B747-337M From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 7932 times:
This information was accurate as of 730pm EST. Things may have changed since then.
I sat in on the 6pm FAA conference call and also met up later in the evening with officials from Saudia, Air India, Korean Air, ANA, Pakistan Airlines, Bangladesh Biman, Egyptair and Uzebekistan Airlines.
The FAA is gearing up for a nasty showdown with the non-US carriers that operate into the United States. At present, the only use of US airspace by non-US carriers is for "diversion recovery operations from Canada". This does NOT include diversion recovery flights from the Carribean, Mexico, Europe or other US cities.
Specific examples :
a) Saudia has a 744 diverted to NAS. They want to ferry the aircraft back to JED, but require use of US airspace for the flight plan. They have been DENIED permission.
b) Korean Air has a 744 for IAD that was diverted to MSP. They attempted a diversion recovery flight today, but were ordered back to MSP by the Minnesotta Air National Guard or else be shot down.
c) Air India has a 744 for JFK that was returned to LHR. Although US flag carriers are permitted diversion recovery flights on LHR-JFK, AI has been denied permission on that route. A number of AI pax do not have permission to enter the UK and are being held in detention centers as a result.
d) Egyptair wanted to evacuate 48 crew members from New York in response to anti-Arab threats received by their offices. They were ready on a ferry flight out, but were denied permission by the FBI (not the FAA). Some crew were detained for questioning and the rest were returned to their hotel under armed escort.
The US carriers have been cleared to resume UNRESTRICTED part 121, part 129, part 131, part 135 and part 107 operations both internationally and domestically (with some minor exceptions). Why then are non-US carriers (whose security standards exceed those demanded by the FAA) being denied permission to even repatriate their aircrafts and crews?
As an unidentified European carrier commented, "This isn't security, its protectionism for US carriers. Have they forgotten that it was US planes that caused this mess in the first place?"
BA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11150 posts, RR: 60 Reply 4, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 7303 times:
I really think this is unfair, prohibiting int'l carriers to stop service, while allowing US carriers to fly internationally. A terrorist would more LIKELY target a US airline than a foreign airline. Known fact, so I think this move that the FAA is doing is stupid.
"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
B747-337M From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 7221 times:
Sorry OPNL, but I must disagree. You are reacting with the same kneejerk that the FAA is right now. Until and unless I am told that something is classified, or alternatively if I deem it sensitive in my judgement, I will use my discretion about what I say and to whom.
I'd be interested to see your views on the entire drama though if you were in on the call.
SouthRebels From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 7179 times:
I agree with OPNLguy. Maybe this wasn't the best judgement to release information here, whether you think its sensitive or not. Why even mess with chance, its not worth it. As for denying foreign airliners, we have absolutely no choice. We cannot risk it. It's not worth it. The carriers and their countries will understand and if they don't then screw them. This has been said so many times..........we don't live in the U.S. we did four days ago. It's a new place, one which the U.S. cannot be diplomatic anymore. We must finally look out for whats best for us. We aren't talking a couple hundred dead. Try a tens of thousands. Everyone needs to understand this. God Bless America.
Ahlfors From Canada, joined Oct 2000, 1334 posts, RR: 5 Reply 9, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 7160 times:
I understand(marginally) banning international aircraft from entering US airspace for now, but keeping international aircraft at US airports withou letting them get out of the US... even with crew only... thats like impounding them while letting the airlines that were involved in the mess (AA and UA) fly.
If these terrorists are after AMERICAN assets, more likely they would go after and American (the nation) aircraft, and not an international airline.
Maybe banning El Al, Egypt Air, Saudia, Kuwait Airways and PIA makes sense, but BA, LH, AC (!!!), JL, QF is just paranoid.
B747-337M From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 7154 times:
This is exactly the jingoistic bullcrap that the FAA is pulling in the name of security which is seriously beginning to piss people off. If any other country detained US aircraft and crews in the face of a terrorist incident like this, there would be cries of bloody murder.
There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that a terrorist is more likely to be aboard the Korean ferry from MSP-IAD or the Air India LHR-JFK than aboard the Delta flight from YQX-ATL or a brand new AA flight LHR-JFK. In fact, all the evidence points to the CONTRARY. The non-US carriers have security standards that are INFINITELY superior to those that the US carriers have used before Tuesday and are experienced at implementing counter-terrorism measures.
Once again, lest people forget, these were AMERICAN CARRIERS that dropped the ball from a security standpoint. Why penalize the rest of the world?
B747-337M From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 7123 times:
Maybe banning El Al, Egypt Air, Saudia, Kuwait Airways and PIA makes sense, but BA, LH, AC (!!!), JL, QF is just paranoid.
Jeez, can we say PROFILING? You are just proving my point.
Why on earth would you ban El Al from the skies? They are the safest airline in the world. I would ban the others based on security before I touched El Al.
Also, this morning's PANYNJ conference call with JFK carriers said that El Al and Air India were the only two carriers in FULL COMPLIANCE with the FAA's enhanced security measures BEFORE they were announced.
Talk about double standards.
Also, Canadian flag carriers are exempt from this ban. Forgot to mention that.
PerthGloryFan From Australia, joined Oct 2000, 751 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 7093 times:
From OPNLguy's "Other Info":
"It's not what you know, it's what you *don't* know that will get ya!"
So what is it you don't want us to know?
It may seem the decision to open the skies again may have been premature - maybe pressure from the o/s operators themselves? All the relevant agencies need to get their respective and collective acts together and start to work together.
I accept that it should not have to be the job of individual attendees at a meeting to decide to release info - that is what the agencies should do.
But how many foreign a/c are at US airports? What's so secret about why they can't leave US airspace? What's secret about telling anyone that they can't leave?
Apply strict security processes to clear each one, however long that takes, and then let them go as cleared.
Ahlfors From Canada, joined Oct 2000, 1334 posts, RR: 5 Reply 15, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 7095 times:
So, what the hell makes AC so much better than BA or LH or any other foreign carrier for that matter? The reason I mentioned Middle Eastern airlines is that they are from the Middle East, and thus the FAA could use their knee-jerk reactions to block those flights. Personally I don't approve of the bans, unless there is credible evidence that they are more dangerous than US/Canadian flights.
Danialanwar From Switzerland, joined Mar 2001, 421 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 7016 times:
I must agree that banning non-US carrier does not make much security sense. After all, the US carriers take off from the same airports with the same security as do the non-US carriers. And US carriers are probably higher on the target list of terrorists.
If at all, it should be non-US countries banning flights FROM the US, since the security violations clearly have taken place in the US.
I guess considering the scale and the surprise factor (who expected it to come this way???) of the attacks will go a long way in explaining some questionable decisions like these.
Best Business Class: Royal Brunei. Best Economy: Singapore Airlines. First: please send money first!
Flyhigh@tom From India, joined Sep 2001, 376 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 6978 times:
I completely agree with B747-337M. FAA is using double standards, especially i see no point in detaining non US carriers when the security levels for thses airlines is the same as of American airlines if not more.
Infact this is giving rise to a nasty situation with only the UC carriers(and some canadian) having monopoly in US airspace.
For example AI is already facing financial problems and grounding one of its a\c is only going to worsen matters. My sympathies with the American people for the dastardly terrorist that they have faced, but i would also like to know how they would feel if we ground a US airlines in an Asian country while we let our airlines roam all over freely.
Mx727 From Mexico, joined Feb 2001, 122 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 6947 times:
I don't see why foreign carriers cannot ferry their aircraft out, or why Egyptair crewmembers are treated like criminals. It's sad cause it seems Americans are rising thier rage against anything that sounds like foreign.
My best hopes and my prayers for you from Mexico... We are with you
Fly-By-Pilot From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 209 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 6955 times:
Maybe its because the US carriers are being investigated first for obvious reasons and they havent gotten arround to the internation carriers. I doubt the FAA is sabotaging international carrier operations in order to aid US airlines economically. I find it despicable that some of you are even considering this.
LV From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 1888 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 6933 times:
im confused, can candian carriers get their plans back up to Canada? I was watching a shot from La Guardia a few hours ago and I saw an AC a/c sitting at a gate in the background. SO are they going to be able to get that plane back north?
Lutfi From China, joined Sep 2000, 738 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 6918 times:
My understanding is that the FAA will need to recertify each airport and airline before allowing them to resume operations. Obviously, they don't have the manpower to recertify all airlines at once, so therefore are concentrating on the ones that will have the biggest impact on the US economy - so US and Canada first, expect Mexico, European and East Asian carriers to be next on the list.
ME and Subcontinent carriers may find themselves at the back of a long queue. Whether or not SV or AI fly to the US will have minimal impact on US, as pax can get there via Europe.
25 Ceilidh: Yep, B747-337M - I'm hearing from contacts in quite a few European airlines that they are geting rather frustrated with the Americans at present - esp
26 L-188: Hey it goes both ways... Continental had a flight that was supposed to go ANC-to EWR sometime today. The Canadian government denied use of that much o
27 Sam the Lab: All of what has happened has been such a blow to the American psyche that the government and the FAA are still very much in shock and have not been ab
28 AKelley728: This really sucks... my uncle decided to take a cheap fare to India on Ethiopian airlines (via Addis Ababa). He normally takes British airways via LHR
29 Sotomayor: You should guess that there are national security concerns driving the short-term policy of the FAA. Accusing the USA of ill-will in these actions (wh
30 Cedarjet: The ban on foreign airliners in US airspace is ridiculous. Security at Cairo, Seoul or Bombay is ten times better than for any US domestic carrier, at
31 SFOintern: Sean, If you were on the conf call, why are you asking this? Why then are non-US carriers (whose security standards exceed those demanded by the FAA)
32 Mikeymike: I didn't feel like reading all the rhetoric, but the South African Airlines 744 left Atlanta yesterday....so this is not a blanket case...
33 Jaysit: Its our "we're an island unto ourself" mentality, guys. Thats all. We just have a lot of growing up to do, and unfortunately that will only come in fi
34 GDB: I'd like to think, and we should assume, that the FAA are suffering from admin. overload. Even so, FAA and security? What a joke, and a tragic one at
35 Boeingfan: This is the wrong place for this info. and conjecture. Everything is being done at this time to resolve security and flight issues in an effort to thw
36 OPNLguy: >>>You should guess that there are national security concerns driving the short-term policy of the FAA. Accusing the USA of ill-will in these actions
37 B747-337M: Some clarifications : a) The issue of security certification is NOT relevant, as all of these airlines HAVE BEEN inspected and certified already by th
38 Goingboeing: It's Sean - 25 year old wunderkid cop/computer guru/airline analyst/and FAA director wanna-be.
39 DeltaSFO: Finally, please don't even begin to accuse me of insensitivity in this situation. I was travelling from EWR-SFO on Tuesday and fortunately declined a
40 B747-337M: Considering the level to which security has been compromised, most likely by foreign nationals, I think the foreign carriers are the reckless ones if
41 Jaysit: My such affirmative language !! And why on earth should "Air India and its ilk" (whatever that means) be banned from US airports? Conclusive statement
42 XFSUgimpLB41X: B747-337M- This is sick. This tradgedy was NOT caused by american aircraft, flight crew and registration. This was caused by some cowardly maniacs try
43 Stretch 8: Okay, I retract the Air India crack. But the originator of this thread is an annoying little prick who thinks he knows more about everything than ever
44 Jaysit: I just looked at the FAA list. It appears that airline ops are slowly being restored to normal. Also, you cannot blame US airlines for the disaster on
45 Flashmeister: My read on the EgyptAir situation is that for whatever reason, the FBI may think that it's not safe for them to return, or they may think that there's
46 B747-337M: XFSU - With all due respect, I beg to differ. If US carriers (who have a proven recent track record of bad security) are considered NOT to be a securi
47 BarfBag: Also, if you believe that I am really 13-15 yrs old, you need to seriously examine yourself! Unfortunately you also need to seriously examine your pr
48 Goingboeing: What I want to know is how come Sean "declined" a seat UA93? Do you have that much time on your hands to hang out at the airport and pick and choose w
49 B747-337M: B747-337M: I am curious though as to why Air India has not been cleared to operate from BOM and DEL if you say that the FAA believes its security ops
50 BarfBag: What I want to know is how come Sean "declined" a seat UA93? Do you have that much time on your hands to hang out at the airport and pick and choose
51 B747-337M: What I want to know is how come Sean "declined" a seat UA93? Do you have that much time on your hands to hang out at the airport and pick and choose w
52 Jaysit: Well, I don't know if there are double standards concerning AI's operations, but the question I had was why aren't they commencing regular operations
53 B747-337M: why aren't they commencing regular operations to the US if other foreign carriers with lower security standards are ? Clearly BOM and DEL have been ce
54 Jaysit: The website just says that operations are cancelled until September 18.
55 B747-337M: Jaysit - I dunno which website you are referring to, but I am literally in hourly contact with JFK AI ops and they are hoping to fly no earlier than W
56 Ejaymd11: B747-337M I agree with you with most of the points you made, but I strongly disagree with your comments on the tradgedy being caused by american aircr
57 Ceilidh: I'm with Sean on this one. As I've already said, this is protectionism at its worst - the majority of the affected airlines are the flag carriers of m
58 Jaysit: I read it on the Times of India website, but it looks like you're more up to date than they are. Its a crying shame that the FAA is engaging in double
59 Jaysit: Ceilidh, I agree with you in some respects ! But AD, SB scandals are a dime-a-dozen at the FAA.
60 BA: Ahlfors, Maybe banning El Al, Egypt Air, Saudia, Kuwait Airways and PIA makes sense Why on earth you think its okay to ban the most strict airlines in
61 B747-337M: Wanna see a classic example of double standards? Indira Gandhi International Airport in Delhi. Air India handles security for Northwest Airlines at th
62 Jaysit: So, just what are AI doing about it? Lobbying the FAA? Is the Indian government calling up the FAA?
63 Go Canada!: Ba and eL al are a bit put out since they have tougher secuirty than american carriers.
64 Acvitale: I am going to take a bet that the fools who lumped AI and BOM into the same catagory as other foreign carriers and US carriers have never flown AI or
65 Wingman: Some people on this forum are unbelievable. What you have here is a US gov't gone completely paranoid about air travel security for one simple reason.
66 Ceilidh: ACVitale - you surprise me, Al - I thought that you, at least, could read! It was merely a question; a theoretical possibility intended to open people
67 Jaysit: "A cancer of ignorance, ....?" Geez ! Get a grip dude. We're getting too be a bit too dramatic here, aren't we? I agree with Activale. Security at BOM
68 B747-337M: Some people on this forum are unbelievable. What you have here is a US gov't gone completely paranoid about air travel security for one simple reason.
69 Acvitale: Wingman, Now I do not know where you failed geography at but, here is a clue... India is prominently Buddist, Hindu and there are more Christians then
70 Goingboeing: What is going on here is a bunch of Americans who couldn't give two hoots about their carriers before 848am on Tuesday (go read old threads on service
71 B747-337M: Imagine for a moment if a similar event happened to an Air India flight and the Taj Mahal... It is pretty unlikely that such an event would have happe
72 Acvitale: I think GoingBoeing and the rest of you bashing Sean should know something.. Sean after being stranded in EWR went and volunteered to help with rescue
73 Ceilidh: This from PPRuNe, posted by a very credible source: There is a clear answer to the "how" of the 11-9-01 disaster in the USA. In the USA, the Federal L
74 Wingman: Activale/Celdih, it is you who should do a little research online to find that the most serious recent terrorist attacks in India, primarily the bombi
75 Goingboeing: never say never, Sean. Anything can happen. My position still stands - if Americans are arrogant, if the Congress is to be faulted for aiding the US A
76 Acvitale: Cediliah, Now you have said something I can agree with. The real blame lies with ourselves for years ignoring the obvious holes. The sad part is that
77 B747-337M: the most serious recent terrorist attacks in India, primarily the bombings of Mumbai, were traced to radical Muslim groups. Actually, they were traced
78 Wingman: Activale, this argument between us is absurd. I have flown in and out of India on several occasions, the first time spending 12 hours in "custody" at
79 Jaysit: Well, it appears that foreign carriers are making a staged comeback to the US skies. Sean (if that is really you, and if it is, then a hearty welcome
80 B747-337M: Jaysit - AI will operate as follows : 16 Sep AI 111 BOM-DEL-LHR (xld LHR-JFK) AI 112 LHR-DEL-BOM (xld JFK-LHR) dep LHR 1355 AI 125 noop (xld BOM-LHR-O