Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AC Hit By US "no-fly" List Requirements  
User currently offlineArrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2676 posts, RR: 2
Posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 8847 times:

Here's some serious fallout from the KLM overfly issue of a few days ago. Homeland Security wants "no-fly" list honored by Air Canada domestic flights that use US airspace.

Since 90% of AC's east-west transcon traffic uses US airspace (great circle distances) for part of the route (Toronto dips far south of the 49th parallel), it will be a logistical nightmare for them. Someone could be hauled off a Toronto-Vancouver flight because his/her name is on a US no fly list, for who knows what reason. Only alternative will be to fly 100% through Canadian airspace, adding sigfnificant time, and increasing fuel costs -- not a happy option with oil at $50/bbl.

Read all about it:

http://www.canada.com/national/natio...0e3cdf-8c7a-4f85-8393-cd2b0efab722


Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
89 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9666 posts, RR: 52
Reply 1, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 8806 times:

I know that this is an unpopular move, but to a degree it makes sense. If a terrorist wants to get in the United States and were really motivated, they could board a YVR-YYZ flight and while it is in US airspace cause something to happen that will force the flight to divert to the nearest suitable airport which could be in the US like MSP or worse an airport without adequate immigration facilities. It is a move to keep people out of the United States and restrict possible sources for entry. The whole KLM incident didn't surprise me either, because unless foreign carriers will jeopardize safety by treating the US as an empty space of land with no alternate airports, then there is a security risk albeit a rather small one.

Do I completely agree with this? Not really. There are a lot of other things this country should do to increase safety. All anyone has to do is get a boat and drive it across the border and then the are on the Oregon or Washington coast since it is not well guarded at all. But it is a force that we have to live with, and unfortunately our neighbors to the north will have to understand the security procedures necessary. The last thing we need is a Canada vs. United States cold war since 90% of Canadian exports go to the US, and the US exports large amounts to Canada as well.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineAhlfors From Canada, joined Oct 2000, 1347 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8785 times:

So what's next? An overfly visa?

User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16307 posts, RR: 56
Reply 3, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8748 times:

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 1):
I know that this is an unpopular move, but to a degree it makes sense. If a terrorist wants to get in the United States and were really motivated, they could board a YVR-YYZ flight and while it is in US airspace cause something to happen that will force the flight to divert to the nearest suitable airport which could be in the US like MSP or worse an airport without adequate immigration facilities.

I agree. Even as a Canadian, I support this US move. The US has the right to know who is flying over US territory.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineAhlfors From Canada, joined Oct 2000, 1347 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8746 times:

There are a lot of international flights going to/from US that have to pass through Canadian airspace, so in retaliation Canada should set up a similar list, if only to make create bureaucratic hassles for US airlines flying over Canada.

On another note, to make travel seamless on domestic Canadian flights, Canadian carriers should simply fly fully in Canadian airspace only in those circumstances when a passenger is flagged on the US no-fly list. If no passenger is flagged on the no-fly list, which would be most cases, they continue to fly over the US.


User currently offlineB747-437B From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8726 times:

The issue is not in the actual offloading of passengers (I assure you that AC or WS would prefer not to transport anybody on the US no-fly list anyway), but rather in the setting up systems to cross-reference every passenger on a domestic flight.

User currently offlineTWA902fly From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 3128 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8710 times:

I don't get why it is flights that are over US airspace... say someone is flying YYC-YEG, well a terrorist could hijack the aircraft and fly it to canada anyways, or say YXY-YVR, they could hijack it and fly it to Seattle if necessary, for that logic why not every Canadian flight? most cities in Canada are close to the border anyways so technically most flights could end up in the USA within half an hour.. think about it... Vancouver, Calgary, Regina, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal... all just a bit north of the US/Canda border, so any flight going to/from there could somehow end up in the USA

TWA902



life wasn't worth the balance, or the crumpled paper it was written on
User currently offlineLemurs From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1439 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8692 times:

Quoting Ahlfors (Reply 4):
There are a lot of international flights going to/from US that have to pass through Canadian airspace, so in retaliation Canada should set up a similar list, if only to make create bureaucratic hassles for US airlines flying over Canada.

To what purpose though, other than spite? If Canada has a credible reason to believe they are threatened by people overflying their territory due to the different criteria of the US screening versus their own, they'd have every right to implement a similar policy.

However, we both know that's not the case. Canada is in a much safer position from general attack than the US (at least, everyone hopes so. I bet the Spaniards assumed they were safe a couple of years ago as well, except for the Basque question), so the concerns are not the same. Spite doesn't win anyone, anything.



There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9666 posts, RR: 52
Reply 8, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8658 times:

TWA902fly, I don't think that is necessarily the point. If someone is going to hijack a plane, then Canada is responsible for not having that happen anyway. However it is a lot easier to cause a plane to divert then to hijack it. It is also probably that a person could do it in a way that they could not get caught easily, like use something that could fill the lav with smoke or what not. Doing that would at least get you on the ground in the US with the possibility of no one knowing that you are on the no fly list, or are not permitted in the US at all. It could be a way to sneak in. Call it crazy, but there is some logic to this requirement, however I do feel sorry for Canadian carriers since they will have to cross reference all passenger names to check to see if they are on the US no fly list. I don't know if they do that anyway now or not.


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineLemurs From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1439 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8653 times:

Quoting TWA902fly (Reply 6):
they could hijack it and fly it to Seattle if necessary, for that logic why not every Canadian flight? most cities in Canada are close to the border anyways so technically most flights could end up in the USA within half an hour

You're right of course, but the issue there is that the U.S. won't presume to tell Canadians what to do in their own airspace. You control what is under your purview.

You can safely assume that the Dept of Homeland Security is discussing exactly those matters with their counterparts in Canada. They've been working very closely since 9/11 to ensure that there is as much safety as possible that at the same time does not violate the rights of Canadians. At the end of the day though, it's Canada's job to monitor their airspace, and the U.S.'s job to monitor it's airspace.



There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16307 posts, RR: 56
Reply 10, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8620 times:

Quoting B747-437B (Reply 5):
The issue is not in the actual offloading of passengers (I assure you that AC or WS would prefer not to transport anybody on the US no-fly list anyway), but rather in the setting up systems to cross-reference every passenger on a domestic flight.

Obviously, since the occasional diversion of an Cdn domestic flight to a US airport is so extremely rare. Perhaps a partial or full harmonization of Canada's immigration/refugee policy with the US would satisfy the US that any Cdn domestic flight is as safe as a US domestic flight, although I don't see this happening just to prevent this US overflight issue.

Ultimately, if AC finds the costs of setting up a system to cross-reference passengers too expensive, they can choose a more circuitous route over Cdn territory from YYZ to YVR.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineDanny From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3514 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8594 times:

The problem is not the list but how bad and inaccurate the list is. We all remember when Cat Stevens was deported as a threat to US security, The whole world laughed at that.

Now these two guys on KLM flight. If they were terrorists why not land the plane in US, arrest them and let the rest of the passengers continue?


User currently offlineArrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8597 times:

"The issue is not in the actual offloading of passengers (I assure you that AC or WS would prefer not to transport anybody on the US no-fly list anyway), but rather in the setting up systems to cross-reference every passenger on a domestic flight."

I agree that's the major issue for the airline. But what do you think would happen politically if Maher Arar were denied boarding on an AC (or WS) flight from Toronto to Vancouver? My guess is he would be, and I bet he wouldn't suffer in silence.

The issue is having a foreign nation vet your passengers lists for domestic flights because they overfly US territory. Canadian officials have no say in the make-up of that list -- they can suggest additions, but I bet they can't suggest deletions. And I don't buy the argument that a Toronto-Vancouver flight at 40,000 feet over Minnesota is a greater risk to the US than the same flight at 40,000 feet over Winnipeg. I bet an all-Canadian route, if AC was forced to fly it, would scoot along about 30 miles north of the border.

If I had any trust in U.S. Homeland Security to do it's job professionally and without prejudice, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt. But under the U.S. Patriot Act, they are totally unaccountable to anyone -- not even in the U.S., let alone outside. Too many innocent people get hassled beyond belief when trying to cross borders because of that. Canadian security officials may be just as myopic, but at least we can get at them.

This is a freedom of the seas issue. History buffs might remember that the US went to war with Great Britain in 1812 over it.



Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16307 posts, RR: 56
Reply 13, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8579 times:

Quoting Ahlfors (Reply 4):
There are a lot of international flights going to/from US that have to pass through Canadian airspace, so in retaliation Canada should set up a similar list, if only to make create bureaucratic hassles for US airlines flying over Canada.

No. Canada should not retaliate in like fashion. Canada has much looser immigration/refugee policies than the US hence the US has a right to be concerned about who is flying domestically within Canada over US territory.

Quoting Ahlfors (Reply 4):
On another note, to make travel seamless on domestic Canadian flights, Canadian carriers should simply fly fully in Canadian airspace only in those circumstances when a passenger is flagged on the US no-fly list. If no passenger is flagged on the no-fly list, which would be most cases, they continue to fly over the US.

You're kidding right? The additional cost of rerouting a flight from YYZ to YVR or YHZ north of the US to stay in Cdn airspace would be significant. Who is going to pay for that?



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineLemurs From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1439 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8561 times:

Quoting Arrow (Reply 12):
This is a freedom of the seas issue. History buffs might remember that the US went to war with Great Britain in 1812 over it.

Except that it was generally agreed that freedom of the seas existed, and the disagreements tended to be about how far from land it really started. It's generally NOT agreed upon that freedom of the skies exists, so that metaphor is just wrong.

The skies over national airspace are more strictly controlled than the roadways they fly over. Don't get too ridiculous here.



There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
User currently offlineYu138086 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8528 times:

Remove the border! Become one country! Problem solved  Smile
Too many similarities between the two countries anyways which makes a compelling case for territorial integration. As for Quebec... not an issue since it would be too costly for them to seperate.

Cheers.


User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16307 posts, RR: 56
Reply 16, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8526 times:

Quoting Arrow (Reply 12):
But what do you think would happen politically if Maher Arar were denied boarding on an AC (or WS) flight from Toronto to Vancouver? My guess is he would be, and I bet he wouldn't suffer in silence.

If the overfly rule was in place, Maher Arar would know this ahead of flying YYZ-YVR, and he should avoid this route nonstop. So there should be no political issue. Anyway, most Cdns are getting fed up with this dude, and many of us think he was/is involved with terrorist organizations. I'm not sure he should be allowed to walk free in Canada until his murky past has been fully investigated. This is off-topic though.

Quoting Arrow (Reply 12):
Too many innocent people get hassled beyond belief when trying to cross borders because of that.

Anything that prevents another 9-11 is ok with me. Anyone unduly hassled crossing into the US is free to choose not to visit the US. It's that simple.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineTRVYYZ From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1373 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8511 times:

Quoting Yyz717 (Reply 13):
Canada has much looser immigration/refugee policies than the US hence the US has a right to be concerned about who is flying domestically within Canada over US territory

Are you talking about the 51st state of US of A?  biggrin 

I don't see anything wrong in using such a list, it only makes air travel more safe.


User currently offlineAhlfors From Canada, joined Oct 2000, 1347 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 8483 times:

Quoting Yyz717 (Reply 13):

You're kidding right? The additional cost of rerouting a flight from YYZ to YVR or YHZ north of the US to stay in Cdn airspace would be significant. Who is going to pay for that?

There is one significant unanswered question here: does Air Canada (or any other Canadian airline) have the legal authority to deny boarding on a domestic flight based on the no-fly list of a foreign country.

I know the US has the right to deny the overflight, but does that mean that domestic flight would simply be legally obligated to stay in Canadian airspace if the US denies overflight?


User currently offlineAhlfors From Canada, joined Oct 2000, 1347 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 8461 times:

Quoting Yu138086 (Reply 15):
Remove the border! Become one country! Problem solved  
Too many similarities between the two countries anyways which makes a compelling case for territorial integration. As for Quebec... not an issue since it would be too costly for them to seperate.

Considering that Canada is considered much less of a terrorist target than the US, the US should just merge into Canada and suddenly all the security issues would become so much smaller  Smile

For a safer future, join Canada!


User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16307 posts, RR: 56
Reply 20, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 8448 times:

Quoting Ahlfors (Reply 18):
I know the US has the right to deny the overflight, but does that mean that domestic flight would simply be legally obligated to stay in Canadian airspace if the US denies overflight?

It's a moot point, since re-routing to avoid US airspace would be prohibitively expensive. The 5-hour YYZ-YVR flight spends most of its time over US airspace, as do flights from YYZ to the Maritimes. Re-routing to stay in Cdn airspace is not an operational option.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineB747-437B From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 8437 times:

Quoting Ahlfors (Reply 18):
does Air Canada (or any other Canadian airline) have the legal authority to deny boarding on a domestic flight based on the no-fly list of a foreign country

Air Canada has the right to deny boarding on any grounds they choose within the scope of the Contract of Carriage.

Security risk is one such risk, and the existence of the passenger's name on a no-fly list maintained by any country is sufficient grounds to constitute a security risk.


User currently offlineAhlfors From Canada, joined Oct 2000, 1347 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 8425 times:

Quoting Yyz717 (Reply 20):
It's a moot point, since re-routing to avoid US airspace would be prohibitively expensive. The 5-hour YYZ-YVR flight spends most of its time over US airspace, as do flights from YYZ to the Maritimes. Re-routing to stay in Cdn airspace is not an operational option.

I'm not talking about commercial considerations here. Does a Canadian airline have the legal right to deny boarding on a domestic flight on the basis of a foreign no-fly list. If not, they will be on the receiving end of quite a few lawsuits when they start to deny boarding to people travelling domestically and are on the US no-fly list.


User currently offlineAhlfors From Canada, joined Oct 2000, 1347 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 8410 times:

Quoting B747-437B (Reply 21):
Security risk is one such risk, and the existence of the passenger's name on a no-fly list maintained by any country is sufficient grounds to constitute a security risk.

So if the sovereign state of Nauru puts me on a no-fly list, that gives every airline in the world the right to deny me boarding?


User currently offlineLemurs From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1439 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 8393 times:

Quoting Ahlfors (Reply 23):
So if the sovereign state of Nauru puts me on a no-fly list, that gives every airline in the world the right to deny me boarding?

For domestic flights, it would depend on the local laws dictating travel contracts. In Canada and the US, yes. In Nigeria or India, who knows? There's no such thing as a globally common set of rights. (The world would be a better place if there was, but there you go.)



There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
25 B747-437B : It would give them the right to consider you a security risk. Whether they then decide to act upon that is a matter for their internal policy and for
26 Post contains images Milan320 : Huh?????? YYC and YEG are in Canada, 300km or so apart. No over-flying US airspace at all in this case - just a straight line (or almost) North from
27 L410Turbolet : The legal problem for the airlines is that even someone NOT wishing to visit the US - traveling domestic route within soveriegn country of Canada - i
28 Yyz717 : You are quoting me out of context (yet again). My comment was in response to an actual crossing-the-border issue. Not the ovey-fly issue of this thre
29 Lemurs : You either didn't read the context of his statement, or you don't get the scope of this regulation at all. Origin and Destination don't matter. If yo
30 Sebring : A number of related but different points: -Some Canadian domestic flights have air marshalls. Canada could guarantee to put an air marshall on all lar
31 ACDC8 : I think it is past time that there be an international standard for a "no-fly"list and not one where a single sole Government has a say in controlling
32 PlaneSmart : It's the USA's call, but where do you draw the line? All flights overflying any country must have passenger details pre-advised? And then while overfl
33 Olympus69 : Does anybody know how many people are on the US 'no-fly' list? However many there are I can't imagine that people on the list wanting to travel on Ca
34 Lemurs : No actually. There is a clause in the U.S. Constitution that very explicity states that the regulation of interstate commerce is the sole right of th
35 Yhz78 : Yeah, no problem at all except for the 20 or so million Canadians who want no part of it. We are a very proud country with a strong culture and herit
36 Ahlfors : This also sets a dangerous precedent. Soon you'll have all the Muslim countries antagonistic to Israel vetting the passenger lists of all flights over
37 Lemurs : Where did you get this exactly? I'd love to see someone try to claim asylum by climbing onboard an airplane that's still inside the country they are
38 MD11Engineer : BTW, the terrorists who crashed the planes into the WTC and Pentagon in 2001 didn´t have any criminal record, were acting completely innoccent in the
39 Lemurs : That's a bit of an oversimplification. There was plenty of evidence that some of them weren't exactly people they would willing let into the country.
40 Arrow : This is right on the money. Given the global nature of airline traffic, you can't have any one country making unilateral decisions that affect some,
41 Robsawatsky : Yes, the US has the right to decide who enters their airspace. Whether the use of that authority with the "No Fly List" accomplishes any real security
42 Post contains images Lemurs : You know, I'm about as bleeding heart liberal as you can get with most things, but one thing I cannot stomach is the general hypocracy that gets toss
43 TWA902fly : i belive you misunderstood me, i was saying that considering YYC is about 30-40 minutes away (flying) from the US border, technically any flight in C
44 Lemurs : You're right about this and the fact that it's overly-aggressive. It's already bordering on the comical at how inefficient the current screening and
45 AirbusfanYYZ : Sorry Neil that is NOT the case, I have been flying to YVR about once a month for the last 5 years on business and it's very very rare that we fly ov
46 Ahlfors : Yes, I specifically stated passengers inside foreign planes (say an Israeli inside a Lufthansa plane over Iran) because I know El Al has some serious
47 Arrow : Actually, I'm concerned with what's best for Canada and Canadians. Americans are welcome do whatever they want to protect themselves and their rights
48 Lemurs : I would agree with you 100%, except for the fact that international protocols tend to be VERY easy to manipulate as needed...and don't get me wrong,
49 Arrow : Well, yeah. You (collectively) did re-elect the guy with a convincing majority. But I understand your approach, and I understand the concern. I was a
50 Post contains images Lemurs : You want to know what I really think this is? (I didn't mention it because it's not really in the spirit of the board, but at this point it's just as
51 Arrow : Now that's way off topic -- but you've blundered into an issue I've been covering as a journalist for more than 20 years. I don't think there's a con
52 Yyz717 : Kaz, check any of the flight route websites. All the YYZ-YVR flights track heavily over US territory. Anyway, as a passenger how would you know wheth
53 CXH : The National Post article and most posts in this topic talk about Canadian domestic flights. This proposed policy could also heavily affect Canadian f
54 Yyz717 : I disagree. The US has done alot to earn our trust. The worst terrorist event in recent history (in which 60 Canadians died) was 9-11. The US routed
55 Ahlfors : It would happen at check-in. The Canadian airlines overflying the US would have the same infrastructure as domestic US airlines in cross-checking pas
56 Ahlfors : That's until some unlucky Canadian finds that his name is the same as someone's on the no-fly list, and then not only can he not fly to the US, he ca
57 Dimsum : Very well said, and that's why I am proudly Canadian! There really isn't a point to argue about it at this stage. Everyone will see the true face of
58 B747-437B : Maher Arar would beg to disagree.
59 Arrow : And, indeed, that has already happened. One instance I know of involved a Vancouver man whose drivers licence and other ID was stolen 15 years ago in
60 Post contains images AC7E7 : I agree. Let me guess......... The U.S. has every right to protect its citizens. The U.S. is more aware than anyone else of its vulnerabilities. They
61 ViveLeYHZ : The US government is responsible for protecting its people, and the same is true of the Canadian government, but I don't think the DHS should enforce
62 Yyz717 : Absolutely. Maher Arar has a murky past with suspected links with terrorist groups. Many Cdns do not consider him lawful. Don't be so cynical. The US
63 Dimsum : I think it's more like, they suffered the consequences of what happens when you apply 50 years of aggressive (and in some cases, intrusive) foreign d
64 AC_A340 : Well, as much as I wanted to stay quiet on the issue; this affects me. As a Canadian citizen (proudly) legally studying and working in the US, I am co
65 Magyar : >> The US routed out the Taliban who harboured the perpetrators and now Afghanistan is a democracy. Ah yes, democracy in Afghanistan. Let's see if it'
66 LH477 : Any lawful Cdns have nothing to fear from heavier US security Try being south Asian, Middle Eastern, or having an Islamic name.
67 A330Jamaica : Why do we keep saying that flying YYZ to YVR, YYC etc. entirely in Canadian airspace is a burden? Flying to the Maritimes, yes but not Western Canada
68 B747-437B : Simply because NavCanada is extremely expensive.
69 Post contains links and images AirbusfanYYZ : 1. Because I can usually see the cities of Winnipeg, Regina and Calgary respectively out my window seat. 2. The inflight PTVs (J-Class) have the enro
70 PlaneSmart : Lemurs 'This isn't your airspace, therefore you don't get to decide the rules just because it's good for "Global Commerce". No one is telling you what
71 Lemurs : Hey I don't think I ever said the U.S. should be allowed to disregard the same rights of sovereignty for other nations. I just don't have personal co
72 AC787 : You use the word think despite the fact that this statement suggests you haven't done that in awhile. You heard something on the news which said ther
73 Lemurs : AC787, you do a wonderful job of throwing out angry jingoism of your own. There was a lot of political speech in there, and very little treatment of t
74 AC787 : For me to be a great Republican I'd have to overlook the facts and make statements that played to fears of the people... if there's anything you thin
75 Lemurs : Look, I'm not here to bash Canada. I love Canada, I have lots of good friends who are Canadian, I travel to Vancouver on a regular basis because I thi
76 Yyz717 : The US would not deport someone to Syria without good cause. That the US has refused to release information in his file pretty well confirms his back
77 Mrniji : And they won't deport anyone without good cause to Guantanamo, right? I like Canada..
78 Liquid : Many are saying that it is unreasonable that the no-fly list be implemented on canadian domestic flights, a few reactions: 1) It's not that big of a d
79 Teva : I have an idea: the US government should ask the list of all the passengers of all the flts worldwide (there is a part of US territory eveywhere....at
80 Post contains images Sconym : As the person here at LAS that loads the No Fly and Selectee lists daily (sometimes multiple lists a day), I can tell you that the list is quite larg
81 Theredbaron : These are great posts, seems our neighbor always wants us to do something for their sake but not the other way around..... Security??? HEHEHEHEHEH [i
82 LH477 : If you can't trust the US, then you can't trust Canada either. Jeez Man...you are in the wrong country. You belong in the US. You seemed to ashamed of
83 Post contains images L410Turbolet : Yyz717 - Bush's fifth column in Canada. Beware Canadians!!!
84 AC787 : sure does sound like it. Canada has never actively engaged in taking out democracies as the United States has in Iran, Chile, Nicaragua, Indonesia an
85 Daedaeg : AC787, I know you would prefer the US take Canada's do nothing world policy approach. However, that's very weak and ineffective. That's not an option
86 AC787 : I wouldn't prefer the United States to do nothing when it comes to world policy, I would just prefer them to be more responsible, I would prefer them
87 CXH : Ahhhh... I've been critiqued by YYZ717; I must now be a real Canadian on A.net. I've arrived! I am very heartened my many of the comments by Canadian
88 AC787 : [quote=CXH,reply=87]Anybody who follows Canadian aviation issues here would know about YYZ717 and his opinions.[/quo lol, that is definetly true.
89 Post contains images Olympus69 : Imagine this scenario - a plane has diverted to a Us airport because of smoke in the cockpit or something similar. Announcement by flight crew, "You
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
US No Fly List? posted Sun Apr 23 2006 18:24:45 by Curious
Secret "no-fly" List In USA posted Sat May 17 2003 02:18:25 by Ryu2
US Tanker Gets Hit By TU-154 posted Tue Sep 26 2006 20:50:05 by Concentriq
AC Fines Man For "deliberately" Delaying Flight. posted Wed Sep 20 2006 17:59:57 by SQuared
United Airlines The "U' Mistaken By A "tulip" posted Sun Aug 13 2006 21:21:54 by USADreamliner
The US "Embraer 170" On MCO's Website posted Wed Jul 12 2006 21:30:21 by Monorail
Revised US "Piedmont" Livery Now Flying posted Tue May 30 2006 06:04:56 by SonOfACaptain
Why No CLT-MDW Service By US Airways? posted Wed May 17 2006 18:59:41 by United777ORD
AF: More Of A "No" To Malaysia In Skyteam? posted Wed Mar 29 2006 17:56:07 by Airpearl
ASA Is No Longer "Candler" And Now "Acey"? posted Wed Mar 15 2006 13:47:07 by DocChaos