Flight No. 923 from Heathrow was diverted to Boston instead of landing at Washington because of a disruptive female passenger. All luggage is now being checked. The passenger had two letters relating to Al Queda, a jar of vaseline and a screwdriver. :confused:
By: Newforest - 18th August 2006 at 08:46
The passenger will be charged in court after muttering ‘Pakistan’.
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=4af87b5e-69a2-4d45-93a7-5e544f573781&
By: jesterhud - 17th August 2006 at 22:45
What truely annoys me about the whole thing is………the A/C is a 767…..AND THERE WERE ONLY 185 PASSENGERS?! Every flight I’v been on in the last 5 years has been PACKED and these people get off having only 185?! THAT IS PURE BS!!!!!!! Do you realise what the capacity of a 767-200 is? Its ALOT more than 185!!!!
Uniteds Transatlantic 767-300s have 191 seats on board, so it was a pretty full flight.
United currently runs 3 767-300s a day to the USA , 2 to IAD and 1 to LAX.
By: hawkdriver05 - 17th August 2006 at 10:40
ARGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!!
By: Ren Frew - 17th August 2006 at 01:35
What truely annoys me about the whole thing is………the A/C is a 767…..AND THERE WERE ONLY 185 PASSENGERS?! Every flight I’v been on in the last 5 years has been PACKED and these people get off having only 185?! THAT IS PURE BS!!!!!!! Do you realise what the capacity of a 767-200 is? Its ALOT more than 185!!!!
You get even more on a 767-300 which is what N648UA is… :rolleyes:
By: hawkdriver05 - 17th August 2006 at 00:09
What truely annoys me about the whole thing is………the A/C is a 767…..AND THERE WERE ONLY 185 PASSENGERS?! Every flight I’v been on in the last 5 years has been PACKED and these people get off having only 185?! THAT IS PURE BS!!!!!!! Do you realise what the capacity of a 767-200 is? Its ALOT more than 185!!!!
By: T5 - 16th August 2006 at 21:50
I think the whole thing was hyped up for the media’s sake; the military aircraft that accompanied the aircraft into Boston, the evaucation on the runway, the baggage being neatly laid out on the runway etc.
The only surprise about this for me was that the aircraft involved was a 767. I thought United 767s were now a thing of the past at Heathrow – clearly not! :rolleyes:
By: lukeylad - 16th August 2006 at 17:08
AH the american media so cheesy :diablo:
By: pauldyson1uk - 16th August 2006 at 17:07
Yes, because it looks good on CNN and Fox News……… :rolleyes:
You may be right there :rolleyes:
From what has been reported now it is a 60 year old female who has a medical condition and the way they delt with it was to ,in the words of the local police ,was to handcuff her and tie her up. 😡 Sounds a bit over the top if thats what it was.
But what do you beleve, BBC and Sky at time were telling two differant stories.
By: Grey Area - 16th August 2006 at 17:01
Yes, because it looks good on CNN and Fox News……… :rolleyes:
By: pauldyson1uk - 16th August 2006 at 16:42
It better’s and better 😮
It is being reported now that the female passenger who has just been reported to be 60 😮 had become clostrophpic and MAY NOT have been carring what was reported before,and that the pilot just wanted to land the flight has quick as possible.
So it may be that the female just lost it and wanted to get of the aircraft,a good reason to divert , but is it a good reason to give it an F-16 escort and empty the aircraft at the end of the runway and get sniffer dogs to search all the bags 😮
By: lukeylad - 16th August 2006 at 16:36
yeh i just heard about that on radio1 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4799057.stm
Sign In
August 16, 2006 at 4:32 pm