>>>>The more I hear about this story, the more annoying it gets. This was (and is) and obvious ploy by some jerks to generate a lawsuit and try to extort some money from an airline.
>>>>I hope that US Airways doesn't fall for it - and even if it costs them more money than paying them off - they should fight any attempts for these bozo's to sue them (which this was obviously the plan all along).
>>>>Twerps like this should be jailed.
>>>>
>>>>
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20061128-122902-7522r.htm>>>
>>>Let's suppose for a moment that it was their plan to be thrown off the flight so they could sue the Airline.
>>>How is that any different that a FBI or police "sting" to have someone take a bribe or otherwise do something illegal?
>>>
>>>If I was in a FBI "sting" and I refused to take the bait nothing would be heard.
>>>If the airline hadn't taken the bait, nothing would have been heard.
>>>
>>>What's the difference between the two situations that makes you call these guys twerps. Is the FBI "twerps" when they catch a guy in a sting?
>>>
>>>Just don't understand your position here.
>>
>>hmmm... well they're two different things. Look if I see behavior that is consistant with an act of terrorism on a flight or when I'm being seated - I'm gonna be jumping up and down screaming until either they're off the plane or I am. And as far as the airline 'taking the bait' - hey - did they really have a choice here? They SHOULD NOT of let them on the plane. Just think if they did - ooh geeze now we have lame stupid security! US Airways did the right thing. These jerks were trying to get kicked off the flight and they did. Tough for them - they got what they deserved - and I sure hope they didn't refund their airfare either! They tried to create a disturbance and golly they sure did.
>
>I think you're dead WRONG.
>What you're saying is that airplane "security" has to be set at the SCARDEST PERSON booked for the flight. That's ridiculous in the extreme!
>You're also saying that the current 'standard' of threatening danger ("I have a gun" or "I'm gonna hijack this plane to Cuba" or things like that) are no longer in effect, replaced by some perceived "threat" by some over-sensitive person or some red-neck who dislikes some race or some other crap like that.
>The airline should have put the complainers off the plane.
>
>When I fly these days I pay no attention to those waiting at the gate with me. But I do pay attention once on the plane to where I am and who's around me and who looks "shifty". And I'm ready to do my bit to help subdue anyone who does anything foolish. And I wouldn't dream of accusing someone of being so shifty looking that I want them off the plane.
>
>Imagine I saw someone praying (in the standard "Christian" way) at a gate. I could easily conclude they were praying for success of their 'mission' to crash the plane into a building. I could then demand that they be taken off the plane????
>
>Get real.
>
>To me that's ALL THE SECURITY WE NEED for people. Bombs are a different thing, but people hijacking a plane in North America are a ting of the past in my opinion.
I think you kinda missed my point. The fact that these guys where praying isn't what freaked everyone out - its all the shifty behavor (most of which was once they were ON the plane) - like taking seats at all the exits and next to the cockpit - asking for seat belt adjusters even though they didnt need them, etc etc etc. - ummmm... basicly doing all the textbook stuff some hijacking wackos are going to do.
The true mistake would of been for US Airways crew not to react.
ICQ 10556 (ya), 254117