PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Passengers & SLF (Self Loading Freight) (https://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf-self-loading-freight-61/)
-   -   AF050-refused to land in USA (https://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf-self-loading-freight/181467-af050-refused-land-usa.html)

Flaysafe 8th Jul 2005 19:39

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.

Harrier46 8th Jul 2005 19:47

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!

Airbubba 8th Jul 2005 20:14

>>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...

brockenspectre 8th Jul 2005 20:35

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....

View From The Ground 8th Jul 2005 20:42

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!

Flaysafe 8th Jul 2005 20:46

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 donīt think the procedure is the right one. Iīm 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.

superpilut 8th Jul 2005 22:10

The other day, when they refused a KLM 74, the "suspects" walked, since there were no charges against them in the Netherlands..

billy34-kit 9th Jul 2005 03:26

Hey bunch of genius!!! think what can be more damageable for the industry,...one late flight or another sept 11 massacre!!

KiloMIke 9th Jul 2005 05:25

As far as I am aware the PAX details are sent to the US after the flight is airborne.

FunkyMunky 9th Jul 2005 05:33

Do they seriously believe that terrorists would travel under their own suspect names?

Bengerman 9th Jul 2005 06:28

How many US aircraft, flying into the US have been refused entry?

Is it zero?

If so, is that just good luck?

Or is there another reason?

mauro146 9th Jul 2005 10:10

they will never learn.
history prooves it! :mad:

PaperTiger 9th Jul 2005 13:26


Have any of these flights turned back ever found someone 'unsafe' on board?
You could expand that question to be how many terrorists have been apprehended as a result of The List ? The exact figure is 'secret', but in round numbers... 0.
Oh wait, that is the exact figure.

West Coast 9th Jul 2005 13:36

"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.

Techman 9th Jul 2005 14:16

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.

PAXboy 9th Jul 2005 14:19


Hey bunch of genius!!! think what can be more damageable for the industry,...one late flight or another sept 11 massacre!!
Warning, a politically incorrect view follows.

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.

PaperTiger 9th Jul 2005 15:12

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...

West Coast 9th Jul 2005 17:24

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.

Techman 9th Jul 2005 19:44

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.

N5528P 9th Jul 2005 20:21

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


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:54.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.