"Welcome Home" - Page 11

Blueneck · 10-02-2007, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackbetty

I've never known Migi to have that viewpoint.

So you think the city of Oakland is deliberately holding up these flights just to be rude?

Blueneck · 10-02-2007, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Migi e!

It was not a MAC flight, it was a military charter flight.
You have no idea whether I'm trying to merge anybting or not, but you appaprently have thought that.
BTW-It is not an urban legend.

Well, you could have posted the link to the E-Mail, but you posted a link to this:

Quote:

The more things change the more they seem the same. Marines are refused entry to the terminal at the Oakland airport.

From Michael Ledeen at The Corner -Spitting on the Marines

On September 27th 204 Marines and soldiers who were returning from Iraq were not allowed into the passenger terminal at Oakland International Airport. Instead they had to deplane about 400 yards away from the terminal where the extra baggage trailers were located.

snip�.It felt like being spit on. Every Marine and soldier felt the message loud and clear, �YOU ARE NOT WELCOME IN OAKLAND!�

But don�t ever accuse the anti-war idiots of not supporting the troops.
Technorati Tags:spitting on troops, oakland airport, anti-war,

Getting stuck on a plane at the airport is not the same as having been spit on.

You see this as the troops being treated badly by the airport because they are troops. I see it as they are being treated badly by the airport because the airports' job isn't to be a welcoming committee and they treat lots of people badly. What you seem to want is special treatment for them simply because they are soldiers. If it was a military jet the protocol may be different. There's lots of reasons this could have happened that make more sense than Oakland (i.e. Berkley, i.e. hippies, i.e. spitting hippies) hates the troops.

And if you can find proof of the "spitting hippies" other than some right wing pundit said so, I'll apologize for calling it an urban legend.

Migi e! · 10-02-2007, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davocrat

Yes. Like you claiming your intent here is NOT to blame this incident on anti-war citizens.

I never claimed that either. Jeez, can you read??? Of course the jerks that denied access to those GIs are anti-war, but more importantly, ANTI-MILITARY!!

Migi e! · 10-02-2007, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davocrat

None needed. Your statement is speaks for itself, so eloquently moronic.

"Moronic". Duly noted.

blackbetty · 10-02-2007, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blueneck

So you think the city of Oakland is deliberately holding up these flights just to be rude?

You're mixing apples with oranges.

I've never known Migi to have the viewpoint you claim she has. That is not related to your question above. You're trying to obsfucate to "validate" your own viewpoint.

Blueneck · 10-02-2007, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Migi e!

I never claimed that either. Jeez, can you read??? Of course the jerks that denied access to those GIs are anti-war, but more importantly, ANTI-MILITARY!!

HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT?

Blueneck · 10-02-2007, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackbetty

You're mixing apples with oranges.

I've never known Migi to have the viewpoint you claim she has. That is not related to your question above. You're trying to obsfucate to "validate" your own viewpoint.

No, I'm trying to get you involved in the debate about the GI's at the Oakland airport. That's what this thread is about.

blackbetty · 10-02-2007, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blueneck

No, I'm trying to get you involved in the debate about the GI's at the Oakland airport. That's what this thread is about.

Interesting statement as you used this thread to make a claim about another member, and when questioned about that statement...tried to deflect it.

As for the treatment of the troops at the Oakland airport, I think anyone would need further information to arrive at any conclusions. The treatment did differ from their treatment at other airports and it was not a one-time thing. I would be curious to know if other groups are also treated in this manner, or only planes carrying U.S. troops. It didn't seem to me that there was any legitimate reason to now allow the troops access to the terminal, as other passengers would be allowed.

As for certain entities treating U.S. military differently from other citizens....I happen to live in a city wherein the mayor gets off on imposing his personal views and biases on the populace, so I don't consider it out of the realm of possibility that someone in a position of power in an airport would act in a similar manner. But more information is required to form an opinion in this instance.

Blueneck · 10-02-2007, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Thank you so much for sharing with me the information you had regarding the incident at the airport. As you know sometimes the way things appear initially regarding an incident turn out to be different after looking into the details. We checked into this once you had called me and raised your public relations concern, so again thank you. Here is the background information I have about the incident as well as the procedures and policies that affected decision-making that day.
In the case of North American Airlines Flight #1777, a military charter flight that arrived at OAK on Thursday, September 27, aircraft parking and passenger service arrangements were coordinated and approved in advance between the ground handling company and Airside Operations. The airport received information that the passengers were not TSA-screened
at their originating airport and that weapons were on-board the aircraft. Together with our security partners, the airport made a decision to park this aircraft at a remote location on the tarmac. It is the responsibility of the charter airline that its operation is compliant with TSA screening requirements.
Upon landing and parking at OAK, the pilot-in-command advised the ground handling company that the parking and passenger handling provisions did not meet expectations. Upon learning this, Airside Operations and Aviation Security worked with the ground handling company and other law enforcement partners to coordinate a plan that was satisfactory to the pilot and passengers, and which was compliant with all airport safety and security standards.
Oakland International Airport (OAK) makes customer service a priority for all its passengers, whether they are traveling on commercial, military or general aviation aircraft. Charter airlines operating at OAK can choose to contract with a number of ground handling companies. Ground handlers coordinate flight services such as passenger handling, and aircraft fueling, cleaning and catering. It is the responsibility of ground handling companies to communicate aircraft and passenger operational needs to OAK�s Airside Operations Office in advance so that special accommodations can be coordinated to ensure that all airport operational, safety and security concerns are addressed.
The scheduled arrival and departure time of the flight is set by the aircraft operator. Time is needed to refuel the aircraft, perform maintenance inspections, refresh the catering, and give passengers time to stretch to break-up long travel periods. An analysis of the incident and prior correspondence between OAK�s Airside Operations and the ground handler determined that the airport did not receive clear communication in advance from the charter airline that was hired by the military.
I am out of town starting tomorrow for a convention. If you have any further inquiries about this incident and the way it was handled, Rosemary Barnes who is part of our Public Affairs team would be happy to speak with you. You may also call Joanne Holloway, the acting manager of the Port�s Community and Customer Relations Department.
Kindest regards,
Marilyn Sandifur
Port Spokesperson
Port of Oakland

Blame the charter company - they hate the troops, not Oakland.

Nerdo · 10-02-2007, 02:11 PM

Who hates the troops, some of us just kinda dislike them.