UK and French flights 'targets' [again] - BBC and CNN (merged)

[Airbubba]

Here we go again...

________________________________________


UK and French flights 'targets'

New intelligence shows British Airways and Air France flights to the US could be terrorist targets, say US officials.
The intelligence is said to specifically mention BA flight 223, which was cancelled twice in early January amid heightened attack fears.

The US Homeland Security Department said all flights remained unchanged at present, and there were no plans to raise the current alert level.

US officials are talking to British and French authorities on the next steps.

The BBC's Michael Buchanan in Washington said US intelligence agencies reported receiving a "specific and credible threat" in the last couple of days.

It is feared al-Qaeda may be attempting to hijack a plane from either London or Paris and fly it into a target in the United States, added our correspondent.

"We remain concerned about al-Qaeda's desire to target aviation, especially international aviation," said Brian Roehrkasse of the Homeland Security department.

'Appropriate measures'

"The US intelligence community continues to gather specific credible threat information on international flights, as we have done in an ongoing basis in the past few weeks.

"We have shared this information with our international partners, and will work with them to put in place the appropriate security measures".

The intelligence is said to specifically mention British Airways 223 from London to Washington DC. Two such flights were cancelled and others delayed in early January.
In December, six Air France flights to Los Angeles were cancelled.

It came as the United States raised its national terror threat level to orange following a "substantial increase" in intelligence suggesting attacks using hijacked planes.

An Air France spokeswoman in New York said there was good cooperation between the airline and US and French government officials over the latest intelligence.

"We have been complying with all security measures," said Diane Cornman.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3446763.stm

___________________________________________


Officials: Intelligence warns of aircraft attacks
Air France, British Airways flights mentioned

From Kelli Arena

CNN Washington Bureau
Friday, January 30, 2004 Posted: 10:28 PM EST (0328 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In the past 48 hours, the United States has received new intelligence that suggests a threat of possible terrorist attacks against the United States using aircraft, government officials told CNN on Friday.

The intelligence also mentioned Air France and British Airways flights to the United States. British Airways Flight 223 was mentioned specifically. That flight was canceled twice in early January based on previous intelligence from an informant and other sources.

In December, six Air France flights to Los Angeles, California, were canceled because of similar information.

At the time, the national terror threat level was at orange, or high. The threat level has since been lowered to yellow, or elevated, and has not changed in response to the new intelligence.

A representative for Air France in New York told CNN that the airline has been in close contact with French and U.S. government officials in the past several weeks, and has complied with all government requests for additional security.

The representative could not confirm whether the airline had been contacted by U.S. officials about the latest intelligence but said no scheduled flights have been changed.

Government officials said the intelligence mentioned flight paths between London and Washington-Dulles International Airport, and mentioned multiple dates, all within the next few weeks.

Security has been increased in Houston, Texas, ahead of the Super Bowl on Sunday, though that event was not mentioned in the intelligence.

The officials said all agencies and officials concerned -- including those overseas -- have been notified of the intelligence, which is believed to be credible.

Pentagon sources confirmed to CNN that during such time of heightened alert, incoming flights that are the subject of concern are "routinely" escorted by U.S. military fighter jets.

When the Department of Homeland Security raised the threat level December 21 from yellow to orange, it warned that al Qaeda may use international flights to launch attacks on the United States.

The move followed a "substantial increase" in intelligence pointing to possible al Qaeda attacks, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said at the time.

Within days, the agency ordered international air carriers to place armed government officers on some flights to, from and over the United States. Fourteen international flights were canceled during the elevated alert.

Authorities also delayed some international flights and provided air support over some cities.

The threat level was returned to yellow January 9.

Before December, the United States last raised the domestic terrorism threat level to orange May 20, 2003, after suicide bombings in Saudi Arabia and Morocco that were blamed on al Qaeda. That alert lasted 10 days.

Other orange alerts were raised in 2002 around the anniversary of the attacks of September 11, 2001, and in February 2003, on the eve of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

[GrantT]

New intelligence shows British Airways and Air France flights to the US could be terrorist targets, say US officials.

And yet i'd still be allowed to go on an Air France flight deck in flight if i asked. :rolleyes:

[Devils Advocate]

WARNING – CREDIBILITY GAP AHEAD !

The above mentioned threat information emanates from the same United States intelligence service(s) which foretold of all Weapons of Mass Destruction that would be found in Iraq – where WMD’s, if one cares to remember, were the key argument used for the invasion of Iraq ( it being apparently nothing to do with oil & gas – albeit that it is a stated aim of the Bush government - aka 'The Oil & Gas Administration' - to ‘secure the energy supply of the USA’ ).

Of course it’s now being said ( and I kid you not ) - using the words of a Whitehouse spokesperson – “the intelligence on the WMD's was flawed” and where this intelligence is often based on no more than “sophisticated guesswork” !

Blimey, that’s some flaw and all seemingly about as sophisticated as pin the tail on the donkey.

Better yet, the POTUS ( Bush ) has now stated that he “wants to know the facts about Iraq’s alleged WMD’s”.

Now is it me, or doesn’t that seem a bit late in the day ?

Must go........ got to check my Haliburton shares (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1138009.stm) <-- click the link ;)

[ZFT]

Odd that American intelligence never issues warnings about USA carriers or am I being too cynical?

[Ranger One]

Here we go again... BBC reporting 3 BA flights to USA cancelled 'for security reasons'...

R1

[BWBriscoe]

From Sky News:

BA FLIGHTS GROUNDED

British Airways has cancelled three flights to Washington and Miami over fears of a terrorist attack.

BA 223 - the same flight that was cancelled over the Christmas period - will remain grounded on Sunday and Monday, along with Sunday's Miami flight.


A Department of Transport spokesman said: "Aviation security is kept under surveillance at all times and in the light of information received a decision was made that flights should be cancelled."

It did not say what the nature of threat was or when the flights would resume.

American intelligence officials warned on Saturday that there was flight renewed terrorist threat to the route.

They also said France flights to the US could also be the target of a terror strike.

Brian Roehrkasse, a spokesman for the Homeland Security Department, said: "We remain concerned about al Qaeda's desire to target aviation, especially international aviation.

"The US intelligence community continues to gather specific credible threat information on international flights, as we have done in an ongoing basis in the past few weeks."

He added: "We have shared this information with our international partners, and will work with them to put in place the appropriate security measures."

It is reported that British Airways Flight 223 to Dulles airport was mentioned specifically.

That flight was cancelled twice in early January based on previous intelligence from an informant and other sources.

In December, six Air France flights to Los Angeles, California, were cancelled because of similar information.

------------------------------------

There's nothing yet on the BA website.

[go_edw]

Security fears ground BA flights


Three British Airways flights to the United States have been cancelled for security reasons, the company says.
Flights BA 223 from London to Washington on Sunday and Monday and flight BA 207 to Miami on Sunday were grounded on government advice.

The move comes after US officials said fresh intelligence showed BA and Air France flights to the US could be targeted by terrorists.

A BA spokeswoman said safety was the airline's top priority

Terrorist targets

"The safety and security of our operations is our absolute priority and will not be compromised," she said.

The first priority is always the safety of the traveling public

Department for Transport
BA's Flight 223 had been the subject of concern early in January, when it was cancelled twice because of security fears and then delayed for hours several more times.

US officials said on Friday new intelligence indicated BA Flight 223 and Air France flights from Paris to an unspecified US city could be terrorist targets.

A British Department for Transport spokesman said the decision to cancel the flights was made "in the light of information received".

He said: "Aviation security measures are adjusted from time to time, and occasional cancellations may be necessary.

"The first priority is always the safety of the travelling public."

The US Homeland Security Department has said it has no plans to raise its current alert level.




BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3447715.stm)

[Timothy]

Why don't they just change the number of the flight? :O

Timothy

[Rick-LPI]

From BAA LHR Flight departures


15.05 BA223 WASHINGTON TAXIED 1540

[visibility3miles]

Devil's Advocate says:
WARNING – CREDIBILITY GAP AHEAD !

And no doubt it was just some Hollywood film magic that produced all the pictures of the planes slamming into the World Trade Center, and their subsequent collapse.

Fine, the US may be over-reacting, but if you are a pilot or a passenger do you really want someone to cut your throat and fly your plane into oblivion?

[Jarvy]

ZFT you took the words out of my mouth!

[Diverse]

Can we credit these terrorists that we are being protected from with a bit more intelligence than to keep trying to get a suicide bomber on a particular flight again and again and again.

Maybe the terrorist organisations are using slight of hand so to speak and are really targeting another flight.

The intelligence (?) services are playing a great game because when nothing happens nobody can ever corroborate their evidence, whether it was their advice which was correct and timely or that they just didn't guess right and nothing was going to happen anyway.

I think it's about time we stopped some of these dodgy characters and also maybe that we started catching a few of 'em. Mind you then we'd have absolute proof one way or another and that wouldn't add to the fear culture which seems to be breeding now.

[NigelOnDraft]

Er... Rick...

Today is Saturday. Its Sunday's and Monday's cancelled...

NoD

[CargoOne]

What's so special with BA223 flight, especially considering there are also BA217, BA225 flying same day same route?

Or there was a huge cheap sale for this particular flight and all terrorists around decided to save some money by taking special offer?

[bailey]

It is my firm belief that there will be no more attacks on aircraft. They would have to be the most stupid terrorists ever to attempt it again especially with the "heightened security" right now. Why not just walk on to a subway at rushhour in New York or some other major centre and release a nerve agent. No risk and maximum impact.

I think the airlines have never been safer. They made their point on September 11 and no matter what else they do with aircraft in the future......it will never get close to what that was.


It is really a shame that we are reduced to this situation by politicians who are destroying any hope of relative world harmony. Hopefully Bush gets his in this years election and we then may have someone that can begin to repair some of the damage done. There is only one person in politics right now that can be trusted unfortunately and that is Kofi.

What a shame he isn't in a more influential position...........................

[steamchicken]

Wolf! Wolf! Woooolllfff!

[Narada]

From ABCnews:

"A [US] government official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said based on threat reporting there are a handful of specific flights on three airlines Air France, British Airways and a U.S.-based carrier that flies internationally that are of concern. The official declined to identify the third airline or provide information about its flights."

[car_owner]

Are they targeting the A380 ?
If this bizarre procedure continues beyond 2006 you can be sure that nobody wants to operate any 500 pax airplane to US. The consequence of a last minute cancelation of a A380 US bound flight from Paris or London is simply catastrophic.

[Tan]

Hmm every professional pilot that I know is fully aware that the U.S. home security is running amuck. They have a policeman’s mentality, which outside aviation is probably a good thing.

However in the aviation context it's a disaster…

[LatviaCalling]

I think that by now BA223 is so well know around the world that a terrorist would be a hard pressed idiot to try to hijack that perticular flight.

That said, I wonder if the NSA boys at Ft. Meade are running the numbers through their Cray or whatever computers because some message intercept mentioned 223. It could be Feb. 23, or it could be March 22, but I'm not a cryptographer.

On the other hand, it also could be that someone is coming in from a foreign country to Heathrow and his/her best connection to Washington is BA223, so BA naturally books the person on that flight.

Incidentally, my wife is coming back Feb 6 on BA222. I hope you all give her a thumbs up on an A-OK return so she won't have to spend a night on the IAD floor or in a Motel 6 nearby, if BA 223 is nixed again.


:confused:

[Spuds McKenzie]

It allegedly has to do with UN resolution 51/223

http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/51/a51r223.htm

BTW just read through some other posts on this thread and came across 'bailey's.

Hats off mate! :ok:

And you're a real American?

[Grandpa]

I think it's time to find another word to designate the "thing" which is supposed to learn about nuisance's bad projects and make decisions to stop them.

This kind of work supposes the use of clever individuals, working independantly from the politician lobby, in a carefully designed organisation where they can use their brain to select what is true and what is'nt in the mass of computerised reports they receive every minute, reports initiated by wise researchers infiltrated on the nuisance's side.

To day it's clear that:

There is to much garbage introduced in the computers.
Not enough brain.
Wisdom deserted.

So, may I suggest "Credulity Ingestion Agency", in collaboration with "Fed up By Illegals"....

[DCS99]

Dial Kabul 223 and ask to speak to Osama.

[Huck]

Call me crazy, but isn't a tipoff to a particular flight, on a particular day, an excellent way to lay in wait for a terrorist and ambush him? Surely they could look down the reservation list and identify 10 or so potential offenders, pull them into a side room by the gate and do a quick interrogation....

[Lily Rowan]

Continental flight 17, from Glasgow to Los Angeles via Newark:

Continental cancels flight over security fears (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/01/31/ba.canceled/index.html)

[Papajohn]

>>I think the airlines have never been safer<<

What a crock of doo-doo. You on drugs you moron?

The US officials dont worry about domestic flights. They worry about the idiotic international flights that come into the US. Thats is where the security gap is bacause these other pussy countries like France, (and other European carriers) have'nt a clue as to what security is.

Thanks be to God that the democrats are not in power...........

[Spuds McKenzie]

Looks like someone's having a bad day.

:yuk:

[openfly]

Thankyou Papajohn. That is a well-reasoned, intelligent argument!! Sorry about the long words..........

[whauet]

Um.. Papajohn, while Iowa may seem to be big and somewhat round (save for the flat bits at the top and bottom), the planet is round as well, but much, much larger.

If you have ever left that state or the country, you would realize that the US has always lagged behind in airport security compared to most of the Earth until we received our wake-up call two years ago. It is the very attitude and ignorance that you display that kept us the weakest link in the chain for so long. You'll notice that it wasn't those 'idiotic international flights', but the domestic flights that, 'The US officials dont <sic> worry about' that placed us where we are now.

[5by5]

Papajohn - In Europe nobody has ever hijacked a commercial airliner and driven it into a skyscraper - perhaps because, for years, we've been screening all pax and bags ( even on domestic flights ) - but wherein this has certainly happened to three domestic flights in the USA; so, QED old son !

Now I don't know too much about the political parties in the USA but, suffice to say, when Bill Clinton ( Democrat? ) was in charge would I be correct in saying that the federal government had a budget surplus - which is not quite the case now, is it ? - and also the world seemed ( was ) a much safer place - jeez, Bill even found the time and the presence of mind to get a blowjob in the Whitehouse...... and that alone would get my vote - give that man a cigar ! ;)

Ps. Might I suggest that you procure yourself a dictionary - and do try to get out more, there's a great big world out there beyond the USA you know.

[AtlPax]

I would say this thread has taken a very productive turn. :rolleyes:

[sparkymarky]

They worry about the idiotic international flights that come into the US. Thats is where the security gap is bacause these other pussy countries like France, (and other European carriers) have'nt a clue as to what security is.

So letting a passenger board a flight from Washington to the UK with a pocket full of bullets doesn't count as a 'security gap'.

Must be so relaxing to live life in such blissful ignorance.

[FLAMBEBOBO]

Seems to me that most are missing the point here. The fact is that the terrorists are winning by default. They have to do very little in fact to cause an awful lot of confusion, disruption and distress to an awful lot of already nervous and edgey people. By making very small but highly significant threats (and thats all they need to be) without ever having to actually hijack or attack another aircraft/airport ever again, they can massively disrupt normal everyday life. They have achieved there aim.. They are still grabbing the headlines, whilst thankfully not inflicting death or injury, but still ensuring there cause is promolgated far and wide.

A good example of this is the WMD situation, it would appear that there were claims from both sides that WMD's were present in or available to Iraq, have they or will they ever be found? Whatever, the damage has been done, we went to war in any event.

I am afraid that I do not know what the answer is but I feel sure that as much headline grabbing and confusion is caused by the potential threat and our reaction to it as there would be if an actual terrosist activity took place.

[Mach Buffet]

Papajohn,

just remind me for a minute, were the terrorist attacks of 911 done using Foreign airlines on International flights, or US airlines on Domestic Flights?


As for the Democrats, remind me please, was it Bill Clinton or George Dubbya that tried to get US airlines to increase the security level on Domestic flights to that of International flights, but was bucked by the airline chiefs who regarded it as being too expensive and unnecessary?

Get yourself a passport like the other 12% of Americans that have one and see what goes on elsewhere on the planet.

[InitRef]

Hope the intelligence behind these new warnings are better than last December....

"NEW DELHI, JAN. 12. One of the world's most expensive anti-terror investigations has dissolved into farce. Abdul Haye Mohammad Illyas, who United States and French intelligence officials believed could be a top Al-Qaeda operative, has been established to be an unassuming Chennai-based businessman, with no known links to either Islamist terrorism or criminal activity of any other kind.

Mr. Illyas, who has now become internationally famous by his first two names, came to the notice of U.S. intelligence when he failed to show up for an Air France Paris-Los Angeles flight on December 24, 2003. Since his first two names matched those of an Al-Qaeda operative U.S. intelligence has been searching for since 2002, Maulvi Abdul Hai, Mr. Illyas' name was picked up by Central Intelligence Agency computers which scan airline passenger manifests. "

http://www.hindu.com/2004/01/13/stories/2004011306731100.htm

[powerset]

MACH BUFFET, you can be sure that when hollywood comes to tell the story of 9-11 it will be foreign airlines that were involved, Saddam Hussein planned it, and hundreds of nuclear weapons were found in bagdhad. The world welcomed their 'leadership' in dealing with this immenent threat just as they welcomed being treated like a criminal everytime they enter the country. I used to holiday regularly in the U.S.A but I won't be going back except for work. I refuse to be treated like that.

[DSR10]

Initref::

and the poor innocent OAP from Bristol arrested and detained in S.Africa after FBI falsely identified him as top mafia man....took three weeks to get him out.

After issue of a passport all US citizens should pass an exam in World History before being let loose.
Sooner we insist on visa, photos, fingerprints for all US visiters to UK the better.

[Papajohn]

>>You'll notice that it wasn't those 'idiotic international flights', but the domestic flights that, 'The US officials dont <sic> worry about' that placed us where we are now.<<

YOU CAN THANK BILL CLINTON FOR THAT. AS WELL AS MANY OTHER THINGS.........

>>Ps. Might I suggest that you procure yourself a dictionary - and do try to get out more, there's a great big world out there beyond the USA you know.<<

LITTLE BUDDY, HAVING BEEN ASSIGNED TO INTERNATIONAL STATUS FOR THE LAST 10 1/2 YEARS, I'VE BEEN ABROAD. MOSTLY IN YOUR GOD FORSAKEN COUNTRY WHERE I'VE SEEN THE PATHETIC ATTEMPT AT WHAT YOU REFER TO AS SECURITY.

>>As for the Democrats, remind me please, was it Bill Clinton or George Dubbya that tried to get US airlines to increase the security level on Domestic flights to that of International flights, but was bucked by the airline chiefs who regarded it as being too expensive and unnecessary?<<

UMM, WELL IT WAS'NT BILL. HE WAS TO BUSY HOLDING OUR BORDER DOORS WIDE OPEN FOR THE ILLEGALS TO RUN IN. YOU KNOW, THE SAME ONES AL RELIED ON TO SELL CIGERETTES FOR VOTES?

"He who does not learn from history is doomed to repeat it."

[BWBriscoe]

Papajohn,

I'm sorry but there is no way you can compare British and American aviation security; American aviation security is still not up to the standards of British and even Europe's aviation security standards as a whole.

I regularly fly between LHR and the states, and I feel much more comfortable flying LHR-USA than the other way round, as I know that LHR's security as a whole is of a very high standard, and the security in the US still leaves a lot to be desired.

Britain has been dealing with terrorism for a much longer period of time than the states, most notably with the IRA, and is therefore much more experienced when it comes down to dealing with the threat of terror and the security that is needed to combat the threat.

It was America's lapse of security that allowed 9-11 to happen, and it will be America's lapse if this happens again. If a 9-11 style attack happens again, I have complete confidence that it will not be because of a lapse of British security. Remember, Britain does have the best intelligence and security services in the world.

Ben

[Rollingthunder]

I just don't get it. Canceling flights outright and that's all?
There's a CIA computer scanning passenger manifests and I imagine MI5 is doing the same. Are they identifying suspects? If they are, why aren't they apprehending them or at least denying them boarding? Up the flights security - do secondary or tertiary checking at the gate. Or are they not able to identify possible suspects? Hard to believe in this day and age. Do they think the baggage screening done still leaves a danger? How about closing the flight 48 hours in advance to give enough time for through checking? Most folks who book internationally don't do so at the last minute. Just canceling seems to be a blunt force reaction without any positive results - other than ensuring that particular aircraft and a few hundred pax are not in the air on a given day.

[Spuds McKenzie]

papajohn,

CAN YOU SAY THAT A BIT LOUDER PLEASE!!!???

:rolleyes:

And to those who try to reason with this guy:
Give it up, a waste of time.

:bored:

(Amazing that he hasn't been banned yet)

:confused:

[safetypee]

Thoughts for papajohn et al.

For the individual:
When you have no basis for an argument – abuse the plaintiff.

For the industry:
Man is troubled not by events, but by the meaning he gives them.

For the nation:
The only thing to fear is fear itself.

“Somebody does somethin' stupid, that's human. They don't stop when they see it's wrong, that's a fool.” - Elvis Presley

[FLAMBEBOBO]

safetypee

wise words indeed.............:ok:

[Out Of Trim]

Here's an idea! -

How about next time there is a tip off / warning about certain flights; why not just keep quiet!

We just pay extra special attention to those flights!

Warn all security and relevant airport staff to take extra special care in profiling each and every passenger. Double check everything and then check the aircraft and all areas and staff involved with that flight minutely.

First of all you may actually catch someone! If you have any doubts about any of the passengers they don't travel. Same goes with any baggage; After 100% screening if any doubts it doesn't travel.

Secondly you don't keep scaring passengers away by constantly highlighting security alerts to the general public and you don't have to cancel the flights.

OK - So the flight will depart late, but safe!

Delay code - Mandatory extra security.

It can't be that hard can it? :confused:

[Budgie69]

What I don't understand is why the US security agencies issue a public warning. I fail to see any advantage to anybody in this.

Who gains from so public an announcement?

[con-pilot]

Sometimes I look at some of the posts in these ‘anti-American, anti-Bush, anti-American Intelligence Agencies and anti-Mom’s Apple Pie’ threads with total amazement.

The question that MUST be asked is; what is the worse that would happen if either side were wrong?

If the United States is wrong on it’s concerns on the security of international airline flights inbound to the United States and delays or cancels some flights all that will happen is that some people will be inconvenienced. That’s all, inconvenience.

If the anti-anything American crowd is wrong what could happen? Think about it, hijackings, kidnappings and the possible deaths of thousands. That’s just a bit more serious than being inconvenienced.

I don’t know about you, but I would much rather be inconvenienced than dead!

[Man Flex]

Spuds McKenzie highlights a very good arguement if his assertion that 223 refers to the UN resolution is correct. These people are trying to make some kind of political statement with their actions and appear to be enacting revenge for the many Palestinians that have been killed by the Israeli government over the years. This seems as good a reason as I've heard as to why they continually target this particular flight and would not consider any other. The reason of course would not necessarily be evident to the wider world but would certainly be recognised by the intelligence agencies and the political powers that be.

With this in mind it begs the question as to what has happened with regard to Bush's commitment on the Middle East roadmap?

The posts that have suggested that the passenger manifest continue to be examined by the security agencies for potential suspects are I am sure perfectly correct but as we have seen last Christmas these 'suspects' were discovered to be a child and a grandmother. The agencies involved probably fear another PR disaster and for this reason it is better to cancel the flights altogether.

This then also brings into question the use of Sky Marshalls. Will these armed saviours of the skies only be deployed on flights where there is no specific intelligence of potential terrorist interference?

Does that then not slightly defeat the purpose?

[PaperTiger]

I of course am not privy in any way as to what this 'intelligence' consists of, but my guess is one of two things happens.

The passenger list is scanned for interesting names. Given the similarity of many Middle-Eastern/Muslim names (and the US' inability to distinguish between them), it's not surprising that flights get flagged. But then, as many have said, why not just feel their collars when they check in. And if they don't check in then... what's the threat ?

Or, and more likely IMO, Echelon and Carnivore (can I say that ?) are simply flagging any reference to flight numbers in electronic messages from certain sources. Which means that all the terrorists have to do is keep mentioning them and they'll get cancelled. He-he (or the muslim equivalent). I agree that if these references are for real, then it's pretty dumb to repeat them over and over. These guys may be mad, but I doubt they are dumb.

[Danny]

I was asked to comment on this current situation last night for the BBC and I'll repeat it here...

What are the security implications of the announcement by the airlines concerned? As is usual, by claiming a 'security' element much can be concealed, and rightly so if it really is a factor. However, in view of the claimed 'source' of the intelligence and the repeated cancellation of the same flight, BA223 specifically, are we not in danger of crying "wolf" too often?

As far as I'm aware, and I don't claim to have any in-depth knowledge of how the intelligence services work, they are not in the habit of operating in the 'public eye'. Their work, because of its nature, is more covert than overt and because of that is rarely seen or even identified. Their success is in fact 'no news'. It is only when they have failed in their jobs and there is an incident that the work of the intelligence services is highlighted and becomes fodder for the media.

Jim McAuslan, BALPA GS, said earlier today on the BBC "...there is a suspicion that we are jumping at shadows..." and I would agree with that statement. I don't doubt the professionalism and abilities of the intelligence services but I am highly sceptical of their political masters. Are these 'announcements a case of covering the backside of some politically inept decision maker 'just in case' and to hell with the consequences of the disruption and fear that is instilled in the travelling public?

If the intelligence is indeed thought to be credible then by all means flights shouldn't depart but I am not so naive to believe that, based on this 'credible evidence', the pax for these flights should not at least be allowed to check-in. I have been advocating proper passenger profiling for some time now and I don't mean just observing someone of middle eastern appearance and then questioning them. I mean properly trained, intelligent people who ask a set of questions based on information that is available on the ticket and the passengers departure point and final destination allied with the 'credible intelligence' that is being touted around right now. Most of you will be familiar with the experience of arriving at an airport and passing through the 'Nothing to Declare' exit at customs whilst under the beady eyes of a phalanx of customs officers. Even though you have nothing to declare, if you are stopped and asked where you have just arrived from, you get that uncomfortable feeling. Now imagine how it feels if you were actually carrying something that you ought to have declared! Well, the same applies if you are 'profiled' properly before you even check-in. And let's not even go on about the fact that you are asked by the check-in agent whether you packed your bag yourself and has anyone given you anything to carry. :hmm:

At the moment, as far as I'm aware, there is almost no questioning of passengers from arrival at the airport to boarding the aircraft. The 'security' you see is designed to stop pointed metal objects being carried into the airside area. There is nothing in place to stop the person or persons who have malicious intent and we all know how the hijackers on 9/11 didn't need much in the way of weapons to achieve their aims. The planning that went into the 9/11 hijacks was intense and thorough. To assume that any future attack will be planned with less attention to detail is ignorance of the highest order. What we have now for security is a pathetic excuse designed to salve the conscience of politicians whose apparent understanding of the problem appears to be nothing more than a sound-bite that puffs up their ego.

In my own experience I have been questioned before checking in for a Virgin Atlantic flight but it certainly wasn't what I would call 'profiling'. It is at least a start and I have observed the same by some US operators out of the UK for their trans-Atlantic flights. I would question the training and actual experience of the security people these airlines employed but, whilst I don't consider myself to be a risk, I still thought the questions I have been asked were not likely to elicit any response that could trigger anything that could be used to catch out anyone with malicious intent. An obvious example might be observing when, where and how the ticket was purchased and questioning the passenger about this for a start, not just how long I'm going to XXX for and why.

There is also speculation that the flights that have been cancelled may be because the US authorities demanded that those flights, specifically, should carry armed police sky marshals (PSM's) due to their 'credible intelligence'. It is possible that the airlines in question have decided that if the there is such a specific risk to those flights then they would rather cancel them and not put their crews and passengers to any greater risk than is normal, and rightly so in my opinion.

We don't know precisely the details but we must surely question the methodology of the announcements of these flight cancellations as they affect all of us either directly or indirectly. The effect on the travelling public is almost certainly an adverse one and if it causes them to rethink their future travelling plans it could be our jobs that are affected. If the reasoning behind such a public show of scaremongering is nothing more than some people in high places covering their backsides then a full inquiry should be made. Hiding behind the 'need to know' cover of 'security' should not be abused and on both sides of the Atlantic we have all seen recently how politicians can be slick and greasy when trying to squirm out of embarrassing situations, invariably created by their own crass incompetence in the first place.

One final point, why not play these terrorists at their own game? If the 'credible intelligence' is nothing more than a suspicion that particular flight numbers are being mentioned, why not change the flight numbers, either frequently or irregularly? I am fully aware that it would involve a lot of different airlines and reservation systems but what would the cost be compared with the disruption and expense of the cancellations of a Jumbo load of pax? Once a system is established to handle this it might make it easier for the intelligence services to narrow down the potential targets, especially if the suspects are forced to make references that may be less ambiguous. Just a thought and feel free to point out the flaws in it.

[Rwy in Sight]

I am fighting a bad case of cold so I may noti think properly, but a bad thought crossed my mind:

If the flights need to be canceled that means that security measures in place are not efficient enough. Which in turns it shows that safety measures are just to cover the official's backside and not really to stop a determined terrorist team.

And something more shouldn't the European Unio issue a travelling directive for Europeans to avoid all but essential travel in the US?

Rwy in Sight

[answer=42]

Con-pilot has posted a question which deserves an answer:

The question that MUST be asked is; what is the worse that would happen if either side were wrong?

I will have a go.

The USA and indeed much of the world faces a terrorist threat from al Qaida. We do not know much about how or where the next blow will come. The little pieces of information that we have are partial and not directly related one to another. Intelligence comes from relating this information, finding possible links and eliminating spurious connections. It is, even if unbiased, highly fallible.

If resources are concentrated on one area of threat to the detriment of others, the risk increases that terrorist preparations in areas less covered will go unnoticed. Political bias (conscious or otherwise) in evaluating intelligence therefore increases these risks.

In acting on limited information about certain flights, is other information being missed?

answer=42

[LatviaCalling]

We've been concentrating on someone blowing up a plane, or crashing it into a building, but according to the latest, it might be bio-chemical that they're worried about and causing all this concern.
---
Senator: Flight cancellations necessary
Sunday, February 1, 2004 Posted: 2:32 PM EST (1932 GMT)

Rockefeller: "You play it safe, and the plane doesn't fly."

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A key member of the Senate Intelligence Committee said Sunday the United States has no defense against threats to release biological weapons inside airplanes except to cancel suspect flights.

Asked about reports that a biological or chemical agent might be used in an attack on a U.S.-bound airline, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-West Virginia, said the United States would have no way to counter such moves.

"I don't think so, and that's partly the problem of not checking cargo, and it's partly the problem of biological weapons, which nobody has figured out really what to do about yet," Rockefeller told "Fox News Sunday." "Nobody has any idea about what to do about them on an airplane or on the ground."

Outside the network's studios, Rockefeller added, "We don't know how to protect against any biological. ... You play it safe, and the plane doesn't fly, and people are going to have to get used to that, and people are not going to like that, but it's what you've got to do in this era."

Sen. Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, also a member of the committee, concurred. "When you have some intelligence, some information that's credible, that some particular aircraft or airlines might be attacked with whatever form, you start increasing your checks or you cancel the flights. And they've done that. I think they're doing the right thing."

British Airways, Air France and Continental announced Saturday they were grounding several flights to the United States in the wake of al Qaeda terrorist threats against U.S.-bound aircraft.

British Airways canceled Flight 223 from London to Dulles Airport Sunday and Monday, and the return flight from Washington, Flight 222, on both days. Flight 207 from London to Miami on Sunday was called off as well.

"We canceled these flights on advice from the UK government for security reasons," a spokeswoman for the airline said.

Air France canceled two Paris-to-Washington flights -- both numbered 026 -- Sunday and Monday, the airline said. Flight 378 from Paris to Philadelphia also was grounded Saturday, but the Air France Web site said it was called off for "operational reasons."

"The U.S. and the UK have been working especially closely over the past weeks to identify threats to our citizens, particularly threats to civil aviation, and to develop procedures to counter those threats," a U.S. State Department spokesman said.

"In recent days, we have developed information that leads us to believe there may be a threat to specific flights. These threats do not relate to trans-Atlantic flights in general, nor to a specific carrier, but to specific identified flights," the spokesman said.

"In some instances, where specific flights may be a higher risk, the carrier or the UK government may choose to cancel those flights."

Continental Airlines canceled Sunday's Flight 17 from Glasgow, Scotland, to Los Angeles, California, with an intermediary stop in Newark, New Jersey, an airline spokesman said Saturday night.

"The flight was canceled because we were unable to obtain the necessary security clearances from the Department of Homeland Security and their international counterparts," said David Messing, reading from a statement released by the airline. He didn't elaborate.

The return flight to Glasgow also will be canceled because there will be no plane available for the return trip.

A senior U.S. official said a decision was made to cancel the flight based on information from a credible source, which was corroborated by other intelligence.

The official said someone from the Department of Homeland Security consulted with the airline. The official said the United States does not know how the terrorists would attack the planes, but "we know they're targeting these flights."

He also said there also is word about another threat that could ground British Airways 223, but no action is planned until there is more information.

British Airways Flight 223 was canceled twice in January based on previous intelligence from an informant and other sources.

The latest developments came as U.S. officials, citing credible electronic intercepts, say al Qaeda may again be targeting international flights into the United States.

A senior administration official said the intelligence gives precise threat information, including airlines, dates and flight numbers.

The intelligence mentioned Air France and British Airways flights to the United States, as well as British Airways Flight 223 specifically.

The officials said there is no plan to hike the U.S. terrorism alert level, which is at yellow, or "elevated."

There is no intelligence involving threats at the Super Bowl, to be held Sunday night in Houston, the officials said.

A senior U.S. official said, "We did not want to cancel" the French and British flights. "We have been working all week to try and prevent that. Once it gets into the airlines' hands, however, then this is what happens."

The senior U.S. official added, "Was this about them not wanting sky marshals? It is much more complex than that. Was the intelligence related to concerns about al Qaeda? Yes."

In December, the British Airline Pilots Association objected to the use of sky marshals on their flights, saying the presence of armed marshals can be dangerous and complaining that large amounts of money already was being spent on other security measures.

But the British government agreed to use sky marshals on some U.S.-bound flights after a request from the United States.

France also agreed to Washington's request to deploy armed air marshals on flights overflying U.S. airspace.

[Bubbette]

I heard Congressman Peter King, who is on the House Committee on International Relations say that the threat was that a plain load of passengers would be infected with some agent like smallpox or anthrax, and they would unknowingly spread it. But why wouldn't they let everyone board, and then just hand search/profile all the passengers if they thought this might be a problem?

[OFBSLF]

Odd that American intelligence never issues warnings about USA carriers or am I being too cynical?Or just not paying attention:
Threats seen to British, US, French carriers

By Sara Kehaulani Goo
and Dana Priest, Washington Post, 2/1/2004

WASHINGTON -- Intelligence indicating that Al Qaeda terrorists are seeking to release a chemical or biological agent aboard an airliner, or transport a radiological device in cargo, prompted the cancellation of six international flights scheduled for today and tomorrow, senior US administration officials familiar with the intelligence reports said yesterday.

The use of such weapons would be a new tactic. The intelligence remains vague, and officials remain concerned about hijackings and other attack methods.

All the canceled flights are overseas trips arriving in the United States, as were the flights by foreign carriers that were canceled around the Christmas holidays. But yesterday, for the first time, a flight by a US-based carrier was canceled.

Continental Airlines Flight 17, scheduled to fly today from Glasgow to Los Angeles with a stop in Newark, was canceled because the carrier was "unable to obtain the necessary security clearances from the Department of Homeland Security and their international counterparts," a Continental spokesman said...
Entire article here: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/02/01/6_us_bound_flights_halted_amid_reported_qaeda_peril/

[boofhead]

Is it just me who thinks that El Quaeda can retire now, since the US authorities are doing their work of destroying the aviation business for them, and quite capably too..

[Grandpa]

When anything get secret due to "terrorist threatening".
When no reason are given for repeted grounding which leads Europe's Airlines economy to bankruptcy.
Then you may doubt of Big Brother intentions: is he injecting paranoïa in outside world?
Is paranoïa a WMD?
Should we launch an invasion of the Ovale Room, to make sure any danger of spreading this paranoïa abroad is definitely suppressed, so we can live in peace, even with unchristian names, tanned skin.........?

[ZFT]

<<quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Odd that American intelligence never issues warnings about USA carriers or am I being too cynical?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Or just not paying attention:>>

No, I was paying attention. The Continental flight was announced long after this original post.

Being even more cynical - does this mean US intelligence reads PPRune?

[Indiana Jones]

All,....I do have to say that in my opinion,since the downing of Air India in 1985, the U.S. FAA and more recently the TSA have really lead the UK Dft in a number of security initiatives to the westbound scheduled product,such as xray/and bagmatch/profiling, on the one hand, and the Dft in the main have adopted many of the principles and taken them further, such as 100% Hold baggage screening,on the other hand. In essence though, most of our aviation security procedures and ideas generally started states side, with dare I say the odd Iraeli flavour thrown in for good measure. This has been maintained and constantly enhanced west bound, and its only the sad events of 9/11 which made the U.S. attempt to catch up the progress made by the UK with respect to their domestic and eastbound security. This by its very size and enormity is a much more difficult task, and by its very nature,gives the feeling of a weaker security regime than the UK, but in essence it probably isnt. .............

[Rockhound]

As usual, Danny makes a lot of sense and provides welcome relief from Ppruners slagging each other off, claiming their country's security measures are better than the other guy's. Surely those 9/11 hijackers who achieved their aims didn't do so because they managed to smuggle boxcutters on board but because they - for the first time, to my knowledge - took over the controls of the aircraft. I'm convinced the crews allowed them to assume control, in the sincere (but mistaken) belief that any resistance would only aggravate the situation. They could hardly have imagined that the hijackers were fanatical enough to deliberately crash the aircraft.
For the life of me, I cannot see the point of cancelling a flight simply on suspicion that it may be interfered with in some way by one or more of the passengers. What in the way of intelligence value is gained by this tactic? Where does it end? Surely proper, in-depth passenger profiling is vital, as Danny and others suggest, so that potential hijackings are nipped in the bud, just as the 9/11 hijackers should have been fingered by US security authorities long before they boarded their final flights.
I agree completely with Boofhead. We're playing right into the hands of Al Qeda and their ilk.
Rockhound

[Rongotai]

Con-pilot writes:

" If the United States is wrong on it’s concerns on the security of international airline flights inbound to the United States and delays or cancels some flights all that will happen is that some people will be inconvenienced. That’s all, inconvenience."

Unfortunately not just inconvenience. I have no idea how widespread my experience is, but I do know that I am not alone in actively relocating my business interests out of the USA, and allowing US contracts to run down without seeking to renew them or seek new US business.

Why? Mainly because crossing the US border has become so unpleasant that I just can't be bothered any more and I don't want to impose the experience on my employees unnecessarily. It has nothing to do with the security as such - European airports have had more intrusive procedures for many years (from a passenger point of view). It is to do with the frequency of experiencing offensive xenophobia and extra attention when I turn up with an alien passport and an arrival card that says that I am visiting on business (it is much better when I turn up visiting family).

As I have explored the possibility of abandoning US work I have discovered that I have been living under a delusion for 20 years. I always thought that if you really wanted to do well in business you had to be doing business in the USA. It turns out that I can do better business if I avoid the United States.

As I said, I have no idea how widespread my experience is, and I am sure that many Americans will just say 'good riddance' (although not the ones that I love and those who are married to my children), but my point is that there is more than simple inconvenience at stake here, there is the chance of major adverse behavioural change. In fact there has already been such change within the United States in my experience. I find less friendliness and more suspicion of strangers than I have been used to. Iowa used to be a good place to relax, but it is less so now.

It is true the other way round as well. I despair at the freedom some of my own countrymen and women feel to abuse people (some of whom are related to me by marriage) just because they have an American accent. And that has increased, too, in the past two years. A startling reverse of the wave of sympathy that immediately followed 9/11

The only thing that makes me hold back from all this is the knowledge that if what I am proposing to do turns out to be part of a trend, then the terrorists have won without ever having to attack again.

[boofhead]

Rongotai.. I am thinking of moving my American (also Aus citizens) family to NZ because of the difficulties in living in the US (not all to do with the security garbage). Do you say they will not be made to feel welcome? I do not want to put them into a place where they will want to leave again after a short time.

When I fly into the US now, on a visa, I have to submit to the photo and fingerprinting. I notice that I might be on the end of a long line, and everyone ahead has to put their finger onto the reader. Am I at risk of catching something from someone who might have a communicable disease? I would imagine that this has been thought out already, but in Anchorage they make me (and everyone ahead) rub the finger on the forehead first to get a good reading, which is grubby, to say the least.

[AA SLF]

Rongotai - Sorry to hear that you and your employees will no longer be visiting the USA. But I, as a businessman, believe that you have finally "seen the light" regarding the "cost-benefit" of doing business in the USA, and that these security measures that are so bothersome to you are merely the "trigger" to your decision. Might I suggest, as one business man to another, that you should have made this decision a decade or more ago, before 11-Sept-01.

Rongotai - What bothers me far more than your common sense business decision are those who will no longer be coming to the USA on business, valid profit producing business, or to merely spend their holidays visiting our great country. These people are, I fear, reacting in a xenaphobic manner to the new security rules we have had to put in place to provide America with some small semblance of "security". These folks are certainly wrong in their reasoning, but I doubt I could ever talk them into changing their minds on this subject!

Does it surprise anyone here that as far back as 1997 I had to have a "visa" to visit Mexico? Yes, that is a fact. A "business" visa that had to be purchased upon entry. Had to show my passport and all that. Answer detailed questions, etc. I did not feel "put upon", as I accepted that it was Mexico's absolute right to make the rules regards entry into their country, and to thus "delay me" some 30 minutes crossing the border.

Rongotai - You made a valid business decision. I doubt that there will be many others in your same situation, but if there are, then they too should make the same decision as you, and we will thus have a better and stronger world economy because of it!

Danny posted his usual well reasoned view of this whole subject.

What bothers me is why America "publicizes" this intelligence info. Why do we (collectively) not wait until after boarding time passes - without boarding a single pax and then put every single pax through the most rigurous and intensive personal search, including body cavities, until we are satisfied that all pax are "safe". This search would include all carryon; checked bags, as well as cargo parcels/cases. I mean by this that everything (NO exceptions) would be hand-searched to the "n-th" degree. We could also "compare" the tickets sold to actual pax available to board and look for those who are "missing". Might we not then have a better chance of catching those foolish AQ people in the boarding gate area and have "some chance" to interrogate them at our leisure.

Oh yes, this "search" would include the airplane, as groundbased people could have placed "bad" items in/on the plane.

Really don't understand why we don't try and "trap" the b uggers rather than let them know in advance that we are on to them.

America is still a great country to do business in; still a great country to visit. Come and visit us - don't let the b uggers win without a fight!

Ciao - and please see my signature line below .......:cool:

[whauet]

Anyhoo -- I certainly don't want to sidetrack the discussion, but the finger on the forehead thing certainly is intriguing.

Perhaps it's to make sure that you get oil from your skin onto your finger to get a better print (after all, handling your bags and documentation while waiting in line would rub the oil off of your fingertips). So, if that is the case, I would imagine that they would wipe off the reader after each person uses it so that the residual oil left on the pad from the previous user(s) no longer remains to 'contaminate' the print you are leaving. To clean off the pad, they would probably have to use something with an alcohol solution to remove that residual oil and that would remove most bacteria and/or viruses. More of a chance to get sick from the person in front of you sneezing or coughing than transmitted via the pad.

Kind of shooting from the hip with that, so would appreciate any correction/confirmation.

With that, please continue with the prior discussion...

[Rongotai]

AA SLF

You are probably right about my being triggered to make a business decision I should have made a decade ago. It doesn't alter my basic point here, though, that one change has triggered another, and if that happens across a significant number of people there has been a social change.

If you are right, then my earlier decisions were not economically rational, but arose from my emotional - perhaps sentimental - attachment to the USA. The disturbing thing is that the affection that manifested itself in my day to day feelings seems to have been broken, or at least damaged, by the frequency of the unpleasant feelings I now get.

This has happened unconsciously and has crept up on me over the past 18 months. I still visit dear friends and relatives in California, Iowa, Illinois and Massachusetts, but whereas in the past I would trot off to my airline with a sense of excitement, these days I do it with a slight feeling of dread and foreboding, like I was making a dental appointment. And that slight discomfort isn't about terrorism - I visit the Middle East without thinking about it at all - but about the behaviour of American officials towards me.

I don't like this. My friends haven't changed, my relatives haven't changed. But getting to them often (usually) hurts, and being there sometimes hurts. I fight it - in my mind my experience makes me a sort of fifth order terrorist victim. What I struggle with is that while I understand the US response, I also believe that the consequences of it are more damaging than the risk it attempts to ameliorate. My country - New Zealand - has one characteristic in common with pre 9/11 USA, the belief that our geography makes us immune to terrorist attack. I am very much aware that should there be such an attack here the psychological response would likely be very similar. But I think I would still find it ill-considered. And I speak as someone who was physically present close to an IRA mainland British bombing in Manchester. In my view if the USA sacrifices its open society to this threat, then the physical security purchased isn't worth the price, and the terroists have triumphed.

[macfloppy]

As a BA pilot who deliberately bids for trips heading to the USA - I would 'like to take issue with a number of points made on this forum , clearly often as a gut reaction due to mistaken or misplaced national pride , than as the result of logical thought .

The success of preventative measures is often impossible to judge - you are trying to prevent something . The measures put in place by the USA are far more pragmatic and logical than some of the nonsense put forward by the UK .
Having now been through the fingerprinting and 'photo three times , I can assure you all that it is becoming a far faster practice now that it is up and running , and last week , passengers and crew cleared immigration in the US faster than before .
If there were intelligence errors pre 9/11 as some writers so eagerly allege , then no nation on earth learns from its mistakes and moves forwards 'like the United States. No nation on earth has such a history of repeating the same mistakes as the U.K. , at the same time basking in an unfounded arrogance , an almost childish sense of misplaced national pride.

Here we have a government which allows free flow immigration - at the expense of the UK taxpayers . Elected to look after the security and welfare of the UK , it has'nt yet had the guts to deport that violence and hatred inciting hook-handed maniac from the Finsbury mosque - and people have the cheek to criticise another nation for looking to the welfare of its citizens and security . Rather than an automatic reaction as a result of misplaced - and frankly unfounded national pride - consider whether the US is not simply behaving bravely and wisely - in sharp contrast to the British and the French .A leader is elected to protect its citizens as best as it can ; my own government has'nt got the courage to do so . A nation can , incidentally , impose whatever conditions it 'likes on aircraft within its airspace - that is settled International Law - including the carriage of Air Marshalls- and I shall be delighted to carry them ; I feel more secure flying to the US than any other destination , and choose to accordingly , because I am far safer in the hands of the US legislators and subject to US measures , than I am under my own or any European governments.

[Danny]

Can I ask Rongotai, Boofhead and AASLF to please take their discussion about the merits or otherwise of doing business or visiting the USA to a different forum, please. This thread is about the current and other recent cancellations of specific flights to the USA due to 'credible intelligence'.

Whilst the consequences of such decisions may have a bearing on some peoples travel decisions the debate here is about the validity of the announcements and the apparent methods being used to implement them. Personally, I am highly sceptical about the decisions to make such public announcements that particular flights have been targeted. If they do indeed have such 'credible intelligence' then by announcing that fact without having in place an operation to trap the potential terrorists, all they appear to be doing is letting them know that they are 'listening out' for tid-bits of information. All the terrorists have to do now is keep on spreading disinformation and they can bring the airline industry to its knees. If it wasn't so serious it'd be comical.

No one is denying that there is enhanced security but what appears to be happening is a beefing up of areas that are easily and most likely to be bypassed. As I pointed out in my earlier post, there is a huge system in place to prevent pointy metal things being carried through from landside to airside at airports. There is very little in place apart from the off-chance that there MAY be an armed PSM or two on board SOME flights. We have nothing in place to question anyone trying to board a flight as to their intentions, obvious or otherwise. That, together with the fact that there are any number of items that can be purchased once past 'security' that could be used as weapons is the real weakness in the system and have no doubt that the terrorists will be looking for any flaws in the system.

The fact that there are new measures in place in the USA for arriving travellers is irrelevant to this discussion and, has been pointed out above by Macfloppy, it is not such a real problem. But... that is AFTER a flight has arrived in the USA. What we are talking about here is the very public announcements by the airlines that their flights have or will be cancelled based on intelligence received from the various governments and those governments announcements that they have 'credible intelligence' when in fact all we appear to have is backside padding for political masters. :hmm:

[Shuttleworth]

macfloppy. I hadn't thought of it that way - interesting points!

[FFFlyer]

Well said Macfloppy. A vioce of reason. Where was Richard Reid from? Where was 9/11 planned?

[Airbubba]

U.S. Says No Plans to Ground New Flights

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: February 2, 2004


Filed at 3:03 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The ``specific and credible'' terrorist threats that led to the cancellation of seven flights have passed and there are no plans to ground any more flights, government officials said Monday.

``At this point we do not have any new threat reporting targeting specific flights like we did over the weekend,'' White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.

Six international flights from the United Kingdom and France and Continental Airlines Flight 1519 from Washington to Houston, site of the Super Bowl, were grounded Sunday and Monday after security concerns were raised by the Homeland Security Department.

Homeland Security Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said there was ``specific and credible intelligence information suggesting that al-Qaida would attack these flights on those dates.''

``It wasn't as specific as to method of attack,'' he said.

The cancellations were the first since December, when the nation's terror alert level was increased from elevated, or yellow, to high, or orange.

A senior law enforcement official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said some themes continue to emerge from intelligence collection: al-Qaida is determined to mount another large-scale attack and remains highly interested in aviation and weapons of mass destruction.

It's possible, the official said, that the two attack methods could be combined in some fashion but no specific plot has been reported.

The Continental flight was the first domestic flight to be canceled. Roehrkasse declined to provide details about the nature of the threat but said the federal agency and Continental ``worked closely on the matter.''

The flight was scheduled to take off from Dulles International Airport outside Washington at 5:45 p.m. EST Sunday and arrive at Bush Intercontinental Airport at 8:10 p.m. CST.

The National Football League's Super Bowl was being played Sunday evening at Reliant Stadium, approximately 27 miles from the Houston airport. However, a U.S. government official who spoke on condition of anonymity said the flight cancellation was not specifically connected to the Super Bowl.

Continental spokesman David Messing said he did not know what security concerns led to the cancellation. He said the decision to ground the flight was made ``because we were unable to get security clearance from the Department of Homeland Security.''

A Continental Airlines flight Sunday from Glasgow, Scotland, to Los Angeles with an intermediate stop in Newark, N.J., was canceled late Saturday because of security concerns, but there was no indication whether that was related to the Washington-Houston cancellation announced late Sunday.

The Scotland-Los Angeles flight was one of six U.S.-bound flight canceled Sunday and Monday because of security concerns. The U.S. government said it had fresh indications of al-Qaida's continued interest in targeting commercial planes flying to the United States.

British Airways canceled Flight 223 from London to Dulles for Sunday and Monday and Flight 207 from London to Miami on Sunday. Air France Flight 026 from Paris to Washington on Sunday and Monday.

A British pilots' union official expressed concern Monday over what it called the ``erratic'' nature of the security intelligence leading to the flight cancelations.

``It is the sort of thing that feeds public disquiet rather than resolves the concern of passengers, pilots and the U.K. industry as a whole,'' said Jim McAuslan, general secretary of the British Airline Pilots' Association, which represents nearly 90 percent of Britain's 9,200 commercial pilots.

McClellan defended the decision to ground the flights.

``When we have specific intelligence that comes to our attention, we act on that intelligence, we share it, and that's what you are seeing done here,'' he said.

[Spuds McKenzie]

...plans to ground flights
:confused:

Can you plan to ground flights in connection with terrorists threats??

I thought it was more like a last hour decision.

:confused:

[AA SLF]

Danny - yer second post is noted and will be obeyed. Please, would you note the THREE paragraphs in my post immediately below my comment on your first post - I did think those were dead-on the subject.

Still amazed at such a poor job we doing here about "trapping" the AQ types at the gate on suspect flights. But more than that, I strongly question the laxity we observe towards the "ground" folks, in all areas from the ramp rats to the caterers, etc. Easy enuf for them to plant a "bio" weapon on the plane. Easy enuf for an AQ operative to jump into the wheelwell of a plane at threshold "hold" and plant a "limpet" mine modified with a pressure trigger. In fact, our rules for "ground" simply suck, as proved by the "Red Team" from the Seals a few years ago. Heck, wasn't it this past year when a reporter from a UK newspaper/TV org. placed a piece of paper on an aircraft saying "bomb", and these folks were pure amatures!

We still have a long way to go to make flights really, meaningfully 'secure", and not just be "backside" cover for the politicians!

[Wino]

AA,

unfortunately, all of the examples you cited in your last post have always been deamed acceptable. Nothing on that score has ever changed. Security up untill now was simply a visual bandaid, but the realities were that even if a plane was blown up a couple of times a year with a loss of all on board flying would still be considerably safer than driving. So it was considered acceptable.

Infact, there is a monetary formula that is used by the FAA when deciding whether to implement a new rule or safety check that explicitly looks at the the number of lives at risk with the problem vs the number of people that would drive instead of fly because of the increase in ticket price vs. cost of the change and weighs the two figures to decide whether or not to implement something like fuel tank inerting... Tony Broderick once explained it over on AVSIG (he was the highest non political person in the FAA for the better part of a decade)

What changed on Sept 11, was the ability to use aicraft to attack targets on the ground. That was like trying to divide by zero and threw the equations all out of whack and was deamed unacceptable, and so here we are today. STill nobody really cares about a bomb on an aircraft, afterall the only people at risk are actually on the airplane.

As to catching the people at the airport... Yeah, in a perfect world the terrorist would be the only passenger to board the airacraft. Every other seat would be filled with SAS and green berets. Of course its not a perfect world, and AA denied Richard Reid boarding and kicked him back to the french authorities who cleared him for flight and made AA carry him the next day... After all, he was just a brit, not a terrorist... :yuk:

Cheers
Wino

[Airbubba]

February 4, 2004

Ridge: Attack Possibly Averted Recently

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 3:02 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Even as the spy community comes under fire for faulty intelligence in Iraq, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said he believes recent actions taken in response to terrorist threat information have averted an attack.

``Do I personally? Yes,'' Ridge said Wednesday when asked if a strike has been prevented. ``But I don't know that we'll ever be able to confirm it. ... Proving an unknown is a difficult thing to do.''

A regular consumer of intelligence information, Ridge said he wouldn't agree with the assessment that the intelligence on Iraq was almost all wrong, as the CIA's former top weapons inspector, David Kay, has said. But Ridge wouldn't go into detail.

Instead, Ridge said he is satisfied with the access and quality of intelligence he is getting from agencies that gather it, like the CIA, as well as the department's ability to use it to make decisions.

``It is a good, solid relationship with the intelligence-gathering community,'' he said. ``Our relationship is satisfactory. From my point of view, whenever we have tasked them to the extent and ability that (they) can get back to us with information we requested -- again depending on whether or not there is a source they could extract it from -- they have.''

``I think our relationship is solid and is getting better every day,'' he said.

In a 50 minute discussion with reporters, Ridge acknowledged there has been tension recently with foreign governments over the string of flight cancellations, beginning around Christmas. Raising a hand in the air, Ridge took some responsibility for the problem, saying he initially went straight to European air carriers to discuss what to do -- ``Time was short,'' he said.

Ridge said he has since talked to his counterparts in France, Great Britain, Spain and Germany, and a better system now will allow simultaneous discussions with foreign airlines and sovereign governments. ``I would feel the same way if British intelligence had a piece of information affecting a domestic carrier, and they didn't call us first,'' he said.

When asked if the U.S. government's insistence on sky marshals for some flights coming from overseas created the tension, Ridge said: ``It may have contributed to it a bit.''

``Asking these folks to put air marshals on at the last minute was something they had not ever anticipated, and now they can anticipate it,'' he later said.

At root, the problem may come down to disagreements among the U.S., Great Britain and France over the assessments on the threat information. Ridge said there continues to be ``honest disagreement,'' though he thinks everyone now agrees -- ``with varying degrees of satisfaction'' -- that the right steps were taken.

As ``uncomfortable'' as the process was, he said the department continues to talk with Great Britain and France to develop international standards for dealing with information while still keeping planes in the air.

``Cancellation is absolutely, positively the last resort,'' Ridge said. ``It should always be in our back pocket.''

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/aponline/news/index.html

[Squawk7777]

What changed on Sept 11, was the ability to use aicraft to attack targets on the ground. That was like trying to divide by zero and threw the equations all out of whack and was deamed unacceptable, and so here we are today. STill nobody really cares about a bomb on an aircraft, afterall the only people at risk are actually on the airplane.

Not really sure about this. Whether the hijacker/terrorist/lunatic has a bomb or not will pax & crew simply accept that their plane has been taken over or will they resist? UA94 (not sure about the flight number :O ) over PA has shown it. Yeah, they died but they fought. And this counts!

7 7 7 7

[Rockhound]

Squawk,
What exactly are you trying to say? What do you mean by "taken over"? The hijackers are operating the flight controls? Or just holding the pax and crew to ransom?
The resistance by the pax (and crew?) of the aircraft that crashed in Pennsylvania on 9/11 may have been mounted after the hijackers assumed the controls.
Surely in future any crew will do its damnedest to prevent, at all costs, a hijacker from operating the flight controls.
I still believe that, in the case of the two flights that hit the WTC and the flight that crashed into the Pentagon, the crews allowed the hijackers to take control (not sure about the PA flight).
Rockhound

[Squawk7777]

the crews allowed the hijackers to take control

exactly this will not happen again so easily...

[Danny]

"It is a good, solid relationship with the intelligence-gathering community,'' he said. "Our relationship is satisfactory. From my point of view, whenever we have tasked them to the extent and ability that (they) can get back to us with information we requested -- again depending on whether or not there is a source they could extract it from -- they have.''

"I think our relationship is solid and is getting better every day,'' he said.I'm sorry but what we have here is typical from a political appointee covering his hide. I'll bet the intelligence community are cringing at all the sound bites and bovine excrement coming from such a public outpouring by Ridge. By stating that they have 'averted an attack' but have nothing else to show for it such as detainees or weapons is so typical of a politician. They will continue to parade themselves for the media with such pathetic quotes for public consumption. He might as well go on air every day and hail his department as all conquering heros as they have averted an attack again. Hell, the are actually averting one right now as I type.

It just angers me to see these politicians talking absolute rubbish, trying to give the impression that they have actually done or are doing something when in fact most us who work in the industry know that it is little more than eye candy for the public. I for one do not want to wait until the next time there is a terrorist atrocity that hammers another nail in the coffin of our industry just because some egotistical politician in too far up his or her own backside to make decisions based on hard evidence and sound advice instead of vanity and @rse covering.

I just finished reading the book 'Catch me if you can' by Frank Abignale. Much better than the film and in a published interview at the end he is asked what he thinks about the current security regime since 9/11 and interestingly he too believes that profiling is the way to go... and that from someone who was an expert in gaining access to a flight deck, even if it was quite some time ago. Until we we get politicians who are not more interested in the number of sound bites they can get rather than making sure the job is done properly, I think we are setting ourselves up for another atrocity using an aircraft. It probably won't be anything we expect but with the obvious lack of co-operation between the various agencies as highlighted by the comments at the start of this post (I would expect the relationship between the various agencies to be 'excellent', not just 'satisfactory' by now. They've had over two years to get their acts together after all!) together with a politician who would rather highlight bovine excrement rather than just quietly get on with the job, we are likely to be just as surprised once again in the future!

[PaperTiger]

Quite so, Danny. Dumbed-down PR is all it is - had there been a successful, tangible aversion of a terrorist act, it would have been huge news and milked for all its worth for days/weeks.

This is 2004, so the bovine excrement from the present administration may be expected to increase the nearer we get to November. Of course the WMD 'inquiry' isn't due until 2005 quel surprise ! and I see the 9/11 'inquiry' deadline has also been extended (to July at present, but if it contains anything damaging to the Bush cabal, I doubt it will see the light this year). Sigh.