|
Originally Posted by NNH
Why return to Heathrow instead of at least getting to the right country? Operational/maintenance reasons, or a preference for dealing with British authorities?
|
my friends two year old daughter was on NO FLY list. It took 6 months and political push right up to Atty. Gen to take the girl off. Everytime she boarded the flight with parents they were stoped and questioned:-)
|
How long before lots of people are on these lists just because the US gov't doesn't "like" them? How long before US citizens are on the list because they disagree with the administration? Its a slippery slope.
|
Originally Posted by Doppy
It was the hysterical people in the US who caused the problem.
The U.S. official said the United States requested the flight be diverted to Bangor, Maine, but British Airways asked for permission to return to London. |
Just a thought here: Didn't DHS ask foreign carriers for a longer window before a plane departs a gate on a US-bound flight, so they would have time to check the pax list after everyone was boarded? And didn't the carriers (rightly) push back and say that wouldn't be practical?
Would it be too Machiavellian to think that both DHS and BA actions here were to make a point in that, um, conversation? :rolleyes: I can only imagine how I would feel if I was one of the hapless pawns on the flight in such a game. Especially if I was flying with small children... :mad: |
Originally Posted by Doppy
In a few years when they've put more and more people on these lists, I can't imagine how much of a nightmare it's going to be to travel. It's going to be impossible to get from point A to point B.
Even on FlyerTalk we've already got a good number of people on the F-U lists. All indications point to it getting worse. Worse, the airlines will "forget" about the list because the fine for "forgetting" may be significantly less than the revenue the airline generates from the flight. It's possible to program a computer to "check" the list every 3rd flight. Who's going to find out about that "bug"? And eventually (though not anytime soon), enough politicians who "magically" end up on the "inconvenienced" list, or if enough of their constituents publically voice their inconvenience, will say screw the TSA, we're dismantling them. This is absolutely absurd. Put the 100 most wanted people on the list along with their picture. Let everyone else fly. When have they caught a "real" terrorist using the list? None, unless you count Cat Stevens and Ted Kennedy. How many times has Thousand Standing Around caught weapons at the checkpoint? Too many damn times to count. What should be used more often? Checkpoints or an ever inaccurate and growing list? One other thing Thousand Standing Around and the Gestapo has not considered. In many third world countries, it's possible to pay off someone for a "new" birth certificate, and/or a "new" passport with a different name. What list will stop that? :confused: The day I end up on that list, I'm personally going to put many small laminated pictures of goatse and tubgirl inside over my luggage. They want something to look at, they're welcome to study it in close detail. But if they steal any of them, I'm taking them to court. :mad: |
Originally Posted by travelinmanS
How long before lots of people are on these lists just because the US gov't doesn't "like" them? How long before US citizens are on the list because they disagree with the administration? Its a slippery slope.
Senator Ted Kennedy was on that list. He has lots to say about Shrub. Then again, he has lots to say about everything, but that doesn't really matter, does it? I'm willing to bet you Kerry and Edwards will end up on that list sometime soon... for running against Shrub. |
Originally Posted by cAAl
The authorities in the U.S. certainly wanted to apprehand the suspected passenger before the flight reached its final destination. However, if was BA, not U.S. authorities, who decided to turn the plane around and head back to LHR after three hours of flying, according to a U.S. official quoted by Reuters:
Fly the flight, land the plane at the correct destination, let INS sort out any issues if need be. Screw* the No Fly list. :td: * Stronger verb should be substituted here. |
Originally Posted by Peetah
BA said that they decided to return the plane back to Heathrow. And I strongly believe you hit it on the head. They want the authorities in the UK to deal with it.
|
From AP:
The TSA determined that British Airways followed proper procedures in checking the man's name against the no-fly list. It was only after the plane took off that the airline sent the passenger manifest to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which matched the name against the list. "The flight returned to Heathrow after we received a request from the U.S. authorities saying that a passenger aboard the aircraft was not to be allowed to land in New York," an airline spokesman said. "We stress that there was no threat to the safety of the aircraft." Passengers were rescreened, and the plane took off again for New York, British Airways spokesman Honor Verrier said. It is standard procedure for international flights leaving for the United States to send their passenger manifests after the plane takes off, but the U.S. government wants to change that practice so the manifests are sent beforehand. A federal official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said it appears the passenger was not initially discovered because the airline did not have the latest version of the no-fly list. The distribution system changed recently and the passenger was added to the list in late December, the official said. |
The U.S. official said the United States requested the flight be diverted to Bangor, Maine, but British Airways asked for permission to return to London. When did the DOHs get sovereignty over the mid-Atlantic (or maybe Canada or wherever the flight was @ 3-hours from LHR) ? :mad: |
Oops! They did it again.
So this person posed no threat to the safety of the aircraft, but was so dangerous for the US of A that they had to inconvenience some 300 other passengers.
|
I am guessing that majority of the passengers on the plane decided to head back to U.K. :o
|
Originally Posted by thesaints
So this person posed no threat to the safety of the aircraft, but was so dangerous for the US of A that they had to inconvenience some 300 other passengers.
|
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe...ack/index.html
In the United States, Transportation Security Administration officials said federal authorities asked British Airways to divert the plane to Bangor, Maine, after the positive match was discovered. British Airways opted instead to return to Heathrow, officials said. Just so you all know it was BA's decision to turn back and they were not ordered to. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 2:49 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.