BA asks $1 M from the USA for flight turned back over Atlantic
Feb 26, 2005, 7:49 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Syracuse, Boston, Athens
Posts: 995
BA asks $1 M from the USA for flight turned back over Atlantic
From the online edition of The Telegraph. Here are some excerpts from this article (requires free subscription):
British Airways is demanding an estimated $1 million in compensation from the United States after one of its flights was turned back to London because a passenger was on a list of suspected terrorists.
The airline claims that there was no evidence that the passenger, who was released without charge, was a terrorist and that the order to return to London was unnecessary and a mistake.
Rod Eddington, BA's chief executive, has enlisted the help of Alistair Darling, the Transport Secretary, in his effort to get the Americans to repay a substantial amount of the costs incurred as a result of the US decision.
Mr Darling's officials have promised that the Government will do what it can to help BA, but have also said that they are reluctant to do anything that could be seen to undermine the US-led war on terrorism.
The controversy centres on an incident last month when a BA 175 flight from Heathrow to New York's John F Kennedy Airport, which had 239 passengers on board, was turned back to Britain three hours into its journey.
Inquiries by The Sunday Telegraph have revealed that a major dispute between US authorities and British Airways broke out while the flight was airborne, with the airline insisting that the man was not on any banned list that it had.
Washington maintained that BA did not have the latest version of the list.
There was no threat to the safety of the aircraft," the spokesman said. However, The Sunday Telegraph understands that the attitude of senior US officials enraged Mr Eddington and convinced him to urge the Government to intervene by trying to use the strength of its relationship with President Bush's administration to win compensation.
British Airways is demanding an estimated $1 million in compensation from the United States after one of its flights was turned back to London because a passenger was on a list of suspected terrorists.
The airline claims that there was no evidence that the passenger, who was released without charge, was a terrorist and that the order to return to London was unnecessary and a mistake.
Rod Eddington, BA's chief executive, has enlisted the help of Alistair Darling, the Transport Secretary, in his effort to get the Americans to repay a substantial amount of the costs incurred as a result of the US decision.
Mr Darling's officials have promised that the Government will do what it can to help BA, but have also said that they are reluctant to do anything that could be seen to undermine the US-led war on terrorism.
The controversy centres on an incident last month when a BA 175 flight from Heathrow to New York's John F Kennedy Airport, which had 239 passengers on board, was turned back to Britain three hours into its journey.
Inquiries by The Sunday Telegraph have revealed that a major dispute between US authorities and British Airways broke out while the flight was airborne, with the airline insisting that the man was not on any banned list that it had.
Washington maintained that BA did not have the latest version of the list.
There was no threat to the safety of the aircraft," the spokesman said. However, The Sunday Telegraph understands that the attitude of senior US officials enraged Mr Eddington and convinced him to urge the Government to intervene by trying to use the strength of its relationship with President Bush's administration to win compensation.
Feb 26, 2005, 10:24 pm
#2
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: New York, NY, USA
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted by SK
From the online edition of The Telegraph. Here are some excerpts from this article (requires free subscription):
British Airways is demanding an estimated $1 million in compensation from the United States after one of its flights was turned back to London because a passenger was on a list of suspected terrorists.
The airline claims that there was no evidence that the passenger, who was released without charge, was a terrorist and that the order to return to London was unnecessary and a mistake.
Rod Eddington, BA's chief executive, has enlisted the help of Alistair Darling, the Transport Secretary, in his effort to get the Americans to repay a substantial amount of the costs incurred as a result of the US decision.
Mr Darling's officials have promised that the Government will do what it can to help BA, but have also said that they are reluctant to do anything that could be seen to undermine the US-led war on terrorism.
The controversy centres on an incident last month when a BA 175 flight from Heathrow to New York's John F Kennedy Airport, which had 239 passengers on board, was turned back to Britain three hours into its journey.
Inquiries by The Sunday Telegraph have revealed that a major dispute between US authorities and British Airways broke out while the flight was airborne, with the airline insisting that the man was not on any banned list that it had.
Washington maintained that BA did not have the latest version of the list.
There was no threat to the safety of the aircraft," the spokesman said. However, The Sunday Telegraph understands that the attitude of senior US officials enraged Mr Eddington and convinced him to urge the Government to intervene by trying to use the strength of its relationship with President Bush's administration to win compensation.
British Airways is demanding an estimated $1 million in compensation from the United States after one of its flights was turned back to London because a passenger was on a list of suspected terrorists.
The airline claims that there was no evidence that the passenger, who was released without charge, was a terrorist and that the order to return to London was unnecessary and a mistake.
Rod Eddington, BA's chief executive, has enlisted the help of Alistair Darling, the Transport Secretary, in his effort to get the Americans to repay a substantial amount of the costs incurred as a result of the US decision.
Mr Darling's officials have promised that the Government will do what it can to help BA, but have also said that they are reluctant to do anything that could be seen to undermine the US-led war on terrorism.
The controversy centres on an incident last month when a BA 175 flight from Heathrow to New York's John F Kennedy Airport, which had 239 passengers on board, was turned back to Britain three hours into its journey.
Inquiries by The Sunday Telegraph have revealed that a major dispute between US authorities and British Airways broke out while the flight was airborne, with the airline insisting that the man was not on any banned list that it had.
Washington maintained that BA did not have the latest version of the list.
There was no threat to the safety of the aircraft," the spokesman said. However, The Sunday Telegraph understands that the attitude of senior US officials enraged Mr Eddington and convinced him to urge the Government to intervene by trying to use the strength of its relationship with President Bush's administration to win compensation.
Feb 27, 2005, 1:10 am
#3
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,806
After they forced a flight with Cat Stevens to make an early landing, perhaps this time they had The Nolans or Donny Osmond on board, whose names American Intelligence (sic) have on the list of 70s singers whose records may have subliminal messages if played backwards at twice the speed.
Good luck BA with the claim. However, I fear that the total lack of accountability for their actions will allow the US authorities to shrug it off.
Perhaps we should start sending back a few United flights. At US$1m a go, wouldn't take long for it finally to go to the wall.
Good luck BA with the claim. However, I fear that the total lack of accountability for their actions will allow the US authorities to shrug it off.
Perhaps we should start sending back a few United flights. At US$1m a go, wouldn't take long for it finally to go to the wall.
Last edited by The Saint; Feb 27, 2005 at 1:13 am
Feb 27, 2005, 3:29 am
#4
Join Date: Jul 2004
Programs: BD, BA, VS
Posts: 233
Originally Posted by The Saint
Perhaps we should start sending back a few United flights. At US$1m a go, wouldn't take long for it finally to go to the wall.
I wish united were in AA's position!
Feb 27, 2005, 5:21 am
#5
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Programs: Mucci. Nothing else matters.
Posts: 38,644
Originally Posted by SK
British Airways is demanding an estimated $1 million in compensation from the United States after one of its flights was turned back to London because a passenger was on a list of suspected terrorists.
But on this occasion, I'll be cheering BA on enthusiastically. I hope they get money out of them for this bloody stupidity.
Feb 27, 2005, 7:38 am
#7
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AMS (SEA, JNB)
Programs: Mucci Reperateur des Coeurs Brises
Posts: 4,107
Originally Posted by dnw
This is the best thing I've read in relation to the Homeland 'Security' Dept in it in a LONG time. Good luck BA ^
...and while they're at it how about $100m in punitive damages in addition to the compensation for costs 
...and while they're at it how about $100m in punitive damages in addition to the compensation for costs
I do hope BA gets the compensation... I do not appreciate the anything-for-security attitude that seems to prevade much of the thinking in the US regarding safety and security. It all seems to be based on incomplete and inaccurate information, decisions are formed from "hunches" rather than hard evidence, and our glorious defenders of liberty cannot even provide airlines with updated lists of suspicous persons in this age of instant communication!!! One would think that would be a no-brainer, as airlines can then take pre-emptive action to ensure the safety of flights (or at the very least satsify the concerns of US authorities). Decision makers in the "Homeland" Security Department (soon we'll be calling it the fatherland like old-fashioned European nationalists) seem to fancy themselves immune to mistakes, because their intent is so pure and so lilly white... but they're just bureaucrats who screw up half the time.
I don't feel any safer than I did a few years ago... in fact, I feel less safe. Good job guys. ^
Feb 27, 2005, 8:07 am
#8
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: LONDON
Posts: 415
Originally Posted by SchmeckFlyer
Speaking of costs... does anyone know what the associated costs were of the turning back to add up to $1 million? Seems a lot . ^
Maybe when the plane turned round a few people split their coffee?
Feb 27, 2005, 8:54 am
#9
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Programs: Mucci. Nothing else matters.
Posts: 38,644
Originally Posted by SchmeckFlyer
Speaking of costs... does anyone know what the associated costs were of the turning back to add up to $1 million? Seems a lot considering we read earlier that BA saved £100,000 by not turning back to LA after the engine incident, and I imagine the costs incurred (rebooking pax, putting pax in hotels and feeding them, extra ground fees/taxes etc.) would be about the same? Or am I wrong?
It would therefore follow that "£100,000" is about as reliable an estimate of the amount of money BA might have saved by continuing that flight as my pet budgie's estimate will be of the winning Lotto numbers on Wednesday evening.
Feb 27, 2005, 10:03 am
#10
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AMS (SEA, JNB)
Programs: Mucci Reperateur des Coeurs Brises
Posts: 4,107
Originally Posted by Globaliser
I thought that it was the scribblers who had "calculated" the figure of £100,000 - and that simply from multiplying the new compensation figures by the number of pax on the flight.
It would therefore follow that "£100,000" is about as reliable an estimate of the amount of money BA might have saved by continuing that flight as my pet budgie's estimate will be of the winning Lotto numbers on Wednesday evening.
It would therefore follow that "£100,000" is about as reliable an estimate of the amount of money BA might have saved by continuing that flight as my pet budgie's estimate will be of the winning Lotto numbers on Wednesday evening.
Feb 27, 2005, 10:22 am
#11
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: England
Programs: PC Amb., BA Blue
Posts: 5,418
Originally Posted by SchmeckFlyer
Speaking of costs... does anyone know what the associated costs were of the turning back to add up to $1 million? Seems a lot considering we read earlier that BA saved £100,000 by not turning back to LA after the engine incident, and I imagine the costs incurred (rebooking pax, putting pax in hotels and feeding them, extra ground fees/taxes etc.) would be about the same? Or am I wrong?
Last edited by tristan727; Feb 27, 2005 at 10:25 am
Feb 27, 2005, 10:25 am
#12
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,806
Originally Posted by dnw
...and while they're at it how about $100m in punitive damages in addition to the compensation for costs
Originally Posted by SchmeckFlyer
Speaking of costs... does anyone know what the associated costs were of the turning back to add up to $1 million? Seems a lot .
Originally Posted by steadman
Maybe when the plane turned round a few people spilt their coffee?
Feb 27, 2005, 10:43 am
#13
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 27,234
Originally Posted by steadman
Maybe when the plane turned round a few people split their coffee?
But seriously, even as a litigious American
, I personall believe BA should be entitled to its day in court, to at least have evidence heard and a decision made with respect to compensation. But keep in mind, that BA doesn't HAVE to fly to the U.S. It chooses to do so because it is profitable for them, and they presumably must abide by U.S. rules, regulations and orders. This includes potentially incurring the costs of returning a flight if it's determined to have someone on the no-fly list on board. The courts need to decide, after examining evidence and hearing arguments, whether the U.S. was justified n ordering the plane back to the U.K.
Feb 27, 2005, 10:54 am
#14
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,806
Originally Posted by ijgordon
I personally believe BA should be entitled to its day in court, to at least have evidence heard and a decision made with respect to compensation.
(1) There won't be any evidence. It will all be "intelligence" from the spooks that is "classified". There is nil prospect of it being tested in a court. It's the same "intelligence" that is used to lock up people in Guantanamo bay without trial. Can't put 'em on trial, because not enough evidence.
(2) Thanks to the "all-in-the-name-of-security" situation, BA will be told - politely - to stuff off. If the US tells you to turn a plane around because they suspect that there is a bearded 70s singer on board, you do as you are told. It's the same thing with the TSA. If they want to jemmy open your luggage causing hundreds of pounds of damage, they can. No accountability, no compensation. All done "in-the-name-of-security". Makes you wonder how the rest of the world manages without the TSA.