's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

A 767 just crashed in Queens NY on takeoff from JFK .(15 posts)

A 767 just crashed in Queens NY on takeoff from JFK .Len J
Nov 12, 2001 7:01 AM
I don't have any additional info other than several houses are on fire.

American Airlines flight 587peloton
Nov 12, 2001 7:18 AM
JFK to Santo Domingo

Veteran's day in good flying conditions. New York is on lock down again with all the bridges, tunnels, and airspace closed. The plane hit a residential area in Queens.
Shame on the House RepublicansFurious
Nov 12, 2001 8:31 AM
The Republicans in the House Congressional leadership are more interested in contributions from the lobbyists from the airport security companies than the safety of the American public. The Senate can act responsibly, 100 to 0, and did pass a bill to increase our safety. Isn't it strange than the very men who were so furious at Clinton for his money raising techniques would sell out our ability to fly safely for so little! SHAME ON THEM
Flight 587Jon
Nov 12, 2001 9:15 AM
Was the crash a result of a security breach?
Just heard White house press conf......Len J
Nov 12, 2001 9:41 AM
and they just don't know what happened yet. No unusual contact from cockpit, witnesses report an explosion around the engine, engine & body in two different locations on ground. Outside of that they don't know much at this point.

A little too quick on the blame there sparky! (nm)PaulCL
Nov 12, 2001 10:34 AM
Thats not the point!Bill W
Nov 12, 2001 11:17 AM
Whether this was the cause of a security breach isn't the point. The shame is that pure political motives are placed above the publics safety.
Thats not the point!PaulCL
Nov 12, 2001 1:11 PM
Who knows about motives. Do you really know their motives?? Could their motives be not to put security in the hands of federal employees who are easy to hire, impossible to fire? A federal employee system that is historically inefficient? Can you say Amtrak? Post office (pre-privatization)? And just about every other federal agency??

I don't know the answer. Maybe some respect for our lawmakers who are taking some time to do what's best. Four weeks to pass such a sweeping bill is not much. If I understand correctly, the democrats want federal employees covering security. Republicans want private companies but with federal supervision. Maybe the Republicans are being fiscally responsible?? Ever think of that one? Imagine the billions of tax dollars it will take to put federal employees in airports? Does a 20 year civil servant at the front desk really make you feel safer than a private employee?? I guess we all pay for it one way or the other: increased taxes, decreased fed. benefits, or increased ticket fares.
Amtrak = Inefficient...couldn't be more true...Kristin
Nov 12, 2001 1:16 PM
You've never seen a more lot and helpless lot than local Amtrak employees during a train crisis. (And the pick pocketeer's know this full well.)
Nov 12, 2001 1:27 PM
I don't think anyone has shown that better security would have prevented the 9/11 attacks. Those attacks succeeded because of surprise and novelty. They were done with small knives, which might very well pass through any screening (or they could have used ceramic, which would not have shown up at all) or by any screener. The country is not less safe because a bill has not passed, yet. Anyone who thinks that is simply demonstrating political bias.

You need to learn the factsBill W
Nov 12, 2001 1:53 PM
At least get your facts straight. The Aviation Security Association, whose main lobbyist is Kenneth Quinn, the FAAs' chief counsel in Bush Sr's administration, has used 1,250,000 dollars in donations to secure a deadlock in the House. Contrary to yours and Limbaughs excuses the one being used by the House managers is the workers relief package which would include expanded unemployment insurance and healthcare coverage for those being laid off in the aviation industry. At least Sen. McCain has seen through this ruse and criticized it for what it is.
Your jingoist rantings may work with the naive but not with those that actually pay attention to these things.
You need to learn the factsPaulCL
Nov 12, 2001 2:14 PM
My point was not how or who is holding up the bill, but the true merit of putting more control into the federal governments' hands. I don't care who is spending the bucks to block a bill - both dems and reps do it. It comes down to a core belief that the private sector is more efficient and less expensive than the public sector. Personally, I believe that the only thing government does better is wage war and raise taxes. Neither of which is a compliment. We come from two different perspectives, different points of view.

Now, I gotta go. The kids actually want me to cook for them! Now where's that peanut butter.....
McDonalds rejects?Kasey
Nov 12, 2001 3:18 PM
Your right I feel much safer with someone who couldn't get a job at McDonalds checking people and carry-ons for weapons.
McDonalds rejects?PaulCL
Nov 12, 2001 4:19 PM
Do you mean the federal employees???

I guess not by your tone. In my initial post, I referred to the repubicans desire to have 'federal oversight' over the operations. Maybe that will eliminate the unqualified McDonald's employees.

Besides, with the violence at fast food restuarants in the last decade, maybe McDonalds gives its employees battle training. How about former postal workers??? Nobody would want to piss them off! (to our post office posters..I'm just kidding)
Ah..Yes the truth is out there...MONEYzzz
Nov 12, 2001 2:18 PM
By jingo, this jingle-jangle jumble of jingoistic junk just jerks my jimmy. The rise of chauvinist patriotic partisan unilateral demagoguery really chaps my derriere. When will the tide of hawkish right-wing militant dogmatic fascism be turned?