British Airways Suspends Cairo Flights for Seven Days

[Airbubba]

Something's up in CAI.

British Airways suspends flights to Cairo for seven days -statement

CAIRO, July 20 (Reuters) - British Airways suspended flights to Cairo for seven days starting Saturday as a precaution to allow for an assessment of security there, the airline said in a statement.

“We constantly review our security arrangements at all our airports around the world, and have suspended flights to Cairo for seven days as a precaution to allow for further assessment,” the statement said.

With 'warms regards'

[KelvinD]

Something's up in CAI

Not to worry, it will all be over in 7 days. According to BA, that is!

[flashware]

Looks like you got the letter as you were about to leave LHR. I'm in CAI and was due to fly back this week. Not to be. Offered routes via LOS and ACC if I want to get back earlier. Much longer travel time plus a long connection so have opted for their first flight when they are back in service.

[scr1]

Have Iberia also suspended their flights if not ask to be rerouted via MAD

(they have done this for me due to a canx LHR-TLV flight)

[diffident]

It would appear from the Cairo Airport website that it is only British Airways flights that are affected, and Egyptair flights to Heathrow continue as normal. Couldn't BA just transfer their pax onto the upcoming flights by Egyptair??

[gearlever]

Lufty as well

[diffident]

Originally Posted by gearlever

Lufty as well

In that case, I'd expect others to follow suit. I wonder what the issue is then, and whatever it is, why there is confidence that it would be over in 7 days??

[warkman]

Originally Posted by diffident

In that case, I'd expect others to follow suit. I wonder what the issue is then, and whatever it is, why there is confidence that it would be over in 7 days??

otter forums saying Lufthansa have also cancelled CAI flights for security reasons

[MENELAUS]

Originally Posted by warkman

otter forums saying Lufthansa have also cancelled CAI flights for security reasons

Yes. Let’s post the reason on here. Appreciate it’s a rumour network, however ...ffs

[Hotel Tango]

Er, what exactly has warkman said to upset you Globocnik? The airlines themselves have stated that it's for security reasons, which is pretty obvious anyway. I guess that intelligence organisations have got wind of something and the airlines have been notified.

[Peter H]

According to the BBC coverage https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49059700

A BA spokesman said: "We constantly review our security arrangements at all our airports around the world,and have suspended flights to Cairo for seven days as a precaution to allow for further assessment".

Which suggests that it may not be back to normal after the seven days.

[Lazyload]

Originally Posted by flashware

Looks like you got the letter as you were about to leave LHR. I'm in CAI and was due to fly back this week. Not to be. Offered routes via LOS and ACC if I want to get back earlier. Much longer travel time plus a long connection so have opted for their first flight when they are back in service.

how dumb is that. The western intel community and at least two world class airlines have formed the view that Cairo puts lives at risk. But you’ve assessed that the inconvenience of a layover rates more highly. My advice to you would be to get out at highest possible speed while you still can

[Dad was ATC]

Lufhansa has cancelled flights to CAI as well, somethings up . . .

[Dee Vee]

Originally Posted by Hotel Tango

Er, what exactly has warkman said to upset you Globocnik? The airlines themselves have stated that it's for security reasons, which is pretty obvious anyway. I guess that intelligence organisations have got wind of something and the airlines have been notified.

Its not unreasonable to be advised what the issue is, "Security reasons" really doesn't say anything.

If its a threat to blow up an aircraft, or hijack one, or because of more civil unrest or protests in Cairo, or US drones flying in the airspace, then say so. Its not hard or unreasonable to keep your customers informed WHY you are causing them grief.

[Ex Cargo Clown]

Originally Posted by Dee Vee

Its not unreasonable to be advised what the issue is, "Security reasons" really doesn't say anything.

If its a threat to blow up an aircraft, or hijack one, or because of more civil unrest or protests in Cairo, or US drones flying in the airspace, then say so. Its not hard or unreasonable to keep your customers informed WHY you are causing them grief.

Errm, why would you? I don't go into Tesco and ask them why they have put apples up by 10 pence. I'm a customer. Should I know?

If it's security related, if you don't know, you don't need to know. (not the apples BTW)

[Dee Vee]

Originally Posted by Ex Cargo Clown

If it's security related

I remember being a visitor to London some years ago, and on the underground train, it stopped in the middle of a tunnel, and a few minutes later the driver came on and said 1 station up the lone had been closed due to a bomb threat, and we were delayed until it was safe.

I was extremely happy to wait and that they told me what was going on, if he had just said "you are delayed indefinitely due to a security issue" then the entire train would have been up in arms and extremely unhappy.

I also remember thinking at the time, that was much better than what would have happened in Australia, where the authorities would have treated us like mushrooms, and told us nothing. Like is happening here just saying a "security" issue.

[tdracer]

Dee Vee - you realize that saying something like 'we have solid intelligence that XYZ plans to bomb a BA flight from Cairo to London, so BA is cancelling those flights' could easy let the bad guys know exactly where their information leak is? Are you willing to have an intelligence source tortured and killed just to satisfy your "need to know".

[Dee Vee]

Originally Posted by tdracer

you realize that saying something like 'we have solid intelligence that XYZ plans to bomb a BA flight from Cairo to London, so BA is cancelling those flights' could easy let the bad guys know exactly where their information leak is?

Seriously? so you think just calling it a "security incident" means the bad guys won't know the authorities are on to them???

[tdracer]

Originally Posted by Dee Vee

Seriously? so you think just calling it a "security incident" means the bad guys won't know the authorities are on to them???

Sure, but they don't know how you found out. The more detail you give, the more they know, and the more likely they are to figure out where the leak is and take care of it. Not only do you risk losing the intelligence source, the manner it which they get rid will maximize the deterrence effect on other potential sources. Why help them figure out and eliminate the leak, just to satisfy your curiosity?
Hows your WWII history? You remember something called "Ultra"? Do you know that Ultra was considered so secret, and so critical to the Allied war effort, that sometimes the Allies intentionally didn't act on Ultra intelligence - allowing a German attack to proceed unmolested rather than tip their hand that they'd broken the German code and knew what they were up to?

[FlightlessParrot]

Originally Posted by Dee Vee

Seriously? so you think just calling it a "security incident" means the bad guys won't know the authorities are on to them???

Yes, seriously. I have no clue what the problem is: it might be anything from quite specific human intelligence of an act of terrorism, to discovering that the security checks for baggage handlers were not ISO 9000 compliant. Doubtless, if there are bad guys with a plan they will suspect something, but if it's kept vague, they won't know what to suspect.

Knowing the full details behind a delay is not going to get passengers to their destination any quicker.