Tankus Posted January 2, 2004 Report Share Posted January 2, 2004 223huhWhat gives ...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bvw Posted January 2, 2004 Report Share Posted January 2, 2004 Yes, strange one that Tankus :unsure: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest nellie2 Posted January 2, 2004 Report Share Posted January 2, 2004 did I miss something?? :blink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tankus Posted January 2, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 2, 2004 This one particular flight ro the USA keeps getting cancelled ......But just this one ...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andsome Posted January 3, 2004 Report Share Posted January 3, 2004 ???????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moon Posted January 3, 2004 Report Share Posted January 3, 2004 I'm guessing that the security services have picked up electronic messages relating to that and other flights. It could also be terrorists testing their communications integrity. Trouble is, it can't be ignored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tankus Posted January 5, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2004 And againThe GuardianFlight BA223 from London Heathrow to Washington was grounded last Thursday and Friday due to security alerts, delayed on Saturday and Sunday for extra security checks and today delayed awaiting clearance from the US authorities.It was given permission to fly shortly after 6pm tonight, nearly three hours after its scheduled departure Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Grim Reaper Posted January 5, 2004 Report Share Posted January 5, 2004 i guess that they know something we dont. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gandalph Posted January 5, 2004 Report Share Posted January 5, 2004 i guess that they know something we dont.They always know something we don't. :sneaky: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest northamuk Posted January 5, 2004 Report Share Posted January 5, 2004 And even after the event we don't know what THEY knew. :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tankus Posted January 6, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2004 But then did they know, what they thought they knew .....? If we knew that , would we know any the wiser ......? . But then would you want to know what they knew ....Theres a Python sketch in here somewhere ...Im sure....! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tankus Posted January 6, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2004 IndependentBA 223: another day, another delayBy Andrew Buncombe06 January 2004Fly the friendly skies indeed. To be fair, the officer from the Metropolitan Police's Special Branch was perfectly friendly, but her presence, and that of her colleagues, at Heathrow's Terminal 4, was an early clue that yesterday afternoon's BA flight 223 was not going to be the usual routine journey to Washington. Just a few questions if you don't mind, she said with a smile.A few questions and three security checks later all of the 241 passengers were on board the Boeing jet, running a little late but expecting to taxi any moment. That was wishful thinking.The PA system crackled with the voice of the pilot. Everybody was on board and the plane was ready to leave, he said, but the "US authorities" had to approve the passenger list. There were 22 separate agencies that have to sign off, he said, his tone betraying just a little incredulity.We waited. We looked around. We waited. The plane stayed at the gate. Initial curiosity turned to boredom. A Frenchman almost got into a fight with a couple sitting behind him after he turned round and hit their child who was digging his feet into his back.It was an all too brief distraction: how many times can one read British Airways' High Life magazine from cover to cover? How much pleasure can be derived from looking at the engine specifications of the various planes in the British Airways fleet?The pilot came back on. Twenty-one of the US agencies had approved the passenger list, but one had not. In economy class, people started to look around with a fresh intensity. Who were the passengers creating such suspicion? Was it that young couple by the window with the screaming baby? Maybe the baby was a fake.What about the American students in the blue outfits who were part of a marching band. Maybe al-Qa'ida had managed to get to the tuba player and turn him against the music of John Philip Sousa.And what about the bad tempered Frenchman? At 18.17pm, three hours and 12 minutes after we were due to leave, BA 223 lurched into the sky en route for Dulles airport in Washington DC. What was the look on people's faces? Anxiety? Fear? It was impossible to tell: it was probably simply relief. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-pops- Posted January 6, 2004 Report Share Posted January 6, 2004 Terrorists are not stupid which can be amply demonstrated by what they've already achieved in creating disquiet and destruction in the world. Any danger that may or may not have been posed by BA 223 must have now passed and the attention of the mad Mullahs or Ayatollahs directed at another target, aircraft or other.The continuing delays being imposed on this BA flight must, I am sure, just be the US "intelligence" (I use that word very cautiously) flexing its muscle trying to show the world the power it has over one and all.Well, why put up with it? The world's airlines should cancel ALL flights to the USA (and correspondingly not permit extra landing rights to US aircraft) until some sensible solution can be sorted out. Bush? I wouldn't trust him capable of slipping a burger into a bun in McDonalds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tankus Posted January 6, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2004 Bush in 30 secsLook at the one " In my country" ....makes you think Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-pops- Posted January 6, 2004 Report Share Posted January 6, 2004 Hmmmmmm!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tankus Posted January 6, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2004 Some peeps with the same thoughts as you ...popsLONDON (Reuters) - Airlines in Europe and Africa have vowed to cancel flights rather than comply with American demands to carry armed air marshals on some U.S-bound planes to guard against more September 11-style attacks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-pops- Posted January 6, 2004 Report Share Posted January 6, 2004 I don't mean the odd flight here and there that Bush and his flunkeys think might be a danger, cancel the whole lot, every single one until they can be made to see sense.Knowing the gun-toting idiocy of many Americans (see the Channel 4 programmes on Texans, Sunday night?) any aircraft that is deemed to require an armed "marshal" on board is in danger - in danger of terrorist attack if the intelligence is right and/or in danger of some armed red neck marshal getting over-excited at the sound of a champagne cork popping in first class (an experience I've had myself where great panic was started in the cattle truck class when an extra lively bottle of champagne was opened.)Firearms that are safe to use in aircraft cabins, that is low powered ones that won't penetrate the skin of the plane, are unlikely to be powerful enough to quell any determined terrorist or whatever from carrying out their planned actions.Remember that the 9/11 atrocities were not carried out by a loner, it was a co-ordinated effort of a number of fanatics on each of the aircraft involved.From the Reuters article:The main tenets of the accord are that the flight captain should retain overall command, will know who and where the marshals are and that only certain weapons can be used.Darling said he had always made clear the pilot would remain in charge of the aircraft.That wouldn't happen. There can only be one person in charge of an aircraft and that is the one with most power - the one with the gun. This has been illustrated a number of times in hi-jackings in the past. It doesn't matter that the gunman is on your side or theirs, once they get the gunlust from any slight amount of the unusual or out of the ordinary, everyone in the aircraft is in grave danger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tankus Posted January 6, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2004 This is a bit of a long read in the Times , but its fascinating looking at the reasons for US / France cancelled flights....Insight to flight cancellationspops(an experience I've had myself where great panic was started in the cattle truck class when an extra lively bottle of champagne was opened.)Definitely seems a panic at the top ....Two days later the French submitted to American pressure and cancelled the Los Angeles flight.We now know that the FBI had been overzealous and had mistakenly fingered six innocent passengers as would-be hijackers. A five-year-old child had the same name as the leader of a Tunisian-based terror group. Another “terrorist” was an insurance agent from Wales. A third was an elderly Chinese woman who used to run a restaurant in ParisTazers are the way to go if they need to armed , or bean bag rounds... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-pops- Posted January 6, 2004 Report Share Posted January 6, 2004 Excellent Sunday Times article - pretty much my own sentiments.Son in law is a pilot for one of the airlines mentioned but he doesn't do the American run. I know that he would not fly unless, as captain, he was in sole charge of his aircraft and if any guns were to be on board, he would have them, not some trigger happy cowboy (as described in the ST article.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-pops- Posted January 7, 2004 Report Share Posted January 7, 2004 From Teletext News:US SEEKS TOILET QUEUE BAN The US wants to ban travellers from gathering near toilets and other places on passenger planes flying to the US, according to an Australian airline."The US now requires that passengers are not to congregate in groups in any areas of the aircraft, especially around the lavatories," Qantas said.Australia's transport minister and deputy PM John Anderson described the ban as "a little bit hard to handle".Perhaps there is a job there for the air marshals - double up as toilet attendants.Jeeeeeeessssssusssss! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andsome Posted January 7, 2004 Report Share Posted January 7, 2004 From Teletext News:US SEEKS TOILET QUEUE BAN The US wants to ban travellers from gathering near toilets and other places on passenger planes flying to the US, according to an Australian airline."The US now requires that passengers are not to congregate in groups in any areas of the aircraft, especially around the lavatories," Qantas said.Australia's transport minister and deputy PM John Anderson described the ban as "a little bit hard to handle".Perhaps there is a job there for the air marshals - double up as toilet attendants.Jeeeeeeessssssusssss! What the b***** hell are passengers supposed to do, wait until the person using the bog opens the door, then get involved in a mad charge? Only an idiot could think up such a ruling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-pops- Posted January 7, 2004 Report Share Posted January 7, 2004 Only an idiot could think up such a ruling.What, the one in charge of the USA? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurdy Posted January 7, 2004 Report Share Posted January 7, 2004 There may be info that we don't know about regarding flight 223 - my own belief is that the US authorities are flexing their muscle in order to get their own way.No 'Air Marshalls' - no access to US.Personally, I wouldn't dream of flying on a plane if I knew there was an armed person on it - regardless of whose side they were supposed to be on.Just look at the US history of 'friendly fire' in most conflicts. :whistling: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andsome Posted January 7, 2004 Report Share Posted January 7, 2004 Only an idiot could think up such a ruling.What, the one in charge of the USA? Whoever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.