Skip to comments.
FLASH: BA flights cancelled by refusal of British pilots to fly with armed marshals on board
drudge report ^
| 1/2/2004
| Drudge
Posted on 01/02/2004 7:44:29 PM PST by hadrian
FLASH: Cancellation of British Airways flights is not in response to U.S. safety concerns, but rather is being prompted by refusal of British pilots to fly with armed marshals on board... Developing...
TOPICS: Breaking News; United Kingdom; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: airlinesecurity; armedmarshals; ba; iad; lhr; orangealert4
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120, 121-123 next last
To: hadrian
81
posted on
01/02/2004 10:12:36 PM PST
by
LayoutGuru2
(Call me paranoid but finding '/*' inside this comment makes me suspicious)
To: Bobby777
how does one say "bloody stupid on the part of the pilots" in British pilot-speak? "Bloody Wankers"
82
posted on
01/02/2004 10:16:01 PM PST
by
SpottedBeaver
(Hide not your talents, they for use were made. What's a sun-dial in the shade? - Benjamin Franklin)
To: Nita Nupress
And the American people are in no mood to fault a President whose threshold question is "Would you let your son or daughter fly on that plane?", as Bush stated to Ridge. I agree Nita. I suspect that there's NO way that the American people will take the President to task for setting his decision on that question.
I certainly don't. As far as I'm concerned, the President has a LOT of leeway in protecting this country.
Security, security and yet more SECURITY! Frenchies/Brits don't like it, they don't HAVE to fly here. shrug
Godspeed
83
posted on
01/02/2004 10:27:37 PM PST
by
America's Resolve
(All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing (hint FRA GER RUS CA UN))
To: LayoutGuru2
B Airways should increase their terrorist passengers with the knowledge that NO armed air marshals are on-board. On the other hand the USA ensures boarding of terrorists by proclaiming that there is no way to have air marshals on all flights.
But they are there, for sure.
84
posted on
01/02/2004 10:33:40 PM PST
by
endthematrix
(To enter my lane you must use your turn signal!)
To: alnick
As far as I am concerned, if these countries want to be uncooperative - fine...DON'T come to the US. (As if the Brits aren't going to have face their own country being a staging ground for the inevitable war between their native citizens and new Islamic invaders.)
85
posted on
01/02/2004 10:35:22 PM PST
by
Libertina
(If it moves, tax it. If it doesn't move it's a sitting duck - tax it TWICE!)
To: Destro
The French laugh at the Brits.... And the world laughs at the French...
86
posted on
01/02/2004 10:41:19 PM PST
by
Mad_Tom_Rackham
("...the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.")
To: cajungirl
The Brits are our most loyal friends. I agree in general. But don't forget. Is Tom Daschle our friend. Is Ted Kennedy? How about Bill and Hill? Or many other communist/socialist Senators and Representatives?
The Brits in general, yes. But what about their Politicians? IMO their socialistst are every bit as damaging to our socio-economic fabric as are our socialists. Nonetheless, Blair has been a leader on a par with GW, no doubt about it. One could only imagine what these two men really know about the dangers that we currently face.
87
posted on
01/02/2004 10:53:05 PM PST
by
Mad_Tom_Rackham
("...the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.")
To: hadrian; Travis McGee; Squantos
Is this the same gene pool that once owned more of the world than anyone before or since and generally left places better than they found them?
If not, then where did those Brits run off to?
Don't anybody say "here"...we are on the same slope just lagging a bit Thank God.
88
posted on
01/02/2004 10:54:58 PM PST
by
wardaddy
("either the arabs are at your throat, or at your feet")
To: All
This info from earlier today based on information I saw in a German paper. They quote an aviation expert.
This post/thread: FR....'Real and Definite Threat' Caused BA Flight Cancellation..#573
The aeronautics expert Philip Baum, editor of the magazine "Aviation Security International", assumes there are detailed secret service tips. "I think they must have credible knowledge which indicates that certain airlines on certain routes are possible targets for terrorist attacks". It could be possible, however, that the USA could have demanded the presence of armed marshals on board and the BA pilots could have decided not to take off because of that.
"Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung"....British Airways streicht wieder Flüge
Translated by longjack
The article uses the quotes just as I have them, which makes it likely this guy said it, but, then again..
longjack
89
posted on
01/02/2004 11:00:58 PM PST
by
longjack
To: wardaddy
No slope here WD....flatlander through and through.....:o)
Too many folks living paycheck to paycheck and afraid to say or stand for fear of losing their jobs or getting a bit of dirt on a pristine career........IMHO
Stay safe and don't tell anybody what I just said.
90
posted on
01/02/2004 11:01:29 PM PST
by
Squantos
(Support Mental Health !........or........ I'LL KILL YOU !!!!)
To: Mad_Tom_Rackham
Nicely said!
91
posted on
01/02/2004 11:08:05 PM PST
by
Ernest_at_the_Beach
(Davis is now out of Arnoold's Office , Bout Time!!!!)
To: oceanview
Yes, I think you're right. The Brits have extensive experience with Irish terrorists and thus have instituted a sophisticated watch system of their own. They've been there and done that, as it were, and I cannot imagine a British pilot freaking out over the thought of armed security personnel on his flight.
Weird story. This has to be disinformation.
To: SpottedBeaver
"Bloody Wankers"
LOL ... that's it!
93
posted on
01/02/2004 11:39:41 PM PST
by
Bobby777
To: sinkspur
Druge is busy trying to find flattering pictures of her heinous and unflattering pictures of our President!
94
posted on
01/03/2004 12:50:09 AM PST
by
OldFriend
(Always understand, even if you remain among the few)
To: hadrian
Nonsense. This is just the media picking up on a story which broke the week before. The Unions are involved in discussions. Just because it is British Airways doesn't mean that all the pilots are British!
95
posted on
01/03/2004 2:34:39 AM PST
by
Tommyjo
To: FreedomPoster
Good point. The article alnick linked in #10 says the source for this was ONE official.
To: hadrian
Who has the NYT schadenfreude ping list?
97
posted on
01/03/2004 4:23:55 AM PST
by
steveegg
(Free Republic - $30/month. Broadband - $45/month. Seeing the DemonRATS out of issues - priceless)
To: Dont Mention the War
And why would we publish sensitive intelligence that would probably get our guys shot or beheaded like Daniel Perle? Better to put out a number of 'possible' reasons and misinformation.
98
posted on
01/03/2004 5:01:00 AM PST
by
hershey
To: GeronL
What are the French saying about the Egyptian crash? Just an unfortunate accident? I bet not.
99
posted on
01/03/2004 5:03:06 AM PST
by
hershey
To: hershey
The French government will do just that. They would be too embarrassed to admit this was terrorism. Egypts' economy is 50%, thats half,based on tourism.
Neither will allow this to be terrorism. Even if they have to announce its cause as a technical problem before the wreckage is even located.
100
posted on
01/03/2004 5:13:10 AM PST
by
GeronL
(The French just can't stop being French.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120, 121-123 next 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