Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
India's New Stringent Hijack Policy  
User currently offlineAirIndiaOne From India, joined Mar 2005, 146 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 years 1 month 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3582 times:

Under the new policy cleared by the Cabinet Committee on Security, the government rules out negotiations with hijackers on their demands and makes it clear that talks will only be aimed at preventing loss of life or ending the incident. The Indian Air Force has been given the authority to take necessary steps for scrambling fighter jets to guard and guide the hijacked aircraft and force it to land at an Indian airport.
This means if an aircraft is hijacked and the government is unable to reach to a point of negotiation or if the talks fail, the Air Force can be authorised to shoot down the aircraft.

[Edited 2005-08-14 12:49:34]


"You don't have to be crazy to be in aviation, but it helps", JRD Tata
34 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKilavoud From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 1 month 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3553 times:

"This means if an aircraft is hijacked and the government is unable to reach to a point of negotiation or if the talks fail, the Air Force can be authorised to shoot down the aircraft"

We are really living nice times (??)  pray 

Cheers. Kilavoud.


User currently offlineMrniji From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (9 years 1 month 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3505 times:

Quoting Kilavoud (Reply 1):
"This means if an aircraft is hijacked and the government is unable to reach to a point of negotiation or if the talks fail, the Air Force can be authorised to shoot down the aircraft"

I was amazed during the 1999-2000 hijack of the IC 814 A300 from KTM to DEL that India did everything to save the lives of those who were in the plane - and even freed one terrorist (that bastard) in order to rescue the people. The life of the innocent people is the most important! Here, I backed the approach of India 100 % - better than shooting down immediately or reacting in a manner that could impair the lives of the innocent!

I am sure that 99 % of anet will come now and say that negotiating with terrorists is pointless, and that it is better to shoot down the planes, even if 200 innocent people die.

This policy sounds like a setback, and I hope that it does not have to be executed.


User currently offlineYOWza From Nepal, joined Jul 2005, 4887 posts, RR: 15
Reply 3, posted (9 years 1 month 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3459 times:

To be honest with you I think that this is just the GOI attempting to send a message to any would-be hijackers out there saying "don't waste you're time, we will not budge." In reality I think if a similar situation were to arise as with IC the same course of events would unfold. Although based on what I saw on my last trip to KTM absolutely NOTHING is getting through that security. Hand searched my carry-on twice, x-rayed it once, x-rayed and hand searched my checked-in luggage and on top of that 3 pretty intense friskings. Maybe a a little overkill but I felt reassured on my KTM-DOH flight.

YOWza



12A whenever possible.
User currently offlineHimmat01 From India, joined Dec 2004, 1047 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (9 years 1 month 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3407 times:

Such a policy is pointless. I am strongly against shooting down 200-400 people in order to scuttle a hijack. What is the fault of these innocent people. Imagine the amount of hue and cry which would be created in case such an unfortunate decision is taken. If an airliner is shot down over a populated area, it's likely to cause a lot of damage and loss of lives on the ground too.

Himmat



An airplane might disappoint any pilot but it'll never surprise a good one.
User currently offlineNASCARAirforce From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3178 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (9 years 1 month 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3333 times:

Quoting AirIndiaOne (Thread starter):
Under the new policy cleared by the Cabinet Committee on Security, the government rules out negotiations with hijackers on their demands and makes it clear that talks will only be aimed at preventing loss of life or ending the incident. The Indian Air Force has been given the authority to take necessary steps for scrambling fighter jets to guard and guide the hijacked aircraft and force it to land at an Indian airport.
This means if an aircraft is hijacked and the government is unable to reach to a point of negotiation or if the talks fail, the Air Force can be authorised to shoot down the aircraft.

Ok, this makes no sense.

First, we are living in an age where terrorists aren't going to hijack a plane to make negotiations. That is the past. These terrorists are going to have a target in mind to fly the plane into.

Ok, hypothetically- an Air India 747 gets hijacked with 400 on board. If he is a 9-11 type terrorist, he isn't even going to negotiate, infact all communications will probably be lost and he is heading for a government building, or a target in Bombay or Delhi, or an important landmark like the Taj Mahal etc. Yes you will need to scramble jets before he takes that plane into a highly populated area and kills those 400 on the plane and even more on the ground or in a building. If he is today's type terrorist, there is no negotiating...

However, if he is an "old school" terrorist- the type who would hijack a plane to get the government to meet a demand etc, or to fly to another country etc, in a lot of cases there were minimal losses of life. These terrorists werent the suicidal type and often NOT the religious extremist ones, more political. A lot had no intention of killing mass amounts of people, but would threaten to one by one if their demands weren't met... sometimes people got killed... for example that boat that got hijacked in the Mediteranean back in the 80s when people were thrown overboard... However, their intentions were not to cause mass amounts of death, but political demands... In most cases, these terrorists were not pilots like the 9-11 terrorists, they held a gun to the pilots head and told him where to fly.

From what I read in that article above, is that these are negotiable terrorists and not suicide bombers. The Indian Airforce tells the hijacked 747 to land at an airport and it doesn't because the terrorists are holding a gun to the pilots head, they are going to just shoot it down and kill 400 innocent people? All I see it doing is encouraging more suicide missions, where now a terrorist doesnt have to learn to fly. He can just hijack a 747, and hold a gun to the pilot's head and not negotiate and he successfully gets 400 people killed.


User currently offlineAseem From India, joined Feb 2005, 2046 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (9 years 1 month 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3214 times:

Quoting NASCARAirforce (Reply 5):

buddy!! your last paragraph got me confused. Do you think such a policy is good or not?
rgds
VT-ASJ



ala re ala, VT-ALA ala
User currently offlineBandA From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 338 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (9 years 1 month 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3182 times:

Quoting YOWza (Reply 3):
To be honest with you I think that this is just the GOI attempting to send a message to any would-be hijackers out there saying "don't waste you're time, we will not budge." In reality I think if a similar situation were to arise as with IC the same course of events would unfold.

I agree with you 100%. It doesn't even matter what country we are talking about, even in the US I really don't think anyone would give an order to shoot down a aircraft with so many pax onboard. Even if the orders were given, IMHO the pilot of the fighter jet would 99% refuse to do so.

Quoting NASCARAirforce (Reply 5):
First, we are living in an age where terrorists aren't going to hijack a plane to make negotiations. That is the past. These terrorists are going to have a target in mind to fly the plane into.

That is true in the US and probably a lot other countries but I think if any aircraft hijackings happen in India especially, the primary reason will be to demand release of a fellow/leader terrorist and the usual - money!

The past hijackings including the recent one as Mrniji stated was in 2000 which was "in our age", only 5 years ago, had these same demands.

Anyways, I also think that these policies are only advertised to make aircraft hijackings seem less lucrative for terrorists.

[Edited 2005-08-14 19:02:24]

[Edited 2005-08-14 19:03:54]


"They [Terrorists] never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." - GWB
User currently offlineCX750 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 155 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (9 years 1 month 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3140 times:

I remember the last IC hijacking created a lot of problems for India. I think its very important to have a tough message - the last negotiation / response was a disaster. Btw, who knows how may deaths will be the result of releasing him from prison. In any case, a tough decision for any government, India in particular needs to further deter potential hijackings.

User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31684 posts, RR: 56
Reply 9, posted (9 years 1 month 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3118 times:

Quoting Mrniji (Reply 2):
freed one terrorist (that bastard) in order to rescue the people

For which We are still paying.

Quoting Mrniji (Reply 2):
am sure that 99 % of anet will come now and say that negotiating with terrorists is pointless, and that it is better to shoot down the planes, even if 200 innocent people die

What the GOI means is If the Aircraft is to be used as a weapon,then its better if its shot down to avoid more casualties on ground,Which makes sense.
And If its on ground,they will not let it get airborne.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineGamps From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 469 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (9 years 1 month 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3122 times:

but I think if any aircraft hijackings happen in India especially, the primary reason will be to demand release of a fellow/leader terrorist and the usual - money!

Let us not forget that the techniques used in IC hijack was also used later successfully in 9-11 hijacks (namely boxcutters used to slit throats). The masterminds and guys behind both hijackings were same and both operations were probably planned in some Pakistani city as well. The terrorists released by India went on their merry way into Kandhahar and Pakistan and played a big role in 9/11 attack.

I was in India during this hijacking and was sick to see the relatives harassing ministers and officials demanding release of terrorists. Wonder what they must be thinking now after all the havoc released guys have caused (9/11, Daniel Pearl's killer was one of the release terrorist). The usual suspects - NGO$ and Human Rights wallahs - also supported the release of terrorists (surprise!).

I think this is a great decision though I am sure NGO$ and Human Right$ Wallah$ will be out in full force protesting this decision.


User currently offlineMrniji From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (9 years 1 month 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3089 times:

Quoting NASCARAirforce (Reply 5):
First, we are living in an age where terrorists aren't going to hijack a plane to make negotiations. That is the past. These terrorists are going to have a target in mind to fly the plane into.

Though I get your point, I think we have to distinguish between different forms of terrorism. India has been shaken by serious terrorism before 9/11 and has probably a "more decent" approach than the US, and has the situation somehow under control (as opposed to the US/Iraq engagement). Hence, this procedure would rather make things to deteriorate than solving it. I am not particulalry happy about negotiatiing with terrorists (who, as the LoT, don't have any point and lost any conection to the people they are allegedly fighting for), but if people,s lives are affected.. India, please think ten times before shooting down a plane!

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 9):
What the GOI means is If the Aircraft is to be used as a weapon,then its better if its shot down to avoid more casualties on ground,Which makes sense.

I just feel uncomfortable in doing this, and any policy giving a blueprint and permission for this will find my disapproval, especially keeping in mind that Armies tend to overreact

Quoting YOWza (Reply 3):
To be honest with you I think that this is just the GOI attempting to send a message to any would-be hijackers out there saying "don't waste you're time, we will not budge."

You have a poin!  Wink


User currently offlineBandA From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 338 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (9 years 1 month 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3076 times:

Its very easy for us to say why relatives of hijacked pax were demanding such things and what they must be thinking now. I am sure if our loved ones were hijacked we would be doing the same.


"They [Terrorists] never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." - GWB
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 13, posted (9 years 1 month 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3022 times:

Quoting Mrniji (Reply 11):
I just feel uncomfortable in doing this, and any policy giving a blueprint and permission for this will find my disapproval, especially keeping in mind that Armies tend to overreact

Of course, if the hijacking were to follow the same template as 9/11 and had the Indian parliament as its target (a target for terrorists in the recent past, much like the WTC), and the Indian government failed to shoot down the aircraft before it reached its target, resulting in mass death amongst ministers, the surviving Indian goverment is going to have a lot to answer for in addition to grieving families of passengers.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineCHI787ORD From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 523 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (9 years 1 month 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2922 times:

India itself in my opinion needs this sort of policy. Not only does it have terror in it's own borders, look at it's neighbors (Pakistan, Nepal). Not exactly the most stable of countries to begin with.

User currently offlineYOWza From Nepal, joined Jul 2005, 4887 posts, RR: 15
Reply 15, posted (9 years 1 month 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2883 times:

Quoting CHI787ORD (Reply 14):
India itself in my opinion needs this sort of policy. Not only does it have terror in it's own borders, look at it's neighbors (Pakistan, Nepal). Not exactly the most stable of countries to begin with.

Wow! You need a couple of courses in Political Science. When exactly was the last time Nepal's "instability" resulted in harm to any of it's neighbors? Or was that rather prodigiously intelligent sentence you excreted just a slip of the keyboard.

YOWza



12A whenever possible.
User currently offlineMrniji From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (9 years 1 month 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2831 times:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 13):
Of course, if the hijacking were to follow the same template as 9/11 and had the Indian parliament as its target (a target for terrorists in the recent past, much like the WTC), and the Indian government failed to shoot down the aircraft before it reached its target, resulting in mass death amongst ministers, the surviving Indian goverment is going to have a lot to answer for in addition to grieving families of passengers.

If it was like this, you could argue. However, it is luckily not "that dramatic" (as we keep our foreign policy in check - except of our engagement in Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bangladesh, which is indeed worrysome!). Moreover, security at Indian arports is really good (it wasn't 10 yrs ago). Me and many oteh rpax have to always open handbaggages (sometimes also check-in baggage), they omit everything from lighters etc..) and if you arrive from other countries to transfer in DEL or BOM (KTM is supposed to be a lit too easy), you have to undergo a second screening

Quoting CHI787ORD (Reply 14):
India itself in my opinion needs this sort of policy. Not only does it have terror in it's own borders, look at it's neighbors (Pakistan, Nepal). Not exactly the most stable of countries to begin with.

I disagree. The last two years, terrorism is loosing its grassroots support (the people are tired of teh Pakistan sponsored terrorists, latest after the bus from Muzaraffabad brings Kashmiris to India, who can see that the Indian Kashmir is much better off than so-called "Azad Kashmir").. terroriststs are divided amongst each other and don't impose a severe threat on India's integrety as a nation  Wink


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 17, posted (9 years 1 month 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2794 times:

Quoting Mrniji (Reply 16):
(as we keep our foreign policy in check - except of our engagement in Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bangladesh, which is indeed worrysome

What do the attacks on parliament have to do with foreign policy? They were related to the issue of Kashmir, which I suppose is partially a foreign policy problem. But as for keeping foreign policy "in check", that is really more of not undertaking any real responsibilities on the international scene, at least beyond the immediate neighborhood. The simple fact of the matter is that international terrorism directed towards the US has been a result of the US living up to its obligations under various collective security pacts with various nations. Isolationism, of course, is the easy way to avoid becoming an international terror target, but two world wars taught the US that other problems bloom when you try to stay out of the way.

Quoting YOWza (Reply 15):
When exactly was the last time Nepal's "instability" resulted in harm to any of it's neighbors?

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/000200506241001.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4144834.stm



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineAbrelosojos From Venezuela, joined May 2005, 5090 posts, RR: 55
Reply 18, posted (9 years 1 month 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2778 times:

Quoting YOWza (Reply 3):
Although based on what I saw on my last trip to KTM absolutely NOTHING is getting through that security.

= Good. Its about time. I am going to be in KTM soon and anything from the 1999 days is an improvement.

Quoting BandA (Reply 12):
Its very easy for us to say why relatives of hijacked pax were demanding such things and what they must be thinking now. I am sure if our loved ones were hijacked we would be doing the same.

= I could not have said it better. Welcome to my respect-list.

Quoting YOWza (Reply 15):
When exactly was the last time Nepal's "instability" resulted in harm to any of it's neighbors?

= Are you serious?! I remember being in Nepal when some apparent Indian movie star (Indian A*netters, help me here) SUPPOSEDLY said he did not like Nepal ... and they were riots in Nepal for 4 days. Then, there are problems of refugees between Nepal and Bhutan. And the list continues.



Live, and let live.
User currently offlineMrniji From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (9 years 1 month 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2744 times:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 17):
What do the attacks on parliament have to do with foreign policy? They were related to the issue of Kashmir, which I suppose is partially a foreign policy problem.

Not really. It is an internal issue (though international actors are involved). Though I agree that the attacks were a SEVERE incident. However, it is in my eyes unlikely that sth similar to 9/11 can ever occur. It was a scandal that when India freed that guy as consequence of the IC Kandahar incident, to see how the Taleban "escorted" the terrorists. I am surprised that India did not "have serious issues with the Taleban thereafter".

Bottomline is that the support for the Terrorists i Kashmir is luckily decreasing. Musharraf has identified the same enemies as India has. Hence, it looks "promising"

Have a good one..  Wink


User currently offlineTKMCE From India, joined May 2002, 841 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (9 years 1 month 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2709 times:

Indian politicians are more valuable to terrorists "alive" than dead. Politicians also value their kith and kin more than mere innocent passengers. So all these wonderful bold statements will in the end be absolutely rubbish. In reality what is going to happen is that the likely terrorist/s will make sure they hijack a plane with some worthy's grand uncle or grandmother-in-law on board (not difficult with all those flashing sirens and two bus loads of hangers on descending three hours in advance on an average)

The odds were very high that the Kandahar hijack would have ended in hours and not the days it took, even if one those worthies (the politicians) or their grand uncles were on board! Suddenly the "lives of the innocent passengers" magnifies 100 times!


And believe me all these grand statements are all rubbish when security loopholes are glaring as ever. There might be three hand searches and five friskings, but then that is no guarantee that the plane will still not be hijacked by some one who is not a passenger who boards the aircraft while on the ground and commandeers the same. This happened in Karachi, where a Pan Am flight coming in from India and going onwards to US was hijacked by terrorists posing as ground support workers. It can happen easily in India where airfield perimeter security in many airfields is a joke! At least in one major airport in India, there is no refuelling facility for ground vehicles air side, so these equipment have to be taken land side for refueling each time. Needless to say, the security check on these vehicles entering back in India are less than thorough!

Same goes for some of the air side ancillary offices. Access to apron is very easy from some of these offices and not even properly monitored. People are too lazy, take it for granted that "nothing will happen" and then we will have a horrific disaster.

Let us all take a lesson from the tragic death of the Srilankan foreign minister, who was shot by people positioned in his "trusted" neighbor's residence. "Trust" is a word which has list its meaning long ago!


User currently offlineYOWza From Nepal, joined Jul 2005, 4887 posts, RR: 15
Reply 21, posted (9 years 1 month 5 days ago) and read 2678 times:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 17):

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/000200506241001.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asi...4.stm

A bunch of Nepalese pseudo-maoists, many of whom are in fact Indian involved in a "gun battle" or demolition of a police station is really not a massive deal. Granted it is an unpleasant event but has no large political impact on the region because a) Nepal is the most powerless of the SAARC countries and b) the Maoists are really not making headway even in Nepal. The maoists are so isolated and squeezed into the remote regions of the country that they are essentially nothing more than a nuisance. Please realize I'm not saying Nepal does not have political problems, it surely does,all I'm saying is that these type of events really do not stand to change regional stability and the general dynamic of the political paradigm in the South Asia.

Quoting Abrelosojos (Reply 18):
= Are you serious?! I remember being in Nepal when some apparent Indian movie star (Indian A*netters, help me here) SUPPOSEDLY said he did not like Nepal ... and they were riots in Nepal for 4 days. Then, there are problems of refugees between Nepal and Bhutan. And the list continues.

A bunch of retard movie enthusiasts with hypersensitive feelings trashing a few box office windows and the like hardly constitutes political instability and sure as hell has no impact on politics.

Please realize that just about all of media coverage on Nepal needs to be taken with a pinch of salt.

Regards,
YOWza



12A whenever possible.
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31684 posts, RR: 56
Reply 22, posted (9 years 1 month 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2615 times:

The Khadahar Incident had the LoT & Taliban laughing all the way home.India was looked on like a Soft state.
The Aircraft should never have got airborne after Amritsar.
High time this policy was overdue.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineMrniji From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (9 years 1 month 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2608 times:

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 22):
The Khadahar Incident had the LoT & Taliban laughing all the way home.India was looked on like a Soft state.

Better being a Soft State and saving many lives rather than being a Hard State and blowing up that plane. The real scandal was that LHE shut off teh lights, when the plane approached. Btw, that Captain Sharan was great  bigthumbsup 

Mel, did you receive my mail to your Yahoo Account yesterday?


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31684 posts, RR: 56
Reply 24, posted (9 years 1 month 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2599 times:

Quoting Mrniji (Reply 23):
Better being a Soft State and saving many lives rather than being a Hard State and blowing up that plane

Agreed.But not if being soft is considered a weakness.I'd opt for Cross border strikes on those camps.

Quoting Mrniji (Reply 23):

Mel, did you receive my mail to your Yahoo Account yesterday

I did.I dont have the Devnagri font.If you have the Software.Send it accross.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
25 Stealthpilot : Make no mistake; I am against any policy of killing innocent people, in the air or anywhere. Let’s hope we never have a situation bad enough to warr
26 Post contains images Mrniji : You do have a point. For me it is unbelievable that international support persists despite the existence of these Madrasses and Camps. But there will
27 CHI787ORD : " target=_blank>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asi...4.stm Thankyou, ATMX2000. That was what I was reffering too. Sorry If I wasnt clearer the first
28 HAWK21M : The Pilot in the IAF would be given a Coordinate Location to find the Target,Unless it was Visually visable when the Trigger was pressed.I doubt He w
29 Post contains links and images Aseem : here is some interesting development Ex-hijacker punches holes in new policy Among the critics of the government’s new anti-hijack policy is Hashim
30 Post contains images Usnseallt82 : Nice prediction.
31 Post contains links Aseem : here is some more. Hijacked foreign planes won�t be allowed to land in India For this, the policy has laid down a mechanism to coordinate actions
32 AirIndia : Subin... hope you are free over the weekend. i am flying down tonight to Delhi on KF. Will call you tom evenign as tom whole day wud be busy with my
33 Post contains images Mrniji : Well, hope you are ready for clubbing. The two German Girls I got to know last week wanna have a night out
34 HAWK21M : I've got an off Tonight. Will be on duty on Fri & Sat Nights. When will you be back. regds MEL
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...
Elections In India - New Civil Aviation Policy? posted Thu May 13 2004 11:01:30 by Mrniji
Canada - New Open Skies Policy? posted Fri Nov 10 2006 18:09:44 by AirbusfanYYZ
New International Air Policy For Canada posted Wed Oct 25 2006 23:13:22 by DYK
US To India: New Low Cost Carrier posted Fri Jun 16 2006 06:25:16 by Aseem
Air India New Boeing Delivery Schedules And Routes posted Fri Feb 17 2006 20:36:36 by Karan69
UAE-India New Bilateral Agreement posted Fri Dec 9 2005 00:58:04 by LAXDESI
Revision In India-New Zealand Bilateral posted Fri Nov 18 2005 08:30:01 by Himmat01
Air India's New 744 VT-AIQ posted Wed Oct 19 2005 13:57:09 by CamAir
India's New LCC's? posted Tue Aug 30 2005 12:57:50 by Jr
AC New Checked Baggage Policy posted Tue Aug 23 2005 23:53:22 by AirbusfanYYZ