BA & VS denied access to US airspace ?

[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?"

[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?

[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

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 )

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!!

Any of our American friends like to explain this?

[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!

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?

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!

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.