Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
US Requiring Passenger Information On CDN/UK Pass.  
User currently offlineflyb From Canada, joined Aug 2006, 684 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 7626 times:

If our countries required this of American passengers, the American government would be up in arms, so would its people. As a Canadian, I am can not believe how our governments allows this to happen.

Planning a trip to Canada or the Caribbean? US Immigration may have other ideas...
New security checks are already in place – even for flights hundreds of miles from American airspace
Simon Calder Author Biography

Monday 26 March 2012

One million British travellers planning to fly to Canada, the Caribbean and Mexico this year face the risk of being turned away at the airport – at the insistence of the US Department of Homeland Security.

New rules require British Airways and other airlines flying to certain airports outside America to submit passengers' personal data to US authorities. The information is checked against a "No Fly" list containing tens of thousands of names. Even if the flight plan steers well clear of US territory, travellers whom the Americans regard as suspicious will be denied boarding.

Simon Hughes, the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats, told The Independent: "The concern by the US for its own security is entirely understandable, but it seems to me it's a whole different issue that American wishes should determine the rights and choices of people travelling between two countries neither of which is the US."

For several years, every US-bound passenger has had to provide Advance Passenger Information (API) before departure. Washington has extended the obligation to air routes that over-fly US airspace, such as Heathrow to Mexico City or Gatwick to Havana.

http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/...-may-have-other-ideas-7584912.html

[Edited 2012-03-26 11:26:36]

42 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAS739BSI From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 7452 times:

I hope the UK requires the same thing in response and I hope other governments follow suit. I fail to see how this makes America more secure.

User currently offlineandrefranca From Brazil, joined May 2011, 599 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 7223 times:

Yeah they sent it most intl airports around the globe, found it...... well what can't we expect from them these days?

just another info for your thread:

Pretend you are John A. and i'm Carl B. , we show up on the check-in together cause we are friends or I saw your on the hall whatsoever, you got your name on the list for whatever reason, just because i'm with you, I'm also supposed to have my boarding denied even if my name doesn't appear on the list or with different localizators...


pretty cool ehhhh?


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22706 posts, RR: 20
Reply 3, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 6937 times:

Quoting flyb (Thread starter):
New rules require British Airways and other airlines flying to certain airports outside America to submit passengers' personal data to US authorities.

I'm not sure why this is "new news." It's old news and, frankly, it's perfectly understandable. Let's imagine that the underwear bomber (NW 253) had succeeded. The plane likely would have blown up over Canada. Would Canada be justified in checking passengers on the way to the US and the Caribbean? I'm not sure, but there's certainly an argument to be made that they are.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4410 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 6875 times:

Totally absurd and yes, I would hope Canada and the UK would reciprocate.

User currently offlineaeroblogger From India, joined Dec 2011, 1363 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6749 times:

I think that just refusing to comply would be better than reciprocating...


Airports 2012: IXE HYD DEL BLR BOM CCU KNU KTM BKK SIN ICN LAX BUR SFO PHX IAH ORD EWR PHL PVD BOS FRA MUC IST
User currently offlineaeroblogger From India, joined Dec 2011, 1363 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6744 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 3):
I'm not sure why this is "new news." It's old news and, frankly, it's perfectly understandable. Let's imagine that the underwear bomber (NW 253) had succeeded. The plane likely would have blown up over Canada. Would Canada be justified in checking passengers on the way to the US and the Caribbean? I'm not sure, but there's certainly an argument to be made that they are.

You appear to be talking about something completely different...

This "new news" is that the USA now wants to check passengers even if the flight doesn't cross USA airspace
That is a problem



Airports 2012: IXE HYD DEL BLR BOM CCU KNU KTM BKK SIN ICN LAX BUR SFO PHX IAH ORD EWR PHL PVD BOS FRA MUC IST
User currently offlinenycdave From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 546 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6744 times:

Well, we have a habit here of making work when we've run out of it. Like the National Rifle Association. No congress or president is going to be able to pass, or even think of passing, more than the most slight and token restrictions on the ability to carry fully automatic assault weapons loaded with teflon-covered "cop-killer" bullets, including in national parks and in school zones. However, if the NRA simply said "our gun rights are safe and secure", money and press would stop pouring in. Sooooo they start pushing things like "stand your ground" laws, concealed carrying laws, laws to let you drink and shoot, and shoot first and ask questions later, and any increasingly crazy thing they can come up with to generate controversy and income.

The TSA and Homeland Security work much the same way. The second they say "well, we've got things pretty much as secure as we could reasonable make them without sealing off all borders and creating some sort of DDR-like police state", they'll have a hard time defending their budget, their staffing levels, and the administrators will get blamed for "not doing their job" when the inevitable incident DOES occur.

On behalf of my beloved homeland, I beg your apology. We Americans *are* kind of nuts, and can be a little scary at times. But it's hard being us, as well, you know. Plus, we've had some good times, together, haven't we, Canada? I mean, you're not offended by all those jokes we make about how calm and civil and polite you are, right? You haven't, as a nation, actually been seething with increasing rage, planning your inevitable revenge upon us? Possibly by doing something crazy while flying to the Carribean or such?  


User currently offlineftornik From Canada, joined Dec 2009, 48 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 6633 times:

Quoting flyb (Thread starter):
New rules require British Airways and other airlines flying to certain airports outside America to submit passengers' personal data to US authorities.

This has been the case for many years.

The Globe and Mail ran a story about this in 2005, "U.S. no-fly roster may swat Canadians", June 6, p. A4, by John Ibbitson.

That article stated,

"[In April] a KLM flight travelling to Mexico from Amsterdam had two passengers on board whom the Americans considered security threats. The United States refused to allow the flight into its airspace, forcing the plane to return to Amsterdam.

"In the wake of that incident, the Transportation Security Administration announced plans to require all flights passing through U.S. airspace en route to somewhere else to submit detailed passenger lists. The draft proposal for the regulations could be available as early as next week."

The proposed rule was published in the U.S. Federal Register (equivalent to the Canada Gazette) on August 23, 2007 and applied to "all flights . . . arriving in or departing from the United States or overflying the continental United States."

It made a specific exeption for flights between two points in Canada, (such as Toronto-Halifax) and two points in Mexico, such as Tijuana-Cuidad Juarez.

It is now codified in U.S. legislation as 49 CFR § 1560.3.

It has applied to all flights between Canada and Latin American and much of the Caribbean since 2008. For the record, no Canadian passenger travelling to Cuba has faced consequences as a result of APIS (Advance Passenger Information System) information being provided to U.S. authorities.


User currently offlinehhslax2 From Bahrain, joined Jan 2012, 122 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 6576 times:

The only rationale I can see in this would be that the US is the only option for an emergency landing for a part of the flight, and the US doesn't want the possibility of some one on the no fly list being on a flight in this situation.

User currently offlineACDC8 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 7642 posts, RR: 36
Reply 10, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 6330 times:

Quoting hhslax2 (Reply 9):
The only rationale I can see in this would be that the US is the only option for an emergency landing for a part of the flight, and the US doesn't want the possibility of some one on the no fly list being on a flight in this situation.


The reasoning for someone denying someone on the no-fly list is because they are supposedly a threat (and I use that term loosely) to civil aviation (US aviation to be more specific) and I seriously doubt that some would be underwear bomber is going to book a flight to YVR in the hopes it'll make an emergency landing in the US.

I'm pretty sure the reasoning behind this has nothing to do with the threat to aviation itself, think about, requesting passenger information to flights landing in Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean, all places that either border the US or are easy to get to the US from, so they're just trying to keep these people from entering the US via air and now land. Its probably a lot easier and cheaper for the US Government to dictate their policies onto other countries then beef up their land borders.

Not to offend my US friends, I love you guys and please don't take this personally, but please, just build the fence along the Canada/US border and leave the rest of the world out of your Governments insecurities.

I'm actually quite interested if this would not infringe on other nations laws or even international laws.

[Edited 2012-03-27 02:08:45]

[Edited 2012-03-27 02:37:52]


A Grumpy German Is A Sauerkraut
User currently offlineRWA380 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3109 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 5941 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 3):
I'm not sure why this is "new news." It's old news and, frankly, it's perfectly understandable. Let's imagine that the underwear bomber (NW 253) had succeeded. The plane likely would have blown up over Canada. Would Canada be justified in checking passengers on the way to the US and the Caribbean? I'm not sure, but there's certainly an argument to be made that they are.

Really the issue is, if this person arrives in Canada, and is hell bent on getting into the USA to commit an act of terrorism, he or she would have thousands of miles of unprotected boarder to cross over, in addition to a myriad of boarder crossings, that thousands of cars cross daily. It is the reason the US wants so much control on who gets into Canada.
The reason the US wanted to put missile installations in the Arctic, they said to protect both Canada and the United States.



AA-AC-AQ-AS-BN-BD-CO-CS-DL-EA-EZ-HA-HP-KL-KN-MP-MW-NK-NW-OO-OZ-PA-PS-QX-RC-RH-RW-SA-TG-TW-UA-US-VS-WA-WC-WN
User currently offlineusdcaguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 948 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 5776 times:

Quoting ACDC8 (Reply 10):
Not to offend my US friends, I love you guys and please don't take this personally, but please, just build the fence along the Canada/US border and leave the rest of the world out of your Governments insecurities.

In this day and age, chastising Americans when in fact you meant to chastise the American government will get you nowhere. The two groups have much less to do with each other than even 10 years ago. A small group of perverse monied interests now run the government, not citizens themselves. Not to be overly critical, but your comment might have been useful to rattle off fifty years ago, when honest politicians had a chance in this country, but no longer. A better approach might be to encourage your US friends to write their representative in Congress about how the policy offends their Canadian friends, who have refused to travel to the US as a result, which would deprive their home state of needed tourism and thus jobs. I doubt, however, there is anyone lobbying congress specifically against this policy what with all the new police-state regulations swirling around, so the letter would probably be considered an anomaly and thus ignored and forgotten about, especially without a sizable campaign contribution to back it up.


User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3354 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 5700 times:

Quoting flyb (Thread starter):
If our countries required this of American passengers, the American government would be up in arms, so would its people. As a Canadian, I am can not believe how our governments allows this to happen.

Really, do you really think we have a lot of leverage here, at least until most or all of our oil exports start going to China. Although I would like to see Canada unite with the EU and call the US bluff and ban all overfly rights on US carriers under the same circumstances. Canada can't do it alone but maybe teaming up with the UK might make a difference.

Quoting flyb (Thread starter):
New rules require British Airways and other airlines flying to certain airports outside America to submit passengers' personal data to US authorities. The information is checked against a "No Fly" list containing tens of thousands of names. Even if the flight plan steers well clear of US territory, travellers whom the Americans regard as suspicious will be denied boarding.

If that flight passes US airspace then then this is nothing new, however the US have no right knowing who is going to fly on on a LHR-Canada flight because all those flights

Quoting nycdave (Reply 7):
concealed carrying laws, laws to let you drink and shoot

I'm surprised that there hasn't been a mass shooting in a bar if guns are allowed.

Quoting ftornik (Reply 8):
This has been the case for many years.

For flights passing over US airspace it has been. Now the US wants to enforce against flights that don't which is a load of crap.

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 11):
Really the issue is, if this person arrives in Canada, and is hell bent on getting into the USA to commit an act of terrorism, he or she would have thousands of miles of unprotected boarder to cross over, in addition to a myriad of boarder crossings, that thousands of cars cross daily. It is the reason the US wants so much control on who gets into Canada.

That is the business of your country to deal with and not Canada's!!! You can't and never will be able to secure a border with Mexico what makes you think you can secure the border with Canada. Not saying it isn't possible but I doubt once it was determined what the cost would be that is would ever pass congress.

Until North America gets a system like the EU where entry requirements are the same and the border is just a formality Canada and Mexico can deicide who they let in.

I might have a different opinion if AC 767's operating a Canadian domestic route crashed into the World Trade Centre on 9/11. I would even be a little more sympathetic if the 9/11 terrorists crossed from Canada (which Janet Napolitano still thinks) but it isn't true.

Those terrorists were in the US legally.

Quoting usdcaguy (Reply 12):
In this day and age, chastising Americans when in fact you meant to chastise the American government will get you nowhere.

Fair point.

[Edited 2012-03-27 04:22:36]


Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineSKAirbus From Norway, joined Oct 2007, 1666 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5189 times:

This is the reason I do not have any desire to travel to the US anymroe.. It is more hassle than my holiday is worth.

I'll stay in Europe where people are treated as human beings and not criminals at the borders.



Next Flights: LGW-SVG (738-DY), SVG-LHR (319-BA), LHR-HKG (388-BA), HKG-SYD (333-CX), SYD-HKG (333-CX), HKG-LHR (388-BA)
User currently offlinepackcheer From United States of America, joined Nov 2008, 326 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4954 times:

Quoting aeroblogger (Reply 6):

This "new news" is that the USA now wants to check passengers even if the flight doesn't cross USA airspace
That is a problem

Lets take a flight from England to Mexico. It may not enter US Airspace, but it comes pretty darn close.

What if somewhere off the east coast of the US the flight in question has trouble and needs to divert. The US would be wise to at least know who are on the flights that come near our airspace.

I would also be glad to submit my name to other countries I am over flying. It's not a secret I'm booked on the flight, and if it helps the other country be prepared, I'm all for it!



Things that fly, Girls and Planes...
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24785 posts, RR: 46
Reply 16, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4805 times:

Remember "US airspace" is far larger than then simply whats above the land mass.
On the Atlantic side it goes out far beyond Bermuda(whose upper airspace ATC is handled by the US anyhow) and meets Portugese Santa Maria control way on the otherside, while virtually all the Carribean and large area of Central Atlantic is covered by US control also.

Secondly, this is hardly new. As mentioned in reply 8, receipt of passenger names has been ongoing policy for several years.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently onlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8185 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4739 times:

Quoting N62NA (Reply 4):
Totally absurd and yes, I would hope Canada and the UK would reciprocate.

Why reciprocate? That would be encouraging this silliness. I'd rather hope that they decline to participate in this nonesense.


User currently offlinespeedbird217 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2012, 333 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4640 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 16):
Remember "US airspace" is far larger than then simply whats above the land mass.
On the Atlantic side it goes out far beyond Bermuda(whose upper airspace ATC is handled by the US anyhow) and meets Portugese Santa Maria control way on the otherside, while virtually all the Carribean and large area of Central Atlantic is covered by US control also.

It is controlled by US ATC, yes. That doesn't mean it's US airspace. Tiny but important difference when it comes to international laws. The national airspace is the same like the territiorial waters, 12 nm out from the coastline. Therefore it's pointless that it's controlled by US ATC, it doesn't belong to the US and is international airspace. Same with other large FIRs like Gander Oceanic or Shanwick FIR.

And while I am perfectly fine with the APIS, this new regulation is just complete nonsense. What's next, requiring passenger information on a flight from Heathrow to Paris, because you can fly to the US from either of the two airports?


User currently offlineflyb From Canada, joined Aug 2006, 684 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4556 times:

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 11):
Really the issue is, if this person arrives in Canada, and is hell bent on getting into the USA to commit an act of terrorism, he or she would have thousands of miles of unprotected boarder to cross over, in addition to a myriad of boarder crossings, that thousands of cars cross daily. It is the reason the US wants so much control on who gets into Canada.
The reason the US wanted to put missile installations in the Arctic, they said to protect both Canada and the United States.

As a Canadian, I do not wish anything bad on American soil, however when I fly to Europe or someone flies her to Canada it is none of the USA business of who is on the flight between to countries. American's are becoming to believe they have the "right" to any information...and unfortunetly our current government is not protecting its people against this. Your point of protecting your border, is exactly that. It is the USA responsiblity to monitor your countries border and protect your countries rights within your borders. However the American's rights end at your borders (at least they should).


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24785 posts, RR: 46
Reply 20, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4521 times:

Quoting speedbird217 (Reply 18):
It is controlled by US ATC, yes. That doesn't mean it's US airspace.

For info, the US has long had(going into cold war days) ADIZ that extends out hundrds of miles and is recognized by ICAO on the aviation side. All intended operations within the ADIZ will be compliant to US regulations and entry into ADIZ must be prenotified. Below is the continental US one. Additinal ones exist for Hawaii, Alaska and Pacific.



Simply put, you wish to transit US airspace, be compliant with the applicable regulations.


In regards to sharing passenger data, the more the better in my view. As is US airlines send APIS to many foreign nations, so adding addtional parties to distribition list should harldy be a problem.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineflyb From Canada, joined Aug 2006, 684 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4474 times:

This is very different, you are requiring data of people flying between the EU and Canada for example. I'm sorry, but if this was reversed by Mexico on cities like Houston, LA, Phoenix, or Canada on New York, Buffalo, Seattle the people in the US would be frustrated as well. I have nothing to hide, but I do not want a foreign government monitoring my moves when it has no authority as I'm not on its soil.

User currently offlineCZ346 From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 95 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4405 times:

Quoting nycdave (Reply 7):

Well, we have a habit here of making work when we've run out of it. Like the National Rifle Association. 

You're my hero.

Guys - like everyone has said before it is a little out of line, but at the same time understandable. This idea was based on 3 things.
1) In the event of diversion that possibly could divert over US airspace- pax related or not - they are made aware of the passengers, which will make it easier to asses the dangers. Every single one of us on this forum know can easily be caused by even a drunk pax.. RIM?.
2) Dependent on how far from US airspace this aircraft is, would it be feasible to hijack the a/c and make for the US??
3) Everything Dave said. We're a bit silly sometimes. Most of this information will actually transcend the appropriate channels in average international document checks...


User currently offlineaeroblogger From India, joined Dec 2011, 1363 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4339 times:

Quoting CZ346 (Reply 22):

Guys - like everyone has said before it is a little out of line, but at the same time understandable.

I fail to understand how this is "at the same time understandable."

Quoting CZ346 (Reply 22):

1) In the event of diversion that possibly could divert over US airspace- pax related or not - they are made aware of the passengers, which will make it easier to asses the dangers. Every single one of us on this forum know can easily be caused by even a drunk pax.. RIM?.

In the event of a diversion, I would expect the USA to get APIS data when the aircraft is about to enter US airspace. Demanding it in international airspace is not "understandable"

Quoting CZ346 (Reply 22):

2) Dependent on how far from US airspace this aircraft is, would it be feasible to hijack the a/c and make for the US??

No. If an aircraft scheduled to stay away from the USA entered USA airspace and did not communicate with the USA, fighter jets would be scrambled and the aircraft would probably be shot down before anything happened. Remember the Korean Air Crash?

Quoting CZ346 (Reply 22):
3) Everything Dave said. We're a bit silly sometimes. Most of this information will actually transcend the appropriate channels in average international document checks...

Americans may be silly, but does the rest of the world have to deal with their BS? That is the question...



Airports 2012: IXE HYD DEL BLR BOM CCU KNU KTM BKK SIN ICN LAX BUR SFO PHX IAH ORD EWR PHL PVD BOS FRA MUC IST
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4329 times:

Under International agreements the Aviation Security and Facilitation Policy (SFP) Section of ICAO approves policies for dealing with security and the threat of terrorist events. Any changes in policy that are adopted are binding on ICAO members unless they have a dispute registered. Is the policy announced by the US in any way contradictory to Annex 17 which provides for sharing of information between States?

25 PanHAM : you should stop watching these bad movies. exactly, and the secret services knew them they just did not coordinate. 9711 could have been avoided if t
26 CZ346 : I really don't want to edit my post, but after re-reading this information I seem to understand it a bit better. While I love my country and want to
27 SKAirbus : Unfortunately the UK and Canada are very submissive when it comes to the US. We don't stand up for ourselves when confronted with completely absurd ru
28 YULWinterSkies : But seriously, anyone with a valid reason to be on a no-fly list for the US may also have an opinion to voice in a violent manner about Canada's forei
29 Quokkas : There is the crux of the argument. "Valid" It has been demonstrated, in this forum no less, that mistakes can occur and the wrong people are identifi
30 Post contains images peergynt : And the American megalomania never stops. So sad. [Edited 2012-03-27 10:32:42]
31 Post contains images ACDC8 : More or less the point I was trying to make. I wasn't trying to chastise the American people. Guess you can cancel any trip to Canada now as well May
32 Gingersnap : Hm and I was planning a trip into Canada at some point soon. Sorry but no dice if this carries on.
33 mpsrent : Gingersnap, come on over, please don't hold U.S. foreign policy against us. Thousands of travelers move between Britain and Canada each day. I've tra
34 flyb : I'll fly from YEG - LHR now ...
35 Viscount724 : That doesn't make the airspace "US airspace" from any legal definition. Another simple example: Nav Canada ATC staff in YVR handle IFR flights arrivi
36 RWA380 : Lots of illegal people in the USA came here via Canada, I used to book deportation flights for those who came here and can't stay because they didn't
37 spartanmjf : I didn't know that capability existed. Sad but true - take a look at all aspects of TSA operations in any US airport.....
38 ZBA2CGX : The same might be said of people entering Canada from the US illegally. So if Canada were to implement something similar say with a 200 mile buffer e
39 Cubsrule : Many TATL flights to YYZ file BUF as a diversion point. Many (most?) longhaul flights to YVR file SEA as a diversion point. Why is this difficult to
40 flyb : If the airline files a US Airport as a diversion, I do not have as much of an issue with this. What I have issue with is requiring this of all airline
41 Post contains links Viscount724 : Not sure where your flights originated/terminated, but many Canada-UK (and other points in Europe) flights, especially those to/from major markets li
42 RWA380 : I'm sure your correct, but the thread was about the US requiring information on UK/CDN passengers. This is not a Canada vs United States thing, I thi
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...
Can A US Citizen Buy Tickets On A Uk Lcc? posted Wed Oct 26 2005 18:17:55 by Cadet57
Longest Passenger Flights On 727's Ex UK? posted Sat Sep 17 2005 17:52:28 by CalAir
Information On Past US Air Crash At LGA posted Tue Jul 17 2001 16:50:31 by RWally
US Airways/AMR Merger - On Bloomberg posted Fri Jan 20 2012 11:17:21 by stlgph
Information On Airtran AC #553 After WN Conversion? posted Thu Jan 5 2012 20:10:34 by GizmoNC
Are There Any US Planes With Reg. #'s On The Wings posted Sun Oct 23 2011 06:36:36 by contrails15
DL/US Slot Swap Impact On LGA Terminals posted Wed Oct 12 2011 09:01:41 by washingtonian
Information On Venezuelan Cessna YV2024 posted Thu Jan 6 2011 00:02:38 by Lionel
US Flies PHL-MBJ On The E190? posted Sat Jul 3 2010 15:14:59 by USAirALB
Information On Early DC10 Routes? posted Sun May 30 2010 11:42:18 by kaitak