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

[Spuds McKenzie]

papajohn,

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



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



(Amazing that he hasn't been banned yet)

[safetypee]

Thoughts for papajohn et al.

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

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

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

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

[FLAMBEBOBO]

safetypee

wise words indeed.............

[Out Of Trim]

Here's an idea! -

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

We just pay extra special attention to those flights!

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

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

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

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

Delay code - Mandatory extra security.

It can't be that hard can it?

[Budgie69]

Why Go Public?

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

Who gains from so public an announcement?

[con-pilot]

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

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

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

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

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

[Man Flex]

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

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

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

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

Does that then not slightly defeat the purpose?

[PaperTiger]

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

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

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

[Danny]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Rwy in Sight]

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

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

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

Rwy in Sight

[answer=42]

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

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

I will have a go.

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

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

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

answer=42

[LatviaCalling]

Here is a new angle to this whole mess

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bubbette]

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

[OFBSLF]

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

Or just not paying attention:

Threats seen to British, US, French carriers

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

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

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

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

Continental Airlines Flight 17, scheduled to fly today from Glasgow to Los Angeles with a stop in Newark, was canceled because the carrier was "unable to obtain the necessary security clearances from the Department of Homeland Security and their international counterparts," a Continental spokesman said...

Entire article here: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...d_qaeda_peril/

[boofhead]

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

[Grandpa]

Black-out

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

[ZFT]

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

Or just not paying attention:>>

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

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

[Indiana Jones]

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

[Rockhound]

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

[Rongotai]

Con-pilot writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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