Health/Medical
See other Health/Medical Articles
Title: Too pale to fly? Etihad stops redhead from boarding due to white ‘sickly’ skin
Source:
FoxNews.com
URL Source: http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2015/ ... boarding-etihad-flight-due-to/
Published: Jul 13, 2015
Author: FoxNews.com
Post Date: 2015-07-31 10:43:33 by Hondo68
Keywords: trip to Abu Dhabi, a Scottish family, Manchester airport
Views: 1778
Comments: 11
Etihad Airways almost stopped a girl from boarding due to her naturally pale complexion. (AP File Photo) Etihad Airways has apologized to a Scottish family after airline staff prevented a redheaded teen with a naturally pale complexion from boarding, saying she looked "sickly." Grace Wain, 14, was traveling with her family to the Maldives for a vacation on Monday, July 6. After arriving at the Manchester airport to catch a connecting flight to Abu Dhabi, the tired teen, who was standing close to her mother, was called out by an agent at the check-in desk. “Grace was a bit tired and hot and bothered. She was cuddling into her mum in the line,” father Paul Wain told the UK Mirror. “One of the Etihad check-in girls then made the decision that she wasn’t fit to fly based on the fact she was pale in color and was leaning against her mum.” #SkrewyNews Airline Wouldnt Let a Girl Board cause She Looks Sick Turns Out Shes Just a Ginger http://t.co/HDct9TkLwH pic.twitter.com/ykmwlBF0j3 — 975 wabd (@975wabd) July 13, 2015 Wain had reportedly been saving up for the exotic vacation for years and the entire family became distraught at the prospect of missing their once-in-a-lifetime trip. After an airport paramedic performed a check-up and deemed Grace fit to fly, the Etihad staff still demanded that the Wains produce a doctor’s letter to confirm that Grace was well enough for the trip to Abu Dhabi. “I told them, ‘We live in Scotland.’ She is a redhead and she has a pale complexion. That’s just the way she is,” Paul Wain said. Just two hours before the Wain’s flight was schedule to depart, they were able to obtain a letter from the family practitioner, at which point they were allowed to board. Paul suspects the hold up had nothing to do with whether or not his daughter was healthy enough to fly but believes Etihad was trying to ground certain passengers due to an oversold cabin. But the family’s ordeal did not end when they arrived in the Maldives. Etihad lost both parents’ luggage—and couldn't deliver them for 3 days. Etihad issued the following statement: “Staff were concerned about the wellbeing of a young passenger ahead of a lengthy flight. The team called for a medic who examined the child and requested a ‘fit to fly’ letter from a doctor, allowing the family to board. Our team on the ground continued to provide support ahead of the flight. Unfortunately, when the family arrived, some of their baggage was missing. The airline apologized and took all measures to find and deliver the baggage to the Wain family as soon as possible. Compensation in line with standard guidelines will be provided.” Poster Comment: The Brits want to quarantine Scotland. 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: hondo68 (#0)
Well - wombling around in the thunderclouds trying
Nothing new about that. A Roman Emperor named Hadrian raised a big wall between England and Scotland to protect the Roman Legions from the Picts,who were the ancestors of the Highland Scots. Running into those bad boys is what finally halted the Roman expansion in what later became known as Great Britain. www.english-heritage.org....sit/places/hadrians-wall/ I have been wanting to go there and see that wall for myself,ever since I heard of it years ago,but never made it. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
More pics A couple of precisions. The Romans under Antoninus Pius originally built a wall further north, at the narrowest neck of Pictum. But it wasn't of too much use there, because there were too many Picts on the near side of it, and they were very changeful and difficult. Agricola, the Roman general, marched far north of the wall with the possible goal of conquering all of Pictum. The Romans moved steadily, and defeated everything in their path, but there were no cities, nothing settled. The Picts were basically like the Apache. Their land was poor, they were scattered and wild. They did not make good slaves - they tended to fight a lot and get themselves killed, and die of diseases when taken to warmer climes, and there weren't enough of them concentrated to really do anything with them. So Agricola made a cold, impersonal calculation of the costs of the march, and the costs of maintaining roads and garrisons, to try to rule over people who didn't have settled agriculture, and whose land was so terrible and weather was so bad that you'd never settle Roman veterans there. He did the calculation and concluded that there was no sense in continuing the campaign. Rome could march to the northern tip, declare it "conquered", subdue whatever tribes were close, and get poorer every day they stayed. He cut the Roman losses, withdrew south of the wall, and left the Picts be. The Picts didn't DEFEAT the Romans. The economics made no sense. It's like marching an army into the Mojave. Yeah, you can do it, and anybody you pass will submit, but then what've you got? The Mojave. It's true that the Picts had to face the Romans, and were still there, independent, when the Romans withdrew. But then the Scots came over from Ireland and created Scotland, and the Picts and Scots merged.
Ahhh,then the Romans must have defeated the Picts,huh? Remind me again,who invaded who,and who retreated and built a wall? Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
The Picts defeated the Romans like the Vietnamese defeated the Americans. The Romans and the Americans left because it was too expensive to keep fighting, and they had no stomach for bearing the cost they would have to bear for winning. So by those standards: the invader failed to accomplish his mission and retreated, the Picts and Vietnamese defeated the Romans and Americans, respectively. The Romans didn't considered themselves defeated. Their army was intact. They won the various skirmishes they had with the Picts. The Picts never overran any Roman legions or anything. It's just that the place was ungovernable and utterly worthless. There was nothing there for Rome to exploit - no farms, no resources, no cities - just difficult, uncouth barbarians. So the Romans made an economic decision and left. The Americans got a lot bloodier at the hands of the Vietnamese, but the same decision-taking process was there: this war is too expensive, we are not going to get anything out of it, it's time to cut our losses. From the perspective of the Picts and the Vietnamese, it was a great victory: the invader was forced out. From the perspective of the Romans and the Americans, the Picts and Vietnamese didn't win, because the "force" that drove them out was simply economic and political considerations, not the military power of the enemy. The Picts did not defeat the Romans and drive them out of the country. The Romans marched where they pleased. The Picts didn't beat them, they just didn't surrender, and never would. Like Vietnam. Really, the same thing. Except that the Vietnamese did a great deal more damage to the Americans than the Picts did to the Romans. The Vietnamese inflicted enough losses for the government of the USA to change its policy. The Romans withdrew from Pictum by the decision of the local commander, Agricola, who saw no profit in continuing. Still the two situations are somewhat comparable. If we want to call the Picts the victors and the Romans the defeated ones, then certainly the Vietnamese were the victors and the Americans were defeated and retreated.
The Romans and the Americans left because it was too expensive to keep fighting, and they had no stomach for bearing the cost they would have to bear for winning. Wouldn't it have been easier for you to have just said you don't know what the hell you are talking about? Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
No, because it isn't true. I know the hell what I'm talking about. When I don't, I don't give detailed analysis. What I know is this: you've got some Scottish ancestry, and you're proud of it. That's great. So do I. You're a military guy by background, and you favor military things. That's great. Me too. You have a great fondness for the exploits of your ancestors, be they Scottish or Cherokee. There's a hard-fighting aspect to them that you like. I understand that, and feel somewhat the same way. But then you exaggerate their military accomplishments. I don't. I stick within the bounds of realism, what really happened. And that makes you mad, because it diminishes the glory that you ascribe to this culture, this race of your ancestors. That's why you're pissed at me for suggesting that the Picts didn't really DEFEAT the Romans, the Romans just left. The comparison to Vietnam was, I will admit, meant to get your goat. In Vietnam, the Vietnamese DID defeat the Americans in some of the skirmishes, etc. There was a lot of fighting, and overall the American losses were pretty terrible. That's why we lost the war: it got too costly. But we were not driven from the country by the NVA. Just as the Romans were not driven from the country by the Picts. So, I do know what I am talking about, with considerable precision. And I know why you're reacting the way you do, too. I don't hold it against you.
HorseHillary! THINKING you know what you are talking about and KNOWING what you are talking about are 2 different things,and you ARE a guy that believes in magic and mythical creatures. ROFLMAO! Projecting? Seems to me you are pumping BS down the line to protect YOUR ancestors,bubba. I MIGHT be 1/16th Scots/Irish,and that's IF none of my female ancestors ever strayed. That's why you're pissed at me for suggesting that the Picts didn't really DEFEAT the Romans, the Romans just left. They DID defeat the Roman invasion of their territory,otherwise the wall would have never been built and the Romans would have occupied the area. You DO understand that defeating an enemy and occupying their territory have similar,but different meanings,right? In Vietnam, the Vietnamese DID defeat the Americans in some of the skirmishes, etc. Big woop. The Jews in Europe defeated the Nazi's in some skirmishes,too. The American Indians also sometimes defeated the European immigrants in skirmishes,also. How did that work out for them? There was a lot of fighting, and overall the American losses were pretty terrible. That's why we lost the war: it got too costly. HorseHillary squared. America lost 58,xxx servicemen and women in VN,and that number includes those killed while still in America in traffic accidents,bar fights,heart attacks,falling overboard and drowning from a Navy ship sailing so far offshore the land can't even be seen,etc,etc,etc and on orders to go to VN,as well as those back in the US on their 30 day extension leave. Even the ones that did die in VN weren't all combat veterans. If you got ran over by a truck while crossing a street while drunk,your name is on the Wall and you are counted as a Viet Nam KIA. Same if you died of a heart attack while sitting at your desk in your air conditioned office. Not too long ago a whole B-52 air crew had their names added to the VN Wall as being KIA,and they crashed into the sea while taking off from Guam,and never even made it to VN air space. On the other hand,the VN Communist estimate they lost over 1 million people during the VN war. We "lost" the war in the US congress and senate,not on the battlefield. Communist moles and traitors like Sen William Fullbright and Ted Kennedy insured US forces were pulled from VN,and they then insured that all the material and financial aid we had agreed to supply to SVN was cut off by the communist agents/sympathizers/whores for sale in DC. Meahwhile,the Russian and Chinese flow of money and materials to NVN remained a steady flow. In other words,the communist victory in VN was a child of political corruption and betrayal in Washington,DC. Even the VN admitted after the war was over that they had given serious consideration to surrendering after the disaster of Tet of 68,and then saw they had won a political victory while losing militarily after watching Walter Cronkite on the news declaring Tet to be a big loss for Americans,and seeing how US politicans fell in line behind the communists for political reasons having to do with US elections. Hell,the DNC even got away with calling VN "Nixon's War" despite the FACT that JFK started our active involvement in it,and LBJ and his family got stinking rich from owning stock in companies suppyling the Defense Dept,including Pacific Architechs and Engineers. I have PERSONALLY talked to people who claim to "remember" Nixon starting the war. So, I do know what I am talking about, with considerable precision. And I know why you're reacting the way you do, too. Once again,you don't know squat but communist/catholic propaganda. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
How did that work out for them? Not as well as it worked out for the VN. 'Cause the American Indians were conquered and lost their land to the European immigrants anyway. But the Vietnamese are still there, and we're all gone. They won. Just like the Picts. Does it matter that they didn't drive the last American (or Roman) across the border by force? No. The Americans/Romans came in and invaded. The native Vietnamese/Picts reisted. The Americans/Romans had a more powerful military, and won the various skirmishes and battles. The Vietnamese/Picts were unconquered and continued fighting. The Americans/Romans decided to cut their losses and withdrew, leaving the Vietnamese/Picts in sole occupation of their lands. Which means, when all is said and done, the Americans/Romans lost, and the Vietnamese/Picts won - even though the Vietnamese/Picts did not defeat, destroy and drive out the American/Roman army. The identical result would have occurred if they have: self-rule, with the invader gone never to return.
Does it matter that they didn't drive the last American (or Roman) across the border by force? No. The Americans/Romans came in and invaded. The native Vietnamese/Picts reisted. The Americans/Romans had a more powerful military, and won the various skirmishes and battles. The Vietnamese/Picts were unconquered and continued fighting. The Americans/Romans decided to cut their losses and withdrew, leaving the Vietnamese/Picts in sole occupation of their lands. Which means, when all is said and done, the Americans/Romans lost, and the Vietnamese/Picts won - even though the Vietnamese/Picts did not defeat, destroy and drive out the American/Roman army. The identical result would have occurred if they have: self-rule, with the invader gone never to return. Close,but no cigar. Fact number 1: We didn't invade. It was the NORTH VIETNAMESE that invaded the South,and the SVN asked us to honor or treaty obligations and come in to help them eject the NVN communists. If we HAD invaded Hanoi and Haipong Harbor and sent out teams to track down and kill the communist leadership,the VN war would have lasted less than a week. Fact number 2: YOU are now claiming the Picts won. Which is it? Did the Picts win or lose? You do know that you can't have it both ways,right? Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Too pale to fly?
land in Columbia SC in the summertime used to
sometimes make me kind of pale...
#2. To: hondo68 (#0)
The Brits want to quarantine Scotland. (2 images)
#3. To: sneakypete (#2)
I have been wanting to go there and see that wall for myself,ever since I heard of it years ago,but never made it.
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#4. To: sneakypete (#2)
(Edited)
#5. To: Vicomte13 (#4)
(Edited)
The Picts didn't DEFEAT the Romans.
#6. To: sneakypete (#5)
Ahhh,then the Romans must have defeated the Picts,huh? Remind me again,who invaded who,and who retreated and built a wall?
#7. To: Vicomte13 (#6)
The Picts defeated the Romans like the Vietnamese defeated the Americans.
#8. To: sneakypete (#7)
Wouldn't it have been easier for you to have just said you don't know what the hell you are talking about?
#9. To: Vicomte13 (#8)
No, because it isn't true. I know the hell what I'm talking about. When I don't, I don't give detailed analysis.
#10. To: sneakypete (#9)
Big woop. The Jews in Europe defeated the Nazi's in some skirmishes,too. The American Indians also sometimes defeated the European immigrants in skirmishes,also.
#11. To: Vicomte13 (#10)
They won. Just like the Picts.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]