OK, what the hell has happened to the Brits?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

Fuel-loaded? The effected flights would be departing foreign airports bound
for the US. In the case of the British we're talking about trans-Atlantic
flights. Wouldn't the fuel load be rather light by the time they're able to
strike a US target?

The flights aren't all one-way. Sooner or later, they take off again. Putting the
air marshals on board protects them in both directions.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...

The flights aren't all one-way. Sooner or later, they take off again.
Putting the
air marshals on board protects them in both directions.


But aren't they protected at the US end by the TSA? If terrorists are able
to get weapons aboard aircraft in the US it means federal screeners are no
more effective than private sector screeners, and we all know that's not the
case.

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 10:40:21 -0800, G.R. Patterson III wrote:


The flights aren't all one-way. Sooner or later, they take off again. Putting the
air marshals on board protects them in both directions.

You mean: when departing again in the USA heading home? Well, who was
responsible for security at the airport then?

#m

--
harsh regulations in North Korea (read below link after reading the story):
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/04/open-mikulan.php
oooops ... sorry ... it happened in the USA, ya know: the land of the free.