Flying the unfriendly skies

[Freightrain]

20 hours ago, kscarbel2 said:

I'm lost here. How were the Chicago airport security officers doing their job? Is removing a passenger who's done nothing wrong their job?

They were told to get the passenger off the plane.  Simple as that.   A person, somewhere in charge, told them to do this.  Being police, you do what they ask or you get treated like a felon.  Resisting arrest.  The good doctor told them what he was expecting and he got it.  Simple as that.

I'm not a doctor, but I wouldn't have gotten off

Well, sorry to say, like Rowdy's comment earlier, you both would have been in the same predicament.  Beaten and dragged off.  No ego in the world is stronger then a handful of big guys and handcuffs. 

Sorry, this is my opinion on the matter.  I am not condoning what happened, but just understand why.  Should something be done?  Abso-damn-lutely.  They have rules written to help THEM, not us.

[kscarbel2]

Paul Muschick, The Morning Call (Allentown, PA)  /  April 15, 2017

From what I can tell, regulators have never seriously considered prohibiting overbooking or involuntary bumping [because they’re in bed with airline lobbyist…..literally]. They've always said airlines deserve flexibility in taking reservations. But some legislators now are calling for changes based on what happened last Sunday on United Flight 3411.

The situation didn't occur because United overbooked the flight. It was booked at capacity, then the employees were added. The incident has brought needed attention to overbooking, though, because the result was the same, with a paying passenger bounced in favor of someone else.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie asked the U.S. transportation secretary last week to "consider the immediate suspension" of overbooking until the issue can be reviewed. In his letter, he said New Jersey was "looking into appropriate action to be taken to curtail this abusive practice at NewarkAirport."

U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky, a Democrat from Illinois, said she plans to introduce legislation that would prohibit involuntary bumping of passengers from overbooked flights. Airlines would have to negotiate until they got volunteers.

"If an airline chooses to oversell a flight, or has to accommodate their crew on a fully booked flight, it is their responsibility to keep raising their offer until a customer chooses to give up their seat," she said.

U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat from Maryland, said he will introduce legislation prohibiting airlines from making room by forcibly removing passengers already aboard.

According to Arthur Wolk, an aviation attorney in Philadelphia, the practice already is prohibited. He said it violates the contract of carriage, which spells out the terms passengers agree to when they fly.

United's contract, like those of other airlines, warns passengers they may be denied boarding due to overbooking. It also says United can refuse to transport a passenger or remove a boarded passenger for reasons including being disorderly or drunk, interfering with the flight crew or having a contagious illness.

But, it doesn't allow for removing a law-abiding boarded passenger under the circumstances presented Sunday, Wolk said.

"There is nothing in that contract that allows them to do this," he told me. "It's not a denied boarding situation."

Wolk said it's virtually impossible for an airline to breach its contract because the terms are written so favorably, but United found a way to do it.

Last year, 40,629 passengers were involuntarily bumped by U.S. airlines, according to the U.S. Transportation Department.

The DOT says its overbooking regulations balance the right of passengers to obtain the services they paid for and the ability of airlines to operate efficiently [their position paid for thru lobbyist like “Airlines for America” by the airlines].

FYI - http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/bill-shuster-admits-personal-relationship-with-lobbyist-117054

With more tickets today being non-refundable, or having $200 or $300 fees to change a reservation, airlines still make money on empty seats.

"I think it needs to be revisited," said Paul Hudson, president of FlyersRights.org, a nonprofit consumer organization representing airline passengers. "The original justification for it is gone. There aren't many no-shows and when there is a no-show, the airline makes money. So what's the justification for this? It's gone."

I wrote last year about Alaska, Southwest, American and United airlines being fined between $35,000 and $45,000 after the DOT alleged agents at boarding gates and ticket counters failed to provide proper copies of notices that spell out the rights of bumped passengers.

In 2015, American Airlines was fined $20,000 after the DOT said it failed to compensate 11 passengers who were involuntarily bumped. The DOT also said American directed employees to report involuntarily bumps as voluntary.

Those airlines settled the investigations without admitting or denying wrongdoing.

Bumping data - Compensation for involuntarily bumping

Substitute transportation reaches destination within 1 hour of your original scheduled time: $0

Substitute transportation reaches destination 1-2 hours (1-4 on international flights) late: 200% of your fare, up to $675

Substitute transportation reaches destination more than 2 hours (4 on international flights) late: 400% of your fare, up to $1,350

Original ticket remains valid for a future flight

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation

[mowerman]

I'm not a big fan of any airlines or flying ..........That assclown was dirty neat to begin with... Now wants to be rewarded for bad behavior on his part......And media and attorneys are making more out of it than what happened....Non of us were there.....Can't say...I say hand him a hanky and 2 drink tokes,and a plane fare and call it good....bob
 

[mowerman]

Pay good money for a seat and they treat everyone terrible. That's life get over it.....That's what they tell me.......bob
 

[RowdyRebel]

12 hours ago, Freightrain said:

Well, sorry to say, like Rowdy's comment earlier, you both would have been in the same predicament.  Beaten and dragged off.  No ego in the world is stronger then a handful of big guys and handcuffs.

The difference is I would have been polite and respectful in my insistence upon remaining in my seat upon that flight, explaining why I could not accept their pathetic offer to buy my seat back for their employee...until they laid a hand on me. At that point, it is game on. 3 or 4 against 1? Ok. I may get my ass whooped, but I'll send at least 1 or 2 of them to the hospital right along side me. Other passengers might also be caught up in the ruckus, and the interior of the plane might even sustain enough damage that the entire flight may be scrapped while repairs are completed. Sure, I'd likely end up in jail for "resisting", and I'd have a civil rights suit against the rent-a-cops and the airline same as the doctor. Just because you "resist" doesn't mean you can't sue. At least I wouldn't be the only one with a broken nose, missing teeth, and a concussion. The second they lay a hand on me, I have every right to defend myself, and as long as I'm outnumbered, NO amount of force I may utilize using the tools available to me thanks to the TSA security screening will be considered "excessive". My goal would be to ensure at least 2 of them end up worse off than me injury-wise. Like I said, I'm not a "turn the other cheek" kind of guy. I tend to take things to the extreme as well when I'm making a point. That is my seat, that I paid for, and you assigned to me for the duration of the flight...and up until YOU laid a hand on me in an aggressive and threatening manner thereby jeopardizing my safety and security, I had done nothing to warrant being removed from the plane.

I'm not intimidated by superior numbers. My dad whooped me enough as a kid that I have a pretty high tolerance for pain, and as a brick layer, he was built pretty solid and could really dish it out. I stopped caring about his whoopings in Jr high, at which point he started using pressure points to encourage submission. He wore those out in high school.  Hell, even as far back as my t-ball days, I knew how to set pain aside and get the job done. Hard line drive to the shoulder, I fielded it, threw the kid out, and then worried about how much it hurt. The kid I threw out cried more than I did. In Jr high, I was playing soccer. Broke my thumb blocking a shot (I was the goal keeper), finished the game, and nobody thought it was broke because I was laughing at how deformed it looked. College, we were camping about 5 miles into a wilderness area. Hopping across rocks to cross a stream looking for a swimming hole, my foot slipped on one rock slamming my shin into another. Cut my shin right to the bone. What did I do? Jogged the mile or so back to camp, packed my gear and took down my tent, and carried my stuff back out to the van to be driven to the ER. 4 days later, I was playing softball with my shin stitched together. Few years later, got off my motorcycle the wrong way & broke my collar bone. Picked the bike back up off the ground and pushed it out of the way before having a friend drive me to the ER. Next day, I was under my pickup replacing the starter and putting an exhaust under the thing since I'd have to be driving it for a while. Never did take any of the pain pills they prescribed. In other words, pain has never really bothered me...and in some ways, it only encourages me to push harder.

So yeah, bring it on...we'll trash the plane and they'll need multiple ambulances to clean up the mess YOU caused by laying your hands upon me without my consent or approval. That badge doesn't mean a damn thing to me, because underneath that badge, you're a hell of a lot softer than I am...so let's dance. 4 against 1 sounds like a fair enough fight to me.

Or, if you want a peaceful resolution to the problem YOU caused through YOUR lack of prior planning, offer me enough to make it worth my trouble getting off the plane...and don't lay a hand on me for any reason.

[kscarbel2]

This gentleman could have been me coming in off int'l thru Chicago transiting to Louisville for MATS. The man paid for a ticket, received an assigned seat and was buckled in waiting for his aircraft to be pushed back from the gate.

When he was asked and then pressured to get off the aircraft, he calmly called United customer service who, to no surprise, couldn't do anything "on the spot". At that point, he said that he would not give up his purchased seat, because he (and his wife) couldn't wait until Monday for the next flight. He had no reason to give up his purchased seat.........and United had no right to make him.

As was stated above, United's contract of carriage does NOT allow for removing a law-abiding boarded passenger under Sunday's circumstances. It wasn't a denied boarding situation.

 

[TeamsterGrrrl]

Chicago to Louisville is around 300 miles... I'd take the thousand+ dollars a person they were offering to give up a seat and head straight for the car rental kiosks!

[RowdyRebel]

And I'm sure his patients wouldn't mind being seen by a sleep deprived doctor, after being up driving all night in order to make it back on time to see them. Would United cover the malpractice claims if his fatigue caused him to miss something with a patient?

For a trucker, you can still have issues. Or are you forgetting that Walmart driver, who despite being within the HOS at the time of the crash, faced some serious charges because he had commuted several hundred miles in his car prior to beginning his shift? Would United cover my legal bills?

If you're retired with nothing better to do, fine. Take the money and wait for the next flight, rent a car, hop on a bus or train, or hitchhike. If you've got responsibilities on the other end that are time sensitive, you simply do not have that option. The airline should respect that, especially after the passengers have boarded and taken their seats awaiting take-off. Easy solution, offer more money to entice people to willingly give up their seat. Eventually, you'll find a price people will be willing to work with you. Everyone has a price, and the higher that price, the more likely they will be to resist a pathetic and insulting offer.

[fxfymn]

This case is the classic "they did what?" scenario for senior management. Everyone has some degree of fault, but I'm sure senior management expected far more out of their employees than what was delivered. The gate agents should have bumped it up the line as soon as it became apparent that the situation wasn't going to resolve itself and the "police" officers should have asked some hard questions of the United staff before they took the actions they did.

I'm sure 99% of the officers who would respond to a like situation would ask United what is it that this guy did before taking actions to remove him. When United replied most officers would tell them they are not going to forcibly remove the person for refusing to give up a seat in what was basically a civil, not criminal matter. And in turn United folks should have stepped in and told the officers not to use force if that is the road they were headed down.

One of the things we always stressed to our folks is that every contact you have with a citizen maybe the only contact that citizen ever has with us and that if you do not make a positive impression on them you are letting every other employee and the organization down. That starts with senior management and it is pretty apparent that no one at United or the Chicago Airport ever cared enough to make sure their employees knew, and acted on, that.

One rule to keep in mind when faced with a situation like this is "If that was my Mother/Wife/Sister/Child how would I treat them?" If everyone involved had applied that rule than no one would have ever heard about this.

[kscarbel2]

Yet another black eye for the TSA

---------------------------------------------------------------------

CNN  /  April 21, 2017

A federal air marshal on a transatlantic flight left her loaded service weapon in the airplane's bathroom, where it was discovered by a passenger who gave it to a crew member before it was returned to the federal agent.

The incident happened aboard Delta flight 221, which was traveling from Manchester, United Kingdom, to New York's JohnF.KennedyInternationalAirport on April 6, and was reported to the air marshal's management days later.

The Federal Air Marshal Service said the agent in question is a relatively new hire who should have been placed on leave for leaving her gun. Instead, the agent remains on active flight duty.

A former federal air marshal said newly hired air marshals do not currently receive on-the-job training.

"Air marshals work in punishing conditions, labor under poor leadership and have seen their law enforcement functions curtailed by an administration that lacks vision. The problem is not the air marshals, it's the TSA," said John Casaretti, president of the Air Marshal Association and a former air marshal.

CNN has been unable to find a single incident in which a federal air marshal deterred or intervened in a terrorist plot since the organization was ramped up after the September 11, 2001, attacks.

Although it has an $835 million budget, agents cover less than 1% of US domestic and international flights.

A CNN report in 2015 exposed the long hours, chaotic schedules and use of drugs and alcohol among federal air marshals, which has led to suicides and suicide attempts by the agents.

In that report, CNN obtained a now-classified study commissioned by the TSA that revealed 75% of air marshals flying domestic missions were sleep-deficient. The percentage was even higher on air marshals assigned to international assignments, where 84% of agents were identified as sleep-deficient.

According to the 2012 study conducted by HarvardMedicalSchool's division of sleep medicine, "the acute and chronic lack of sleep substantially degrades a federal air marshal's ability to react and think quickly."

TSA officials insisted at the time that air marshals' schedules ensure appropriate rest periods and that agents have access to a "robust health, fitness and wellness program."

[41chevy]

The "real truth"  

https://townhall.com/columnists/bernardgoldberg/2017/04/25/the-real-villain-at-ohare-n2317567?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=

 

[Outbehindthebarn]

On 4/17/2017 at 7:25 AM, kscarbel2 said:

This gentleman could have been me coming in off int'l thru Chicago transiting to Louisville for MATS. The man paid for a ticket, received an assigned seat and was buckled in waiting for his aircraft to be pushed back from the gate.

When he was asked and then pressured to get off the aircraft, he calmly called United customer service who, to no surprise, couldn't do anything "on the spot". At that point, he said that he would not give up his purchased seat, because he (and his wife) couldn't wait until Monday for the next flight. He had no reason to give up his purchased seat.........and United had no right to make him.

As was stated above, United's contract of carriage does NOT allow for removing a law-abiding boarded passenger under Sunday's circumstances. It wasn't a denied boarding situation.

 

Is that true? Did United have no right to make him give up his seat? I've been working under the assumption that that very question will be at the heart of the lawsuit.

I'm not a well-traveled farmer, but I have flown some, and if I was told to get off the plane I'd begrudgingly get off... even if the cows needed milked. There is no place on earth where I've felt I've had fewer rights than at an airport or around a plane.

One other indictment I'd like to make is against the other wailing passengers who didn't offer to give up their seats for the doctor.

[kscarbel2]

The Guardian  /  April 27, 2017

United Airlines will offer passengers up to $10,000 (£7,700) for giving up their seats on overbooked flights, as part of efforts to repair the damage to its reputation after widespread condemnation over the forcible removal of a passenger.

The offer of increased compensation came after rival Delta outlined plans to offer up to $9,950 in such cases.

United said it would “increase customer compensation incentives for voluntary denied boarding up to $10,000”, and also promised action to reduce overbooking and improve customer satisfaction.

“Our goal is to reduce incidents of involuntary denial of boarding to as close to zero as possible and become a more customer-focused airline,” the carrier said.

United also said it would no longer call police to stop passengers boarding, nor would passengers who were seated be required to give up their place on overbooked flights.

Crews would be booked on flights 60 minutes before departure, and staff would undergo annual training to handle “the most difficult situations”, an inquiry report said.

United will also adopt a “no questions asked” policy on permanently lost baggage from June, paying customers $1,500 for the value of the bag and its contents.

[fxfymn]

Quote

Our goal is to reduce incidents of involuntary denial of boarding to as close to zero as possible and become a more customer-focused airline

I wish them well, but the single hardest thing to do in any organization is to effect a culture change. Pro sports teams try by firing the coach, but unless you fire the entire team and start over it rarely works. When you have several thousand employees it is basically impossible IMO.

[kscarbel2]

21 hours ago, fxfymn said:

I wish them well, but the single hardest thing to do in any organization is to effect a culture change. Pro sports teams try by firing the coach, but unless you fire the entire team and start over it rarely works. When you have several thousand employees it is basically impossible IMO.

Well said. In my experience, cultural change can only be orchestrated by the individual at the top of the pyramid. So many company's management don't grasp that.

[kscarbel2]

A fluke, or an improvised explosive device (IED) that went off prematurely.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Raging inferno beside American Airlines plane spooks passengers

RT  /  October 9, 2017

Dramatic footage of a raging inferno breaking out next to the terminal at Hong Kong’s Chek Lap Kok international airport as cargo was being loaded onto an American Airlines Boeing 777 aircraft has emerged.

Passengers are seen looking on in horror as flames appear on one side of the plane. The fire broke out at approximately 5:30pm local time on Monday.

The cargo loader itself reportedly caught fire, which in turn spread to the container it was placing on board the aircraft. The fire did not actually spread to the plane, however.

When a loading vehicle was loading cargo onto the plane it caught on fire,” a police spokesperson said, as cited by the AFP.

The loader operator sustained minor injuries according to an American Airlines spokesperson Martha Thomas, as cited by USA Today.

Thomas said that despite the lack of damage to the aircraft itself, the flight was cancelled “out of an abundance of caution.”

All affected passengers have already been booked on alternate flights.

.

.

[kscarbel2]

DHS says 757’s hacked remotely without pilot’s knowledge

Aviation News  /  November 8, 2017                                   

A team of government, industry and academic officials successfully demonstrated that a commercial aircraft could be remotely hacked in a non-laboratory setting last year, a U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) official said Wednesday at the 2017 CyberSat Summit in Tysons Corner, Virginia.

“We got the airplane on Sept. 19, 2016. Two days later, I was successful in accomplishing a remote, non-cooperative, penetration,” said Robert Hickey, aviation program manager within the Cyber Security Division of the DHS Science and Technology (S&T) Directorate.

“[Which] means I didn’t have anybody touching the airplane, I didn’t have an insider threat. I stood off using typical stuff that could get through security and we were able to establish a presence on the systems of the aircraft.”

Hickey said the details of the hack and the work his team are doing are classified, but said they accessed the aircraft’s systems through radio frequency communications, adding that, based on the RF configuration of most aircraft, “you can come to grips pretty quickly where we went” on the aircraft.

The aircraft that DHS is using for its tests is a legacy Boeing 757 commercial plane purchased by the S&T branch.

After his speech at the CyberSat Summit, Hickey told Avionics sister publication Defense Daily that the testing is with the aircraft on the ground at the airport in Atlantic City, New Jersey.

The initial response from experts was, “’We’ve known that for years,’” and, “It’s not a big deal,” Hickey said.

But in March 2017, at a technical exchange meeting, he said seven airline pilot captains from American Airlines and Delta Air Lines in the room had no clue.

“All seven of them broke their jaw hitting the table when they said, ‘You guys have known about this for years and haven’t bothered to let us know because we depend on this stuff to be absolutely the bible,'” Hickey said.

Hickey, who is a staff officer in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence on assignment to DHS S&T, said that while aviation is a subsector of the transportation component of the National Infrastructure Protection Plan, the focus is squarely on traditional terrestrial-based systems. The reservation and scheduling systems of airline aren’t part of Hickey’s research, he said.

“I want to suggest to you that there’s a different type of critical infrastructure, and that’s critical infrastructure that’s in motion, of which aviation is one of the third of that,” Hickey said. The others are surface and maritime transportation, he said.

“And I look at all of those and say, ‘If we’re not looking at those from a different perspective, we’re going to miss the boat,’ no pun intended,” Hickey said. He said he doesn’t know the answers yet for aircraft cyber infrastructure, adding that it’s not a policy issue yet because more research needs to be done on these systems to understand what the issues are. Patching avionics subsystem on every aircraft when a vulnerability is discovered is cost prohibitive, Hickey said.

The cost to change one line of code on a piece of avionics equipment is $1 million, and it takes a year to implement.

For Southwest Airlines, whose fleet is based on Boeing’s 737, it would “bankrupt” them if a cyber vulnerability was specific to systems on board 737s, he said, adding that other airlines that fly 737s would also see their earnings hurt.

Hickey said newer models of 737s and other aircraft, like Boeing’s 787 and the Airbus Group A350, have been designed with security in mind, but that legacy aircraft, which make up more than 90% of the commercial planes in the sky, don’t have these protections.

Aircraft also represent different challenges for cybersecurity and traditional land-based networks, Hickey said. He said that whether it’s the U.S. Air Force or the commercial sector, there are no maintenance crews that can deal with ferreting out cyber threats aboard an aircraft.

“They don’t exist in the maintenance world,” Hickey said, noting that when he was in the Air Force, he commanded a logistics group.

Hickey was also an airline pilot for more than 20 years.

The chief information officers of airlines “don’t know how to chase a cyber spark through an airplane either,” Hickey said. “Why? Because they have been dealing with, and they’re programmed to, and they do a great job of, protecting the terrestrial-based networks. Airplanes are absolutely different — crazy different.”

Trying to deal with airplane cybersecurity the same way it is approached for land-based networks “is going to leave us short of the mark,” Hickey said.

Hickey's team for his work includes Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Energy Department's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, University of California San Diego, Sierra Nevada, SRI International and QED Secure Solutions. QED is led by Johnathan Butts, a former Air Force officer who has done cyber vulnerability assessments of Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles and B-52 bombers, Hickey said.

Two years ago, a security researcher claimed to have hacked into a passenger aircraft through its in-flight entertainment system while he was traveling aboard the plane. However, there is no evidence he accessed flight control systems.

[RowdyRebel]

...and that mirrors some of my concerns about ELD's and the back doors into my truck's ECM that they will open.  Right now, there is no way in except for physically plugging in.  The system I'd PREFER to use does not "connect"...it has a printer for a roadside inspection, and a USB key to transfer data to the office.  However, the carrier is insisting upon PeopleNet and nobody is willing to put their money where their mouth is to back up their claims that it is "secure".  I want a clause in the contract stating IF their system is hacked and my ECM is tampered with, the carrier will be responsible for ALL damages, repairs, and expenses incurred as a result.  So far, they are unwilling to do so, which speaks volumes given the unlikeliness of me specifically being the target of a hacker.

[Maxidyne]

There's a reason they're pushing "connectedness"- The data they get about where your at and when allows them to target ads to you. GM's latest version of OnStar uses a cell modem on the Verizon network to "call home". Usually "unlimited" data service by cell networks costs around $70-$100 a month, but Verizon is offering similar service via OnStar for $20 a month. Why- So they can gather all that data about where and when you're at and market to you, and GM probably gets to snoop and get info to deny warranty claims.

[kscarbel2]

He claims he wants peace but Trump has just enraged a billion Muslims and poured oil on the flames of a war that could consume us all

Piers Morgan  /  December 6, 2017

What's the first thing you're told by your parents as a kid when you're anywhere near fire?

That's right: don't pour oil on it.

Why?

Well, ignore the advice and see for yourself – the fire will instantly erupt into a far larger and more furious ball of violent flame, endangering the lives of everyone in the immediate vicinity.

Today, President Donald Trump has taken a million-ton barrel of oil and tipped it all over the Middle East.

His decision to officially recognize Jerusalem as the new capital city of Israel, and to move the US embassy there from Tel Aviv, is a staggeringly reckless act of wilful provocation even by his tweet-enraging standards.

And it could very quickly turn out to be a far more worrying threat to world peace than even the North Korea crisis.

I don't say this lightly.

To understand the enormity of this decision, it's important to understand the history behind it.

Jerusalem is at the very heart of the Israel/Palestine conflict.

West Jerusalem is the home of Israel's government; East Jerusalem is the home to 300,000 Palestinians.

Both sides insist it must be the capital of their states.

This is why America has trodden very carefully when it comes to Jerusalem, locating its embassy in Tel Aviv since Israel's creation in 1948.

They are not alone in this. No other country in the world has their Israeli embassy in Jerusalem, acknowledging that to do so would be incredibly inflammatory.

Now President Trump is re-igniting this smouldering tinderbox in spectacular fashion.

He apparently considers it a roll of the dice worth throwing to force through a peace settlement.

Almost everyone else sees it as a desperately dangerous gamble that could have disastrous consequences for the whole already war-ravaged region.

Saudi Arabia's King Salman told Trump personally in a phone call it 'would constitute a flagrant provocation of Muslims all over the world'.

King Abdullah of Jordan said it would have 'serious implications for security and stability in the Middle East'.

Turkish President Erdogan described it as a violation of international law and a 'red line' for Muslims that would force Turkey to sever all diplomatic ties with Israel.

China warned it could 'sharpen regional conflict, initiating new hostility'.

Russia, a key Middle East player, agreed, expressing concern over 'possible deterioration'.

French President Emmanuel Macron, speaking in similar terms to Germany and the UK, told Trump to urgently reconsider the plan, stressing that the status of Jerusalem 'must be resolved through negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians'.

Pope Francis spoke of his 'deep worry' about the situation and pleaded for 'wisdom and prudence' to prevail. He said: 'I make a heartfelt appeal so that all commit themselves to respecting the status quo of the city.'

Palestinians, obviously, are livid. Their leader Mahmoud Abbas warned of 'dangerous consequences' and an end to the peace process.

Hamas, the extremist arm of the Palestinians, said it would constitute a 'dangerous escalation' that 'crosses every red line' and called for 'days of rage' to protest.

Despite this extraordinary global opposition, Trump has gone ahead and done it anyway.

As things stand, the only people who will be happy about this are Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his right wing government and their supporters.

And the Christian Right in America.

But this decision is not even something most Americans support.

A new poll by the University of Maryland found that 66% of Americans, including 44% of Republicans, oppose moving the embassy.

The majority of Americans, and American Jews, believe that international recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital city can and should only come in an agreement with the Palestinians on a two-state solution.

And in that eventuality, parts of the city would be ring-fenced as Israel's capital, other parts as Palestinian's capital – with each side having sovereignty over the areas in which its citizens reside.

Jerusalem is one of the most sacred cities on the planet, home to Muslims, Jews and Christians and some of the most important holy sites of all those religions.

Trump's decision tells the entire Arab and Christian world that it now belongs to the Jews of Israel and not them.

This incendiary move comes as a time when many were hoping real progress could be made in reaching some kind of two-state solution.

Indeed, Trump's own son-in-law Jared Kushner has been working for months on behalf of the administration to forge new impetus for a peace deal in an attempt to finally end the conflict.

But all his efforts, and those of the myriad others who devote their lives to this, are now likely to go up, quite literally, in smoke.

I'm all for fresh new thinking when it comes to the Israel/Palestine crisis, as Trump put it today, because let's be perfectly frank: none of the old thinking has worked.

This, though, is a terrible idea that will make things worse not better.

In the short term, Trump's decision will inevitably spark a new wave of violence and instability across the region.

In the longer term, it will surely embolden Islamist terror groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS right and act as their greatest possible recruitment drive.

This, self-evidently, will make Israel less safe.

As for America, by moving from peace-broker to blatant side-taker, it is deliberately waving an Israeli red rag in the face of the Arab bull.

That can only make any resolution to this interminable issue even more unlikely.

And I fear it will also make America a less safe country, too.

Donald Trump has already enraged the world's Muslims on a regular basis.

During his election campaign, he called for a ban on all Muslims entering the US following a terror attack in California.

This week, his controversial watered down travel ban, that targets seven predominantly Muslim countries, was given the green light by the Supreme Court.

Last week, Trump retweeted three anti-Muslim videos posted by a racist, Islamophobe, criminal group named Britain First.

So Muslims already feel this President is their enemy.

Today's announcement won't just confirm that suspicion, it will heavily cement it.

The Palestinian ambassador to London said the move amounts to 'declaring war on 1.5 billion Muslims.'

Hyperbole or not, there is no question that Donald Trump has just poured oil on the fire.

Or worse, as President Erdogan's spokesman put it, he's 'plunging the region and the world into a fire with no end.'

God help us.

[kscarbel2]

Now's a great time to avoid flying, if at all possible.

[grayhair]

On 4/15/2017 at 10:11 AM, 41chevy said:

Ironically, United has now "lost" Dr Dao's luggage. .  .

I don't know if the luggage was ever recovered, but I have it on very good authority, the Dr. is doing well, back to normal, his new teeth are good, and the settlement was in the low to mid 7 figures kind of money.

Good for him!  As for me, it has been over 30 years since I last flew United and there is no way i will ever do so again.  

Edited December 7, 2017 by grayhair

[carlotpilot]

69 years its been same old same old same old     maybe time it comes to a head

[41chevy]

55 minutes ago, carlotpilot said:

69 years its been same old same old same old     maybe time it comes to a head

69    2500 years its been same old same old same old     maybe time it comes to a head.

Palestine and Hamas also want all Jews eliminated from "their" land. Normal every day statement from them

Palestine and Hamas demand Israel pulls back to pre 1967 boundaries.

Palestine thanks to Obama and the UN,  Palestine/Hamas found that all their wishes would be granted by the UN.

If it isn't Jerusalem it will be one of a few dozen other issues.

It's an on going Semitic Tribal/ Religious war that will never end until both sides a dust.

Piers Morgan is correct, a terrorist with a truck is much most of a threat than a megalomaniac with a few ICBMs.

[grayhair]

2 hours ago, grayhair said:

I don't know if the luggage was ever recovered, but I have it on very good authority, the Dr. is doing well, back to normal, his new teeth are good, and the settlement was in the low to mid 7 figures kind of money.

Good for him!  As for me, it has been over 30 years since I last flew United and there is no way i will ever do so again.  

Oh yeah, here's one more thing to dislike about United...

 

Edited December 7, 2017 by grayhair