AF050-refused to land in USA
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Mexico
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AF050-refused to land in USA
The flight AF050 (Air France) Paris-Chicago, had to return to Paris after 2 flying hours. The USA authoryties refused the plane to land. Does somebody know why? It strange that the day after the London attack, this occur. Had the USA authoryties found any suspect in the passenger list?
Not nice to the PAX....if they start hollydays.
Not nice to the PAX....if they start hollydays.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Almaty
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Same as usual I expect, American security has spotted a five year old called Osama on the pax list. They do this fairly regularly just to let us all know how professional they are!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
>>Same as usual I expect, American security has spotted a five year old called Osama on the pax list. They do this fairly regularly just to let us all know how professional they are!<<
Yep, everyone knows the threat of terrorism is overstated...
Yep, everyone knows the threat of terrorism is overstated...
Rainbow Chaser
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: At home, mostly!
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These days, quite understandably, as an international pax one is required to check in well in advance of the scheduled flight time. For Israel, check-in has always been about 3hrs prior to flight time. Even now, for flights to USA it is "only" 2hrs. Might it not make sense for flights to USA to require a minimum 3hr check-in so that not only can pax and their bags go through the check-in process but also the pax manifest can be approved by TSA prior to aircraft departure. The cost/expense/inconvenience of "after departure" turnbacks must be prohibitive - I am assuming airlines have to eat those costs....
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: SE Asia
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The threat from terrorism may or may not be overstated.....even post London yesterday and I am from the UK, my view is considering the scale of the supposed threat there are relatively few successful terrorist attempts...Maybe because of good intelligence...On the other hand surely there is another way and better way other than turning flights back. Have any of these flights turned back ever found someone 'unsafe' on board???? If not...perhaps the queality of interpretation of information leaves something to be desired!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Mexico
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The company will certainly paid those costs, and I presume such extra cost are included in the PAX ticket. But what about all the problems related to the PAX. Working people going home, or going to work, people on hollidays who left 1 day of vacations.
If this is done for security reason, OK, we can understand it, but I don´t think the procedure is the right one. I´m sure thet better procedures can be implemented without the needs of disturbs PAX, and of course, reduce the cost, and so maybe reduce the PAX tickets, or refunding this money to better purposes.
If this is done for security reason, OK, we can understand it, but I don´t think the procedure is the right one. I´m sure thet better procedures can be implemented without the needs of disturbs PAX, and of course, reduce the cost, and so maybe reduce the PAX tickets, or refunding this money to better purposes.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have any of these flights turned back ever found someone 'unsafe' on board?
Oh wait, that is the exact figure.
"It wasn't a European carrier that accepted and carried the terrorists on 9/11, nor was it a European carrier that carried Richard Reid, the shoe bomber"
It was European security that allowed him to fly on a US carrier after that US carrier voiced concerns about him. US security aint the best, don't get a woodie thinking yours is.
It was European security that allowed him to fly on a US carrier after that US carrier voiced concerns about him. US security aint the best, don't get a woodie thinking yours is.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Over The Hills And Far Away
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slight correction there West Coast.
It was a US carrier that allowed him to fly. If the carrier thought he was a security concern, they could have refused to carry him.
They didn't.
It was a US carrier that allowed him to fly. If the carrier thought he was a security concern, they could have refused to carry him.
They didn't.
Paxing All Over The World
Hey bunch of genius!!! think what can be more damageable for the industry,...one late flight or another sept 11 massacre!!
After the great success of 9/11, the low tech approach (Madrid) has worked very well for them. Which is why central London got done.
I have said since 9/11 that flying continues to be the safest way to travel - for many reasons. One of them is that, they will not use aircraft in flight again. Of course, there may be some wild cards who will try their luck but, I doubt it.
Whilst shipping containers are good at getting materials into a country, they need to ensure that the bombs go off in the right place at the right time and that means having someone local to push the button. Trains and busses can never be controlled in the way that a/c ear, so they will continue to use them.
This is not a reason to stop security on all flights but the way in which the USA is turning flights away has no effect on insurgents and terrorists in any way what so ever. Except to provide them with a good laugh.
If they kept on using a/c they would not demonstrate their complete control but by varying the approach and the targets, they show us that they can do as they want. Which, of course, they can and will continue to do so untill we stop telling them how to lead their lives. Which will not happen anytime soon.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Richard Reid was not on any list. And he was such a low-profile dork he still wouldn't be on one today.
AA did refuse to fly him the first time. The French police (not CDG security) cleared him, or at least couldn't find anything to hold him. AA initially refused to fly him a second time but then changed their mind in a decision process that has still not been publicly divulged.
And quite what the DHS expect a single 'bad guy' to be able to do on a flight eludes me. Now if there were say five of them...
AA did refuse to fly him the first time. The French police (not CDG security) cleared him, or at least couldn't find anything to hold him. AA initially refused to fly him a second time but then changed their mind in a decision process that has still not been publicly divulged.
And quite what the DHS expect a single 'bad guy' to be able to do on a flight eludes me. Now if there were say five of them...
Techman
As PT points out, AA did refuse him initially. After vetting by French security and finding nothing, AA would be hard pressed to deny boarding. After security found nothing, AA would be hard pressed on denying him boarding by his looks alone. Nothing other than his looks would have clued anyone in after French security said he was clean.
As PT points out, AA did refuse him initially. After vetting by French security and finding nothing, AA would be hard pressed to deny boarding. After security found nothing, AA would be hard pressed on denying him boarding by his looks alone. Nothing other than his looks would have clued anyone in after French security said he was clean.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Over The Hills And Far Away
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still, it was AA who had the final say. As they allowed him to board they obviously had no security concerns.
Would American security haved checked his shoes? I doubt it.
Would American security haved checked his shoes? I doubt it.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vienna
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it so new to the travelling and aviation community that certain states impose security measures, which are nearly totally useless?
How many people where interviewed over the years (BEFORE 9/11!) prior to check-in? Has this measure ever turned out something useful? How many people admitted that they were terrorists and intend to kill someone or hijack the a/c?
I would support any measure which elevates safety and/or security, no question. But right now we see a show which looks pretty good on national TV, but will not increase anything beside costs and fuel consumption.
The intention is to calm the people and not to heighten the security level.
Sad, but true...
Regards, Bernhard
How many people where interviewed over the years (BEFORE 9/11!) prior to check-in? Has this measure ever turned out something useful? How many people admitted that they were terrorists and intend to kill someone or hijack the a/c?
I would support any measure which elevates safety and/or security, no question. But right now we see a show which looks pretty good on national TV, but will not increase anything beside costs and fuel consumption.
The intention is to calm the people and not to heighten the security level.
Sad, but true...
Regards, Bernhard