Qatari royals halt British flight
Aug 2nd 2007 | 10:35 am
#31
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Qatari royals halt British flight
Geoff Miller wrote:
> You can bet your ass and hat that if something like that
> happened here in America, it would've been resoved far
> more quickly -- and with the use of Mace if necessary.
> If that makes this a "police state," then so be it.
You bet. They were royals, not movie stars.
--
Craig http://www.wazu.jp/
1,238 Unicode fonts for 75 written language groups:
> You can bet your ass and hat that if something like that
> happened here in America, it would've been resoved far
> more quickly -- and with the use of Mace if necessary.
> If that makes this a "police state," then so be it.
You bet. They were royals, not movie stars.
--
Craig http://www.wazu.jp/
1,238 Unicode fonts for 75 written language groups:
Aug 2nd 2007 | 11:39 am
#32
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Qatari royals halt British flight
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 22:20:31 -0000, [email protected] (Geoff Miller) wrote:
>hummingbird <[email protected]> writes:
>
>: WTF does living in a "police state" have to do with it?
>
>> The OP did say "...it would have taken ten seconds, and then
>> they would all have been handcuffed and dragged off!!"
>
>> That looks awfully like a police state to me.
>
>Why? Is it the handcuffs, the being dragged off the plane,
>or its hypothetically taking ten seconds? Or maybe just the
>mere presence of the police?
In the US and in many other civilized countries, people disrupting the flight
would have been arrested and removed, forthwith, for the safety of all the
others on the plane.
Many times have celebrities found this out, the hard way.
By the way, how was it possible for the damn sheikh to get to the cockpit and
the captain?
Isn't the pilots' cabin supposed to have a LOCKED door, or is it that BA or
Italia just don't give a damn?
It certainly should not have taken 3 hours to get rid of the troublemakers!!
A sensible crew would just have thrown them out the door and then taken off!
>> The only ground I will give you is that some of the Arab
>> sheiks in the M/E can be a bit OTT in the ego dept.
>
>Isn't that all the more reason to be firm and assertive
>with them when one is in the right?
>
>
>: Those inconsiderate asses interfered with other people's
>: travel, not to mention legitimate international commerce.
>
>> I agree but sh*t happens and the only problem I can see is
>> that it took three hours to decide how to handle it.
>
>So...you object to the fact that it took three hours to remove
>these people from the plane, but you'd also have objected if it
>took only ten seconds. Which way do you want it?
>
>
>: Your mentioning a police state hints that you're a bit of a
>: liberal. Liberals are big on rights, so weigh this: The
>: unruly passengers obviously believed that their rights as
>: to seat preference trumped the right of their fellow pas-
>: senegers to go about their travelsm which was patently
>: absurd. How would *you* feel if you'd been a passenger on
>: that plane?
>
>> I wonder if there's a dash of anti-Arabism in your comments?
>
>Nice attempt at diversion. I never even mentioned Arabs in the
>quoted passage, as you can see. And just by the bye, you'll
>find that I don't crumple like tissue paper in the face of
>accusations of racism and the like. It's an American thing.
>
>
>> Fwiw I'm a (moderate) libertarian. We don't define people
>> as being "liberal" or not in the UK. That's largely an
>> American term.
>
>That's interesting to hear. I've read any number of books and
>articles by British authors in which the terms "liberal" and
>"conservative" were used. Moreover, I understand that there
>even used to be a Liberal political party in the UK.
>
>
>>I'd probably have been irritated that the airline didn't have a
>>better procedure for handling such issues *before* they arise.
>
>So it's the airline's fault for failing to anticipate every
>possible way in which passengers can be unreasonable? Sounds
>like a pretty tall order. I get the impression that you're
>bending over backwards to avoid placing the blame on the
>shoulders of the passangers because they're Arabs.
>
>
>: If it'd been up to me, those nitwits would've been soaked
>: down with Mace, *then* handcuffed and dragged off the plane.
>
>> Indeed, a police state. Beware of what you wish for...
>
>A sweeping Republican victory in 2008?
>
>
>
>Geoff
>hummingbird <[email protected]> writes:
>
>: WTF does living in a "police state" have to do with it?
>
>> The OP did say "...it would have taken ten seconds, and then
>> they would all have been handcuffed and dragged off!!"
>
>> That looks awfully like a police state to me.
>
>Why? Is it the handcuffs, the being dragged off the plane,
>or its hypothetically taking ten seconds? Or maybe just the
>mere presence of the police?
In the US and in many other civilized countries, people disrupting the flight
would have been arrested and removed, forthwith, for the safety of all the
others on the plane.
Many times have celebrities found this out, the hard way.
By the way, how was it possible for the damn sheikh to get to the cockpit and
the captain?
Isn't the pilots' cabin supposed to have a LOCKED door, or is it that BA or
Italia just don't give a damn?
It certainly should not have taken 3 hours to get rid of the troublemakers!!
A sensible crew would just have thrown them out the door and then taken off!
>> The only ground I will give you is that some of the Arab
>> sheiks in the M/E can be a bit OTT in the ego dept.
>
>Isn't that all the more reason to be firm and assertive
>with them when one is in the right?
>
>
>: Those inconsiderate asses interfered with other people's
>: travel, not to mention legitimate international commerce.
>
>> I agree but sh*t happens and the only problem I can see is
>> that it took three hours to decide how to handle it.
>
>So...you object to the fact that it took three hours to remove
>these people from the plane, but you'd also have objected if it
>took only ten seconds. Which way do you want it?
>
>
>: Your mentioning a police state hints that you're a bit of a
>: liberal. Liberals are big on rights, so weigh this: The
>: unruly passengers obviously believed that their rights as
>: to seat preference trumped the right of their fellow pas-
>: senegers to go about their travelsm which was patently
>: absurd. How would *you* feel if you'd been a passenger on
>: that plane?
>
>> I wonder if there's a dash of anti-Arabism in your comments?
>
>Nice attempt at diversion. I never even mentioned Arabs in the
>quoted passage, as you can see. And just by the bye, you'll
>find that I don't crumple like tissue paper in the face of
>accusations of racism and the like. It's an American thing.
>
>
>> Fwiw I'm a (moderate) libertarian. We don't define people
>> as being "liberal" or not in the UK. That's largely an
>> American term.
>
>That's interesting to hear. I've read any number of books and
>articles by British authors in which the terms "liberal" and
>"conservative" were used. Moreover, I understand that there
>even used to be a Liberal political party in the UK.
>
>
>>I'd probably have been irritated that the airline didn't have a
>>better procedure for handling such issues *before* they arise.
>
>So it's the airline's fault for failing to anticipate every
>possible way in which passengers can be unreasonable? Sounds
>like a pretty tall order. I get the impression that you're
>bending over backwards to avoid placing the blame on the
>shoulders of the passangers because they're Arabs.
>
>
>: If it'd been up to me, those nitwits would've been soaked
>: down with Mace, *then* handcuffed and dragged off the plane.
>
>> Indeed, a police state. Beware of what you wish for...
>
>A sweeping Republican victory in 2008?
>
>
>
>Geoff
Aug 2nd 2007 | 12:03 pm
#33
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Qatari royals halt British flight
Jean Valjean wrote:
> By the way, how was it possible for the damn sheikh to get to the cockpit and
> the captain?
>
> Isn't the pilots' cabin supposed to have a LOCKED door, or is it that BA or
> Italia just don't give a damn?
The article did not say that the sheikh got into the cockpit.
--
Craig http://www.wazu.jp/
1,238 Unicode fonts for 75 written language groups:
> By the way, how was it possible for the damn sheikh to get to the cockpit and
> the captain?
>
> Isn't the pilots' cabin supposed to have a LOCKED door, or is it that BA or
> Italia just don't give a damn?
The article did not say that the sheikh got into the cockpit.
--
Craig http://www.wazu.jp/
1,238 Unicode fonts for 75 written language groups:
Aug 2nd 2007 | 12:35 pm
#34
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Qatari royals halt British flight
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 23:39:25 GMT, Jean Valjean
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 22:20:31 -0000, [email protected] (Geoff Miller) wrote:
>>hummingbird <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>: WTF does living in a "police state" have to do with it?
>>
>>> The OP did say "...it would have taken ten seconds, and then
>>> they would all have been handcuffed and dragged off!!"
>>
>>> That looks awfully like a police state to me.
>>
>>Why? Is it the handcuffs, the being dragged off the plane,
>>or its hypothetically taking ten seconds? Or maybe just the
>>mere presence of the police?
>
>In the US and in many other civilized countries, people disrupting the flight
>would have been arrested and removed, forthwith, for the safety of all the
>others on the plane.
>
>Many times have celebrities found this out, the hard way.
>
>By the way, how was it possible for the damn sheikh to get to the cockpit and
>the captain?
Probably walked to the door and knocked.
>
>Isn't the pilots' cabin supposed to have a LOCKED door, or is it that BA or
>Italia just don't give a damn?
Doesn't prevent them from coming out to settle a problem. Happens all
the time
>
>It certainly should not have taken 3 hours to get rid of the troublemakers!!
How do you know? Were you there?
>
>A sensible crew would just have thrown them out the door and then taken off!
Don't think so. They call the authorities to do this which is what
happened. It was the Italian police that handled the situation.
It would be the same in the US unless air marshalls happened to be on
the flight, in which case they would handle it.
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 22:20:31 -0000, [email protected] (Geoff Miller) wrote:
>>hummingbird <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>: WTF does living in a "police state" have to do with it?
>>
>>> The OP did say "...it would have taken ten seconds, and then
>>> they would all have been handcuffed and dragged off!!"
>>
>>> That looks awfully like a police state to me.
>>
>>Why? Is it the handcuffs, the being dragged off the plane,
>>or its hypothetically taking ten seconds? Or maybe just the
>>mere presence of the police?
>
>In the US and in many other civilized countries, people disrupting the flight
>would have been arrested and removed, forthwith, for the safety of all the
>others on the plane.
>
>Many times have celebrities found this out, the hard way.
>
>By the way, how was it possible for the damn sheikh to get to the cockpit and
>the captain?
Probably walked to the door and knocked.
>
>Isn't the pilots' cabin supposed to have a LOCKED door, or is it that BA or
>Italia just don't give a damn?
Doesn't prevent them from coming out to settle a problem. Happens all
the time
>
>It certainly should not have taken 3 hours to get rid of the troublemakers!!
How do you know? Were you there?
>
>A sensible crew would just have thrown them out the door and then taken off!
Don't think so. They call the authorities to do this which is what
happened. It was the Italian police that handled the situation.
It would be the same in the US unless air marshalls happened to be on
the flight, in which case they would handle it.
Aug 2nd 2007 | 2:02 pm
#35
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Qatari royals halt British flight
"'Double Shirly' Jock McShirly the Mannie Trannie"
<[email protected]> wrote in message > The British Airways flight was
destined for Heathrow airport
> A British Airways flight was delayed for several hours after women
> members of the Qatari royal family objected to sitting next to men
> they did not know.
While I understand the sensitivities of Moslem women, particularly upper
class Moslem women, I have to ask, why did they book seats on a common
carrier? This is not their private jet. Unless they booked a whole section
all together they were bound to be seated next to someone, probably male
that they didn't know. This is just plain stupid. What does Gulf Air do? Do
they have private booths for women?
--
Donald R. Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net
<[email protected]> wrote in message > The British Airways flight was
destined for Heathrow airport
> A British Airways flight was delayed for several hours after women
> members of the Qatari royal family objected to sitting next to men
> they did not know.
While I understand the sensitivities of Moslem women, particularly upper
class Moslem women, I have to ask, why did they book seats on a common
carrier? This is not their private jet. Unless they booked a whole section
all together they were bound to be seated next to someone, probably male
that they didn't know. This is just plain stupid. What does Gulf Air do? Do
they have private booths for women?
--
Donald R. Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net
Aug 2nd 2007 | 5:57 pm
#36
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Qatari royals halt British flight
John Kulp wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:35:11 -0000, [email protected] (Geoff Miller)
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>hummingbird <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>[responding to 'GeorgeOrwell']
>>
>>
>>>>Why did it take 3 hours to dump the unruly passengers?
>>>>On a US airline, it would have taken ten seconds, and
>>>>then they would all have been handcuffed and dragged off!!
>>
>>>Not everybody lives in a police state?
>>
>>
>>*boggle*
>>
>>WTF does living in a "police state" have to do with it?
>>Those inconsiderate asses interfered with other people's
>>travel, not to mention legitimate international commerce.
>>
>>Your mentioning a police state hints that you're a bit of
>>a liberal. Liberals are big on rights, so weigh this:
>>The unruly passengers obviously believed that their rights
>>as to seat preference trumped the right of their fellow
>>passenegers to go about their travelsm which was patently
>>absurd. How would *you* feel if you'd been a passenger on
>>that plane?
>>
>>If it'd been up to me, those nitwits would've been soaked
>>down with Mace, *then* handcuffed and dragged off the plane.
>
>
> That's exactly why it's not up to you
Do you believe it is reasonable to delay the other passengers on the
plane for this nonsense?
> On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:35:11 -0000, [email protected] (Geoff Miller)
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>hummingbird <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>[responding to 'GeorgeOrwell']
>>
>>
>>>>Why did it take 3 hours to dump the unruly passengers?
>>>>On a US airline, it would have taken ten seconds, and
>>>>then they would all have been handcuffed and dragged off!!
>>
>>>Not everybody lives in a police state?
>>
>>
>>*boggle*
>>
>>WTF does living in a "police state" have to do with it?
>>Those inconsiderate asses interfered with other people's
>>travel, not to mention legitimate international commerce.
>>
>>Your mentioning a police state hints that you're a bit of
>>a liberal. Liberals are big on rights, so weigh this:
>>The unruly passengers obviously believed that their rights
>>as to seat preference trumped the right of their fellow
>>passenegers to go about their travelsm which was patently
>>absurd. How would *you* feel if you'd been a passenger on
>>that plane?
>>
>>If it'd been up to me, those nitwits would've been soaked
>>down with Mace, *then* handcuffed and dragged off the plane.
>
>
> That's exactly why it's not up to you
Do you believe it is reasonable to delay the other passengers on the
plane for this nonsense?
Aug 2nd 2007 | 6:09 pm
#37
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Qatari royals halt British flight
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 21:23:10 -0000, [email protected] (Geoff Miller)
wrote:
>
>
>John Kulp <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> That's exactly why it's not up to you
>
>It *should* be, smartass, -- or more precisely, up to
>someone _like_ me.
>
>
>You can bet your ass and hat that if something like that
>happened here in America, it would've been resoved far
>more quickly -- and with the use of Mace if necessary.
>If that makes this a "police state," then so be it.
So, how long did that Angelina Joli bint, or whichever actress it was,
hold up the plane in your country recently because she was having some
sort of hissy-fit? Did they mace her?
You're full of shit
wrote:
>
>
>John Kulp <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> That's exactly why it's not up to you
>
>It *should* be, smartass, -- or more precisely, up to
>someone _like_ me.
>
>
>You can bet your ass and hat that if something like that
>happened here in America, it would've been resoved far
>more quickly -- and with the use of Mace if necessary.
>If that makes this a "police state," then so be it.
So, how long did that Angelina Joli bint, or whichever actress it was,
hold up the plane in your country recently because she was having some
sort of hissy-fit? Did they mace her?
You're full of shit
Aug 2nd 2007 | 8:16 pm
#38
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Qatari royals halt British flight
'Double Shirly' Jock McShirly the Mannie Trannie wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6920226.stm
>
> Qatari royals halt British flight
>
> BA planes
> The British Airways flight was destined for Heathrow airport
> A British Airways flight was delayed for several hours after women
> members of the Qatari royal family objected to sitting next to men
> they did not know.
>
> The three wives of Sheikh Badr Bin Khalifa al-Thani refused take up
> their seats on board Flight 563 from Milan's Linate airport to London
> Heathrow.
>
> Police and Qatari diplomats became involved before the captain told
> Sheikh Badr's entourage to leave the aircraft.
>
> The Qatari royals eventually ended up getting an Alitalia flight to
> London.
>
> They had been on a shopping day-trip to the Italian city.
>
> 'Safety instructions'
>
> In addition to his three wives, Sheikh Badr, a junior member of
> Qatar's 3,000-strong ruling family, was accompanied by a male
> relative, a cook and another servant on the flight.
>
> After boarding, the women complained about the seats they had been
> allocated because they were next to men they did not know, a spokesman
> at Linate said.
>
>
> The people were offloaded because they failed to comply with safety
> instructions when the aircraft was taxiing
> British Airways spokesman
>
> Cabin crew tried to move the passengers to different seats, but those
> travelling with other people refused to change.
>
> Sheikh Badr then reportedly got up and walked to the pilot's cabin to
> complain.
>
> A delay of nearly four hours ensued as two members of the Qatari party
> refused to sit down.
>
> A BA spokesman said the captain eventually had no option but to return
> to the terminal.
>
> "The people were offloaded because they failed to comply with safety
> instructions when the aircraft was taxiing," he said.
>
> Later in the evening, the royals travelled business class with the
> Italian carrier, Alitalia, with their staff in economy.
>
> The Qatar embassy in Rome said it was a "private matter".
>
They were traveling with a "a cook and another servant". They can
afford to travel with a cook and a servant but can't afford a private
flight? There is something fishy about this story. Either it is made
up or the group did this just so create such a conflict.
--
Bruce E. Stemplewski
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6920226.stm
>
> Qatari royals halt British flight
>
> BA planes
> The British Airways flight was destined for Heathrow airport
> A British Airways flight was delayed for several hours after women
> members of the Qatari royal family objected to sitting next to men
> they did not know.
>
> The three wives of Sheikh Badr Bin Khalifa al-Thani refused take up
> their seats on board Flight 563 from Milan's Linate airport to London
> Heathrow.
>
> Police and Qatari diplomats became involved before the captain told
> Sheikh Badr's entourage to leave the aircraft.
>
> The Qatari royals eventually ended up getting an Alitalia flight to
> London.
>
> They had been on a shopping day-trip to the Italian city.
>
> 'Safety instructions'
>
> In addition to his three wives, Sheikh Badr, a junior member of
> Qatar's 3,000-strong ruling family, was accompanied by a male
> relative, a cook and another servant on the flight.
>
> After boarding, the women complained about the seats they had been
> allocated because they were next to men they did not know, a spokesman
> at Linate said.
>
>
> The people were offloaded because they failed to comply with safety
> instructions when the aircraft was taxiing
> British Airways spokesman
>
> Cabin crew tried to move the passengers to different seats, but those
> travelling with other people refused to change.
>
> Sheikh Badr then reportedly got up and walked to the pilot's cabin to
> complain.
>
> A delay of nearly four hours ensued as two members of the Qatari party
> refused to sit down.
>
> A BA spokesman said the captain eventually had no option but to return
> to the terminal.
>
> "The people were offloaded because they failed to comply with safety
> instructions when the aircraft was taxiing," he said.
>
> Later in the evening, the royals travelled business class with the
> Italian carrier, Alitalia, with their staff in economy.
>
> The Qatar embassy in Rome said it was a "private matter".
>
They were traveling with a "a cook and another servant". They can
afford to travel with a cook and a servant but can't afford a private
flight? There is something fishy about this story. Either it is made
up or the group did this just so create such a conflict.
--
Bruce E. Stemplewski
Aug 2nd 2007 | 8:50 pm
#39
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Qatari royals halt British flight
Dave Witmarsh <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 21:23:10 -0000, [email protected] (Geoff Miller)
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >John Kulp <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> That's exactly why it's not up to you
> >
> >It *should* be, smartass, -- or more precisely, up to
> >someone _like_ me.
> >
> >
> >You can bet your ass and hat that if something like that
> >happened here in America, it would've been resoved far
> >more quickly -- and with the use of Mace if necessary.
> >If that makes this a "police state," then so be it.
>
> So, how long did that Angelina Joli bint, or whichever actress it was,
Penelope Cruz, and no, after having a panic attack and holding up the
other passengers for several hours, she was allowed of the plane. I
don't think any action was taken...
--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"Abominable, loyal, blind, apparently subservient."
Pres. Carter on Ex-Pres. Blair- May, 2007
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 21:23:10 -0000, [email protected] (Geoff Miller)
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >John Kulp <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> That's exactly why it's not up to you
> >
> >It *should* be, smartass, -- or more precisely, up to
> >someone _like_ me.
> >
> >
> >You can bet your ass and hat that if something like that
> >happened here in America, it would've been resoved far
> >more quickly -- and with the use of Mace if necessary.
> >If that makes this a "police state," then so be it.
>
> So, how long did that Angelina Joli bint, or whichever actress it was,
Penelope Cruz, and no, after having a panic attack and holding up the
other passengers for several hours, she was allowed of the plane. I
don't think any action was taken...
--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"Abominable, loyal, blind, apparently subservient."
Pres. Carter on Ex-Pres. Blair- May, 2007
Aug 2nd 2007 | 11:22 pm
#40
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Qatari royals halt British flight
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 22:57:52 -0700, NotABushSupporter <[email protected]>
wrote:
>>>
>>>If it'd been up to me, those nitwits would've been soaked
>>>down with Mace, *then* handcuffed and dragged off the plane.
>>
>>
>> That's exactly why it's not up to you
>
>Do you believe it is reasonable to delay the other passengers on the
>plane for this nonsense?
>
No but that's not the point of my response. Why do you think that we
have trained air marshalls on planes? Because they're TRAINED to
handle situations like this, as are, presumably, the Italian police.
I learned fast in the army the value of training, which does as much
to protect you against chestbeating idiots like this poster who is
just as likely to harm you as the supposed offender. Why would anyone
with half a brain advocate macing someone who was just protesting
seating. The answer is obvious, of course, because he is a complete
idiot. Undoubtedly, care was taken because this chap was a member of
the royal family of a friendly ally of the west and may have had
diplomatic immunity for all one knows. That was the case with a Saudi
I went to college with who was invariably being bailed out by the
Saudi embassy on his many forays around Washington. There are other
considerations here than just some ordinary passenger carrying on
whether anyone likes it or not. And, I might add, an ordinary
passenger wouldn't be maced, etc. for simply complaining about
something like seating on a plane. He would be removed if he
persisted and let go.
wrote:
>>>
>>>If it'd been up to me, those nitwits would've been soaked
>>>down with Mace, *then* handcuffed and dragged off the plane.
>>
>>
>> That's exactly why it's not up to you
>
>Do you believe it is reasonable to delay the other passengers on the
>plane for this nonsense?
>
No but that's not the point of my response. Why do you think that we
have trained air marshalls on planes? Because they're TRAINED to
handle situations like this, as are, presumably, the Italian police.
I learned fast in the army the value of training, which does as much
to protect you against chestbeating idiots like this poster who is
just as likely to harm you as the supposed offender. Why would anyone
with half a brain advocate macing someone who was just protesting
seating. The answer is obvious, of course, because he is a complete
idiot. Undoubtedly, care was taken because this chap was a member of
the royal family of a friendly ally of the west and may have had
diplomatic immunity for all one knows. That was the case with a Saudi
I went to college with who was invariably being bailed out by the
Saudi embassy on his many forays around Washington. There are other
considerations here than just some ordinary passenger carrying on
whether anyone likes it or not. And, I might add, an ordinary
passenger wouldn't be maced, etc. for simply complaining about
something like seating on a plane. He would be removed if he
persisted and let go.
Aug 2nd 2007 | 11:24 pm
#41
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Qatari royals halt British flight
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 16:09:12 +1000, Dave Witmarsh <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 21:23:10 -0000, [email protected] (Geoff Miller)
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>John Kulp <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> That's exactly why it's not up to you
>>
>>It *should* be, smartass, -- or more precisely, up to
>>someone _like_ me.
>>
>>
>>You can bet your ass and hat that if something like that
>>happened here in America, it would've been resoved far
>>more quickly -- and with the use of Mace if necessary.
>>If that makes this a "police state," then so be it.
>
>So, how long did that Angelina Joli bint, or whichever actress it was,
>hold up the plane in your country recently because she was having some
>sort of hissy-fit? Did they mace her?
>
>You're full of shit
It was Penelope Cruz and, of course, he is. She had a panic attack
about flying and it was about 2 hours.
wrote:
>On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 21:23:10 -0000, [email protected] (Geoff Miller)
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>John Kulp <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> That's exactly why it's not up to you
>>
>>It *should* be, smartass, -- or more precisely, up to
>>someone _like_ me.
>>
>>
>>You can bet your ass and hat that if something like that
>>happened here in America, it would've been resoved far
>>more quickly -- and with the use of Mace if necessary.
>>If that makes this a "police state," then so be it.
>
>So, how long did that Angelina Joli bint, or whichever actress it was,
>hold up the plane in your country recently because she was having some
>sort of hissy-fit? Did they mace her?
>
>You're full of shit
It was Penelope Cruz and, of course, he is. She had a panic attack
about flying and it was about 2 hours.
Aug 2nd 2007 | 11:25 pm
#42
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Qatari royals halt British flight
On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 09:50:04 +0100, [email protected] (David Horne,
_the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:
>Dave Witmarsh <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 21:23:10 -0000, [email protected] (Geoff Miller)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >John Kulp <[email protected]> writes:
>> >
>> >> That's exactly why it's not up to you
>> >
>> >It *should* be, smartass, -- or more precisely, up to
>> >someone _like_ me.
>> >
>> >
>> >You can bet your ass and hat that if something like that
>> >happened here in America, it would've been resoved far
>> >more quickly -- and with the use of Mace if necessary.
>> >If that makes this a "police state," then so be it.
>>
>> So, how long did that Angelina Joli bint, or whichever actress it was,
>
>Penelope Cruz, and no, after having a panic attack and holding up the
>other passengers for several hours, she was allowed of the plane. I
>don't think any action was taken...
>
>--
No action was taken. Why would it be for somebody having a panic
attack. The idiot, of course, would have maced her, handcuffed her,
etc.
_the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:
>Dave Witmarsh <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 21:23:10 -0000, [email protected] (Geoff Miller)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >John Kulp <[email protected]> writes:
>> >
>> >> That's exactly why it's not up to you
>> >
>> >It *should* be, smartass, -- or more precisely, up to
>> >someone _like_ me.
>> >
>> >
>> >You can bet your ass and hat that if something like that
>> >happened here in America, it would've been resoved far
>> >more quickly -- and with the use of Mace if necessary.
>> >If that makes this a "police state," then so be it.
>>
>> So, how long did that Angelina Joli bint, or whichever actress it was,
>
>Penelope Cruz, and no, after having a panic attack and holding up the
>other passengers for several hours, she was allowed of the plane. I
>don't think any action was taken...
>
>--
No action was taken. Why would it be for somebody having a panic
attack. The idiot, of course, would have maced her, handcuffed her,
etc.
Aug 3rd 2007 | 2:37 am
#43
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Qatari royals halt British flight
While what actually happened is not key for this sort of event--it is
more about feelings and beliefs, I am curious about some factual
matters. Anyone know the answers?
1) As I understand it, the quarrel over seats started during taxiing.
After a while, the airplane returned to a gate and the Qatar
disembarked, and their luggage rooted out. By then, the takeoff time
slot was gone. By the time another takeoff time slot was available,
the pilot's hours had gone. Finally there was a timeslot and pilot,
and the plane took off just under 3 hours later.
Odds are I've got several of these wrong. If it is roughly right--my
question is how long the quarrelling took? I could imagine that if
someone fainted at the gate, could not fly, and needed their luggage
taken off, that all that delay could happen. So the pilot could have
kicked them off, in reality, or the air marshall with handcuffs and
mace (rather not have mace in a small compartment) per other
suggestions, all in 10 minutes and still ended up with a lengthy
delay.
Now I actually assume the argument went on for a while. I am just
curious if anyone has any actual data.
2) What alternatives were offered to the Qatari? Since BA has said
this is "a private matter", we may never know. The accounts say the
business class passengers declined to swap seats. But I bet you could
have gotten 3 adjacent seats in economy between a window and aisle, or
even the 3 seats plus the seat across the aisle for one of the family
men. Some set of people in economy would be willing to swap for
middle seats in business class. Well, if the offer were made with
tact or at least non-offensiveness, people in one of the rows would
have said yes. I assume there were non-religious reasons why that
solution was not implemented.
3) Even less knowable: why did the business class customers refuse to
swap? It looks like business class is 2-3 for these flights. Were
the wives all in middle seats, because of last minute booking? So the
other passengers didn't want to "swap down"? Or were they asked in an
unpleasant way? Or both (my guess, based on no data)?
This kind of soap-opera story is not improved by data, but I like to
flesh out the drama.
more about feelings and beliefs, I am curious about some factual
matters. Anyone know the answers?
1) As I understand it, the quarrel over seats started during taxiing.
After a while, the airplane returned to a gate and the Qatar
disembarked, and their luggage rooted out. By then, the takeoff time
slot was gone. By the time another takeoff time slot was available,
the pilot's hours had gone. Finally there was a timeslot and pilot,
and the plane took off just under 3 hours later.
Odds are I've got several of these wrong. If it is roughly right--my
question is how long the quarrelling took? I could imagine that if
someone fainted at the gate, could not fly, and needed their luggage
taken off, that all that delay could happen. So the pilot could have
kicked them off, in reality, or the air marshall with handcuffs and
mace (rather not have mace in a small compartment) per other
suggestions, all in 10 minutes and still ended up with a lengthy
delay.
Now I actually assume the argument went on for a while. I am just
curious if anyone has any actual data.
2) What alternatives were offered to the Qatari? Since BA has said
this is "a private matter", we may never know. The accounts say the
business class passengers declined to swap seats. But I bet you could
have gotten 3 adjacent seats in economy between a window and aisle, or
even the 3 seats plus the seat across the aisle for one of the family
men. Some set of people in economy would be willing to swap for
middle seats in business class. Well, if the offer were made with
tact or at least non-offensiveness, people in one of the rows would
have said yes. I assume there were non-religious reasons why that
solution was not implemented.
3) Even less knowable: why did the business class customers refuse to
swap? It looks like business class is 2-3 for these flights. Were
the wives all in middle seats, because of last minute booking? So the
other passengers didn't want to "swap down"? Or were they asked in an
unpleasant way? Or both (my guess, based on no data)?
This kind of soap-opera story is not improved by data, but I like to
flesh out the drama.
Aug 4th 2007 | 3:03 am
#44
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Qatari royals halt British flight
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 22:02:11 -0000 'Geoff Miller'
posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>Jim Davis <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Their seat assignments were on their boarding passes.
>> They could have complained *before* boarding the plane.
>
>
>Members of Islamic cultures have learned that they can
>often get their way by making a public scene and putting
>members of a European culture on the defensive. Any number
>of examples of this can be found in Melanie Phillips' book
>_Londonistan_.
If you knew that Melanie Phillips is jewish you might consider she
has an ulterior motive. Some of her articles in the UK media are
very Zionist and anti-Islamic in tone. Most people I know consider
her to be a blathering dorkess.
>The same sort of thing is being tried here in America by CAIR.
>The best example, of course, is the lawsuit over the "flying
>imams" incident.
>
>I've a feeling they're going to find that they won't make much
>headway here, though. Unlike the British, we're not a bunch of
>eunuchs who are wracked with politically correct, postcolonial
>guilt and are in the process of committing cultural suicide.
Ouch!
I'm British and often see much of America through the same prism.
posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>Jim Davis <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Their seat assignments were on their boarding passes.
>> They could have complained *before* boarding the plane.
>
>
>Members of Islamic cultures have learned that they can
>often get their way by making a public scene and putting
>members of a European culture on the defensive. Any number
>of examples of this can be found in Melanie Phillips' book
>_Londonistan_.
If you knew that Melanie Phillips is jewish you might consider she
has an ulterior motive. Some of her articles in the UK media are
very Zionist and anti-Islamic in tone. Most people I know consider
her to be a blathering dorkess.
>The same sort of thing is being tried here in America by CAIR.
>The best example, of course, is the lawsuit over the "flying
>imams" incident.
>
>I've a feeling they're going to find that they won't make much
>headway here, though. Unlike the British, we're not a bunch of
>eunuchs who are wracked with politically correct, postcolonial
>guilt and are in the process of committing cultural suicide.
Ouch!
I'm British and often see much of America through the same prism.
Aug 4th 2007 | 3:09 am
#45
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Qatari royals halt British flight
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 21:51:21 -0000 'Geoff Miller'
posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>Dave Witmarsh <[email protected]> writes:
>
>: If it'd been up to me, those nitwits would've been soaked
>: down with Mace, *then* handcuffed and dragged off the plane.
>
>> But then, *you* live in a police state, so you'd be used to
>> that sort of action.
>
>
>It still hasn't been explained to my satisfaction why that sort
>of response would make a place a "police state." It seems to
>me that it would mean the police were doing their job. Nothing
>more, nothing less.
>
>To liberals, of course, any sort of police action whatsoever is
>_ipso facto_ evidence of a police state. Unless those people
>themselves need the help of the police, in which case it's
>suddenly a matter of, "'Please to walk in front, sir,' when
>there's trouble in the wind."
>
>Consider what happened: there were unreasonable demands placed on
^^^^^^^^^^?
how do you know at this distance the demands were unreasonable?
>the crew of a commercial aircraft because the seating arrangements
>didn't humor their culture. Well, ****** their culture. They were
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^?
here you go again, overflowing with intolerance.
>on an aircraft belonging to a western airline, not a Middle Eastern
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^?
what difference does it make?
>airline. How does that old saying go? "When in Rome..."?
I think that's quite enough to say that you don't understand the
meaning of Rule of Law and your solution is to ram your idea of
instant justice down the throats of others. Isn't that exactly what
happens in a police state?
[snip]
posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>Dave Witmarsh <[email protected]> writes:
>
>: If it'd been up to me, those nitwits would've been soaked
>: down with Mace, *then* handcuffed and dragged off the plane.
>
>> But then, *you* live in a police state, so you'd be used to
>> that sort of action.
>
>
>It still hasn't been explained to my satisfaction why that sort
>of response would make a place a "police state." It seems to
>me that it would mean the police were doing their job. Nothing
>more, nothing less.
>
>To liberals, of course, any sort of police action whatsoever is
>_ipso facto_ evidence of a police state. Unless those people
>themselves need the help of the police, in which case it's
>suddenly a matter of, "'Please to walk in front, sir,' when
>there's trouble in the wind."
>
>Consider what happened: there were unreasonable demands placed on
^^^^^^^^^^?
how do you know at this distance the demands were unreasonable?
>the crew of a commercial aircraft because the seating arrangements
>didn't humor their culture. Well, ****** their culture. They were
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^?
here you go again, overflowing with intolerance.
>on an aircraft belonging to a western airline, not a Middle Eastern
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^?
what difference does it make?
>airline. How does that old saying go? "When in Rome..."?
I think that's quite enough to say that you don't understand the
meaning of Rule of Law and your solution is to ram your idea of
instant justice down the throats of others. Isn't that exactly what
happens in a police state?
[snip]
