http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/08/18/plane-diverted.html?ref=rss

An Alaska Airlines jetliner flying from Vancouver to San Francisco on Friday had to make an emergency landing in Seattle after the plane's cabin lost pressure, an airline spokeswoman said.

The Boeing 737 landed safely at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport around 8:10 a.m.

Medics treated 10 passengers and three crew members complaining of ear trouble and sinus pain.

"Those checks are finished and no further treatment was required," airline spokeswoman Amanda Tobin Bielawski said.

During the flight, the cabin failed to pressurize normally and the plane's oxygen masks did not deploy, she said.

The airline was bringing in another plane to take the 122 passengers the rest of the way to San Francisco.

Earlier this year, Alaska Airlines ordered a fleet-wide inspection of its planes' air pressure systems after a series of similar cabin pressure problems.

The company said no system-wide problems were found.

With files from the Associated Press

Thanks for posting that, Murray. That's exactly the kind of thing that worries me. Again, I'm not trying to make light of security threats that certainly exist, but that's not what killed my daughter, despite what some nutballs on the internet say. I just hope there are some funds going to actual aircraft safety.

Barbara

I guess I'm naive enough to believe we should have room for both kinds of saftey.

I certainly hope so, though I know safety 'experts' seem to be worried that mechanical problems that exist in these aging aircraft, are taking a backseat to security issues. I guess the bottom line is that there is only so much the industry can spend and security concerns have probably drained these funds to some degree. Hopefully not too much. At the prices these airlines are currently charging, you would hope that they are covering both concerns adequately. Of course, fuel charges are certainly causing prices to rise which is another drain on the airlines and inevitably, the customer.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BF,

Unfortunatly the policies of President Bush have contributed as well with, like you mentioned, rising fuel prices.

I mean I can understand these companies not wanting to lose money, no one gets in to business to lose money, but saftey is the last thing they should be cutting and that's where they're at fault.

quote:

I mean I can understand these companies not wanting to lose money, no one gets in to business to lose money, but saftey is the last thing they should be cutting and that's where they're at fault.

Exactly!

Yes George Bush is certainly not one of our better presidents.

Barbara

I can't wait for 2009.

Any thoughts on who you think might win?

Who I think "will" win the nominations are Hillary and McCain, with McCain winning the General.

But I hope for any of these to win the White house
Wesley Clark
Russ Feingold
John Edwards
John Kerry
Al Gore
Bill Clinton (Oh don't I wish...)

I just hope Jeb Bush doesn't run and win. Seriously though if you guys don't give the Dems at least one house of Congress in the midterms to put a leash on Dubya I feel like you deserve what you get.

Of course we don't have room to talk up here, we just elected a far right government. Thankfully only to a minority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_government

Murray, Sorry you were disappointed with your elections in Canada. In this country, no matter who wins, I'm usually disappointed in the end, lol.

The one name that you and I agree on is Bill Clinton. I'm not too thrilled with his personal life, and don't think he was a particularly honest person, but I didn't think he did too bad a job. At least during that time, other countries didn't seem to hate the U.S., so I'd have to say he probably did a far better job than Bush diplomatically. Right now I think he might be the right person for the job. He's also very intelligent, and it wasn't so aggravating to listen to him speak as it is Bush. It's nice to have a president, that makes sense.

I think that McCain might be an improvement, but it wouldn't be that difficult for anyone to be that.

I'm personally very much a moderate, and would like to see someone come into office that wasn't too far to the right or left. I would guess that the majority of Americans feel this way. Most of us would like to see the U.S. get out of Iraq also.

Barbara

Luckily we didn't go to Iraq. And I understand people wanting to get out. But I feel like just cutting and running now would be a huge mistake. The people of Iraq would suffer terribly through a civil war, and in the end whoever wins would almost certainly sponsor terrorism against the U.S.

I just think if things were done right Iraq would be a lot better for both Iraqis and the U.S. of course going in there in the first place was a huge HUGE mistake, but now that the U.S. is there cutting and running isn't a viable option in my opinion.

I'm very firm of the belief that things would already be better in Iraq if Kerry had won. His plan was to re-establish the co-altion so that it's not all Americans dying over there, also with more troops the process of stabilizing the country would go a lot faster. I think this would have been easier than some people think because most foreign leaders just hate Bush and not Americans per se. I don't hate the U.S. The people who voted for Bush need their heads examined, but I feel more sorry for those that didn't and have to suffer through his tenure. People like Bush and his ilk make me feel really sad when I think about the future of the human race. The world was just starting to become enlightened things were looking good and then WHAM he gets elected and now look at it. Anyone who thinks we're better off now than we were in 1999-2000 needs to get off the crack pipe.

Murray- good post! You certainly have made some very good points. Maybe you're right about Kerry- unfortunately, I guess we'll never know.

A little off the topic- my daughter Tara, just before her death, had apparently done some reading on Middle Eastern affairs, and was really convinced that Bin Laden was going to be a terrible threat to the U.S., back before 9/11 occurred. She talked about it a lot before she was killed. Thinking back, it's a little creepy how freaked out she was by the possibilities which as we know, came true. I think she would be horrified by the world as it is today, almost 8 years after her terrible death.

Yeah, she was obviously a smart cookie. The sad thing about Bin Ladin is the U.S. created him by aiding Afghanistan against the Soviets and then just pulling out and leaving the country to fend for itself in ruins when the war was won.

quote:

Yeah, she was obviously a smart cookie. The sad thing about Bin Ladin is the U.S. created him by aiding Afghanistan against the Soviets and then just pulling out and leaving the country to fend for itself in ruins when the war was won.

Thanks, Murray, she certainly was. I really miss her. She was a lot of fun to hang around with, and a lovely, thoughtful person.

As far as Bin Laden goes, you are definitely right about the U.S. supporting him in Afghanistan against the Russians. I don't know if anyone at that time, ever realized what a monster he would become. What a scary world we live in.

Barbara

Back to your question that is the title of this post. I also wonder why Valujet was ever allowed to fly? If I remember correctly, an FAA official said he wouldn't even fly them, knowing what he did, prior to the crash. I don't understand why swissair wasn't banned from this country following the tragedy, in light of their obvious greed- the 'entertainment system' they carelessly had installed on their MD-11s, or for that matter why those responsible & involved in the installation and approval of that piece of garbage, in this country, aren't in jail.

The FAA should look very carefully at this airline, before another terrible tragedy happens. The crash they did cause a few years back was really inexcusable. How quickly people forget...

Barbara

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BF,

The answer is $$$

Unfortunatly money means more to the FAA than lives do.

quote:

The answer is $$$

Unfortunatly money means more to the FAA than lives do.

Having lived through the terrible tragedy of losing Tara, I can tell you first hand (unfortunately), that you are right about that.