Quotes:
The United States has now said that it will not allow direct flights to operate between Pakistan and any American destination. This move has been taken keeping in mind the recent terror threats.
The US is also concerned about security at Pakistani airports and has promised to help Pakistan enhance security at all its airports and provided some equipment in this regard.
Pakistan International Airways has three flights to New York, Houston and Chicago but they are not direct. They all make stopovers, mostly in European or gulf destinations.
The move, aviation experts say, is suggestive of the US not trusting Pakistani security clearances of hand baggage. If there are stopovers and aircraft changes, hand baggage would be cleared again. (With PTI inputs)
Laxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 22023 posts, RR: 51 Reply 1, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 8357 times:
Rather old news. The US DOT had previosuly rejected PIA attempt to operate nonstop to the US from Pakistan.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
Misbeehavin From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 914 posts, RR: 4 Reply 2, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 8327 times:
Quoting LAXDESI (Thread starter): Pakistan International Airways has three flights to New York, Houston and Chicago but they are not direct. They all make stopovers, mostly in European or gulf destinations
Even if a flight stops en route, it's still a direct flight, as long as it doesn't involve a connection.
So, if these flights go Pakistan - Wherever - New York, they're direct flights, because the flight number / aircraft don't change.
MalpensaSFO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 8327 times:
Quoting LAXDESI (Thread starter): Pakistan International Airways has three flights to New York, Houston and Chicago but they are not direct. They all make stopovers, mostly in European or gulf destinations
JFK was nonstop to ISB, KHI, and LAH back in April with the 777. Then suddenly the U.S. government realized it was not such a good thing. This was an excellent call on the part of the U.S. government. Now since what happened this past week, it is not a suprize to see these flights from Pakistan under higher scrutiny.
Avatordon From United States of America, joined May 2006, 239 posts, RR: 4 Reply 4, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 8272 times:
Jaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 8199 times:
And yet we have non-stops from Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
What gives?
Quoting MalpensaSFO (Reply 3): Then suddenly the U.S. government realized it was not such a good thing. This was an excellent call on the part of the U.S. government.
Why? The fact that a majority of the recent liquid bomb suspects were of Pakistani ancestry has no bearing whatsoever on permitting non-stops to the US from Pakistan. This is a typical knee-jerk response done only to ensure that some flapping jaw in the clueless press or some yappy politician doesn't use it as some scare tactic. Realistically, it achieves nothing.
The only way a PIA flight from Pakistan to the US could pose a threat is if a potential terrorist decided to use the 777 as another 9-11 style missile. Well, that wouldn't be likely for a number of reasons. First, any hint that such an aircraft would pose to be a threat would be taken very seriously by US authorities, i.e., its almost certain that the aircraft would be destroyed by the US AirForce before it even approached US airspace. Second, a 777 flying non-stop from Karachi to, say, JFK would be nearly flying on fumes by the time it approached JFK, quite unlike the 9-11 aircraft which were laden with fuel.
Of course, its quite possible that the aircraft would be laden with a bomb, set off to explode over the Atlantic. Now given that most (if not all) passengers flying from Pakistan to the US are either Pakistani nationals or Americans of Pakistani extraction, what would any terrorist (unless he's a complete and total moron) hope to achieve by blowing up an aircraft with this brand of human cargo?
Misbeehavin From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 914 posts, RR: 4 Reply 8, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 8171 times:
Quoting Jaysit (Reply 7): This is a typical knee-jerk response done only to ensure that some flapping jaw in the clueless press or some yappy politician doesn't use it as some scare tactic. Realistically, it achieves nothing.
Agreed. More than knee-jerk, it smacks of "look at us, we're actually doing something to keep the terrorists out". Like lots of other "initiatives".
MalpensaSFO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 8019 times:
Quoting Jaysit (Reply 7): The fact that a majority of the recent liquid bomb suspects were of Pakistani ancestry has no bearing whatsoever on permitting non-stops to the US from Pakistan
It has plenty of bearing. Americans are being checked and re-checked for the insane ideas of a group of people who are bent on ruining the UK and US. People like to coward behind the religion or what not. The fact is that the people involved in the following events were not exactly European or Americans:
Sad but true the people that brought about the above events have a number of things in common. To sit back and say that the Western World should be held hostage and look at each other is useless. The people that are suspected in the latest Heathrow threat, Bojinka threat, 9-11, 7-7, and scores of others have one to many things in common. Flights from Pakistan to the United States should not be allowed as nonstop. If Canada wants to take the risk, let them. We learned a lesson on 9-11, and are not willing to go out on a limb and wait for it to happen again!
Bohica From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2407 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 7955 times:
Quoting Avatordon (Reply 4): Didn't PIA used to serve IAD as well?
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 61 Reply 11, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 7937 times:
No direct Pakistan-USA has been happening for a while..it has to do with the CAA/FAA and the fact certain government people from Paksitan who do not have to go through security check in Pakistan......
nonstop Pakistan-Canada flights still are allowed...
Quoting MalpensaSFO (Reply 9): It has plenty of bearing. Americans are being checked and re-checked for the insane ideas of a group of people who are bent on ruining the UK and US. People like to coward behind the religion or what not. The fact is that the people involved in the following events were not exactly European or Americans:
Your links are valid, but security in Pakistan airports is very tough...though I don't think there aren't bomb-screening devices such as we have here in the United States (there might be, I really don't know)....getting through airport security is tough for pax....
there are two screenings, as well as "pat-downs", on top of that, there are military people everywhere...
it would have to be an "inside" job...and as Jaysit properly mentioned, PK has 95% Pakistani's flying with them......
Ordryan28 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 988 posts, RR: 17 Reply 13, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 7929 times:
hmm... I guess this is a good move by the US government.
What could a terrorist do on a flight ISB-US that he couldn't do via MAN? Do
passengers have to deboard the plane at MAN?
Yes, they do. And I believe their luggage is re-checked.
considering that, it seems like a great move by our government. there were rumors swirling around about a nonstop Pakistan-US flight but I knew those would never go through. after the recent events regarding terrorism, it doesn't look like it will ever happen.
-Ryan
Whoever said winning is not everything never fought cancer.
Beefstew25 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 675 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 7891 times:
Quoting MalpensaSFO (Reply 9): It has plenty of bearing. Americans are being checked and re-checked for the insane ideas of a group of people who are bent on ruining the UK and US. People like to coward behind the religion or what not. The fact is that the people involved in the following events were not exactly European or Americans:
Sad but true the people that brought about the above events have a number of things in common. To sit back and say that the Western World should be held hostage and look at each other is useless. The people that are suspected in the latest Heathrow threat, Bojinka threat, 9-11, 7-7, and scores of others have one to many things in common. Flights from Pakistan to the United States should not be allowed as nonstop. If Canada wants to take the risk, let them. We learned a lesson on 9-11, and are not willing to go out on a limb and wait for it to happen again!
I will say it....they were Muslim extremists....lets just start profiling....
MLB: Where you are always number one for takeoff.....
LTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12329 posts, RR: 12 Reply 15, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 7862 times:
The USA has a stressful relationship with Pakistan, including going after al-Quada as well as trade issues. There are enough people in Pakistan whom have expressed views against the USA and are supported by a segment of people there so that the USA and it's politicans don't have much of an alternative.
Ordryan28 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 988 posts, RR: 17 Reply 16, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 7838 times:
Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 15): The USA has a stressful relationship with Pakistan
that is true, and after the recent events in the UK, I'm sure our relationship (both aviation related and non-aviation related) will worsen.
-Ryan
Whoever said winning is not everything never fought cancer.
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 61 Reply 18, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 7648 times:
Quoting Jumbo747 (Reply 17): I am glad PIA doesn't fly direct. Not gonna happen in a hurry either.
What sort of problem do you have with it? Last time I recalled, it was United States-based air carriers in 9/11 and United States-based carriers targetted in the UK last week....
and as Jaysit perfectly stated......
Quoting Jaysit (Reply 7):
The only way a PIA flight from Pakistan to the US could pose a threat is if a potential terrorist decided to use the 777 as another 9-11 style missile. Well, that wouldn't be likely for a number of reasons. First, any hint that such an aircraft would pose to be a threat would be taken very seriously by US authorities, i.e., its almost certain that the aircraft would be destroyed by the US AirForce before it even approached US airspace. Second, a 777 flying non-stop from Karachi to, say, JFK would be nearly flying on fumes by the time it approached JFK, quite unlike the 9-11 aircraft which were laden with fuel.
.....the Twin Towers crashed not because of the fact planes had struck the buildings (they were designed even to widthstand a B707 flying into it), it was because of all of the fuel which caused the metal of the buildings frame to melt, which caused irreversible structural damage...
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 61 Reply 20, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 7194 times:
Bnamaxx From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 7065 times:
Quoting Misbeehavin (Reply 8): This is a typical knee-jerk response done only to ensure that some flapping jaw in the clueless press or some yappy politician doesn't use it as some scare tactic. Realistically, it achieves nothing.
Why didn't the U.S. ban flights by Saudi Arabian after 9/11 once it was known most of those hijackers were of Saudi heritage? Would this ban have happened in a non-election year? Time to start scaring the electorate again to save those votes in November.
Jaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 6647 times:
Quoting MalpensaSFO (Reply 9): It has plenty of bearing. Americans are being checked and re-checked for the insane ideas of a group of people who are bent on ruining the UK and US. People like to coward behind the religion or what not. The fact is that the people involved in the following events were not exactly European or Americans:
But what does that have to do with banning nonstop PIA 777s to the US from Pakistan?
Or do you just like hearing the sound of the clicks of your keyboard?
PIA nonstops or not, checks and re-checks are a fact of life now. If anything, PIA and Saudia flights are probably the safest way to travel now, giving ElAl a run for their money.
Reiterating what I said earlier, assuming a PIA 777 were hijacked, the US would probably destroy it prior to it entering US airspace; if it was intended to be used as a 9-11 style missile, it wouldn't do much good since it would have depleted its fuel reserves; and blowing one up by a "liquid" bomb wouldn't do much either since I doubt if the average American (red stater or otherwise) gives a damn about innocent Pakistani civilians being blown to bits over the Atlantic. If anything, it would enrage Pakistanis back in Pakistan.
If the US and the UK wanted to ban all PIA flights from flying into the US or the UK, it would - perhaps - make a tad more sense than banning nonstops from Pakistan. But politically that wouldn't make any sense. Pakistan would be enraged. And any cooperation the US gets from the Pakistani military would vanish.
So, the US authorities engage in this stupid measure which will make no one safer, but by enforcing this punitive measure against PIA will deflect any criticism by our idiotic unthinking press and equally dimwitted politicians.
Its just politics being played out in a petty and completely ineffective manner.
MERLIN From India, joined Mar 2006, 70 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 6367 times:
Quoting Ordryan28 (Reply 16): that is true, and after the recent events in the UK, I'm sure our relationship (both aviation related and non-aviation related) will worsen.
I dun really think so.
Quoting Beefstew25 (Reply 14): will say it....they were Muslim extremists....lets just start profiling
True
Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 15): The USA has a stressful relationship with Pakistan, including going after al-Quada as well as trade issues. There are enough people in Pakistan whom have expressed views against the USA
Correct.
Lets say this we all know that with increasing tensions in middle -east and so the rest of the world involving muslim nations situations have been worsening with the US in particular as it supports the elimination of the Muslim extremists which co-incidently are said to be "Jihadis" which in the World of muslims carries a loud and clear meaning.
Waging a war or calling a Powerful muslim nation as axis of evil (IRAN) has already created a lot of unwanted situations for the US.The next most important part is, like mentioned above, US is having a stressful relationship with Pakistan in terms of maintaining a balance between its People and its Government,Knowing the circumstances as what could happen if US does initiate a move to Destroy its Militants.
As we know Majority of terror camps running across the LOC are located within Pakistan (no offence).Despite knowing it US doesnt involve itself directly into the issue but does interfere only if its land is in Danger,so as to prevent any other 9/11 or 7/7 weather its by not allowing Direct flights or by someother means.
Quoting Bnamaxx (Reply 21): Why didn't the U.S. ban flights by Saudi Arabian after 9/11 once it was known most of those hijackers were of Saudi heritage?
trained by the Al-Qaida ( having a lot of people from around the world). Mainly if we see its mere politics
"Aviation & Black hole carry same effect,once any where near it you're bound to get sucked in".
777way From Pakistan, joined Dec 2005, 5160 posts, RR: 4 Reply 24, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 6257 times:
Air India bombing was by Sikhs not Muslims, I forsee PIA disposing of their 777LR in a trade off for other 777 versions with another airline eventually, Vietnam Airlines could do with them for their proposed US service.
25 Historic747: Canada is always slow as usual. They will learn the right thing sooner or later. UK and much of W Europe was lieneant toward some religions (you know
26 Ordryan28: you just made a fantastic post, I couldn't agree more with everything you said. but anyway, lets get real. the more and more I think about it, a Paki
27 AirxLiban: I'm not sure how realistic the perceived threat of PIA flights to the US really is. If the US wants to exert that level of scrutiny on air travel betw
28 Blrsea: BTW, why are all the al-quaida top leaders holed up in Pakistan, and that too in cities like Karachi and Lahore? A top al-quiada leader was caught li
29 Historic747: It leads me to ask why is it that a disproportionate number of terrorists that appear on world stage are Pakistani? The governement is not strong eno
30 Jaysit: But then a one stop PIA flight would be just as much of a problem as a nonstop one. Why a ban on nonstops then? A good point, but then why hasn't it
31 MalpensaSFO: The flights are re-checked again at Manchester, thankfully. The people of the United States do not want to take the security risk!
32 MERLIN: i wud suggest the same to you. Its a hard proven fact of pakistans hand in global terrorism and to the point on helping is concerned after a lot of e
33 Historic747: On one stop flights you are re-checked in Europe or some other nation whose security you may rely on. On non-stop flights you are not. You are just c
34 MalpensaSFO: That has nothing to do with it. One thing comes up time and time again... PAKISTAN... TERRORISM... PAKISTAN... TERRORISM... PAKISTAN... TERRORISM CAR
35 Blrsea: Nope, you are wrong. You need to study Pakistan's history to understand its support for these militant groups. Pakistani dictator Zia-ul-Haq promoted
36 ChrisNH: It's pretty hard to have flights on a route like this when the only people not on the 'No Fly' list are flying the plane.
37 Airxliban: Thanks for the info. I obviously didn't know all of that. I was under the impression that Pakistani society had become more civilised over the last 1
39 Horus: Unfortunately certain members have turned this discussion into a political one that has nothing to do with civil aviation and therefore the thread has
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5085 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 31107 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Apr 2006, 57 posts, 
.....the Twin Towers crashed not because of the fact planes had struck the buildings (they were designed even to widthstand a B707 flying into it), it was because of all of the fuel which caused the metal of the buildings frame to melt, which caused irreversible structural damage...
From India, joined Mar 2006, 70 posts, 
From Pakistan, joined Dec 2005, 5160 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
