Terror at Zero Feet
How did these people not riot at about 3 AM?
When Link Christin boarded a Continental Airlines flight from Houston to the Twin Cities on Friday night, he expected to be on the ground in about three hours and ready for a comfy bed.
Instead, he was among 47 passengers who spent the night trapped inside a small airplane, parked at the Rochester airport, complete with crying babies and the aroma of over-used toilets.
That was a serious question. There couldn’t have been more than four crew members and I’m pretty darned sure that 47 people are capable of making a very convincing argument. The folks were caught between the forks of intractable federal government regulations and an airline that was either too dumb or too scared to do the obvious right thing. There is a solution for that, though but it apparently never occurred to the passengers to use it.
The story says they were trapped. I don’t see it that way.
No related posts.
Category: The Good Old US of A, The Social Issues
Sadly enough, stories like this one are not the worst to be found when it comes to the incompetency of the airlines. Check out this article from Cracked for a few examples you will not believe:
http://www.cracked.com/article_17575_7-true-stori…
It seems as if we routinely pay the airlines–as well as other businesses–to abuse us. Is it any wonder Obama and company think we'll just shut up and take whatever they want to shove down our throats?
Abuse from the airlines is one thing, but I can't imagine being "trapped" all night in those conditions by four people who aren't armed. Hey, if they want to lock me up, they can lock me up.
America in microcosm.
Have you seen the "Democrats on an escalator" video?
The sad thing is they would lock you up simply because you don't feel you should have to be incarcerated up in a tiny cylinder that smells like a bathroom in inner-city Calcutta. I sat next to a man on a recent flight who made a flippant comment to a flight attendant who was berating him about the size of his carry-on (it wasn't that oversized, but she was upset about it for some reason) and she actually threatened him with the federal marshalls! Maybe those are the jobs the stimulus package was designed to create–building prisons to lock up people who are sarcastic in the face of government stupidity! They better get busy. . .
But I agree with you–there's no way I would've stayed on that plane. They could've arrested me at the nearest hotel, which is where I would've been, waiting on the next flight home.
Love "Democrats On An Escalator" . . .
Just tell them you are a Member of Congress … or the State Legislature, or a County Commissioner … and you have VERY IMPORTANT business to attend to and must be allowed off that plain immediately.
Or better … tell them you are a reporter for a major paper. Bet they let you right off.
I can't even spell plane!
It's unfortunate that our government cannot do what every other government does: release the people into the transit lounge. This really isn't so hard, and we used to do it. But Bush had to make his own rules and Obama hasn't rescinded them yet. But he hasn't really had the time to undo all of Bush's insanity, so this is what we get. But I don't remember you complaining about Bush making these rules. Where were you then? Oh yeah, agreeing with these rules. But rather than stick with Bush's rules, Obama needs to just rescind every regulation that Bush every made and start from scratch. It's safe to assume that everything Bush did was completely asinine, so just get rid of it. And now that you agree that this Bush policy is really stupid, maybe you could help us get rid of it. I'll fight this policy with you Jimmie. I fought it when it was first instituted and lost. But now you are on my side. So let's fight it together. If there is a serious problem with the plane, then release us to an already secure place, like the transit lounge. This really isn't so hard. Bush wanted it to be hard, but there's no reason for it. I'd expect better from Obama, but it takes a long time to undo all of Bush's stupid policies. This one fell through the cracks, but I'm with you Jimmie, let's change Bush's policy.
"that smells like a bathroom in inner-city Calcutta."
You obviously haven't been to Kolkata (Calcutta). If you had, you'd know that if you can find a toilet, it smells better than the street you came from. Travel to India before you talk about it. If you'd actually been there, you'd know that a toilet facility has less feces than the average street. Granted, it comes from different species, but that really doesn't make it smell better. Yes, Indian toilets are nasty, but the streets are worse. But that's what you get with conservative attitudes towards government control over waste management. The Indians believe that private enterprise should manage waste, and they do a really bad job of it. And that's something conservatives should understand: their policies are being implemented in India. And the results are appalling. Restrictions on public schools keep the literacy rate really low. Minimal restrictions on pollution make the air in the cities almost impossible to breathe. Lack of liquid and solid waste controls means that sewage flows right in the streets. Lack of water standards means that the water is potentially lethal to drink. Not that anyone would even think of drinking it, except for the poor people who have to. This is the system conservatives want. But I've been to India, and I really don't want that system. You do. You want people to die from bad water, you want people to have no education, and you want people to choke from really bad air. India really is you Nirvana. So why don't you just move there?
And really, ask yourself what a river should be. Liberals believe that it should flow with clean water. Conservatives believe it should be a conduit of toxins. Want to fish? Which stream do you want your fish coming from? You conservatives want more mercury, because you think mercury poisoning is cool. The rest of us think our waters should be clean. I'd like my water to be clean. You want it to be filled with toxins. I have no children and I'll die soon anyway, so it doesn't matter. But you have children and you want to poison them. But I'm willing to hear your side of the argument. Tell me why your children need more mercury in their blood. Tell my why they need more chromium. Tell my why they need more selenium. Tell my why they need more cobalt. You want your children to ingest heavy metals, and I don't really understand why. So tell me. I understand that you want everyone to be really stupid from heavy metal poisoning, but why would you want you own children to be subjected to that? How is destroying you own children going to help the rest of us? And keep in mind, I wouldn't even think of drinking tap water in America. I'll do it Thailand, but not here. I drink spring water that has never had a mine come near the aquifer. But you want to poison that fresh water source. You think that clean water is a bad thing and needs to be poisoned.
But really, explain to me why feeding poisons to children is a good thing. It's what conservatives want, so why do they want it? Why do they think there is value in poisoning their own children?
Wow, that's quite the platoon of strawmen. Good luck finding someone to debate with.