've experienced turbulence before, but never anything like this," he said. "We just went down. It scared to death every single passenger on the plane."

But within seconds, as many as 10 passengers and crew members pounced on him, pulled him out of the cockpit and wrestled him to the ground.>>>

Here is another person denied boarding after being thorougly checked out. If you had just been interrogated by the FBI, would you have done this?

<<<"Nothing was out of the ordinary," Mohammed continued. "They were all polite and pleasant. In fact, by the end of the session, we were on a first-name basis. One of the FBI agents even gave me her business card."

Mohammed was escorted to the plane by all four law enforcement officials, and he boarded the aircraft without incident.

"Once aboard and settled, I unpacked my video camera recorder and set it up in the seat next to me," he said.

"I began recording myself, speaking into the camera in both English and Arabic. There were only a couple of other passengers in the first-class cabin, so I don't believe I was disturbing anyone.">>>

[Covenant]

I know there is a lot of emotion around this subject at the moment, but I think what most people are saying is that we must never - whatever the provocation - lose our sense of reason or perspective.

It is agreed that it is a pretty stupid idea to make flippant jokey remarks to airport and aircraft security: "What's in that violin case?", "A machine gun" or "Are you carrying anything for someone else?", "Yes, this guy called Mohammed gave me a bomb" are cases in point. This has always been the case before, and there is no reason why it should be any less the case now.

However, if as a passenger I see what I consider to be a laxity or omission in security, then I really don't see why I shouldn't be able to point it out. After all, it's my life that's at risk too, and if I see the cockpit door open during boarding, and I consider that to be a security risk, then why shouldn't I point it out to the cabin crew. "With the cockpit door open, if I was a terrorist, I could hijack the aircraft right now". That sounds to me to be a perfectly reasonable comment.

In other words: "I don't like what I'm seeing; it's inconsistent and making me nervous because I'm about to put my life in your hands and I need to know that you're making every effort to ensure my safety". To respond to such a concern is something that all airline staff owe their passeners at the very minimum.

As malanda said above, what should pax do in these circumstances? Just the other day, I asked an FA to do something about a fat flash git who couldn't stop showing how important he was by continuously using his mobile phone on board an A340 from the moment he sat down right the way up to the start of the runway. Am I supposed to stop doing that? Because if so, then I'm damn well going to stop flying.

As always, if we consider ourselves to be intelligent, reasonable professionals, we should be trying to see the big picture and act reasonable and sensibly, no matter what has gone before. Yes, everyone can be excused for being a bit emotional in these times, but that is not the same thing as saying that the emotional response is the right one.

HugMonster
I don't normally enter into slanging matches on PPRuNe, but your knee-jerk diatribe in your earler response is in fact what misses the point and makes you look like a pratt. Rustbucket made a perfectly reasonable comment, and your reaction was way OTT.

To all pilots who think that the current situation is a good reason to further consider passengers as mere inconveniences in the pursuit of your job, I say this: if our society in general (not just on airlines) is going to remain safe, it is going to rely on the vigilance of the masses, the general public, yes, even your passengers, to prevent further acts of terrorism. It is the masses keeping their eyes open for suspicious activity that are our best weapon, and no amount of electronics or security can replace that. The LAX-ORD flight recently proved this.

As pilots it is in your interests to start treating "SLF" like human beings instead of cattle. One day we might save your life!

And another thing...!
I don't think it is a joke, neither do I think it stupid or even criminal that some passengers, and some journalists, have decided to expose the flaws in airport security - even now - by demonstrating that knives and suchlike can still be smuggled aboard aircraft. As pilots, you should be grateful to these people for alerting authorities to the fact that they still have a way to go before they can hope to reassure passengers that it is once again safe to fly. In my opinion, they shouldn't have been arrested or locked up to save the blushes of the authorities, and they certainly don't deserve your scorn. It's not a joke. They're telling you something important. I think you should listen.

[Edited to add 'and another thing...' comments]

[ 09 October 2001: Message edited by: Covenant ]

[sanjosebaz]

I don't think it is a joke, neither do I think it stupid or even criminal that some passengers, and some journalists, have decided to expose the flaws in airport security

This again is a different point - I agree that pointing out flaws in security is important (if risky, in that you may be seen as a threat in doing so - another debate), but making a flippant remark - violin case, bomb, hijack or otherwise - is a truly stupid thing to do and should not be condoned by any right-thinking person. Also, this does not preclude any pax from pointing out that a mobile phone is in use, for instance. I cannot see where your grey area is - maybe I am being stupid myself, but there is a clear difference to showing concern about your/others' safety, and another to make misguided remarks.

[Covenant]

sanjosebaz

The grey area is: what am I to expect if I say to an FA: "The cockpit door is open; if I were a terrorist I could get in there now and hijack the plane"?

This, more or less, is what the guy was arrested for. Now, the words I used may have been more explicit in their meaning - i.e. not threatening. However, none of us really knows exactly what this guy said or how he said it. Was it meant as a joke or not? We don't know, and we may never know. We do know that airport security took it as a threat, which it most certainly wasn't. Sometimes we say things in a light-hearted way with a smile to conceal the fact that we're a bit nervous, not to say scared.

The grey area is also this: how do we decide what is a threat, or a stupid and inapropriate joke, that deserves being disembarked and arrested, and what is a serious comment on a concern for safety. Is it the way we say something? Surely nothing that subjective! Is it the words we use? Does that mean that we can't use certain proscribed words like "gun" and "hijack"?

The point is there IS a grey area, so people would do well to think about things like this before going off the deep end and ranting.

[Sinnik]

RickP, would the conjunction you were looking for in both of your last two lines be "than", or is this a new slant on old sayings?

[PaperTiger]

Covenant
Spot on. The only two people who know what was said are the 'perp' and the CC to whom he spoke. And whether it was a stupid joke or a genuine but poorly worded expression of concern only the speaker knows. I think it will be enlightening to see if he is charged or not.

The climate aboard US flights now is 'sit down, shut up and no sudden moves'. Choose your words very carefully if you feel it necessary to point out anything that's bothering you to the crew. Exactly the opposite of what should be going on, no ?

[FlyingRabbit]

I would just feel a lot more confortable if I knew that the same measures that are being applied to pax were also being applied to caterers, cleaning people, mechanics, and so on. The other day a flight to HNL made an emergency landing in LAX because someone found a small knife (or similar) that was lately discovered was forgotten inside the plane by a caterer. It just seems to me that too much effort is being put on just one side of the problem. I hope I'm wrong.

[christep]

The airlines and/or state aviation authorities aren't helping the frustration of regular passengers by making some bloody silly rules. On all flights out of HKG I believe it is now decreed that only plastic cutlery may be used. However, the wine is still in glass bottles. Could any FAs here comment on whether they would prefer to tackle someone coming at them with a standard eating knife or with a broken bottle?

The cabin crew I spoke to (without getting the flight diverted, thankfully) think this is mad, and look forward to getting the silverware back. They are not helped when catering produces steak, which the plastic knives can't cut, resulting in some pretty pissed off (front-end) passengers. :mad:

At HKG the security is no different from what it always was - i.e pretty good and swift as far as I can tell. We all just get to suffer because the US domestic system got the balance wrong.

[Flashgit]

I was going to write a big long bit, but Covenant has just said exactly what I would have said. I agree completely with what he / she says.

A very insightful bit of perspective and opinion

FG

[malanda]

The climate aboard US flights now is 'sit down, shut up and no sudden moves'

Indeed. I've just found this on http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1588000/1588278.stm

"No one will be permitted to stand for the duration of the flight. This includes visits to the lavatory," says a voice over the PA system. "If anyone stands up, the FAA has directed us to divert this flight to Washington's Dulles Airport."

Now buckled into her seat, a women who says she has a bladder complaint asks the stewardess what she should do if she "simply has to go". The answer is not the one she - nor those who have been guzzling coffee for the past two hours - had hoped for: Do not stand up.

[Covenant]

malanda

I find it sad. President Bush and his administration has rightly said that they are attacking terrorism on three fronts: financial, diplomatic (or intelligence) and military. Unfortunately, they seem to be forgetting the fourth, and possibly the most important one, and that is in the hearts and minds of the people back home.

The primary objective of terrorism is to strike fear into people - that's why it's called terrorism, oterwise it would simply be called "mass murder" (which it undoubtedly is also). Our only response to it should be to say: "No! You are not going to stop us from going about our business as normal".

Obviously, it is important to get the balance right here. You need to balance the need for heightened security with the need to prevent fear in the population. IMHO, the heavy-handed and extreme reaction in some areas of the new American security regime is simply playing into the hands of the terrorists.

No amount of security measures from any government is going to protect us completely from terrorism; so it is futile to try. It's the law of diminishing returns again. There is some point on the curve of "security measures" versus "safety of the population" that you get your maximum benefit. Those in authority need to think more carefully about where that point is, and maybe withdraw a little in some areas where their actions are simply making people more frightened than they need to be.

Not allowing people to stand up on aeroplanes (if this is truly the current policy) is quite clearly a case in point.

[sirwa69]

Malanda

I read that BBC article in stunned disbelief. I then hurried to PPrune to add it to this thread when I discovered that you had got there before me.
It is more likely to be "Fools seldom differ"

For some time now I have privately thought that the Americans were a little bit prone to Exageration and over reaction but this completely takes the biscuit.
Presumably they would rather have a little old lady wet the seat than let her go to the toilet.

Covenant
You are so right, the terrorists have won completely.

:( :( :(

[Roadtrip]

Baloney. Do some critical thinking people instead of believing everything journalists write about aviation. From my experience, ANYTHING said by the media concerning aviation is about 30% somewhat accurate and the rest just plain B.S.

[sanjosebaz]

Maybe (just maybe) this "no stand up" was some kind of increased security for the first flight back into Reagan airport (the last to re-open and the closest to Pentagon).... That is (maybe) it was just for the one flight the journos happened to be on. I have flown (on AA) five times since Sep 11 and there has never been such an announcement. Not only were we allowed to stand to get to the lav, we could even wait in line for one to become available - just like before.

[Kato747]

Covenant et al.... Perhaps the guy in the original thread should have mentioned simply that the door was open. That might have cued the CA into following KAC procedures and keep the cockpit door closed and LOCKED at all times while pax are on board.

This person may, indeed, have just been making a statement of fact " Oh, golly, the cockpit door's open, I could hijack the captain now!", but I'm glad this young lady had the presence of mind to bring it up to the Captain (even if she couldn't read this guy's comments as 'helpful')


BTW, chaps, what does "IMHO" mean????? & remember, there are no silly questions!!! :D

[sanjosebaz]

Hi KATO - at least I can attempt to be helpful without fear of being flamed (or maybe not!)

Anyway IMHO stands for In My Humble Opinion (at least where I come from ;))

[ 13 October 2001: Message edited by: sanjosebaz ]

[dumiel]

Max Contuinuous

What a patronising piece of twoddle its scary that people like you are up front

[Al Weaver]

>Max Contuinuous

What a patronising piece of twoddle its scary that people like you are up front
<

Too bad he's spot-on, I'm afraid that simply wishing for a different behavior by the paying customer is not going to cut it.

Right now the supply is up and the demand is down and about to go lower with responses like yours. Surely the customer service advocates will adjust to the customer in the long run. There's no sense in either side of this argument blaming it on the recent events and necessary security response. The fact remains that customers will still excercise discretion in choosing.

[sanjosebaz]

It seems that the "no stand up" situation is limited to Reagan airport, as suspected (see a few posts back). Apparently, no standing will be allowed within 30 minutes of landing at Reagan National, and the flight described above was a short hop from New York, so no standing allowed was allowed at all.

Not saying I agree with this policy - it does appear a little over the top, but there you have it.

[ceo]

As far as I understand, you're all talking about the situation in the USA. What about this: My dad took a flight from Brussels to Nice a few days after WTC. Before preparing his luggage, he called me to find out what he could (not) put in his hand luggage. I told him to not bring handluggage, just his wallet and passport. When he went through the security check at BRU airport, he was surprised that handluggage wasn't checked, neither at the first (x-ray)check nor at the gate. His surprise was even bigger when the FA's came round with their DF trolley: It was no problem to buy swiss knifes etc.on board!!! He thought security would be tighter in France, but it was even worse! Apparantly, only pax on flights to and from the USA are being checked.
My point: If we want aviation to be safer for both pax and crew, ALL flights should be treated equal. Only then we can try to prevent another disaster like 11/9.