BA & VS denied access to US airspace ?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: New York, U.S.A.
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you very much. The FAA is a very even handed organization and I assure you that protectionism is not something they could conteplate at a time like this.
A little sensitivity from our allies at a time like this is all that is needed. We are all headed for some tough times in this industry and believe it or not we all need each other. Thank you very much, again.
A little sensitivity from our allies at a time like this is all that is needed. We are all headed for some tough times in this industry and believe it or not we all need each other. Thank you very much, again.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Like many other Brits I have shed many a tear watching the horrific events last week. The Guv's opinions (and remember we are all entitled to our own) have obviously upset many people on both sides of the Atlantic. However, to our American cousins, please remember that we have lived with Irish terrorism for 30 years. We understand your pain. If we are a little insensitive it is probably because we have become somewhat harden to the brutality and indiscriminate nature of terrorism. I hope now that your President and Congress will fight to prevent ALL terrorism. As well as defeating bin Ladan and his various factions, it must also include the outlawing of organisations who support any terrorism, and in particular Irish terrorist groups. Organisations such as NORAID claim they are collecting for "Political Prisoners". No they are not. Their activities help fund the attrocities we have had in Manchester, Birmingham, Coventry, London and throughout Northern Ireland. You now have first hand experience of the effect well funded terrorists can have. Never has there been a greater opportunity to fight all terrorism.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: 35K
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Gaza,
You couldn't be more right. America has been funding terrorism against Britain through Noraid for to long - I wonder if it will now stop. The act's carried out against the US were in no uncertain terms - inhuman. I hope that that the 5000+ lives that were lost and the greif of countless others will shame the PLO into accepting a political solution with no more killing. I just hope that the word 'crusade' used by double U was a bushism and not an intent.
I only replyed to this thread to congratulate VS on getting the full fleet airborn and back in business on all routes. After an enforced 2 week stay in NYC, I look forward to my weekly commute
Jon
You couldn't be more right. America has been funding terrorism against Britain through Noraid for to long - I wonder if it will now stop. The act's carried out against the US were in no uncertain terms - inhuman. I hope that that the 5000+ lives that were lost and the greif of countless others will shame the PLO into accepting a political solution with no more killing. I just hope that the word 'crusade' used by double U was a bushism and not an intent.
I only replyed to this thread to congratulate VS on getting the full fleet airborn and back in business on all routes. After an enforced 2 week stay in NYC, I look forward to my weekly commute
Jon
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Scotland
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My first thought when it was announced that only US airlines would be allowed to fly into the US was also "protectionism". I felt insulted that the FAA with its poor security (especially on the apron) would cast aspersions at the competence of the UK.
Then I thought some more. It is unreasonable to expect the goverment of a country that has suffered this appalling horror to act in an entirely rational and logical manner. They had no option but make policy on the hoof. The administrators are only human, and obviously a few mistakes were made. It is understandable. I really do not think that there were any deeper motives. The FAA had a massive security task to undertake in a very short space of time, and the staff could not but be distracted by the national grief and outrage.
In short, the FAA made a bit of a cock-up, but it was understandable, and in the circumstances I don't think that it is appropriate to criticise.
There are far more important issues to discuss.
Life will never be the same again.
Then I thought some more. It is unreasonable to expect the goverment of a country that has suffered this appalling horror to act in an entirely rational and logical manner. They had no option but make policy on the hoof. The administrators are only human, and obviously a few mistakes were made. It is understandable. I really do not think that there were any deeper motives. The FAA had a massive security task to undertake in a very short space of time, and the staff could not but be distracted by the national grief and outrage.
In short, the FAA made a bit of a cock-up, but it was understandable, and in the circumstances I don't think that it is appropriate to criticise.
There are far more important issues to discuss.
Life will never be the same again.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Budgie,
get a life.
Clinton warned the FAA about domestic security levels and the airlines bucked. We're happy to accept the consequenses, they said. We will be responsible for our own security! Now the airlines are in the mire big time.
Security audits found it unacceptable. The US based airlines just didn't want the expenditure.
Yes, the security threat this great nation is from foreign operators. All of us "Aliens" entering the US are treated like €rap - as if we were the biggest threat to US security imaginable.
I don't for a moment expect Wino and his US based mates to accept any of this - but then he was never viewed as a threat to the US.( unlike McVeigh).
To all of you US pilots out there:
Your domestic security levels were virtually non existent.
Two domestic US based airlines were hijacked within the US by terrorists resident in the US.
The hijackers were passengers, not crew on the flights concerned.
International secutity standards are way higher than those within the US.
The first reaction of your government was against international carriers operating into the US. (We can understand this, as the threat had not been clearly identified).
New security measures are anti non-US crew, treating us as the real threat, whilst we are the most exposed victims. Passengers are being subjected to far less scrutiny than crew.
The first airlines to be allowed to operate back into the US were the very same airlines that were involved in this atrocity.
Other airlines - i.e. non US based airlines were still grounded whilst AA and UA were let operate.
Other that favoritism, can any of you US pilots give a creditable reason for such prejudiced behavior?
Answers on a postcard before the next World War please, so please hurry.
P.S.
I am left with a clear picture:
It is all our fault. Yes the non-American - I don't know or care who you are but it's all your fault, and I don't care if we nuke you or whatever but someone - anyone - we don't really care, has to pay for it. We need our feel good factor.
[ 18 September 2001: Message edited by: tonyryan ]
[ 18 September 2001: Message edited by: tonyryan ]
get a life.
Clinton warned the FAA about domestic security levels and the airlines bucked. We're happy to accept the consequenses, they said. We will be responsible for our own security! Now the airlines are in the mire big time.
Security audits found it unacceptable. The US based airlines just didn't want the expenditure.
Yes, the security threat this great nation is from foreign operators. All of us "Aliens" entering the US are treated like €rap - as if we were the biggest threat to US security imaginable.
I don't for a moment expect Wino and his US based mates to accept any of this - but then he was never viewed as a threat to the US.( unlike McVeigh).
To all of you US pilots out there:
Your domestic security levels were virtually non existent.
Two domestic US based airlines were hijacked within the US by terrorists resident in the US.
The hijackers were passengers, not crew on the flights concerned.
International secutity standards are way higher than those within the US.
The first reaction of your government was against international carriers operating into the US. (We can understand this, as the threat had not been clearly identified).
New security measures are anti non-US crew, treating us as the real threat, whilst we are the most exposed victims. Passengers are being subjected to far less scrutiny than crew.
The first airlines to be allowed to operate back into the US were the very same airlines that were involved in this atrocity.
Other airlines - i.e. non US based airlines were still grounded whilst AA and UA were let operate.
Other that favoritism, can any of you US pilots give a creditable reason for such prejudiced behavior?
Answers on a postcard before the next World War please, so please hurry.
P.S.
I am left with a clear picture:
It is all our fault. Yes the non-American - I don't know or care who you are but it's all your fault, and I don't care if we nuke you or whatever but someone - anyone - we don't really care, has to pay for it. We need our feel good factor.
[ 18 September 2001: Message edited by: tonyryan ]
[ 18 September 2001: Message edited by: tonyryan ]
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason is that it was realized that there is NO GROUND SECURITY IN THE WORLD THAT COULD HAVE PREVENTED THIS!
The weapons used are on sale beyond the security point at Heathrow! Atleast in the US we don't sell swiss army knives inside the security zone.
The reason is that though British security on the ground may be better, your inflight security was appalling. one nutter almost crashed a 747 by his lonesome.
I suspect that a requirement to operate into the US is now a locked cockpit and inflight security staff. Seeing all the "A locked door wouldn't help" threads here, I am sure that BA and VS initially balked and said its not necesary. To which The FAA would have responded, okay, its not necesary for you to fly.
Cheers
Wino
The weapons used are on sale beyond the security point at Heathrow! Atleast in the US we don't sell swiss army knives inside the security zone.
The reason is that though British security on the ground may be better, your inflight security was appalling. one nutter almost crashed a 747 by his lonesome.
I suspect that a requirement to operate into the US is now a locked cockpit and inflight security staff. Seeing all the "A locked door wouldn't help" threads here, I am sure that BA and VS initially balked and said its not necesary. To which The FAA would have responded, okay, its not necesary for you to fly.
Cheers
Wino
PPRuNer in low earth orbit
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tonyryan,
Your post is crap.
Our corporate flight operation, hands down the safest form of air transport in the world today, had an aircraft offshore which was not allowed in until yesterday.
Protectoinism my a$$!
Your post is crap.
Our corporate flight operation, hands down the safest form of air transport in the world today, had an aircraft offshore which was not allowed in until yesterday.
Protectoinism my a$$!
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guvnor - I believe you may have mistaken us for people who give a **** about your opinions.
Your thoughts would be better discussed with any(doubtful I know)friends that you may have, rather than airing them publicly. Just because you can say something does not mean that you should.
Your desire to be the centre of attention at this time is a disgrace. What is the matter with you?, did mommy not love you enough when you were little??
Show some respect and give it a rest.
Your thoughts would be better discussed with any(doubtful I know)friends that you may have, rather than airing them publicly. Just because you can say something does not mean that you should.
Your desire to be the centre of attention at this time is a disgrace. What is the matter with you?, did mommy not love you enough when you were little??
Show some respect and give it a rest.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Over the horizon
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am amazed by the writers who believe security is so much better in the EU. I have travelled extensively and still do and most of western Europe is not much better than the US.
several mentions of the drunk who casually wandered onto the FD of a british carrier, that should not have happened in the US since our doors are to be locked. If a british carrier had been subject to this same scenario as the one used at WTC, I am doubtfull the outcome would have been much different. Air Transport is a mass transport business and only in limited circumstances can effective security measures be applied. ELAL has the strictest security in the world, but the have two advantages, they have relatively few passengers as compared to any major carrier in the US and they know exactly who the enemy is. In the US, the great melting pot, we have people from all over the world, 99.999% of them peaceloving, but just imagine if we started suspecting and questioning every single person from the middle east, that would indeed be a job.
Now we are seeing arrests in Germany, so were was the normally very effeicient Bundespolizei. In Holland likewise.
I am sure as we speak there are suspects in England, furthermore we have seen the inability of the British to contain the "Irish problem". And I am also sure that some of these people who perpetrated this act passed thru the EU on their way to the US, rumours has it some of the people arrested were trying to go through Amsterdam.
This is a tragic event which we all need to learn from, not cast stones.
On a slight side note to tonyryan:" It would appear that we are taking our time before we start pointing fingers and taking action, perhaps you could learn from that. If not, like the famous quote goes: "Sod off"
several mentions of the drunk who casually wandered onto the FD of a british carrier, that should not have happened in the US since our doors are to be locked. If a british carrier had been subject to this same scenario as the one used at WTC, I am doubtfull the outcome would have been much different. Air Transport is a mass transport business and only in limited circumstances can effective security measures be applied. ELAL has the strictest security in the world, but the have two advantages, they have relatively few passengers as compared to any major carrier in the US and they know exactly who the enemy is. In the US, the great melting pot, we have people from all over the world, 99.999% of them peaceloving, but just imagine if we started suspecting and questioning every single person from the middle east, that would indeed be a job.
Now we are seeing arrests in Germany, so were was the normally very effeicient Bundespolizei. In Holland likewise.
I am sure as we speak there are suspects in England, furthermore we have seen the inability of the British to contain the "Irish problem". And I am also sure that some of these people who perpetrated this act passed thru the EU on their way to the US, rumours has it some of the people arrested were trying to go through Amsterdam.
This is a tragic event which we all need to learn from, not cast stones.
On a slight side note to tonyryan:" It would appear that we are taking our time before we start pointing fingers and taking action, perhaps you could learn from that. If not, like the famous quote goes: "Sod off"
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Diesel8,
taking your time? - Don't forget that they were internal US flights that were hikacked. In the US you treat Domestic and International travel in totally different fashions. International travel is subjected to high security, whilst Domestic is subjected to minimal.
I have witnessed passengers baggage loaded onto a Domestic flight, and the passenger fail to join the flight due to a ticket problem. The a/c left witout the pasenger, but with her baggage. Now that isDomestic travel in hte US. Wouldn't happen in Europe.
Very shortly, by the end of next year, ALL checked in baggage will be X-rayed. no plans for that in the US.
taking your time? - Don't forget that they were internal US flights that were hikacked. In the US you treat Domestic and International travel in totally different fashions. International travel is subjected to high security, whilst Domestic is subjected to minimal.
I have witnessed passengers baggage loaded onto a Domestic flight, and the passenger fail to join the flight due to a ticket problem. The a/c left witout the pasenger, but with her baggage. Now that isDomestic travel in hte US. Wouldn't happen in Europe.
Very shortly, by the end of next year, ALL checked in baggage will be X-rayed. no plans for that in the US.
CH3CH2OH
Diesel8
Thank you for reminding us about the 'Irish Problem' and our inability to deal with it - please see the quote blow as mentioned so eloquently further up this thread
This is not the appropriate time to start comparing countries records on terrorism or start jingoistically waving our dicks in the air with how better we are / you are.
Now is the time to gather friends and allies and coolly calculate how to run a sustained, coordinated and effective campaign against terrorism globally. Remember revenge is a dish best served cold.
The following quote was forwarded to me today and provided (I think) valuable food for thought
Thank you for reminding us about the 'Irish Problem' and our inability to deal with it - please see the quote blow as mentioned so eloquently further up this thread
However, to our American cousins, please remember that we have lived with Irish terrorism for 30 years. We understand your pain. If we are a little insensitive it is probably because we have become somewhat harden to the brutality and indiscriminate nature of terrorism. I hope now that your President and Congress will fight to prevent ALL terrorism. As well as defeating bin Ladan and his various factions, it must also include the outlawing of organisations who support any terrorism, and in particular Irish terrorist groups. Organisations such as NORAID claim they are collecting for "Political Prisoners". No they are not. Their activities help fund the attrocities we have had in Manchester, Birmingham, Coventry, London and throughout Northern Ireland. You now have first hand experience of the effect well funded terrorists can have. Never has there been a greater opportunity to fight all terrorism.
Now is the time to gather friends and allies and coolly calculate how to run a sustained, coordinated and effective campaign against terrorism globally. Remember revenge is a dish best served cold.
The following quote was forwarded to me today and provided (I think) valuable food for thought
1. A former Afganastani's View
An Anonymous Writer's comments:
I've been hearing a lot of talk about "bombing Afghanistan back to the
Stone Age." Ron Owens, on KGO Talk Radio today, allowed that this would
mean killing innocent people, people who had nothing to do with this
atrocity, but "we're at war, we have to accept collateral damage. What
else can we do?" Minutes later I heard some TV pundit discussing
whether we "have the belly to do what must be done." And I thought
about the issues being raised especially hard because I am from
Afghanistan, and even though I've lived here for 35 years I've never
lost track of what's going on there. So I want to tell anyone who will
listen how it all looks from where I'm standing.
I speak as one who deeply hates the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. My
hatred comes from first hand experience. There is no doubt in my mind
that these people were responsible for the atrocity in New York. I
agree that something must be done about those monsters. But the Taliban
and Ben Laden are not Afghanistan. They're not even the government of
Afghanistan. The Taliban are a cult of ignorant psychotics who took over Afghanistan in 1997. Bin Laden
is a political criminal with a plan. When you think Taliban, think Nazis.
When you think Bin Laden,think Hitler. And when you think "the people of
Afghanistan" think "the Jews in the concentration camps." It's not only
that the Afghan people had nothing to do with this atrocity. They were the first
victims of the perpetrators. They would exult if someone would come in
there, take out the Taliban and clear out the rats nest of international
thugs holed up in their country.
Some say, why don't the Afghans rise up and overthrow the Taliban? The
answer is, they're starved, exhausted, hurt, incapacitated, suffering.
A few years ago, the United Nations estimated that there are 500,000
disabled orphans in Afghanistan--a country with no economy, no food.
There are millions of widows. And the Taliban has been burying these
widows alive in mass graves. The soil is littered with land mines, the
farms were all destroyed by the Soviets. These are a few of the reasons
why the Afghan people have not overthrown the Taliban. We come now to
the question of "bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age". Trouble
is, that's been done. The Soviets took care of it already. Make the
Afghans suffer? They're already suffering. Level their houses? Done.
Turn their schools into piles of rubble? Done. Eradicate their
hospitals? Done. Destroy their infrastructure? Cut them off from
medicine and health care? Too late. Someone already did all that. New
bombs would only stir the rubble of earlier bombs. Would they at least
get the Taliban? Not likely. In today's Afghanistan, only the Taliban
eat, only they have the means to move around. They'd slip away and
hide. Maybe the bombs would get some of those disabled orphans, they
don't move too fast, they don't even have wheelchairs. But flying over
Kabul and dropping bombs would not really be a strike against the
criminals who did this horrific thing. Actually it would only be making
common cause with the Taliban--by raping once again the people they've
been raping all this time. So what else is there? What can be done,
then?
Let me now speak with true fear and trembling. The only way to get Bin
Laden is to go in there with ground troops. When people speak of
"having the belly to do what needs to be done" they're thinking in terms of having the belly
to kill as many as needed. Having the belly to overcome any moral qualms
about killing innocent people. Let's pull our heads out of the sand. What's
actually on the table is Americans dying. And not just because some
Americans would die fighting their way through Afghanistan to Bin Laden's
hideout. It's much bigger than that folks. Because to get any troops to
Afghanistan, we'd have to go through Pakistan. Would they let us? Not
likely. The conquest of Pakistan would have to be first. Will other Muslim
nations just stand by? You see where I'm going. We're flirting with a world
war between Islam and the West. And guess what: that's Bin Laden's program.
That's exactly what he wants. That's why he did this. Read his speeches and
statements. It's all right there. He really believes Islam would beat the
west. It might seem ridiculous, but he figures if he can polarize the world
into Islam and the West, he's got a billion soldiers. If the west wreaks a
holocaust in those lands, that's a billion people with nothing left to
lose, that's even better from Bin Laden's point of view. He's probably wrong, in
the end the West would win, whatever that would mean, but the war would
last for years and millions would die, not just theirs but ours. Who has the
belly for that? Unfortunately, Bin Laden does. Anyone else?
An Anonymous Writer's comments:
I've been hearing a lot of talk about "bombing Afghanistan back to the
Stone Age." Ron Owens, on KGO Talk Radio today, allowed that this would
mean killing innocent people, people who had nothing to do with this
atrocity, but "we're at war, we have to accept collateral damage. What
else can we do?" Minutes later I heard some TV pundit discussing
whether we "have the belly to do what must be done." And I thought
about the issues being raised especially hard because I am from
Afghanistan, and even though I've lived here for 35 years I've never
lost track of what's going on there. So I want to tell anyone who will
listen how it all looks from where I'm standing.
I speak as one who deeply hates the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. My
hatred comes from first hand experience. There is no doubt in my mind
that these people were responsible for the atrocity in New York. I
agree that something must be done about those monsters. But the Taliban
and Ben Laden are not Afghanistan. They're not even the government of
Afghanistan. The Taliban are a cult of ignorant psychotics who took over Afghanistan in 1997. Bin Laden
is a political criminal with a plan. When you think Taliban, think Nazis.
When you think Bin Laden,think Hitler. And when you think "the people of
Afghanistan" think "the Jews in the concentration camps." It's not only
that the Afghan people had nothing to do with this atrocity. They were the first
victims of the perpetrators. They would exult if someone would come in
there, take out the Taliban and clear out the rats nest of international
thugs holed up in their country.
Some say, why don't the Afghans rise up and overthrow the Taliban? The
answer is, they're starved, exhausted, hurt, incapacitated, suffering.
A few years ago, the United Nations estimated that there are 500,000
disabled orphans in Afghanistan--a country with no economy, no food.
There are millions of widows. And the Taliban has been burying these
widows alive in mass graves. The soil is littered with land mines, the
farms were all destroyed by the Soviets. These are a few of the reasons
why the Afghan people have not overthrown the Taliban. We come now to
the question of "bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age". Trouble
is, that's been done. The Soviets took care of it already. Make the
Afghans suffer? They're already suffering. Level their houses? Done.
Turn their schools into piles of rubble? Done. Eradicate their
hospitals? Done. Destroy their infrastructure? Cut them off from
medicine and health care? Too late. Someone already did all that. New
bombs would only stir the rubble of earlier bombs. Would they at least
get the Taliban? Not likely. In today's Afghanistan, only the Taliban
eat, only they have the means to move around. They'd slip away and
hide. Maybe the bombs would get some of those disabled orphans, they
don't move too fast, they don't even have wheelchairs. But flying over
Kabul and dropping bombs would not really be a strike against the
criminals who did this horrific thing. Actually it would only be making
common cause with the Taliban--by raping once again the people they've
been raping all this time. So what else is there? What can be done,
then?
Let me now speak with true fear and trembling. The only way to get Bin
Laden is to go in there with ground troops. When people speak of
"having the belly to do what needs to be done" they're thinking in terms of having the belly
to kill as many as needed. Having the belly to overcome any moral qualms
about killing innocent people. Let's pull our heads out of the sand. What's
actually on the table is Americans dying. And not just because some
Americans would die fighting their way through Afghanistan to Bin Laden's
hideout. It's much bigger than that folks. Because to get any troops to
Afghanistan, we'd have to go through Pakistan. Would they let us? Not
likely. The conquest of Pakistan would have to be first. Will other Muslim
nations just stand by? You see where I'm going. We're flirting with a world
war between Islam and the West. And guess what: that's Bin Laden's program.
That's exactly what he wants. That's why he did this. Read his speeches and
statements. It's all right there. He really believes Islam would beat the
west. It might seem ridiculous, but he figures if he can polarize the world
into Islam and the West, he's got a billion soldiers. If the west wreaks a
holocaust in those lands, that's a billion people with nothing left to
lose, that's even better from Bin Laden's point of view. He's probably wrong, in
the end the West would win, whatever that would mean, but the war would
last for years and millions would die, not just theirs but ours. Who has the
belly for that? Unfortunately, Bin Laden does. Anyone else?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Abroad
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The terrorists deliberately chose aircraft from one of the few countries which happens to have a locked flight deck policy.
Doesn't the end result show in the best (or worst, as it were...) possible way, how useless the locked flight deck actually is? I think it is a fallacy, probably even has a detrimental effect from the false feeling of security it induces.
The international community must come up with something drastically better than that weak, and indeed old, idea.
Doesn't the end result show in the best (or worst, as it were...) possible way, how useless the locked flight deck actually is? I think it is a fallacy, probably even has a detrimental effect from the false feeling of security it induces.
The international community must come up with something drastically better than that weak, and indeed old, idea.
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rumet,
The door worked, the people failed because they opened the door. Never again will that happen because everyone has seen the result.
I hate to say it, but to a large degree, those in the back are now on their own. No amount of screaming or gore is going to ever get me to open the door again.
It takes a while to kill dozens of people with a knife. However, if you kill the pilots you can do it in a second with the controlls of the aircraft which has been demonstrated.
I am sure that from now on when ever a pax see someone trying to break into the cockpit, they are gonna get involved. Hopefully just like on the Southwest flight where they killed the person.
Wino
The door worked, the people failed because they opened the door. Never again will that happen because everyone has seen the result.
I hate to say it, but to a large degree, those in the back are now on their own. No amount of screaming or gore is going to ever get me to open the door again.
It takes a while to kill dozens of people with a knife. However, if you kill the pilots you can do it in a second with the controlls of the aircraft which has been demonstrated.
I am sure that from now on when ever a pax see someone trying to break into the cockpit, they are gonna get involved. Hopefully just like on the Southwest flight where they killed the person.
Wino
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Abroad
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wino,
I understand your point, but I think that even if the door had remained locked (are we sure at this stage that it did not, by the way?), it would not have prevented this disaster. Smashing a flight deck door looks real easy, and for a real coward, taking a stewardess hostage to get someone to open it is probably easier still.
On a more positive note, I agree that strong pax involvement is likely to happen more often as a result of all this.
I understand your point, but I think that even if the door had remained locked (are we sure at this stage that it did not, by the way?), it would not have prevented this disaster. Smashing a flight deck door looks real easy, and for a real coward, taking a stewardess hostage to get someone to open it is probably easier still.
On a more positive note, I agree that strong pax involvement is likely to happen more often as a result of all this.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Antonio,Texas,USA
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlemen the messages I have read here are very disturbing. We should not be making these accusations of “protectionism”. Based on the events that have transpired recently, the entire Aviation community should understand the increased security requirements that are being imposed. And realize that by reducing the number aircraft coming into the states frees the manpower requirement that it is taking to enforce more stringent security checks. After all, we as a global community, are in this together what happened in the US last week could very well occur anywhere in the world. These restrictions are not necessarily implying that the security in the UK is any less effective than the security in the US. This attack has crippled the aviation industry worldwide, over time the industry will recover but for now we all must continue to maintain professionalism and compassion toward one another in order to persevere, and overcome these difficult times.
Let us not forget the root cause of all of this.It is really petty throwing stones at one another, lets not stoop to that level.
Let us not forget the root cause of all of this.It is really petty throwing stones at one another, lets not stoop to that level.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: 35K
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with the comments on the opening of the door - it works as long as it stays closed. Given the consequences I know that if anyone pulls any crap on a plane i am a passenger on, will find out what damage a cumbrian rugby player can do to your ribs - will i be killed - maybe, but there are 300 people behind me all of whom saw the images in NY and DC.
Keep you fundermentalist bullship of VS, we might only have plastic knives, but they can sure hurt your ringpiece
Keep you fundermentalist bullship of VS, we might only have plastic knives, but they can sure hurt your ringpiece
Glasgow's Gallus Gigolo .... PPRuNeing is like making love to a beautiful woman ... I take hours.
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Diesel, Wino, we've disagreed in the past about various topics, but I'd like to support you- I doubt there was any protectionism involved, whatever the websites said it seems like BA and the other European flag carriers have resumed ops.
Yeah, there have been gaps in our security, I'm not going to discuss them on an open forum, but they were generally in different places to the gaps in yours. I daresay ours appeared as glaringly obvious to you, as yours did to us.
We can work together to ensure everyone is safer in the future. If we start to fight among ourselves, it only helps the genocidal maniac who did this to us.
And NewYorkPilot? Please don't assume all British people share the Guv's opinions- read the responses to his posts on any other topic to see what I mean!
Yeah, there have been gaps in our security, I'm not going to discuss them on an open forum, but they were generally in different places to the gaps in yours. I daresay ours appeared as glaringly obvious to you, as yours did to us.
We can work together to ensure everyone is safer in the future. If we start to fight among ourselves, it only helps the genocidal maniac who did this to us.
And NewYorkPilot? Please don't assume all British people share the Guv's opinions- read the responses to his posts on any other topic to see what I mean!
