|
Originally Posted by UMassCanuck07
I believe the UA crew made the decision to land the plane in BOS. So I guess they are idiots eh?
If it was one person with a non-life-threatening panic attack, then yes, they were morons and should have to compensate the passengers for this poor decision. |
Originally Posted by Spiff
If it was one person with a non-life-threatening panic attack, then yes, they were morons and should have to compensate the other passengers for this poor decision.
|
Originally Posted by Spiff
Depends on the size of the disruption.
If it was one person with a non-life-threatening panic attack, then yes, they were morons and should have to compensate the other passengers for this poor decision. Also considering it was a week ago that the "scare" happened and today was one of the mentioned dates for the attack, I do not think it was an overreaction at all. Especially since it was a LHR-IAD flight (one of those targeted). |
Originally Posted by Spiff
If it was one person with a non-life-threatening panic attack, then yes, they were morons and should have to compensate the passengers for this poor decision.
|
Originally Posted by Spiff
Depends on the size of the disruption.
If it was one person with a non-life-threatening panic attack, then yes, they were morons and should have to compensate the passengers for this poor decision. Oh, you mean, like, ummm, it can't *possibly* be a diversion from the real threat? That couldn't happen. Are you aware of how pickpockets often operate -- 1 diverts your attention while the other grabs your wallet? Your post = :td: |
Originally Posted by GUWonder
Fighter jets escorted it. What a waste of government resources. What were the figher jets going to do? Fire a magic missile through the window and kill a non-hijacker? ;)
I am NOT kidding. That's why they do it. |
Originally Posted by xyzzy
Don't forget the thousands of others who will be disrupted because they carried on the search, etc. of the plane ON THE RUNWAY. Taxiing off the runway would have taken all of 30 seconds, but nooo.....
|
Originally Posted by UMassCanuck07
WBUR now says it was a 62-year-old woman who was claustrophic and disruptive. No note, no screwdriver and no lotion/vasiline.
She must have been really disruptive to have the flight diverted!!! Why in friggin' Hell do claustrophobic people take long haul flights??? :confused: |
Originally Posted by Javan69
-----------------
Oh, you mean, like, ummm, it can't *possibly* be a diversion from the real threat? That couldn't happen. Are you aware of how pickpockets often operate -- 1 diverts your attention while the other grabs your wallet? Your post = :td: |
Originally Posted by Spiff
And I hope the rat is treated to a savage beating by his/her fellow passengers for being too stupid to fly. (Picture the scene from Airplane where the passengers are lined up to 'help' the hysterical passenger... ;) )
hmmmm I wonder if she was flying with the woman on our flight back home from vacation on Tuesday. She was seated in the row behind us and next to her was a business weenie/technogeek with a Sony VAIO UX180P Micro PC (I know 'cause I almost drooled on it while stowing my laptop in the overhead ;) ) Anyway they made the call to shut off electronic devices and I guess he hadn't turned his off quick enough because I heard him say in a not too quiet voice "Relax lady! I have to save my work and then I'll shut it off. It's not like this little thing is going to make the plane take off and fly to the South Pole!" :D ^ |
Originally Posted by g_leyser
Umm, actually the fighter jets are sent to escort the plane so that they can easily shoot it out of the sky before a terrorist can crash it into a skyscraper/White House/etc.
I am NOT kidding. That's why they do it. (I'm not looking forward to the US military shooting down a passenger jet again. :eek: ) |
OVERKILL...a 60 year old woman who has an anxiety attack. I will bet you that she is middle eastern and she had an anxiety attack because a bunch of men are hovering over her looking at her suspiciously because she had an arabic newspaper.
If there was never any threat of a terrorism, why are they inspecting each bag...also, why didn't they divert the airplane to Bangor? A nation of paranoid freaks is what we have become. |
Originally Posted by GUWonder
Fighter jets escorted it. ...
|
In response to the latest London security breach reported on cnn.com:
LONDON, England -- Despite a high level of alert at British airports, a 12-year-old boy managed to board a plane at Gatwick without a passport, ticket or boarding pass. Tuesday's incident has raised concerns over security procedures in the wake of an alleged plot to blow up planes on trans-Atlantic flight. The boy was detected by member of the Monarch Airlines cabin crew only after he was seated and had been given a drink and a snack. He was removed from the plane by police officers before the flight took off. FAA Bans People From Flights 'Zero Tolerance for People,' Chertoff Says In a move aimed at further tightening airport security, the Federal Aviation Administration announced today that it would ban all people from flights leaving or entering the United States, effective immediately. The FAA, which has in the past banned such objects as toenail clippers and hair gel, took the extraordinary step of banning people after the Department of Homeland Security conducted a thorough investigation of previous terror plots. "We looked at terror plots of the past, and in each and every case, people were involved," said Homeland Security Michael Chertoff at a Washington press briefing. "These new rules send the strong message that the FAA has zero tolerance for people." Mr. Chertoff said that while banning liquids from flights was a constructive step, the only true solution was to ban people altogether. "Let's face it, hair gel doesn't kill people," he said. "People kill people." The Homeland Security Secretary acknowledged that the new rules would curtail Americans' ability to travel, but added, "On the plus side, that will make them easier for us to spy on." The FAA's ban on people onboard flights raised questions for the nation's airlines, which must now ponder what, if anything, there airplanes will be carrying. But Davis Logsdon, who studies the airline industry at the University of Minnesota, said that the FAA's crackdown on people could be a "win-win" for the airlines: "Maybe if the airlines don't have people to worry about, they can finally concentrate on getting our luggage to the right destination." Elsewhere, al-Qaeda disavowed responsibility for a terror plot to make Americans' laptops burst into flames, blaming it instead on Dell. |
Originally Posted by Javan69
-----------------
Oh, you mean, like, ummm, it can't *possibly* be a diversion from the real threat? That couldn't happen. Are you aware of how pickpockets often operate -- 1 diverts your attention while the other grabs your wallet? Your post = :td: Wow, you mean the crew would acutally have to think instead of just blindly panicing? This is a time for acting, not thinking!! :rolleyes: Your post = :td: :td: |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 9:56 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.