Posted on 07/14/2002 6:46:48 AM PDT by Israel Insider
Israel's consul general in New York, Alon Pinkas, was denied a seat on a National Airlines flight from San Francisco when the plane's pilot screamed at security personnel, "I don't care what you do, he will not get onto my plane." The pilot said that Pinkas's presence would endanger all the other passengers on the flight.
The incident occurred Thursday night, Yediot Aharonot reported, shortly after Pinkas had completed public relations work in San Francisco. He was due to return to New York on the National Airlines flight. Upon his arrival at the airport, security officials informed the pilot that the Israeli consul would be getting on board the flight, and the pilot responded that he would not fly the plane if there was an Israeli diplomat aboard.
According to media reports, the pilot nearly had a temper tantrum in the airport terminal as he argued with police officers who demanded that he let Pinkas board the plane. The manager of National Airlines' San Francisco office threatened the pilot that if the press reported on the incident, the pilot would lose his job.
The pilot apparently broke down in tears, and was said to be close to a nervous breakdown. Pinkas saw what was happening, and asked to be booked on a different flight. In the end, he returned to New York on Continental Airlines.
"It appears to be the case of one stupid guy and not a systemic problem," Pinkas said.
San Francisco Police registered an official complaint against the pilot, and the United States State Department is investigating the incident. Sources at Israel's Foreign Ministry said that they would file a complaint with National Airlines, asking that the pilot be disciplined.
I disagree. The pilot definitely has some problems, and is completely in the wrong, but the ones who dropped the ball here were the security officers trying to order the pilot to allow the diplomat aboard the plane. Did they have to do that in public?
Surely there must have been a security office of some kind nearby where they could have had a private discussion. Were that the case, the diplomat never would have known about the pilot's mental state, and the pilot wouldn't have had to be publicly embarassed, though he has nobody to blame but himself for crying like a little whiny baby.
I don't blame the diplomat a bit for not wanting to be aboard a plane piloted by that basket case, though I do wonder why the airline would allow a distressed, agitated pilot to fly. I wouldn't want someone like that transporting me, even if it were on land!
You are actually going to say that it is NOT a defensible position that a pilot can refuse to fly someone who would make his flight a prime target for terrorist attack?
Yes, the pilot probably was overly chicken, but neither you nor I have access to the terrorism advisories that the pilot may have been reading. From the article, the pilot's sole motivation was fear that the presence of this official would increase danger to the plane
As an aside, if you were a member of a terrorist cell, and had people among the baggage handlers who could sneak a bomb aboard a plane (but only once before blowing their cover), would you be more likely to pick a plane with a juicy target aboard?
Let me guess. You didn't find it on Hoffman-info, so it can't be true?
Every airline knows this. The governments of the world know this.
i know the 'conventional' wisdom has been this for quite awhile-but has it perhaps been changed to be PC, or for some other reason?
|
|
|
Not to mention food service workers
If they fire the pilot, who's going to fly their plane?
Seriously, why is the Israeli Consul flying on this airline? Israel's economic situation must be a lot worse than we thought. Or is the airline owned by the Meyer Lansky heirs?
Not female . . .
As an aside, if you were a member of a terrorist cell, and had people among the baggage handlers who could sneak a bomb aboard a plane (but only once before blowing their cover), would you be more likely to pick a plane with a juicy target aboard?
I agree with the assessment of the pilot as acting hysterically. This incident obviously had to happen at the time of boarding. The pilot probably recognized Pinkus, who's made quite a few TV appearances in the past months.
I believe the Israeli consulate is fully aware of the dangers to their personnel, and would have taken precautions to shield the reservations.
If, in spite of precautions, a spur-of-the-moment bomb had already been placed on the plane, what are the chances that it would have been removed in time? Pretty slim, I would assume.
By his actions, the pilot demonstrated that he has no faith in the airport security precautions, his airline's security precautions, or the Israelis' security precautions. Futhermore, he drew attention to Pinkus by his actions.
One final point: when's the last time we've heard of an Arab denied flight due to his ethnicity? Let's remember that the most obvious threat since 9/11 is one of suicide bombers -- and no Israeli diplomat has yet filled that role.
If the judgement of this pilot is defended, where do we draw the line? Will it be premissable for Jews in general to be denied boarding, due to security risk? After all, they are all targets in the Arab mind -- the LAX shooter is evidence of that. How about denying prominent Americans passage? Shall we segregate flights by race? If this pilot is so insecure, he/she has no business flying passenger planes in the new normal.
What's not to like?
Stay Safe !
Again, what probably distressed the airline pilot, was that the police officers incorrectly thought their authority to be greater, but when aboard the aircraft their authority is not, save the exceptions where they, as public servants, have a compelling need to preserve life and limb.
Being San Francisco, it's a given that police officers have difficulty understanding the limits of their authority because their left-wing-extremist bosses cannot imagine where their authority could ever stop.
By the way, an airline pilot is not a public servant ... though the airline's aircraft are regarded as a public conveyance. (After all the security rigors in an aviation terminal, the pilot might still instruct the crew to frisk each and every passenger, any objectors are off the plane! So be it. Objectors get to complain, later, but not aboard that aircraft.)
It may be that, for permission to engage as public conveyors, an airline must agree in its application to "not refuse boarding on account of race, creed, or color."
That agreement still does not trump the decision of a pilot, "on the spot," to not board a person or persons or items, when absent an authority of the airline which would outrank his or her decision,
Absent higher-ranking airline authority, the pilot's decision is final, though he or she will probably "face the music" uncomfortably upon arrival (indicated by the sardonic dispatcher, typically while enroute: "I know how much our policy defies gravity, but ... you might not like to know that upon arrival, you are to: bow, kiss the butt, scrape, plead, beg, wash the cars of, beginning with ... ").
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.
