There is something not quite right about this.

The same flight has been considered an extreme threat for three days now.

I think it's a fair to assume that the flights were canceled because there was someone, or something, on board that was considered a terrorist threat.

Was this same threat present on all three flights?
If so, surely it would be easy to isolate and neutralize?

Conversely, if they don't know quite what they are looking for why are they being so specific about this particular flight?

Something just doesn't sit right.

If I were a terrorist hellbent on carrying out some attrocity I would imagine I would be avoiding Heathrow like the plague and using some other USA route starting from a less obvious airport or do they have some help from the ground???

US-Visit program
 

Nuts. Now all visa holders will be required to give fingerprints and have their photos taken by US upon entry, regardless of citizenship. Now that means all flight crews. Such a splendid idea.
At the same time people from visa waiver countries will not be required to participate.

Me thinks it is time other nations follow Brasils example and extend the courtesy to US citizens and have their fingerprints and photos taken.

What a load of s.hit. They have gone absolutely nuts. One more reason to avoid US of A alltogether.
Wonderful country turning into a third world type banana republic, just makes me sad.

JJ

Maybe there are questions on security on the other end. Story in yesterday's Washington Post of a frozen hitchhiker found during postflight at JFK on a flight from LHR. No real further information on flight origination, etc and doubt we will ever know from the good old media.

We now have had two pages of opinion since Flying For Fun asked what you would do and only 'Danny' has given his thoughts on the subject.
It seems most of you are quick to criticise the authorities but know of no real alternative about what to do.

One of the BA staff at IAD said the delays could be drastically reduced if all the various "authorities" involved actually communicated and co-ordinated with one another more effectively. It seems like a bit of a power-struggle to me!

If these "authorities" are acting on what they call "credible intelligence", we hope they have got it right - (credible intelligence of all those piles of WMD's in Iraq spring to mind!!).

One would think that the US and UK, two countries with the most sophisticated electronic resources in the world, would be able to isolate (or develop a means of isolating) a "credible threat" without the present scorched earth machine-gun-a-rabbit type measures.

:*

Suggestions on the TV and the net this morning were that the "credible threat" contained the number 223. The assumption being placed on this was that it related to the BA flight, but as some sharp eyed viewer pointed out it could just as easily stand for BBC (223). Over reaction I think so.

I wonder how many US passengers flying to Europe have Arab sounding names? perhaps security should be stepped up on this side of the pond !

a different Aircraft from that planned for the flight surely would eliminate any risk in Hardware terms ??? ......

100% inspection of the baggage would eliminate any risk in this area ??? .....

100% physical inspection of all passengers would eliminate any risk in this area ???? ....

add 20 or so undercover armed agents to the passenger list


if the crew are happy with the above .......



" FLY THE FLIGHT" .....

I for one would not want to put my passengers at risk on such a flight. Nor would I think many passengers would want to be on it.

HOw can we say that the threat is not from SAMs, or even the fllight being interecepted mid air?

We just know its a specific threat to that particular flight.

eh?? :uhoh: Surely you're not suggesting the bad-guys now have fighters ?? :rolleyes:

As has already been posted the BA223 has been cancelled but,according to Radio 4s 5 o clock news, *the 300 passengers are in the process of being rebooked on other flights*. This could be a standard reporting *tag* to finish the news report but if this is true, what was the point of cancelling the BA flight in the first place?

this was taken from the BBC report
"In December six Air France flights from Paris to Los Angeles were grounded, at the request of the US.
The FBI said on Friday that passengers wrongly identified as potential security threats had led to the cancellation of the flights.
The French Government believes the mix-up was partially down to the mistaken translation of some Arabic names".

has BA suffered from the same "intelligence"

I notice that up to now all the flights that have been cancelled or given special treatment on arrival have been of non-US carriers. I wonder how this is possible considering the large number of US carriers flying the Atlantic daily. Are US flights so well screened prior to departure? :confused:

Why oh Why is it that when things finally heat up around here that crew scheduling chooses THAT time to call for a trip. For weeks, nothing happening, something to type about, blam off to the airport... Oh well, home again, time to wade in, 6 shooter blazin' :)

Flybonanza,

It had been happening to US airlines fairly regularly (so much so that it stopped being news) where flights were searched, or escorted for what ever reason... But compared against the volume of traffic it is also so insignificant that you had better odds of winning the lottery than having it happen to your flight... But the US airlines probably have a better hookup with the FBI computers that are scanning the watch lists (and interpol) whereas the EU in particular had been resisting that capability... But interestingly it has been the British government that has been requesting the cancelations, and say what you want about the USA, we would have had nothing to say about the flight to Ryahd that was cancelled....


Wryly smiling

Who says the foulup has to be a government one? Don't forget the low paid person taking the airline reservations over the phone! Or the harried agent at the ticket counter typing as fast as she can to make sure the flight gets out on time... There are so many links that can get fouled up in this sort of thing that it just boggles the mind. Its one of the problems I have with the idea of intelligence. There are just so many wild cards out there...




As to the reactions of canceling the flights. I have been against that as well, because it hands a victory to the terrorists. Remember one of their goals is to destroy our way of life. If they paralyze airtravel they have take a small step in that direction. Hell, they may have simply found a way to make a credible threat when they had no intention of actually carrying it out (figured out that we have bugged something and are speaking for the benefit of the microphone).

I would much prefer that they bump everyone they are not worried about and replace em with a soldier... Just picture it, 10-20 guys stand up with little bittie box cutters (assume its an all up attack) and yell "this is a hijacking" Then 325 Soldiers stand up with KayBar knives and say. "Take your best shot!"

Unfortunately not very practical but it would be fun...


There is an interesting problem here. I am not sure that the government would be able to detain you on the plane BEFORE the flight takes off. I am not sure that without probable cause that they could effectively arrest a plane load of people and then sort it out later. After flying while waiting for customs the government has the right to quarantine you, but what about an out bound flight? FLYING LAWYER? JUMP IN HERE!

CHIVILCOY,

If you really want to use a 747 (and for symbolic reasons they would, and guess what a magnate the 380 will be BTW) You kinda have to go to heathrow. Otherwise you might have to make to with a piddly little 767/777/330/757 and that's already been done.... Isn't it passe to copy someone else's work?

GRANDPA.

AGAIN I agree with you. I think I better go lay down... :)


DANNY,
WRT your travel plans. There will be some killer deals to the USA as a result of this. By the time you would actually have to travel you know darn well they will be on some other flavor of the month... Go for the money...

Cheers
Wino

Now blame this one on W:

From Reuters....


British Airways (BAB) has canceled its Saturday flight from London's Heathrow Airport to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, over security concerns, airline officials said.

It was the third time this week that the airline has canceled flights from Britain on security grounds; BA's afternoon flights to Washington's Dulles airport on Thursday and Friday also were grounded.

In a statement Friday night, British Airways said Flight BA263 to Riyadh, which had been due to leave Heathrow at 1335 GMT Saturday had been canceled, along with the return flight BA262 from Riyadh, which had been due to leave the Saudi Arabian city on Sunday.

Not from Reuters, but from AP, and here's the link.

But the US airlines probably have a better hookup with the FBI computers that are scanning the watch lists (and interpol) whereas the EU in particular had been resisting that capability

None of the airlines hookup to the FBI computers directly. The major CRS/GDS systems are interfacing with Dep of Homeland Security/TSA screening systems (which BTW do not have any new funding due to the CAPPS II fiasco last summer).

The FBI/CIA/JTTF feed alert-list and other intelligence data to the TSA. This is how all US airlines screen pax, and quite a few non-US too. All non-US airlines feed data via the APIS (advance pax info sys) which goes to TSA and Customs. APIS data has to be sent within (I believe) 30 minutes of departure.

Mike J
Am I missing the point here??
I would suggest you are. As are quite a few. Most here are pilots / passengers who fly planes and are probably very good at it, so why not fly planes/travel quietly and let the security experts do their job.
I do not agree that taking nail files etc off flight crew is the way forward but who am I and they have to be seen to be doing something in the wake of 9/11 within a limited budget.

You all have a view / issue with regards to security (quite rightly so as you stand to suffer a lot if it goes wrong) but none of you are in a position and never will be in a position to assess what we should or should not do with regards to intelligence that is to hand, you will only be told a small bit so that the source of the information is not compromised.

In a perfect world with regard to terrorism every communication between them should be monitored but I think it is prudent to think that this is not possible and the wee bits that the agencies get we should be grateful for and accept their judgement on the limited info they have. It is not always going to be right but they must er on the side of caution, so why not accept what is happening, instead of claiming its political point scoring, poor intelligence or another conspiracy.

The agencies did not react to intelligence received before 9/11 and they got slaughtered for it, so why should they listen to the hypocrites amongst us now.

Safe and happy flying to you all and lets get out of this hole we are digging for ourselves to the delight of the scumbag terrorist

NYTimes is reporting that some of the BA Flights were canceled due to crew refusing to fly with armed marshals onboard.....

B/S or fact?

Also.....

"President Bush had one threshold question for Tom Ridge, his secretary for homeland security, as they met at the White House situation room on Dec. 22. "Would you let your son or daughter fly on that plane?" he asked Mr. Ridge, according to a senior administration official privy to the conversation.

"Absolutely not," the secretary responded. "Well," Mr. Bush said, "neither would I."

Hmm, well for the moment let us suppose that it is true that crew specifically refuse to fly with armed marshalls onboard.
Company says...they are properly trained and the CAA says OK, so if a crew member is unwilling to operate accordingly...pick up your pink slip on the way out the door, and oh yes, goodbye pension.

Would any crew member be so inclined...?:ooh: :E

Not up to your usual standard of muddying the waters 411A , perhaps you're all shagged out and a wee bit groggy after the New Year celebrations.

Think it through, bearing in mind that the work force is unionised. If the suits put crosshairs on an individual captain for a safety related action then it rapidly escalates through union retaliation into a job action by the membership. Just one example of why suits hate unions.
Just wondering.....has your airline been effected to the point where flights have been cancelled by these terrorist threats?

Regards,
XL5