BA & VS denied access to US airspace ?

[hometown]

Howcome BA & Virgin are not being allowed to resume flights to the US and yet the United & American are ?
Is this sort sort of protectionism on the part of the FAA ?
Only US carriers are allowed access to the US
until security at foreign airports & airlines is improved.
Are they seriously suggesting that UK carriers have inferior security to their own..!
Whose aircraft was it that was hijcked in the first place ! :mad:

[crewrest]

Agreed, frustrating, especially since half the 'radical' security measures put into place in the US have been commanplace in the UK for years.

[The Guvnor]

Yep, definitely US protectionism ... as usual.

With the rest of the world - and especially the UK - bending over backwards to help the Yanks in their hour of need, this is no way to treat friends.

On the basis that US carriers are demonstrably insecure, perhaps they should be banned from international airspace until their security has been checked out by the world's aviation authorities? :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Wino]

Every weapon used on all the flights I have personally carried on both Virgin and BA in my travels to Europe.

Untill there is a federal marshall on the European carriers as well as the domestics I don't want em over my house.

It is NOT protectionism, and if that is what you think, then **** you.

This is a whole new world, wake up and smell the coffee.

Wino

[PPRuNe Radar]

Gents,

Please let's try and be civil. The US Government have taken their decision based on the information THEY have available to them, not what we think they know.

By the same token, perhaps here in the UK we should reconsider whether to accept flights originating from the US carriers until our Government have assured themselves that the poor level of security which existed in the US has been upgraded ?? If that would cause them to squeal, (which I doubt since they more than us will understand the current situation and the measures which need to result) then as Wino says, **** them.

Regardless of all that, our friends and colleagues in the US should have our full support and sympathy in this harrowing time.

[Beaver Driver]

governerd
typical response from a no-nothing blowhard. You have no clue as to what is going on over here so why don't you shut your yap. Half of the American airlines are still not flying anywhere, and the only reason the FAA has allowed ANY airline to operate internationally is to help stranded passengers get home. We, as a nation, are still in a state of shock, and the last thing we are thinking about is business or any kind of protectionism (other than protecting our people and shores). Yet you, like the gutter snipe you are, continue to toss your unwelcome rhetoric at American businesses, the American people, and the American flag. I can almost guarantee you that your airline will NEVER operate in this country if I have to get elected to congress to stop it.

[What_does_this_button_do?]

from press.britishairways.com

British Airways flies to the USA

British Airways plans to resume operations to the USA with the immediate dispatch of aircraft to the United States.

Formal confirmation has been received within the past hour from the Federal Aviation Administration confirming it is satisfied with British Airways' security measures and that the airline can fly into American airspace.

This evening, British Airways will operate two B747-400 aircraft into New York JFK and a B777 into Philadelphia.

The first B747-400 will depart immediately to position into New York ready to bring back tomorrow many British Airways' passengers that have been stranded at JFK airport since the terrorist attacks. The B777 aircraft outbound to Philadelphia will also be a positioning flight ready to fly back passengers tomorrow.

The airline will allocate seats on board its second evening service to New York. Within the time available British Airways is in the process of contacting customers impacted by the disrupted schedules and those in the terminals and priority will be given on compassionate grounds.

The airline plans to operate services out of the UK tomorrow to repatriate passengers to the USA.

Over the next few days, British Airways plans to gradually resume its full schedule of services to and from the US as many of the US airports re-open. The airline operates to 23 US destinations from London Heathrow, 12 from London Gatwick and one from Manchester.

The airline said: "British Airways is very pleased to be able to return to the United States this evening. Our thoughts remain with all those people affected by this week's atrocities in the United States and with our colleagues at American and United Airlines."

The airline's reservations number 0845 77 999 77 is open for customer enquiries. Bookings for future flights can also be made using the airline's website www.britishairways.com (http://www.britishairways.com) or via travel agents.

Flights to Tel Aviv are also operating normally although flights to Islamabad are suspended until further notice.

[Pentac]

Sure didn’t take long for the nationalistic chinks to show up in 'our' brave united face.

The airports are just as accessible in the UK as they are here but you know what: THERE WASN'T ANY SECURITY BREACH ON THE GROUND. They used minimal weapons (that could have easily been substituted with galley or meal utensils), bomb threats, and a numbered force. Last Tuesday could have very easily taken place in the UK!

Yes... "Don’t let the Bastards get to you!"
:mad:

[The_Banking_Scot]

That is good news for British Airways and all its passengers and staff.

Any news on Virgin Atlantic?

[Deadleg]

Take it easy boys. Don't get carried away with looking into the conspiracy theories behind decisions, we are all trying to get the show back on the road.
To my American collegues, my sincere condolences, but lets not get angry with each other or the bastards who did this evil & wicked deed really have won!
Now is the time to work together(BTW, it's Strumble, not St Rumble)
Take care all!!!

[The Guvnor]

Virgin is also cleared to fly ... apparently after personal intervention from Tone who wanted to know why dodgy third world airlines were OK to operate but not BA or VS!

[scroggs]

I've no doubt that this was simply a case of a limited number of people tasked with the difficult job of tactfully checking the security arrrangements of the thousands of airlines which want to fly to the States. The political ramifications of who was cleared first were probably not uppermost in their minds. Cut the guys some slack and be grateful that you're here to criticise.

[crewrest]

And still have a job Huh, Scroggs

Lets just get flying and start the cashflow.

[The Guvnor]

As of first thing in the morning, US time, the list looked like this:

Permitted: Air China, Aeroflot, Turkish, CSA, Olympic, El Al, Swissair, TAP, Cathay, South African, most of the UK charter carriers and more.

Not permitted: SAS, Sabena, Lufthansa, BA, Virgin, KLM, Austrian, Air France.

How on earth is the security of Air China, Turkish, SAA, Olympic or TAP better than that of SAS, Lufthansa, BA, Virgin, or KLM?

Nope it's quite clear, folks - these are all major national airlines that would cause a clear and present economic danger to US carriers. Let's face it, passengers aren't going to be wildly enthusiastic about flying on UA or AA for a while...

And no, there was indeed a security breach. Neither AA nor UA used the profiling systems they are supposed to - the people who are apparently responsible would have been more thoroughly questioned and their plans possibly foiled had that been the case.

Anyway, the sooner everyone can get back up in the air the better - it's only when things return to normal that these animals (whoever they are) will see that they have lost.

[Diesel8]

Hi Guv,

You live in a dirt cave or something. Because you certainly cannot have seen the pictures of the WTC.

This is not protectionism and if you so believe, good luck running your airline.

This stuff takes time, and had the terrorist taken out the house of Lords and Buckingham palace, I would hope we Americans would have a tad bit more class than yell protectionism.

[Wino]

Up untill now, while I have argued with the guv, I have never directly insulted him, infact I have occasionally defended him.

I retract all defense of the guv, apologize to those I squawked at when they insulted the guv, and declare him to be the leading asshole on pprune.

If you still think this is protectionist, I can't wait to meet you.

You are the lowest form of life on the planet to use this tradgedy and the chaos that followed to push your protectionist bull**** retoric. How do you know that Virgin and BA weren't the last to approve the use of skymarshals?

You sir are a classless arogant pig, and the epitome of what I came to hate during my years in England. Most of my time with the UK was superb, but you are truly one of the 1 percenters.

Wino

[ 15 September 2001: Message edited by: PPRuNe Towers ]

[Wino]

Furthermore, as neither Branson nor the manager du jour of BA were squealing publicly about it, maybe there was a credible threat of a skyjack on a BA or Virgin flihgt.


Wino

[ 15 September 2001: Message edited by: PPRuNe Towers ]

[West Coast]

Gov
5000+ died, show a little respect. It appearantly buisness as usual with you. God, you disgust me with your protectionism BS. Are you really so stupid you think its protectionism, or are you just looking for a rise? Either way its argued it makes you look like a moron.

[Hooking Fell]

Wino (or is it Whino?)
You are totally out of order. The observation that airlines from nations where airport security is positively more suspect than in, say, the UK or Germany, are the first to be welcomed at US airports is a valid one.
I would suggest that if your vocabulary is largely confined to the unprintable, stop wasting space on this site with asterisks!

[ 15 September 2001: Message edited by: Hooking Fell ]

[LN-MOW]

Pardon me, but I think this discussion is going out of hand. We are here loking at an FAA who allows Egypt Air, Air Ukraine, Turkish and PIA, and denies KLM, SAS, Lufthansa and Austrian Airlines to fly into the US.
IMHO, in view that FAA, on their official list, display Moscow as in 'Former Soviet Union' and Kiev/Borispol in 'Soviet Union' make me suspect that they have lost it - that they operate after 'Your Government haven't complained lod enough - you can't fly!'
But of course - I may be the stupid one, and the German, Scandinavian, Dutch and Austrian security levels are lower than the Egyptian, Pakistani, Ukrainan, Greek, Turkish, Spanish, Portugese (sic), Western Samoan, Cuban etc etc ....

[heloplt]

Wino...please ....you do not have to sugar coat it...just tell Guv what you really think!!!

To all of our fine British friends...not you Guv....we appreciate your kind words and offers of condolences. We stand together in this time of sorrow.

To "Teabags" like Guv...after all of my long years service with you lot...I fully understand why it used to be an Empire...rude, ignorant, pompous bastards, such as yourself. Your blind pride and prejudices betray your proclamations of honor. Please....you are an embarrassment to your fellow countrymen. It is a shame you have to ruin your country's image for others.

Envy must really have control of your heart, Guv. You should try to get over it and accept the fact that you are no longer the leaders of the free world but merely a small island adjacent to Europe.

It has been more than 200 years since we forcibly ejected the likes of you from our country Gov...ever wonder why?

:p

[LN-MOW]

For info, I found this in a posting on Airliners.net .. It demonstrates some of the skill FAA seem to handle this situation with .. I wouldn't call it protectionism - whoever makes these decision seems not to have the capacity to understand the word.

'''''This information was accurate as of 730pm EST. Things may have changed since then.

I sat in on the 6pm FAA conference call and also met up later in the evening with officials from Saudia, Air India, Korean Air, ANA, Pakistan Airlines, Bangladesh Biman, Egyptair and Uzebekistan Airlines.

The FAA is gearing up for a nasty showdown with the non-US carriers that operate into the United States. At present, the only use of US airspace by non-US carriers is for "diversion recovery operations from Canada". This does NOT include diversion recovery flights from the Carribean, Mexico, Europe or other US cities.

Specific examples :

a) Saudia has a 744 diverted to NAS. They want to ferry the aircraft back to JED, but require use of US airspace for the flight plan. They have been DENIED permission.

b) Korean Air has a 744 for IAD that was diverted to MSP. They attempted a diversion recovery flight today, but were ordered back to MSP by the Minnesotta Air National Guard or else be shot down.

c) Air India has a 744 for JFK that was returned to LHR. Although US flag carriers are permitted diversion recovery flights on LHR-JFK, AI has been denied permission on that route. A number of AI pax do not have permission to enter the UK and are being held in detention centers as a result.

d) Egyptair wanted to evacuate 48 crew members from New York in response to anti-Arab threats received by their offices. They were ready on a ferry flight out, but were denied permission by the FBI (not the FAA). Some crew were detained for questioning and the rest were returned to their hotel under armed escort.

The US carriers have been cleared to resume UNRESTRICTED part 121, part 129, part 131, part 135 and part 107 operations both internationally and domestically (with some minor exceptions). Why then are non-US carriers (whose security standards exceed those demanded by the FAA) being denied permission to even repatriate their aircrafts and crews?

As an unidentified European carrier commented, "This isn't security, its protectionism for US carriers. Have they forgotten that it was US planes that caused this mess in the first place?"

[StbdD]

Hooking Fell,

The question is not whether the supposed list was proper. The questions are: Where did the list come from? What authority issued it? At what time was it issued? On what date?

What governments did or did not contribute to the construction of the list? Did some governments withhold their aircraft from the list? How about cariers? Were international aviation authorities involved? Was the list in error? Was it later modified?

Has it been announced? I mean other than here on PPrune or in some other similar forum. Sounds like something the travelling public would want to know at the least. Probably even a lead story on ALL of the international news services.

Or,was the source of the list some insensitive, **** -stirring, muckraking mind?

Guv, you may have been fibbed to...

But to the topic of the thread. Since US carriers couldn't carry pax DOMESTICALLY until about 1200 Central US time today (15 Sept) I don't understand the problem. Were we told differently? Yes, many times over the last 3 days. Did the same sort of thing happen in many other countries? Yes. It's been a tough time for us and we are dealing with it as best we can. Lose thousands of your citizens in an unprecedented terrorist act and then come tell us how to do it.

[ 15 September 2001: Message edited by: StbdD ]

[The Guvnor]

OK peeps, enough already with the abuse!

Here it is, from the horses mouth (or ass, if you prefer that sort of language, eh, Wino?) Foreign Airport and Airline Clearances (http://www.faa.gov/ats/ata/airport_cert/foreignairport.html)

It seems to me to be a complete shambles. For example:

Note: Last Updated : September 14, 2001 11:40 PM EDT

ENGLAND London Gatwick Airport Monarch Airlines
ENGLAND Lutons Monarch Airlines
ENGLAND Manchester Airport Monarch Airlines
ENGLAND Newcastle Monarch Airlines

(Interesting that OM think they are in England, not the UK - unlike everyone else :D)

UNITED KINGDOM Britannia Airways [strange that, they just had three 767s en-route to Florida turned back!]
UNITED KINGDOM Belfast Airport American Trans Air Inc
UNITED KINGDOM Birmingham Airtours International
UNITED KINGDOM Birmingham International Airport American Airlines, Inc.
UNITED KINGDOM Birmingham International Airport Continental Airlines Inc.
UNITED KINGDOM Birmingham International Airport Uzbekistan Airways [!!!]
UNITED KINGDOM Birmingham Intl Air 2000 Ltd Great Britain
UNITED KINGDOM Birmingham Intl Britannia Airways
UNITED KINGDOM Dublin Intl Britannia Airways
[Strange, I was always under the impression that Dublin was in the Republic of Ireland]
UNITED KINGDOM Glasgow International Airport American Airlines, Inc.
UNITED KINGDOM Glasgow International Airport Continental Airlines Inc.
UNITED KINGDOM Glasgow Intl Air 2000 Ltd Great Britain
UNITED KINGDOM Glasgow Intl Britannia Airways
UNITED KINGDOM London Gatwick Airport Air 2000 Ltd Great Britain
UNITED KINGDOM London Gatwick Airport American Airlines, Inc.
UNITED KINGDOM London Gatwick Airport American Trans Air Inc
UNITED KINGDOM London Gatwick Airport Britannia Airways
UNITED KINGDOM London Gatwick Airport Continental Airlines Inc.
UNITED KINGDOM London Gatwick Airport Delta Air Lines, Inc.
UNITED KINGDOM London Gatwick Airport Northwest Airlines Inc
UNITED KINGDOM London Gatwick Airport TWA Airlines LLC
UNITED KINGDOM London Gatwick Airport US Airways, Inc.
UNITED KINGDOM London Gatwick Airport Virgin Atlantic Airways
UNITED KINGDOM London Heathrow Airport Air New Zealand
UNITED KINGDOM London Heathrow Airport American Airlines, Inc.
UNITED KINGDOM London Heathrow Airport United Air Lines Inc.
UNITED KINGDOM London Heathrow Airport Virgin Atlantic Airways
UNITED KINGDOM London Stansted Continental Airlines Inc.
UNITED KINGDOM London-Gatwick Airtours International
UNITED KINGDOM Manchester Air 2000 Ltd Great Britain
UNITED KINGDOM Manchester Airtours International
UNITED KINGDOM Manchester Airport American Airlines, Inc.
UNITED KINGDOM Manchester Airport American Trans Air Inc
UNITED KINGDOM Manchester Airport Britannia Airways
UNITED KINGDOM Manchester Airport Continental Airlines Inc.
UNITED KINGDOM Manchester Airport Delta Air Lines, Inc.
UNITED KINGDOM Manchester Airport Pakistan Intl. Airlines
UNITED KINGDOM Manchester Airport US Airways, Inc.
UNITED KINGDOM Manchester Airport Virgin Atlantic Airways
UNITED KINGDOM Newcastle Airtours International
UNITED KINGDOM Newcastle Arpt Britannia Airways
UNITED KINGDOM Shannon Arpt Britannia Airways [yet another airport I could have sworn was in Eire]
UNITED KINGDOM Shannon Arpt Omni Air International

Anyone see what I (don't see)? According to the FAA, Uzbekistan Airways is safer than British Airways. Now, we've all had our problems with the Nigels in the past, but this really is going too far!! :mad: :mad: :mad:

Any of our American friends like to explain this? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Notso Fantastic]

Guvnors anti-Americanism rules again I see! What a sad git!

[aidybennett]

I too have my doubts about that list. Never heard any mention of it other that her on pprune. I understand BA and Virgin are now operating to the US as of last night.
This thing has been (is, rather) a nightmare of unbeleivable and tragic proportions. Who can blame the US if they're not getting thing completely right so soon afterwards?Guvner-I havn't so far been tempted to either critise you or support you on this site, but to make those comments in the wake of this, well all I can say is-please just go away! I have just come to the conclusion that just about everything deogatary said about is bang on. Do you do it to just get a rise out of others? Have a little respect, can't you!
Another thought on that list, assuming it was genuine. Perhaps BA, KLM, Air France etc were considered more at risk is because they're prime western carriers-a more attractive target to the terrorist-that an aircraft belonging to a third world country with which they pressumably have no quarrel with anyway. Just a thought.
Edited for typos

[ 15 September 2001: Message edited by: Captain James Bigglesworth ]

[ 15 September 2001: Message edited by: Captain James Bigglesworth ]

[pilotrtjones]

Ba and Virgin Atlantic are flying to the U.S. BA are serving i think 26 of 53 flightd and Virgin Atlantic are flying all flights except to Boston for obvious reasons

[StbdD]

Yeah Guv,

I'm more than happy to take this issue on but my first question is: Are you on the board at British Airways? I think not. So you have NO basis to express an opinion as to whether the Board of BA decided not to operate to the US do you? By the way, I heard from a guy who heard from a guy doesn't play well in situations where you are impuning the integrity of a Nation.

I note from your own sources that Britania, Virgin, and Airtours2000 (although I suspect I missed a few) were authorized entry to the US. Correct me if I am wrong that these are owned and operated in the UK. As to whether BA did or did not want to operate to the US at or about the time you whine about, I suggest you ask them as other UK airlines were authorized. You certainly aren't in a position to comment.

But, as I recall your original list, I must have missed a few... I seem to remember a much longer list of those darn 3rd world airlines from the roster you listed priviously on this site. Since I don't see them on your current attached list, where exactly did your other list come from? (Feel free to append a further or perhaps suitably modified list to your reply)

Your ball Guv

[tonyryan]

Ironic - the very same airlines that were involved in the security breach were the first to bet let operate back to US airspace while other (non US)airlines were not.

I don't think it is trade protection (the US would NEVER do that, would they?)instead it is typical american arrogance that all security threats come from outside the US, as no american would ever do anything to hurt this nation.

Still haven't learnt anything from Oklahoma, have we?

[sirwa69]

tonyryan

No, we havn't

[The Guvnor]

Good grief, do I have to do everything round here? I provided you with a perfectly good link to the FAA (check out the url, lads) and as at 0545 EDT BA is still not on the list.

Over to you, StbdD! :D :D :D

tonyryan - spot on, mate.

[Wino]

Guv,

Aside from the fact that nothing on the internet can ever be viewed as reliable as even the Government sites get hacked, if BA is forbidden to fly, how come they ARE flying now? Or maybe it was simply a typo? Or so obvious with the aircraft being moved that it didn't need to be written? But no, here comes the GUV on his white horse screaming PROTECTIONISM.

Again, there were many other credible threats issued in the wake of this. they ALL have to be treated seriously, if one happens to be on BA, tough, get over it.

This is NOT protectionism. The rules have changed, and we may well be requiring armed guards on all aircraft. Maybe we couldn't get one in position in time.

Your much over rated security would not have helped in this circumstance either.

And guess what, in the rush to stamp out terrorism there are going to be more casualties (there would be more if we did nothing anyway) so I would steal yourself to the probability that one is going to hit London as well once the ground war heats up. If the unthinkable happens to England (and I sincerely hope that it does not) I hope you have a front row seat at ground zero.

Wino

[Mapshift]

Really nice to have objective, sensitive rabble-rousers like Guv around isn't it? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Go read the BBC...from YOUR cold little island...and see who's flying where..

[ 15 September 2001: Message edited by: Mapshift ]

[Magnus Picus]

As an Englishman it is quite embarrasing to think that the word protectionism could ever be mentioned in the immediate aftermath of September 11th.
Wino, please accept from me (and presumeably countless others), our sincere condolences for the attrocities committed against your country and feel assured in knowing that we (at BA) understand the 'siege logistics' of returning aircraft to their homeland. I, as a BA pilot, see no ulterior motive to the FAA proposals, particularly as they no longer apply.

I can assure you that the individual you have traded abuse at in this thread, is at best a Paranoid Schizophrenic who has paraded himself as a captain of industry for a few years now. You can judge by his tally of posts (in their thousands) that he is most definitely a sad individual who spends the majority of his time 'surfing' in order to maintain his 'Walter Mitty'-like persona.

Please accept my apology for sharing the same island with him and join me in wishing the whole industry the best of luck in this dark hour.

[Wino]

Thank you MAGNUS. I know all about the guv, and am just sad that I wasted energy defending him in the past. His detractors were right, and I was most certainly wrong.

BTW, I suggest that everyone at BA and VIRGIN lobby their MPs for Aid. This is a war now and the rules have changed.

Not one ticket in AMerica has been sold since the events of the 11. I suspect similar things are happening world wide and the airlines are CRUCIAL to the evenual resumption of normalcy.

While normally I am opposed to state aid to the airlines. we are rapidly moving to a world war II type scenario for the next couple of years I think. The airlines will be crucial to moving troops and supplies to the front lines and cant be allowed to fold in the first week of the war.

It will take BILLIONS to preserve the air transport system over the next couple of years.

[crewrest]

Wino, I can see your anger with The Guvnor, especially with your proximity to events.

Anyway, as I've said elsewhere you can find the MP for your locale as well as LGW & LHR
http://www.locata.co.uk/commons

[New York Pilot]

As a New York City resident, please let me say that I find this whole topic most distasteful. It is selfishness of the highest degree to worry about protectionism at a time like this and I am sadened for the British to have thought this way and for the most heavy handed comments.

As I recall it was the British that kidnaped Africans several hundred years ago and then sold them to America as slaves. Obviously, despite some very nice British people I know, obviously the same mantality exists today. How stupid you are, it must be PROTECTIONISM! SHAME ON YOU!!!

[Covenant]

It's sad. :(

As my profile states, I am British but have been calling the USA my home for nearly five years, and I have come to love my adopted country as well as my native one.

I have been watching the internet bulletin boards since the events of 11th, and maybe I'm reading the wrong ones, but this is the first time I've seen fighting between allies; and on a professional BBS! :mad:

I've spent a lot of time reassuring my American friends and colleagues that my country's government and people stand fully with them in this time of crisis. I earnestly hope I am not going to be made out to be a liar.

Yes, if my country's security arrangements are held to be less effective than Pakistan or whatever, then my pride is wounded. Under normal circumstances, I may even be moved to write to ask why. But I think in these conditions, we can afford a little wounded pride, can't we? If an American makes jingoistic comments about about the revolution and the Empire, then normally, I might rise to the bait. But right now, I bite my tongue (or my fingers!)

Let's stick together, and stay together. I do so passionately want to be proud that my country can unanimously stand behind our friends and allies without bickering, the way the different parts of America have come together. Please don't let me and the whole nation down.

[Waltertight]

Time for this thread to end. Everybody has an a***hole, sadly some get access to the 'net. Genuine sympathy to all affected by this tragedy.

[The Guvnor]

If I caused any offence, then I sincerely apologise. However, as other members have said, the actions on the part of the FAA have been insensitive at best - especially bearing in mind the goodwill that the whole of Europe has towards the US in its hour of need. I do recognise that some of my comments may well have been misinterpreted at this rather stressful time.

[New York Pilot]

Thank you very much. The FAA is a very even handed organization and I assure you that protectionism is not something they could conteplate at a time like this.

A little sensitivity from our allies at a time like this is all that is needed. We are all headed for some tough times in this industry and believe it or not we all need each other. Thank you very much, again.

[Gaza]

Like many other Brits I have shed many a tear watching the horrific events last week. The Guv's opinions (and remember we are all entitled to our own) have obviously upset many people on both sides of the Atlantic. However, to our American cousins, please remember that we have lived with Irish terrorism for 30 years. We understand your pain. If we are a little insensitive it is probably because we have become somewhat harden to the brutality and indiscriminate nature of terrorism. I hope now that your President and Congress will fight to prevent ALL terrorism. As well as defeating bin Ladan and his various factions, it must also include the outlawing of organisations who support any terrorism, and in particular Irish terrorist groups. Organisations such as NORAID claim they are collecting for "Political Prisoners". No they are not. Their activities help fund the attrocities we have had in Manchester, Birmingham, Coventry, London and throughout Northern Ireland. You now have first hand experience of the effect well funded terrorists can have. Never has there been a greater opportunity to fight all terrorism.

[jongar]

Well Gaza,

You couldn't be more right. America has been funding terrorism against Britain through Noraid for to long - I wonder if it will now stop. The act's carried out against the US were in no uncertain terms - inhuman. I hope that that the 5000+ lives that were lost and the greif of countless others will shame the PLO into accepting a political solution with no more killing. I just hope that the word 'crusade' used by double U was a bushism and not an intent.

I only replyed to this thread to congratulate VS on getting the full fleet airborn and back in business on all routes. After an enforced 2 week stay in NYC, I look forward to my weekly commute

Jon

[Budgie69]

My first thought when it was announced that only US airlines would be allowed to fly into the US was also "protectionism". I felt insulted that the FAA with its poor security (especially on the apron) would cast aspersions at the competence of the UK.

Then I thought some more. It is unreasonable to expect the goverment of a country that has suffered this appalling horror to act in an entirely rational and logical manner. They had no option but make policy on the hoof. The administrators are only human, and obviously a few mistakes were made. It is understandable. I really do not think that there were any deeper motives. The FAA had a massive security task to undertake in a very short space of time, and the staff could not but be distracted by the national grief and outrage.

In short, the FAA made a bit of a cock-up, but it was understandable, and in the circumstances I don't think that it is appropriate to criticise.

There are far more important issues to discuss.

Life will never be the same again.

[tonyryan]

Budgie,
get a life.

Clinton warned the FAA about domestic security levels and the airlines bucked. We're happy to accept the consequenses, they said. We will be responsible for our own security! Now the airlines are in the mire big time.

Security audits found it unacceptable. The US based airlines just didn't want the expenditure.

Yes, the security threat this great nation is from foreign operators. All of us "Aliens" entering the US are treated like €rap - as if we were the biggest threat to US security imaginable.

I don't for a moment expect Wino and his US based mates to accept any of this - but then he was never viewed as a threat to the US.( unlike McVeigh).

To all of you US pilots out there:

Your domestic security levels were virtually non existent.

Two domestic US based airlines were hijacked within the US by terrorists resident in the US.

The hijackers were passengers, not crew on the flights concerned.

International secutity standards are way higher than those within the US.

The first reaction of your government was against international carriers operating into the US. (We can understand this, as the threat had not been clearly identified).

New security measures are anti non-US crew, treating us as the real threat, whilst we are the most exposed victims. Passengers are being subjected to far less scrutiny than crew.

The first airlines to be allowed to operate back into the US were the very same airlines that were involved in this atrocity.

Other airlines - i.e. non US based airlines were still grounded whilst AA and UA were let operate.

Other that favoritism, can any of you US pilots give a creditable reason for such prejudiced behavior?

Answers on a postcard before the next World War please, so please hurry.


P.S.

I am left with a clear picture:

It is all our fault. Yes the non-American - I don't know or care who you are but it's all your fault, and I don't care if we nuke you or whatever but someone - anyone - we don't really care, has to pay for it. We need our feel good factor.

[ 18 September 2001: Message edited by: tonyryan ]

[ 18 September 2001: Message edited by: tonyryan ]

[Wino]

The reason is that it was realized that there is NO GROUND SECURITY IN THE WORLD THAT COULD HAVE PREVENTED THIS!

The weapons used are on sale beyond the security point at Heathrow! Atleast in the US we don't sell swiss army knives inside the security zone.

The reason is that though British security on the ground may be better, your inflight security was appalling. one nutter almost crashed a 747 by his lonesome.

I suspect that a requirement to operate into the US is now a locked cockpit and inflight security staff. Seeing all the "A locked door wouldn't help" threads here, I am sure that BA and VS initially balked and said its not necesary. To which The FAA would have responded, okay, its not necesary for you to fly.

Cheers
Wino

[Trinflight]

tonyryan,

Your post is crap.

Our corporate flight operation, hands down the safest form of air transport in the world today, had an aircraft offshore which was not allowed in until yesterday.

Protectoinism my a$$!

[tonyryan]

Trintech,

and as for non-US based corporate a/c - still not permitted into the US. Protectionism at its hightest

[Blindside]

Guvnor - I believe you may have mistaken us for people who give a **** about your opinions.

Your thoughts would be better discussed with any(doubtful I know)friends that you may have, rather than airing them publicly. Just because you can say something does not mean that you should.

Your desire to be the centre of attention at this time is a disgrace. What is the matter with you?, did mommy not love you enough when you were little??

Show some respect and give it a rest.

[Diesel8]

I am amazed by the writers who believe security is so much better in the EU. I have travelled extensively and still do and most of western Europe is not much better than the US.

several mentions of the drunk who casually wandered onto the FD of a british carrier, that should not have happened in the US since our doors are to be locked. If a british carrier had been subject to this same scenario as the one used at WTC, I am doubtfull the outcome would have been much different. Air Transport is a mass transport business and only in limited circumstances can effective security measures be applied. ELAL has the strictest security in the world, but the have two advantages, they have relatively few passengers as compared to any major carrier in the US and they know exactly who the enemy is. In the US, the great melting pot, we have people from all over the world, 99.999% of them peaceloving, but just imagine if we started suspecting and questioning every single person from the middle east, that would indeed be a job.

Now we are seeing arrests in Germany, so were was the normally very effeicient Bundespolizei. In Holland likewise.
I am sure as we speak there are suspects in England, furthermore we have seen the inability of the British to contain the "Irish problem". And I am also sure that some of these people who perpetrated this act passed thru the EU on their way to the US, rumours has it some of the people arrested were trying to go through Amsterdam.

This is a tragic event which we all need to learn from, not cast stones.

On a slight side note to tonyryan:" It would appear that we are taking our time before we start pointing fingers and taking action, perhaps you could learn from that. If not, like the famous quote goes: "Sod off"

[tonyryan]

Diesel8,
taking your time? - Don't forget that they were internal US flights that were hikacked. In the US you treat Domestic and International travel in totally different fashions. International travel is subjected to high security, whilst Domestic is subjected to minimal.

I have witnessed passengers baggage loaded onto a Domestic flight, and the passenger fail to join the flight due to a ticket problem. The a/c left witout the pasenger, but with her baggage. Now that isDomestic travel in hte US. Wouldn't happen in Europe.

Very shortly, by the end of next year, ALL checked in baggage will be X-rayed. no plans for that in the US.

[5711N0205W]

Diesel8

Thank you for reminding us about the 'Irish Problem' and our inability to deal with it - please see the quote blow as mentioned so eloquently further up this thread

However, to our American cousins, please remember that we have lived with Irish terrorism for 30 years. We understand your pain. If we are a little insensitive it is probably because we have become somewhat harden to the brutality and indiscriminate nature of terrorism. I hope now that your President and Congress will fight to prevent ALL terrorism. As well as defeating bin Ladan and his various factions, it must also include the outlawing of organisations who support any terrorism, and in particular Irish terrorist groups. Organisations such as NORAID claim they are collecting for "Political Prisoners". No they are not. Their activities help fund the attrocities we have had in Manchester, Birmingham, Coventry, London and throughout Northern Ireland. You now have first hand experience of the effect well funded terrorists can have. Never has there been a greater opportunity to fight all terrorism.


This is not the appropriate time to start comparing countries records on terrorism or start jingoistically waving our dicks in the air with how better we are / you are.

Now is the time to gather friends and allies and coolly calculate how to run a sustained, coordinated and effective campaign against terrorism globally. Remember revenge is a dish best served cold.

The following quote was forwarded to me today and provided (I think) valuable food for thought

1. A former Afganastani's View


An Anonymous Writer's comments:
I've been hearing a lot of talk about "bombing Afghanistan back to the
Stone Age." Ron Owens, on KGO Talk Radio today, allowed that this would
mean killing innocent people, people who had nothing to do with this
atrocity, but "we're at war, we have to accept collateral damage. What
else can we do?" Minutes later I heard some TV pundit discussing
whether we "have the belly to do what must be done." And I thought
about the issues being raised especially hard because I am from
Afghanistan, and even though I've lived here for 35 years I've never
lost track of what's going on there. So I want to tell anyone who will
listen how it all looks from where I'm standing.

I speak as one who deeply hates the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. My
hatred comes from first hand experience. There is no doubt in my mind
that these people were responsible for the atrocity in New York. I
agree that something must be done about those monsters. But the Taliban
and Ben Laden are not Afghanistan. They're not even the government of
Afghanistan. The Taliban are a cult of ignorant psychotics who took over Afghanistan in 1997. Bin Laden
is a political criminal with a plan. When you think Taliban, think Nazis.
When you think Bin Laden,think Hitler. And when you think "the people of
Afghanistan" think "the Jews in the concentration camps." It's not only
that the Afghan people had nothing to do with this atrocity. They were the first
victims of the perpetrators. They would exult if someone would come in
there, take out the Taliban and clear out the rats nest of international
thugs holed up in their country.

Some say, why don't the Afghans rise up and overthrow the Taliban? The
answer is, they're starved, exhausted, hurt, incapacitated, suffering.
A few years ago, the United Nations estimated that there are 500,000
disabled orphans in Afghanistan--a country with no economy, no food.
There are millions of widows. And the Taliban has been burying these
widows alive in mass graves. The soil is littered with land mines, the
farms were all destroyed by the Soviets. These are a few of the reasons
why the Afghan people have not overthrown the Taliban. We come now to
the question of "bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age". Trouble
is, that's been done. The Soviets took care of it already. Make the
Afghans suffer? They're already suffering. Level their houses? Done.
Turn their schools into piles of rubble? Done. Eradicate their
hospitals? Done. Destroy their infrastructure? Cut them off from
medicine and health care? Too late. Someone already did all that. New
bombs would only stir the rubble of earlier bombs. Would they at least
get the Taliban? Not likely. In today's Afghanistan, only the Taliban
eat, only they have the means to move around. They'd slip away and
hide. Maybe the bombs would get some of those disabled orphans, they
don't move too fast, they don't even have wheelchairs. But flying over
Kabul and dropping bombs would not really be a strike against the
criminals who did this horrific thing. Actually it would only be making
common cause with the Taliban--by raping once again the people they've
been raping all this time. So what else is there? What can be done,
then?

Let me now speak with true fear and trembling. The only way to get Bin
Laden is to go in there with ground troops. When people speak of
"having the belly to do what needs to be done" they're thinking in terms of having the belly
to kill as many as needed. Having the belly to overcome any moral qualms
about killing innocent people. Let's pull our heads out of the sand. What's
actually on the table is Americans dying. And not just because some
Americans would die fighting their way through Afghanistan to Bin Laden's
hideout. It's much bigger than that folks. Because to get any troops to
Afghanistan, we'd have to go through Pakistan. Would they let us? Not
likely. The conquest of Pakistan would have to be first. Will other Muslim
nations just stand by? You see where I'm going. We're flirting with a world
war between Islam and the West. And guess what: that's Bin Laden's program.
That's exactly what he wants. That's why he did this. Read his speeches and
statements. It's all right there. He really believes Islam would beat the
west. It might seem ridiculous, but he figures if he can polarize the world
into Islam and the West, he's got a billion soldiers. If the west wreaks a
holocaust in those lands, that's a billion people with nothing left to
lose, that's even better from Bin Laden's point of view. He's probably wrong, in
the end the West would win, whatever that would mean, but the war would
last for years and millions would die, not just theirs but ours. Who has the
belly for that? Unfortunately, Bin Laden does. Anyone else?

:mad:

[Rumet]

The terrorists deliberately chose aircraft from one of the few countries which happens to have a locked flight deck policy.

Doesn't the end result show in the best (or worst, as it were...) possible way, how useless the locked flight deck actually is? I think it is a fallacy, probably even has a detrimental effect from the false feeling of security it induces.

The international community must come up with something drastically better than that weak, and indeed old, idea.

[Wino]

Rumet,

The door worked, the people failed because they opened the door. Never again will that happen because everyone has seen the result.

I hate to say it, but to a large degree, those in the back are now on their own. No amount of screaming or gore is going to ever get me to open the door again.

It takes a while to kill dozens of people with a knife. However, if you kill the pilots you can do it in a second with the controlls of the aircraft which has been demonstrated.

I am sure that from now on when ever a pax see someone trying to break into the cockpit, they are gonna get involved. Hopefully just like on the Southwest flight where they killed the person.

Wino

[fcom]

Well said Cross Crab.Thats the first sensible thing I've read for ages.

[Rumet]

Wino,

I understand your point, but I think that even if the door had remained locked (are we sure at this stage that it did not, by the way?), it would not have prevented this disaster. Smashing a flight deck door looks real easy, and for a real coward, taking a stewardess hostage to get someone to open it is probably easier still.

On a more positive note, I agree that strong pax involvement is likely to happen more often as a result of all this.

[Dragonspet]

Gentlemen the messages I have read here are very disturbing. We should not be making these accusations of “protectionism”. Based on the events that have transpired recently, the entire Aviation community should understand the increased security requirements that are being imposed. And realize that by reducing the number aircraft coming into the states frees the manpower requirement that it is taking to enforce more stringent security checks. After all, we as a global community, are in this together what happened in the US last week could very well occur anywhere in the world. These restrictions are not necessarily implying that the security in the UK is any less effective than the security in the US. This attack has crippled the aviation industry worldwide, over time the industry will recover but for now we all must continue to maintain professionalism and compassion toward one another in order to persevere, and overcome these difficult times.
Let us not forget the root cause of all of this.It is really petty throwing stones at one another, lets not stoop to that level.

[jongar]

I agree with the comments on the opening of the door - it works as long as it stays closed. Given the consequences I know that if anyone pulls any crap on a plane i am a passenger on, will find out what damage a cumbrian rugby player can do to your ribs - will i be killed - maybe, but there are 300 people behind me all of whom saw the images in NY and DC.

Keep you fundermentalist bullship of VS, we might only have plastic knives, but they can sure hurt your ringpiece

[Diesel8]

Covenant, thanks for the email, tried to return a reply, but no such luck, since it is either blocked by you or the administrator.

D8

[Capt Homesick]

Diesel, Wino, we've disagreed in the past about various topics, but I'd like to support you- I doubt there was any protectionism involved, whatever the websites said it seems like BA and the other European flag carriers have resumed ops.
Yeah, there have been gaps in our security, I'm not going to discuss them on an open forum, but they were generally in different places to the gaps in yours. I daresay ours appeared as glaringly obvious to you, as yours did to us.
We can work together to ensure everyone is safer in the future. If we start to fight among ourselves, it only helps the genocidal maniac who did this to us.
And NewYorkPilot? Please don't assume all British people share the Guv's opinions- read the responses to his posts on any other topic to see what I mean!