US Requiring Passenger Information On CDN/UK Pass.

flyb · Mon Mar 26, 2012 6:25 pm

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]

AS739BSI · Mon Mar 26, 2012 7:40 pm

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.

andrefranca · Mon Mar 26, 2012 9:19 pm

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?

Cubsrule · Tue Mar 27, 2012 1:50 am

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.

N62NA · Tue Mar 27, 2012 2:10 am

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

aeroblogger · Tue Mar 27, 2012 3:12 am

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

aeroblogger · Tue Mar 27, 2012 3:14 am

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

nycdave · Tue Mar 27, 2012 3:15 am

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?

ftornik · Tue Mar 27, 2012 4:33 am

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.

hhslax2 · Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:01 am

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.

ACDC8 · Tue Mar 27, 2012 9:03 am

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]

RWA380 · Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:38 am

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.

usdcaguy · Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:07 am

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.

StarAC17 · Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:20 am

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]

SKAirbus · Tue Mar 27, 2012 12:59 pm

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.

packcheer · Tue Mar 27, 2012 1:39 pm

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!

LAXintl · Tue Mar 27, 2012 2:03 pm

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.

airbazar · Tue Mar 27, 2012 2:10 pm

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.

speedbird217 · Tue Mar 27, 2012 2:28 pm

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?

flyb · Tue Mar 27, 2012 2:42 pm

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).

LAXintl · Tue Mar 27, 2012 2:48 pm

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.

flyb · Tue Mar 27, 2012 2:55 pm

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.

CZ346 · Tue Mar 27, 2012 3:05 pm

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...

aeroblogger · Tue Mar 27, 2012 3:15 pm

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...

Quokkas · Tue Mar 27, 2012 3:16 pm

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?

PanHAM · Tue Mar 27, 2012 3:22 pm

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,

you should stop watching these bad movies.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 13):
Those terrorists were in the US legally.

exactly, and the secret services knew them they just did not coordinate. 9711 could have been avoided if the secret services had done their job properly.

Quoting SKAirbus (Reply 14):
I'll stay in Europe where people are treated as human beings and not criminals at the borders.

I guess I need to go this year and I am not excited, still try to avoid it. I used to cross the Atlantic sometimes 6 or 8 times a year and always looked forward to the time in the US.

Quoting packcheer (Reply 15):
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.

It's amazing that hundreds of millions of Americans still get into their cars every day and drive to work, to the supermarkets, soccer moms driving the kids around to school and sports. Imagine what could happen, my goodness. Why not check and barcode everyone and request them to radio in for a drive permission with destination and number of people (serial niumber that is) on board.

jeez, those guys could all be terrorists outside. or the roof caves in. All these hidden "sleepers" who just wait for their signal.

CZ346 · Tue Mar 27, 2012 4:08 pm

Quoting aeroblogger (Reply 23):

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 support everything it does - this is a bit... over the top. I wasn't aware that it was directed to distance from airspace and to airports specifically.

In my opinion if something can be justified its one thing, but ... I just ... can't figure this out...

SKAirbus · Tue Mar 27, 2012 4:37 pm

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 rules like this one.

Also look at the US/UK extradiction treaty. It is completely geared towards the US interests with little evidence required to send Brits to the US to stand trial. However, our government seems reluctant to stand up and confront this despite promising it during the last election.

The same needs to be done with this law that flouts the human rights of most normal citizens. Maybe it would be more effective if the EU interjected?

YULWinterSkies · Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:10 pm

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 foreign policies in Afghanistan. So perhaps, it might also protect Canada at the end...

While I strongly disapprove the western countries' war in Afghanistan, I also frankly could not care less and will take no pity if Mr. X who's attended para-military training camps in the tribal zones of Pakistan is denied boarding on a flight to YYC that does not cross the US airspace. No matter his citizenship and legal status in Canada/USA. Neither his ethnic origin.
Being banned to fly into North America is a serious hurdle to come back from such trips, even if one is US/Canadian citizen... it is a damn long way to swim!
Of course the list is secret and there may be more people than just converted fundamentalists with military training acquired in Pakistan (it could unfortunately include homonyms), but chances are that the average person is NOT on it.

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.

Hold on! you seem to assume that any potential terrorist would be from some obscure nation from the Middle East or Africa, while he could very well be American or Canadian of any descent, and returning from a 'trip' in the tribal zones of Pakistan. With a US or Canadian passport, he would hence have no major problem entering the US legally. Why would one need to build a fence? Which would be here to be crossed, anyway.

Quoting aeroblogger (Reply 23):
Americans may be silly, but does the rest of the world have to deal with their BS? That is the question...

they do if they are sillier. Ha!

Quokkas · Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:27 pm

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 28):
anyone with a valid reason

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 identified. A mistake in entering API details, or a similarity in names and some totally innocent person has their travel messed up.

While you couldn't care less about Mr X and his propensity for attending training camps in wherever, you similarly don't care about Mrs X who has never done anything other than book a flight to see her rellies.

Who cares, as the saying goes? The US is safe from a non-existent threat and the rest of the world can go ....

peergynt · Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:31 pm

And the American megalomania never stops. So sad. Sad

[Edited 2012-03-27 10:32:42]

ACDC8 · Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:33 pm

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.

More or less the point I was trying to make.

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. 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,

I wasn't trying to chastise the American people.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 13):
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 SKAirbus (Reply 14):
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.

Guess you can cancel any trip to Canada now as well

Quoting SKAirbus (Reply 14):
I'll stay in Europe where people are treated as human beings and not criminals at the borders.

Maybe we should send our Government there for some lessons

Quoting packcheer (Reply 15):
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!

OK, lets take a flight from LHR to YYC, what would the logic reasoning be behind that one? Other than the fact the US Government trying to protect their land borders. If the flight needed to divert, there are many Canadian alternates in Canadian airspace as options.

Quoting flyb (Reply 19):
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).

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 20):
Simply put, you wish to transit US airspace, be compliant with the applicable regulations.

UK to Canada flights don't transit US airspace and the chances of a flight diverting to the US before another Canadian alternate would be rare.

Quoting SKAirbus (Reply 27):
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 rules like this one

Which is why it seems that it only affects flights from the UK and not the rest of the EU.

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 28):
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 foreign policies in Afghanistan. So perhaps, it might also protect Canada at the end...

Which is the responsibility of our Government and our Government alone.

Gingersnap · Tue Mar 27, 2012 6:17 pm

Hm and I was planning a trip into Canada at some point soon.

Sorry but no dice if this carries on.

mpsrent · Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:04 pm

Quoting Gingersnap (Reply 32):
Hm and I was planning a trip into Canada at some point soon.

Sorry but no dice if this carries on.Flown on: A306/19/20/21 B732/3/4/5/7/8 B742/4 B752 B762/3 B772 E195 F70/100 MD-82 Q400

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 travelled many times from Canada to the UK and I have never been in American airspace including a diversion for the Icelandic volcano. I must admit I struggle to understand how the American (or any) government can dictate terms on air travel within other sovereign. That being said, I won't let this affect my travel nor will I hold it against the American people who aren't even likely aware of their government's actions.

I suppose this is yet another sign that our global world is getting smaller.

I remain baffled by the fact that despite all these high tech measures illegals continue to find ways to cross the border from Mexico to America each day.

flyb · Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:13 pm

I'll fly from YEG - LHR now ...

Viscount724 · Wed Mar 28, 2012 1:47 am

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.

That doesn't make the airspace "US airspace" from any legal definition. Another simple example: Nav Canada ATC staff in YVR handle IFR flights arriving/departing from Bellingham (BLI). That doesn't make the airspace around BLI "Canadian airspace" from any legal definition. It's just more convenient to handle it that way to avoid possible conflicts with traffic at nearby Canadian airports.

It's the same in Europe. For example, GVA ATC handles hundreds of flights every day that overfly part of France and never cross Swiss territory. It doesn't make the airspace they're flying through "Swiss airspace" for any purpose other than air traffic control.

RWA380 · Wed Mar 28, 2012 10:14 am

Quoting flyb (Reply 19):

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).

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 13):
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 PanHAM (Reply 25):
you should stop watching these bad movies

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 have the proper documents, I'm not suggesting everyone is trying to get into the US for ill doing, I'm saying it happens, it's not just a Hollywood blockbuster.

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 28):
Hold on! you seem to assume that any potential terrorist would be from some obscure nation from the Middle East or Africa, while he could very well be American or Canadian of any descent, and returning from a 'trip' in the tribal zones of Pakistan. With a US or Canadian passport, he would hence have no major problem entering the US legally. Why would one need to build a fence? Which would be here to be crossed, anyway.

You all are preaching to the choir, nowhere did I say I thought it was right, what I said was fact, the US knows this is an issue, and are powerless to stop it, it's not an accusation of our fine neighbors to the north, it's reality, and I don't agree with the way the US is trying to control things, which is what most people almost always assume.

spartanmjf · Wed Mar 28, 2012 10:40 am

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 13):
(which Janet Napolitano still thinks)

I didn't know that capability existed.

Quoting usdcaguy (Reply 12):
The two groups have much less to do with each other than even 10 years ago.

Sad but true - take a look at all aspects of TSA operations in any US airport.....

ZBA2CGX · Wed Mar 28, 2012 11:01 am

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 36):
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 have the proper documents, I'm not suggesting everyone is trying to get into the US for ill doing, I'm saying it happens, it's not just a Hollywood blockbuster.

The same might be said of people entering Canada from the US illegally.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 20):

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

So if Canada were to implement something similar say with a 200 mile buffer extending out from US/Canada border. A lot of the flights from New England / NY / PA would have to be cleared by Canada first. Not to mention any flight between the mainland and Alaska

Cubsrule · Wed Mar 28, 2012 3:43 pm

Quoting mpsrent (Reply 33):
I've travelled many times from Canada to the UK and I have never been in American airspace including a diversion for the Icelandic volcano. I must admit I struggle to understand how the American (or any) government can dictate terms on air travel within other sovereign.

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 understand?

Again, I'm not necessarily saying I agree with the policy, but given that most of the inhabited parts of Canada are within 200 miles of U.S. soil, I certainly understand it.

flyb · Wed Mar 28, 2012 3:51 pm

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 airlines flying to cities not in their airspace or country. A city like YYC for example is not going to use airport in Montana usually as a diversion. YYZ has Hamilton and a lot of other options as well.

Viscount724 · Wed Mar 28, 2012 4:56 pm

Quoting mpsrent (Reply 33):
I've travelled many times from Canada to the UK and I have never been in American airspace including a diversion for the Icelandic volcano.

Not sure where your flights originated/terminated, but many Canada-UK (and other points in Europe) flights, especially those to/from major markets like YYZ/YOW/YUL pass through U.S. airspace every day. Look at the routing of the following AC flight YYZ-LHR yesterday, for example, and note that it overflies a couple of hundred miles of the state of Maine (controlled by BOS) before re-entering Canadian airspace at the Maine-New Brunswick border.
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/ACA848

[Edited 2012-03-28 09:57:06]

[Edited 2012-03-28 09:58:13]

[Edited 2012-03-28 09:59:28]

RWA380 · Thu Mar 29, 2012 2:14 am

Quoting ZBA2CGX (Reply 38):
The same might be said of people entering Canada from the US illegally.

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 think both countries rely upon each other for a great many things, and should never stop working together to keep citizens of both countries safe.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net