PDA

View Full Version : BA Suspends Flights to Pakistan


TiiberiusKirk
21st Sep 2008, 23:15
BBC News says BA is suspending flights to Pakistan following Bombing.

At least they did a minute ago in the ticker-tape... said "more soon" ... not seen it repeated for a few minutes.

apaddyinuk
22nd Sep 2008, 00:41
Yeah its true. Last flight left ISB this morning with the outbound crew positioning home on it. No more crew in ISB now!

mutt
22nd Sep 2008, 06:48
We had 6 crew injured in the bombing, 4 flight deck and 2 cabin (NOT BA)... So I'm not surprised that airlines are suspending layovers or flights.

Mutt

Poof in Boots
22nd Sep 2008, 09:27
What airline is that Mutt?

BA flights temporarily suspended.

rebellion
22nd Sep 2008, 11:51
A Saudi crew was in the hotel.

Hope they all get better.

angels
23rd Sep 2008, 08:48
Just an update, BA have now cancelled all flights to Islamabad indefinitely.

I'm no expert, but I would say Pakistan would be quite profitable for BA so this won't help in the current situation if that's the case.

Artificial Horizon
23rd Sep 2008, 11:00
It may be profitable but considering the crew were staying within the vicinity of this bombing I think that it is the only sensible decision. Money should not get in the way of protecting your crews. Good for you BA.:ok:

viktor inox
24th Sep 2008, 07:01
LH are still flying FRA - LHE 3x weekly. Wonder how their risk assessment differs from that of BA?

xplorer
24th Sep 2008, 09:33
I think for any company, passanger and crew safety should be priority.... putting profits ahead of safety, i dont think so... many have taken a gamble with the whole profit over human life (whether passanger or crew)idea, and they've come crashing down!:=

angels
24th Sep 2008, 10:30
To put things straight, I wasn't criticising BA's decision in any way. I was just speculating that it was a profitable route and was wondering if it would have any impact on them.

If it does, it actually makes their decision all the more laudable.

Stall Pusher
24th Sep 2008, 18:14
It is a pity BA didn;t make the decision to stop flights to ISB before an atrocity happened. Too late after the event.

With British forces in Afganistan and Iraq, surely British business and interests are more at risk. What next, BA operating to Saudi Arabia again?

apaddyinuk
24th Sep 2008, 19:00
Stall.....BA are planning a return to Saudi imminently! And thats no joke.

Stall Pusher
24th Sep 2008, 20:02
BA pulled out of Saudi after allegedly two plots were discovered:

1. There were plans to kidnap and murder a crewmember

2. A light aircraft packed with explosives was going to be crashed into a taxying BA aircraft.

What has changed recently to make Saudi Arabia a safer place for British Airways to operate to?

Carnage Matey!
24th Sep 2008, 21:42
I'd like to clarify Stall Pushers comments in that neither of the plots mentioned specifically referred to BA. Nonetheless the cost of security was high and with the increased threat the volume of high yield traffic collapsed, hence the decision to withdraw from Saudi was commercial.

apaddyinuk
24th Sep 2008, 21:59
Initial plans are to operate the service with a link to BAH for crew slip. I have no further details on the plans.
I am not aware of the "plots" mentioned however I do not see too much of a difference between a BA aircraft being attacked in such a way and BMI aircraft. Both are British, both are recognised in the western world, destruction of either would cause an equal degree of exposure which is really what these loonies want! I seriously doubt BMI would have launched operations on the back of BA leaving if there was a serious security risk.
You will find that BA also pulled out of Saudi as a result of the general security fear in the country at the time reducing the high yield business traveller from travelling to the region. Now that things appear to be picking up in Saudi the commercial case for a return to operations along with the need to maximise revenue wherever possible (as a result of the current global economic downfall) has clearly led BA to consider it again.

Carnage Matey!
24th Sep 2008, 22:11
Unless the security situation has significantly improved then no amount of improvement in the commercial situation would make the Saudi services make economic sense, if you catch my drift.

sirwa69
25th Sep 2008, 06:24
As Paddy states the plan is to stop the AC in Bahrain to fuel and crew change. There will be no passenger movement in Bahrain.
AS there are plenty of other cities, where BA crew stopover, which are more dangerous than Riyadh (Johanesburg, Lagos, Rio, New York, etc) the reason that BA crew are not stopping in Riyadh is nothing to do with safety.

Believe me I drive and walk around Riyadh a lot and I have never felt unsafe, but in Detroit last year I was sh!!ting bricks.

Safety is just the official excuse. The real reason is that the crew do not want to stay in Riyadh because it is dry, boring and restrictive.

Party town Bahrain, hooray hic! :}

Carnage Matey!
25th Sep 2008, 09:13
You've managed to completely miss the point. Other cities are more dangerous than Riyadh, but thats because of crime, not terrorism. I've not heard of anyone in Joburg, Lagos or Rio launching organised armed attacks on foreigners with the sole intent of massacring them for political/religious purposes. BA don't choose their routes on the basis of where the crew like to stay or they sure as hell wouldn't be flying into Kuwait. If you've never felt unsafe walking around Riyadh I can recommend an excellent book by Frank Gardner.

crewmeal
25th Sep 2008, 09:21
It seems as the security problems are escalating at the Country's airports after yet more threats. Sky are reporting that Consulates are thing of evacuating staff in Islamabad

Pakistan: Major Security Alert - Many Flights In The Country Suspended | World News | Sky News (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Pakistan-Major-Security-Alert---Many-Flights-In-The-Country-Suspended/Article/200809415106744?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_1&lid=ARTICLE_15106744_Pakistan%3A_Major_Security_Alert_-_Many_Flights_In_The_Country_Suspended)

Stall Pusher
25th Sep 2008, 21:51
Carnage wrote: "I'd like to clarify Stall Pushers comments in that neither of the plots mentioned specifically referred to BA."

This is before BMI, so what other British airline was threatened then? Which US carriers fly to Saudi?

It was a direct result of these plots and the deteriorating security situation in Saudi that BA pulled out.

If anything, the threat is even more serious now.

Coming back on topic, there was a great unease amongst BA crews about flying to ISB at the time Bhutto was assasinated. In particular the long journey in a minibus to and from the airport was of particular concern, with just one armed soldier onboard for protection. There was plenty of opportunity for this bus to be raked with machine gun fire or simply blown up by a roadside bomb.

Pakistan is quickly becoming a failed state, even the army doesn't want to take over now!!

Carnage Matey!
26th Sep 2008, 01:36
There was a threat to aircraft. There was not a specific threat to BA. Plenty of other airlines fly to Saudi. Any number of them would have made an adequate target. Your 'light plane attack' theory wasn't even a factor in BAs decision to pull the route, although many other things were.

sirwa69
26th Sep 2008, 06:37
Carnage, what's your problem?
Have you ever even been to Riyadh?

Too many people form their opinion of this part of the world from what they see on CNN, BBC and Sky. These are entertainment channels disguised as news providers.

More people have been killed in terrorist attacks in USA, UK, Spain etc than all of the gulf countries put together.
So your right, when your shot in your car in Jo'burg you can take comfort from the fact that it wasn't a terrorist :ugh:
However if you don't want to walk around in a city where terrorists are targetting westerners, then stay out of London :=

On On

Carnage Matey!
26th Sep 2008, 07:20
I don't need to go to Riyadh. I'm quite happy to trust the advice of the British security services, the Foreign Office and BAs security advisors who have. Strangely enough I consider them better informed of the risks to me and my aircraft than you. Great, so you've walked and driven around Riyadh. What were the results of your security audit of the airport? You have done one haven't you? What about your audit of transport or hotel security? You see when it comes to the big bucks and the big responsibilities it takes more than a finger in the air and walking or driving around town a few times. It takes a thorough assessment of the situation. It requires detailed probing of the weak links in the chain to find where they can be exploited and it demands concerted action to rectify any failings. If the chain can't be fixed then it's time to pull out until it can be.

Stall Pusher
26th Sep 2008, 10:11
I know that you are nearly always right Carnage, but this time you are wrong and ill-informed over BA's pull out from Saudi. It was a direct threat to the airline and the two plots were linked to BA.

In August 2003 the BBC reported specifically that:

"British Airways has suspended all flights to Saudi Arabia until further notice, in response to a specific terrorist threat to its planes in the country."

It is interesting that you mention the book by Frank Gardner, who at this time was the BBC's security correspondent. The source of the terrorist plots laid in Riyadh. The authorities had been trying to break up Islamist terror cells there.

After BA crews being held hostage in Kuwait, Sanaa, under attack in the InterContinental Hotel in the 1982 coup in Nairobi and now the ISB bombing, some of us haven't got the faith you have in security measures, governmental or otherwise

Golf Charlie Charlie
26th Sep 2008, 10:45
I'm probably a mug to step into this debate, but the general consensus is that the Saudi authorities have done a lot to mitigate the internal terrorist threat in the past 2-3 years. There are far fewer attacks now, both on their own people as well as directed towards foreigners. They may not always have employed methods that we would like, but the risks there are now lower, though obviously not zero.

Carnage Matey!
26th Sep 2008, 13:01
Stall Pusher - you are getting your information from the BBC. I got my information directly from BAs security advisors. Judge for yourself it's veracity. Dragging up situations which are many years old and not targeted at BA (Kuwait, Nairobi, Islamabad) doesn't strengthen your argument. Perhaps you believe everything thats written in the newspapers too?

Frankly I don't wish to be involved in a 'he said, she said' p***ing contest. If you don't work for BA then you won't know why they pulled out of Saudi. If you do work for BA then I can recommend spending some time talking to the security peeps about why it happened. The reasons are less sensational than you postulate but more valid.

Poof in Boots
26th Sep 2008, 13:43
Oh dear Carnage. Yet another BA Captain who forgets that he is an 'employee' of British Airways. Anyone would think you ran security as well!

Clearly you are wrong and the security services also got it wrong at ISB, otherwise operations would have been suspended there BEFORE the attack. Too late cancelling all flights indefinately after the event!

It wasn't just the threat of terrorist attack that made BA stop flights to Saudi Arabia, passenger numbers had dropped significantly making the routes unprofitable. Also flying the extra leg to KWI to nightstop the crews added to costs.

I thought that was the whole point of BA having a security department; to try and predict when tensions are such, that the operations of an airline are at risk of terrorist attack. There was this illusion that the area of the Parliament and the surrounding hotels/infrastructure including the embassy's frequented by foreigners, were somehow immune from Islamist terrorism.

You would have thought the attack on the Danish embassy which killed 8 people on the 2nd June would have been a wake up call, that the diplomatic area was vulnerable to attack. Obviously this didn't raise any concerns with the UK's security services.

Ever since Benazir Bhutto was assasinated, there has been a steady escalation of the threat to western interests because they support democracy in Pakistan. This isn't rocket science. To continue flights into an Islamist country when your government is immersed in a war to destroy the Taliban and Al Qaeda, is a severe provocation for sympathisers in Pakistan.

viktor inox
26th Sep 2008, 13:56
To continue flights into an Islamist country when your government is immersed in a war to destroy the Taliban and Al Qaeda, is a severe provocation for sympathisers in Pakistan.


Given the high-profile US strategic presence in Qatar, wouldn't it be most imprudent for QR to continue its flights into Pak? They don't seem to worry, do they.

Wiley
26th Sep 2008, 15:14
How things have changed in a relatively short time... It wasn't much more than 15 years ago that, on KHI overnights, (and at a time when warring Pakistani Islamist groups were merrily killing each other off in the streets of Karachi at what was then considered an alarming rate), we would travel from the hotel to the airport very late at night with the interior lights of the crew bus blazing so that both groups could see we were (mostly) Westerners so they wouldn't mistake us for the other side and shoot at us!!!

I kid you not, but this was then the company security department's 'fix' for the problem of overnighting crews in what was to all intents a war zone.

And it worked.

Then.



Don't think the same policy would be implemented in KHI today.

Carnage Matey!
26th Sep 2008, 17:08
Oh dear Carnage. Yet another BA Captain who forgets that he is an 'employee' of British Airways. Anyone would think you ran security as well!

Oh dear Poof! Yet another BA steward who thinks he knows it all and doesn't really understand how the system works.

Clearly you are wrong

Clearly you can't support that or you'd have stated why.

and the security services also got it wrong at ISB,

Did they? What was their view beforehand? Given that the attack did not directly affect BA in any way what supports your claim that BA got it wrong?

otherwise operations would have been suspended there BEFORE the attack. Too late cancelling all flights indefinately after the event!

Why? BA flew safely into ISB before the event. The event itself did not affect BA. The cancellations were pro-active, not re-active.

It wasn't just the threat of terrorist attack that made BA stop flights to Saudi Arabia, passenger numbers had dropped significantly making the routes unprofitable. Also flying the extra leg to KWI to nightstop the crews added to costs.

Of course. You are absolutely right.

I thought that was the whole point of BA having a security department; to try and predict when tensions are such, that the operations of an airline are at risk of terrorist attack.

Have BA been the victim of a terrorist attack recently?

There was this illusion that the area of the Parliament and the surrounding hotels/infrastructure including the embassy's frequented by foreigners, were somehow immune from Islamist terrorism.

Your illusion. Nobody elses.

You would have thought the attack on the Danish embassy which killed 8 people on the 2nd June would have been a wake up call, that the diplomatic area was vulnerable to attack.

See above.

Obviously this didn't raise any concerns with the UK's security services.

Based upon what evidence? No evidence I would suggest.

Ever since Benazir Bhutto was assasinated, there has been a steady escalation of the threat to western interests because they support democracy in Pakistan. This isn't rocket science.

Well done for name-checking the Bhutto assasination. I'm sure you are proud of yourself for being so aware of the current political situation. You are still a number of years behind the experts on this who have watched (and to some extent predicted) events in Pakistan.


To continue flights into an Islamist country when your government is immersed in a war to destroy the Taliban and Al Qaeda, is a severe provocation for sympathisers in Pakistan.

Hey ho, best not fly to Germany anymore then as thats where the 9/11 hijackers hung out. But wait, that doesn't fit your simplistic "East bad, West good" mental model, does it? Maybe the equation is just a little more complicated than you thought?

This thread is turning into a good old fashioned Pprune showdown between those who read the Daily Mail and form their opinions based on the stories within and those who bother to find out the real situation. I'm afraid the truth is rather more complicated and less exciting than what you've read in the papers or seen on the BBC so please stop quoting scenarios which make exciting eye candy but have no real relevance.

time4parties
26th Sep 2008, 18:16
It seems that BA are finding any excuse at the moment to cancel a flight - firstly with this story and also with the ATC glitch.... Seems they just need excuses to cut some costs

darrylj
26th Sep 2008, 19:13
is it true?....after the United States, India is BA's 2nd biggest market?

thanks.

Poof in Boots
26th Sep 2008, 23:21
Well Carnage, your post is an example of very poor Internet etiquette. ie: excessive quoting combined with a line by line quote and reply analysis of another post, which is widely regarded as a "Geeks" disease.

Back on topic: If it had of been another hotel that was blown up, your "inside" security knowledge would have looked rather exposed. Of course the suspension of flights to ISB was "reactive". Proactive would have been before the event.

Carnage Matey!
26th Sep 2008, 23:40
I think we can safely say when you are resorting to insults it's pretty clear you don't have much of an argument. I note you don't really have any meaningful response to that critique.

Back on topic, I'd suggest firstly it would be sensible to remove the name of the hotel from your previous post, and secondly it wasn't that hotel which was blown up, which rather proves the point that certain people made a good call when looking at hotel vulnerability. No doubt you'll be back shortly to tell us that was just luck.

HeathrowAirport
27th Sep 2008, 01:41
This is really good of BA, who makes this sort of decision?

What fleet operates on that route? 767 or 777?

Regards,

R...

sirwa69
27th Sep 2008, 05:32
OK here it is straight from the horses mouth.
The guy who was the country commercial manager for BA in Saudi when the decision was made to close it down has just left my house. For those who know him you know he now works for Gulf Air.
He read this thread with amusement.
The reason BA pulled out of Saudi was financial. Because the crew wouldn't stay there and had to be changed at LCA that added significantly to the cost. Then the high rollers stopped flying to the west so the premium yield was down.
Security was mentioned to dress it up but that was not the reason.

merlinxx
27th Sep 2008, 06:34
Glad BA didn't pull Saudi when I was there, only other option was SV, dry all the way to LHR, that sucks. Used our own acft when poss, at least 'Good grape juice' was carried, Skydrol & Kaki Cola anyone? What was that clear stuff in the Sohat water bottle?

Stall Pusher
27th Sep 2008, 09:53
So SIRWA the tail wags the dog then according to your mate? All the news agencies linking an Islamist threat to British airlines were wrong and it was just because the crew wouldn't slip in Saudi the airline pulled out?

Why was it then that BA were still able to crew their services to ISB after the Bhutto assasination and Danish embassy bombing? Crew weren't going sick in droves. BA have had to put crews in Cyprus because of Tel Aviv being under threat from time to time of suicide bombings or rocket attack.

No, BA crews are not going to be the scapegoats for BA's commercial decisions. Any suspension of services in the past have been entirely due to the real threat of terrorsism, acts of war or commercial reasons.

L337
27th Sep 2008, 10:09
SIRWA your friend has a axe to grind.

He is not telling you the truth.

skridlov
27th Sep 2008, 10:19
South Asia Analysis Group (http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/)
For anyone paying close attention to the situation in Pakistan (and other South Asian countries) the South Asia Analysis site often carries remarkably detailed information long before it appears anywhere else. The usual caveats apply, particularly as the site is connected to former (?) members of India's intelligence community which tends to have, to put it mildly, a jaundiced view of the situation in Pakistan.

sirwa69
27th Sep 2008, 14:21
Quotation from Blackadder Goes Forth episode "Private Plane"

That's the spirit, George. If nothing else works, then a
total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face
will see us through.

:mad:

flyeruk69
27th Sep 2008, 14:41
Quote from sirwa69 (http://www.pprune.org/members/20585-sirwa69) "The reason BA pulled out of Saudi was financial. Because the crew wouldn't stay there and had to be changed at LCA that added significantly to the cost" :ugh:

I'm crew for BA and certainly know what influence we have over where we slip, ......very very little.

Who ever told you this isn't quite correct !! Indeed we did slip in LCA for flights to the Middle East but only during the Gulf war 2.

At no point did any of the crew refuse to slip in Saudi, granted it wasn't the most popular destination but believe me crew at BA do not really have a say in where or when we stay. this decision is made by our security department.

We pulled out of Saudi because the route was no longer profitable !!

dick badcock
27th Sep 2008, 17:47
So let the B767 do the LHR-BAH-ISB flight and redirect the B777 back to YYC where our customers and station staff demand it.

DB

HZ123
27th Sep 2008, 19:23
The other reason that BA pulled out of SA indeed was due to the failure of the SA airport security being unable to comply with the DFT requirements thus BA was not in compliance. This fact although sometimes circumnavigated had an effect from the insurers who in due period would have upped the premiums. For example SA would not provide any visible demonstration of how random female pax are / were searched in the event of being randomly chosen or alarming the AMD. Sometimes VIP's were found to have arrived at the aircraft without going through any security checks at all. Finally having been involved in some of this the SA people were very nice and tried to do that which was required, however, when questioned they always made the point that there was no way they would let any security staff search their baggage.
I believe their are no UK airlines flying to SA at this time?

Boeing Junkie
27th Sep 2008, 22:27
I believe their are no UK airlines flying to SA at this time?

bmi have been flying to Riyadh for 3 years.

HZ123
28th Sep 2008, 09:13
I did put a question mark. I would be interested to know how they are able to comply with DFT regs as I cannot imagine that much has changed. Though there was a rumour that BA might go back. It was a good route for us First / Club.

Perrin
28th Sep 2008, 09:24
I worked for 5 years in Ruh with the national carrrier and there is no way that security in the hotels etc would be good enough to safeguard the crews. Just when you think it was safe would be the time for something to happen. Life is to short to chance it.:=

boeingbus2002
28th Sep 2008, 11:55
If DfT requirements were unable to be met in SA, how come bmi are able to operate?? Either there have been big changes or the other financial reasons mentioned also come into play.

mutt
28th Sep 2008, 18:01
I cannot imagine that much has changed. So much has changed, but i doubt that there are many hotels in Saudi, London or the rest of the world that are protected against that size of truck bomb.

BMI started flying into Saudi within months of BA pulling out, so it didnt take them long to convince the Dft.

Mutt

Carnage Matey!
28th Sep 2008, 18:49
HZ123 is much closer to the mark than sirwa69. BA went to great lengths to state that the 2005 withdrawal was for commercial reasons, so why a regional manger would claim that the company mentioned security to try to 'dress it up', with the tacit (and embarassing) implication that the Saudis cannot secure their own airports is a mystery.

Here's (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2005/jan/12/theairlineindustry.britishairways) what The Guardian reported at the time. Sirwas friend seems to have a slightly hazy memory of events!

SimonS
28th Sep 2008, 18:56
bmi fly into Jeddah as well and have announced plans to increase the frequency from 3x per week here and in RUH..

The assumption from the comments appears to be that the crew stay in hotels here (they don't).

If BA pulled out for security reasons I'm surprised, as I can remember fewer terrorism related deaths and incidents here than in London. I doubt also that it was due to security concerns at the airport as bmi were on the route within weeks. That said I do sometimes wonder about the number of VIP cars gathered around the plane on departure/arrival and whether they have all been screened.

Carnage Matey!
28th Sep 2008, 19:04
Been in Jeddah long? Nearly 40 foreigners were killed in terrorist attacks in Saudi in 2004. BA pulled out in January 2005.

bcgallacher
28th Sep 2008, 19:05
Good to read you are still around Peter - I am in Scotland on medical leave, still working with Julian H.Any security in the sandpit is completely ineffectual for many reasons mostly to do with custom and culture.

SimonS
28th Sep 2008, 19:26
52 people were killed in the London bombs in July 2005. As I said, fewer deaths and incidents here than in UK.

In fact more people were killed in terrorist bombs in Egypt than Saudi in 2005 but it didn't stop BA flying there. Money talks.

Carnage Matey!
28th Sep 2008, 19:56
Lets expand the timeframe Simon. 52 people were kiled in London in a single attack. There had been no significant terrorist attacks in London for, what, ten years prior to that? In 2004 all those people were killed in a series of attacks, all specifically targeted at foreigners, and in the preceeding years many others had lost their lives in many more attacks. To try to equate the London attacks to the 2004 security situation in Saudi is to compare apples with oranges, unless you want to judge security solely on 'body count', which I don't think is wise. Either way, we are talking about specific threats to aviation and BA, not the general security situation in a country. It's no secret that there have been plots against aviation interests in the UK and in Saudi, the difference is in the response to those threats. It was clearly believed that the Saudi response to these threats at that time was inadequate and thats why BA don't fly there. If they've got their house in order maybe BA will go back, but that will be a decision based on thoroughly testing the system and not on a feel good factor brought on by driving around Riyadh or not really recalling anyone being gunned down recently.

keel beam
30th Sep 2008, 08:50
Poof in Boots "Clearly you are wrong and the security services also got it wrong at ISB, otherwise operations would have been suspended there BEFORE the attack. Too late cancelling all flights indefinately after the event!"

You have very little, if any, knowledge of how the security services work.

Carnage is on the right track.

The pulling of services from ISB by BA is not a knee jerk reaction, it was only a matter of time before the services were pulled. The latest bombing in ISB may have hastened the decision.

Through their security department/government agencies, BA have their finger on the pulse of all security issues affecting the airline. Security and safety is paramount.

So how do I know? .... if I tell you I would have to kill you :}


(As a caveat, I do not know everything but hopefully what I do know and impart to you is valid and has substance!)

apaddyinuk
28th Nov 2008, 01:00
BA pulled out of Saudi after allegedly two plots were discovered:

1. There were plans to kidnap and murder a crewmember

2. A light aircraft packed with explosives was going to be crashed into a taxying BA aircraft.

What has changed recently to make Saudi Arabia a safer place for British Airways to operate to?

Well alas it would seem I am right.....and not in a "I told you so" sort of way!!!

BA are returning to the KSA with 4 weekly flights to Riyadh on a 4 class 777 and Jeddah with 4 weekly flights on a 3 class 767. There will be no shuttling so the crew will be slipping in both destinations.

:ugh:

mutt
28th Nov 2008, 02:03
Well alas it would seem I am right

Yes you were, I read the announcement in yesterdays newspaper, states that the commerical viablilty of the route has improved and that the new bi lateral agreement allows 35 flights from airlines of each country per week...... Thats a lot of capacity.

BTW, what are the 4 classes in a B777?

Mutt

apaddyinuk
28th Nov 2008, 14:18
All the classes BA offer...... First, Club World, World Traveller Plus and World Traveller!

AMF
28th Nov 2008, 17:49
apaddyinuk Quote:

Well alas it would seem I am right.....and not in a "I told you so" sort of way!!!

BA are returning to the KSA with 4 weekly flights to Riyadh on a 4 class 777 and Jeddah with 4 weekly flights on a 3 class 767. There will be no shuttling so the crew will be slipping in both destinations. :ugh:

"Alas" nothin'....it's FUN down here!!!!!

P.S. Bring hosties.