Caracas Flight Returns To Mia-fighter Jet Escort

[orwell]

And that happened how long ago now? And what has happened since that has been noteworthy?

DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
(Updates with reports of connection to 'shoe bomber' Richard Reid.)
LONDON (AP)--Home Secretary David Blunkett on Thursday said a terror suspect arrested in western England is believed to have connections with international terrorist organizations.
Sky News and the British Broadcasting Corp. said sources had linked the investigation to convicted "shoe bomber" Richard Reid, a Briton who tried but failed to ignite explosives-packed shoes aboard an American Airlines flight to Miami on Dec. 22, 2001.
The reports gave no details of the supposed connection. "They are looking at possible links, they haven't definitely linked him yet," said BBC reporter Frank Gardner.
"It is the belief of the security and (police) Special Branch services that this man has connections with the network of al-Qaida groups," Blunkett told British Broadcasting Corp. radio. "That is why he has been arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000."
Police said they arrested the 24-year-old man at his home in the western city of Gloucester on Thursday and evacuated nearby buildings because they believed explosives might be on the premises.
Ibrahim Master, chairman of the Lancashire Council of Mosques, later said the arrested man had been a student at the College of Islamic Knowledge and Guidance in Blackburn, northern England. Master said religious leaders were assisting police in a search of the college and adjoining mosque.
Police also arrested a second man, aged 39, at an unspecified address in Manchester, northern England, on suspicion of terrorist offenses.
Both men were arrested under section 41 of the Terrorism Act "on suspicion of involvement in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism," Gloucestershire and Greater Manchester police said.
London's Metropolitan Police said its anti-terrorist officers took part in both operations but wouldn't say if they were related and didn't disclose the suspects' nationalities.
Regarding the arrest in Gloucester, Blunkett said there was concern the suspect had explosives.
"Obviously the forensic evidence will be absolutely crucial here and I do not want to in any way damage the future trial," he told the BBC. "But we would not have taken these steps if we did not believe that this individual posed a very real threat to the life and liberty of our country.
Police evacuated 119 homes near the suspect's address in Gloucester, Chief Inspector David Peake said. Officers cordoned off three roads, although one was later reopened.
A spokesman for the Metropolitan Police said officers also searched two houses in Blackburn, northwestern England, and evacuated one of them. The force said no arrests were made and added that the operation was connected to the raid in Gloucester, but gave no further details.
The 24-year-old man is a British citizen of Pakistani descent, MSNBC reported from London.

 

[JS]

The Secret Service agent incident on an AA flight BWI-DFW started the same way. Some idiotic flight attendant went bananas when she saw what appeared to be Arabic writing on the cover of a passenger's book. Turns out it was simply cursive writing.

I, for one, am amazed that AA is still in business. I quit flying them after one too many bitchy flight attendants. The type of flight attendant who can fly off the handle like a bear trap is all too common at AA.

What little incentive I had to try AA yet again is now even less. Who wants to fly on an airline that will divert at the drop of a hat?

I buy airline tickets to go somewhere, not to see fighter jets up close. I can do that at an airshow, and I know they won't have their guns pointed at my head.

 

[orwell]

The Secret Service agent incident on an AA flight BWI-DFW started the same way. Some idiotic flight attendant went bananas when she saw what appeared to be Arabic writing on the cover of a passenger's book. Turns out it was simply cursive writing.

I, for one, am amazed that AA is still in business. I quit flying them after one too many bitchy flight attendants. The type of flight attendant who can fly off the handle like a bear trap is all too common at AA.

What little incentive I had to try AA yet again is now even less. Who wants to fly on an airline that will divert at the drop of a hat?

I buy airline tickets to go somewhere, not to see fighter jets up close. I can do that at an airshow, and I know they won't have their guns pointed at my head.

The sad thing is that if you were on a flight and an FA DIDN'T act on something suspicious - didn't as you say, "go bananas" or "fly off the handle," and then that something turned out to actually be "something," you'd be first in line (assuming you survived) at the ensuing litigation feeding trough.

It will always be like this with some people - whining when the seat belt sign is enforced, then are equally quickly claiming wrongdoing if it's off and they spill their coffee in some turbulence.

Sometimes, safety and a "hassle-free" travel experience aren't simultaneously possible.

Does this excuse rudeness? Of course not. But it also doesn't excuse your childish generalization of the security situation.

 

[JS]

The sad thing is that if you were on a flight and an FA DIDN'T act on something suspicious - didn't as you say, "go bananas" or "fly off the handle," and then that something turned out to actually be "something," you'd be first in line (assuming you survived) at the ensuing litigation feeding trough.

It will always be like this with some people - whining when the seat belt sign is enforced, then are equally quickly claiming wrongdoing if it's off and they spill their coffee in some turbulence.

Sometimes, safety and a "hassle-free" travel experience aren't simultaneously possible.

Does this excuse rudeness? Of course not. But it also doesn't excuse your childish generalization of the security situation.

You are absolutely right. You can read me like an open book (except the spilled coffee comment; spilling it would be my fault).

Unfortunately, this doesn't help your argument. A book with cursive writing on the cover and an old lady who taps a flight attendant for a request are not suspicious activities.

 

[orwell]

The sad thing is that if you were on a flight and an FA DIDN'T act on something suspicious - didn't as you say, "go bananas" or "fly off the handle," and then that something turned out to actually be "something," you'd be first in line (assuming you survived) at the ensuing litigation feeding trough.

It will always be like this with some people - whining when the seat belt sign is enforced, then are equally quickly claiming wrongdoing if it's off and they spill their coffee in some turbulence.

Sometimes, safety and a "hassle-free" travel experience aren't simultaneously possible.

Does this excuse rudeness? Of course not. But it also doesn't excuse your childish generalization of the security situation.

You are absolutely right. You can read me like an open book (except the spilled coffee comment; spilling it would be my fault).

Unfortunately, this doesn't help your argument. A book with cursive writing on the cover and an old lady who taps a flight attendant for a request are not suspicious activities.

I didn't say they were - I thought my concession as to there being no excuse for rude behavior made that clear. Common sense should prevail. You've chosen to highlight two examples of in-flight stupidity. You of course probably aren't interested in the countless examples of in-flight savagery on the part of passengers.

Incidentally, not that it matters - but Arabic writing isn't the same as English cursive. Perhaps you're stating an FA wasn't aware of that. If that's true, it's sad.

Nonetheless - I guarantee you there's a lawyer out there who would be quick to charge AA with "failing to fully investigate" a "suspicious" passenger, after the fact - no matter what those facts were.

The difference is you seem to be an armchair QB on the side of don't EVER question a passenger and the lawyers are armchair QBs on the side of pinning liability on an airline no matter what. You just can't win.

 

[JS]

What I'm trying to say is that based on my experience flying AA, I'm not surprised that flight attendants on AA are much more likely to go overboard when they think something is suspicious when in fact it's nothing. That doesn't mean NEVER question passengers; it means they need to use their heads and stop overreacting whenever they have the chance to pounce on a passenger.

Overreacting doesn't help security (in fact, it makes it worse by making diversionary tactics a snap), and it isn't good for business. Talk about a lose-lose situation.

 

[WingNaPrayer]

Do you really think airlines are no longer among the targets of both capable terrorists

Actually, no I don't.

as well as the generally insane?

They are the ones in control of the airlines, do you think you're safe from them?

because anyone could be a whacko.

Including . . . flight attendants!

Clearly, this incident went waaaaay overboard and quickly grew out of control. My gut opinion is by the time the FA figured out exactly what was REALLY happening, it was too late to turn back the wheels she'd already started in motion. For a flight attendant who's supposedly responsible for the safety of all on board, she needed to be quicker on her feet than that. If flight attendants start running to the pilots every time a passenger touches them, those fighter jets are going to be buzy buzzy buzzzy!

 

[orwell]

Do you really think airlines are no longer among the targets of both capable terrorists

Actually, no I don't.

I don't know what to say to that. Truly AAmAAzing - your naivete, ignorance, or unbridled urge to be irritating (you choose one or more of your favorite) is nearly entertaining!

 

[TWAAer]

<_< If this was a diversion. You would think that the action it was diverting you from would be happening silutaniously.It only makes since that would be the way it would happen. It is clear that the pilot at first overreacted, but once the action took place ( calling an emergency, and turning around)one would think that it would of been even more suspicious if he suddenly said" I was wrong" and continued on the flight as planned.
Give the guy a break he was only flying a plane, that could have been turned into a missle armed with human warhedes.

 

[WingNaPrayer]

I don't know what to say to that. Truly AAmAAzing - your naivete, ignorance, or unbridled urge to be irritating (you choose one or more of your favorite) is nearly entertaining!

I have to wonder . . . is it actually painful for you to be that stupid?

Some people, most in fact, just choose to believe that the sky isn't falling, and that living your live in a constant state of fear and worry is not a life well lived.

 

[TWAnr]

I have to wonder . . . is it actually painful for you to be that stupid?

WNP, you truly are a legend in your own mind.

 

[operaations]

<_< If this was a diversion. You would think that the action it was diverting you from would be happening silutaniously.It only makes since that would be the way it would happen. It is clear that the pilot at first overreacted, but once the action took place ( calling an emergency, and turning around)one would think that it would of been even more suspicious if he suddenly said" I was wrong" and continued on the flight as planned.
Give the guy a break he was only flying a plane, that could have been turned into a missle armed with human warhedes.

was it the captains mistake I think not. When a Captain of an Aircraft is advised that there has been an assault on the aircraft. He must trust his Flight Attendants. Because we all know how professional they are. He then tried to call the galley and verify if everything was ok when the Professional flight attendants did not answer the galley phone he could only do what everyone else would. Expect the worse. Now who do you think is to blame.

The Professional Flightattendant maybe...

 

[orwell]

I have to wonder . . . is it actually painful for you to be that stupid?

Some people, most in fact, just choose to believe that the sky isn't falling, and that living your live in a constant state of fear and worry is not a life well lived.

No more painful than to watch you engage in ad hominem attacks when you've no more lukewarm logic to use against readers you obviously - and quite wrongfully - feel aren't bright enough to see through it.

Come, come. Can you really not fathom the difference between being a Chicken Little - which is how you would characterize anyone who has the silly notion that someone would actually want to commit a terrorist act against an airline - and being rationally vigilant? If not, we can walk you through it, but I'm willing to bet it would take longer than your K-12 education did - assuming you completed it.

 

[WingNaPrayer]

Your support of poor passenger treatment by hysterical flight attendants . . . is noted!

 

[orwell]

Your support of poor passenger treatment by hysterical flight attendants . . . is noted!

Guilty as charged - IF you define "hysterical flight attendants" as those who are vigilant for suicidal whackos.

NEVER did I specifically address the facts of this particular case - I was only reacting to your gross generalizations. In this particular instance, from what I know, this was an overreaction and should not have happened.

It's unfortunate that you would use this to belittle all flight/cabin crews on the front line who are expected to point out the Grand Canyon, give you the whole can of coke AND protect you from barbarians who want to destroy Western Civilization. I know, I know - you don't fly AA, but other airlines have the silly notion of security as well.

You could try Greyhound.