Skip to comments.
Now, here come the Mexican airplanes
WorldNetDaily.com ^
| August 09, 2007
| Jerome R. Corsi
Posted on 03/23/2008 5:54:02 PM PDT by Niteflyr
The U.S. has built nine navigation systems for Mexico and Canada under the controversial Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America in an apparent first step toward establishing the satellite infrastructure needed to create a North American air traffic control system.
The defining vision for North American air traffic control was articulated by then-Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta in a Sept. 27, 2004, statement announcing, "We must make flying throughout North America as seamless as possible if we are to truly reap the rewards of the expanding global economy."
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
TOPICS: Conspiracy
KEYWORDS: airplanes; aliens; aviation; canada; mexico; mineta; namerica; northamerica; planes; spp
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40 last
To: Niteflyr
You’re going to have to elaborate on what standardizing (and otherwise making more efficient and safe) air travel in Canada, Mexico, and the United States has to do with cheap labor . . . the cheap labor is walking or swimming across the border . . . not flying business class.
21
posted on
03/23/2008 7:23:49 PM PDT
by
1rudeboy
To: 1rudeboy
The article wouldn’t have listed it as “controversial” if it were simply a great idea for standardization...safety and efficiency...now would they?
22
posted on
03/23/2008 7:27:25 PM PDT
by
Niteflyr
("If you’re drawing flak, you know you're over the target".)
To: Niteflyr
OMGLOL
You have the nerve to post that to me?
Just for you, I'll provide the
link to this article
posted here seven months ago.
23
posted on
03/23/2008 7:27:39 PM PDT
by
1rudeboy
To: Niteflyr
That’s true, if you believe everything you read.
24
posted on
03/23/2008 7:28:29 PM PDT
by
1rudeboy
To: 1rudeboy
Cheap labor and air traffic control have nothing to do with each other in this context ...they both have everything to do with the context of the NAU...
25
posted on
03/23/2008 7:29:51 PM PDT
by
Niteflyr
("If you’re drawing flak, you know you're over the target".)
To: Niteflyr
Precisely. That’s why one can ignore that this is about air traffic control and argue it is about cheap labor. It simply requires a suspension of cognitive thought.
26
posted on
03/23/2008 7:31:37 PM PDT
by
1rudeboy
To: Niteflyr
I thought it was worth re-posting...and gee ...you have no life do you??
All that time to search threads to check for multiple posts...sorry...I HAVE a life...
27
posted on
03/23/2008 7:32:37 PM PDT
by
Niteflyr
("If you’re drawing flak, you know you're over the target".)
To: 1rudeboy
Precisely. Thats why one can ignore that this is about air traffic control and argue it is about cheap labor. It simply requires a suspension of cognitive thought.Actually to me it's about NAU infrastructure...of which only a part relates to cheap labor....
28
posted on
03/23/2008 7:35:10 PM PDT
by
Niteflyr
("If you’re drawing flak, you know you're over the target".)
To: Niteflyr
It took me maybe five or ten seconds. Get over yourself.
29
posted on
03/23/2008 7:35:27 PM PDT
by
1rudeboy
To: Niteflyr
Write your Congresscritter and ask him/her when they passed legislation authorizing this and how much of our money did they designate for this.
It’s amazing what the government can sneak through the back door when they really want to.
Another tick on the third-world clock.
30
posted on
03/23/2008 8:12:18 PM PDT
by
upchuck
(Who wins doesn't matter. They're all liberals. Spend your time and money to take back Congress.)
To: Niteflyr
As far as NAU is concerned, I am 100% opposed to it. Or anything that could even be construed as a NAU type of situation.
As far as International "seamlessness", I don't think it's a bad idea. The sky is crowded, and getting more so by the day. We need some sort of regionalized control under central management for the aircraft flying into, through and, near, our Country. Why shouldn't WE be the central managers?
I think that putting ourselves in a leadership position in an industry that is a huge part of the global economy is not a bad idea, either.
Globalism is here. It ain't going to go away, barring a world war. We can either be dragged into it, kicking and screaming, while THEY make the rules, or, we can lead the way and protect out interests, while also protecting safety and promoting some semblance of International fairness.
The main reason we don't like globalism, is we had a crappy team of negotiators doing our bidding for us, and we got the short end. But it ain't over, either. :)
As far as airline safety goes, International Mexican airlines are as safe as any. There are only two, at present to my knowledge, that would qualify to "gate" at a major airport, Aero Mexico, and Mexicana Airlines. Both of these airlines have very good safety records. Both, actually, have better records than...
Hawaiian Airlines
USAir Shuttle
WestJet
Midwest Express Airlines
JetBlue Airlines
United Express
ATA Airlines
American Eagle
Comair
AirTran Airways
Aloha Airlines
I've flown on AeroMexico and had great flights each time, was treated well, and have no complaints. Aeromexico, btw, is IATA certified.
Let's be fair, and reasonable, and choose our battles wisely.
No to NAU, yes to competition and air safety.
31
posted on
03/23/2008 9:36:30 PM PDT
by
papasmurf
(WWOD? (What Would Obama Do?))
To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
"To pull off anything as ambitious as a North American air transport system, the federal government would have to construct a dozen new airports far away from major metropolitan areas."Sorry to disagree with you. The basic structure is already in place. There are enough smaller airports that can be restructured to handle this load with excellent access to major destinations.
Just a few names: Richmond, VA; Harrisburg, PA, etc. (you get the idea).
To: Niteflyr
33
posted on
03/24/2008 12:11:25 AM PDT
by
AnimalLover
( ((Are there special rules and regulations for the big guys?)))
To: Niteflyr
34
posted on
03/24/2008 12:15:39 AM PDT
by
AnimalLover
( ((Are there special rules and regulations for the big guys?)))
To: papasmurf
The big problem with Mexicana and AeroMexico nowadays is they need
more planes, not less! Both airlines are talking about big orders for Boeing 737 and Airbus A320 Family planes for intra-Mexican and transborder flights.
In fact, the biggest problem for both airlines is that Mexico City and Guadalajara, the two largest cities in the country, are at high altitudes, which can cause problems with takeoff runs in the summer.
To: papasmurf
No to NAU, yes to competition and air safety.On the face I agree with that....but the NAU as a whole could be sold as adding "competition and safety"....and probably will be presented that way....(ie: "trust me people it will be better for us all if we remove borders and create one big happy continent".) I'm a pilot and you don't have to create one large air traffic control system to have safe and seamless transitions between sovereign systems. We do it all day long when transitioning one controlled airspace system to another within the US.
36
posted on
03/24/2008 1:14:39 PM PDT
by
Niteflyr
("If you’re drawing flak, you know you're over the target".)
To: Niteflyr
I’m going to hold off on forming a firm opinion for now. I need more info, and I want to see it in writing.
I do see us getting left behind and, getting the short end on global trade, and that bothers me...a lot. I think we need to get in front of this, no matter which way it goes.
37
posted on
03/24/2008 9:02:38 PM PDT
by
papasmurf
(WWOD? (What Would Obama Do?))
To: papasmurf
The Mrs. Grace L. Ferguson Airline (And Storm Door Co.)
I am sure that such operations exist both here and in Mexico.
To: Niteflyr
I thought Mexican airlines WERE a joke??!!! Wait until you've had a ride on TACA, the national airline of Guatemala, particularly their regional carrier.
39
posted on
03/25/2008 7:30:56 AM PDT
by
archy
(Et Thybrim multo spumantem sanguine cerno. [from Virgil's *Aeneid*.])
To: papasmurf; 1rudeboy
>>Let’s be fair, and reasonable, and choose our battles wisely.
No to NAU, yes to competition and air safety.<<
I agree.
On the other hand, if they were to propose making even a part of our customs and immigration part of a “seamless” international system in which our officials answer to international courts, that would be unacceptable. There is nothing I can see in this article that sounds like that in this program — not yet anyway.
40
posted on
03/25/2008 11:29:01 AM PDT
by
ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas
(I want to "Buy American" but the only things for sale made in the USA are politicians)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson