European blacklist has become effective

Flying-Belgian · Post by **Flying-Belgian** » 23 Mar 2006, 07:53

This list is a JOKE !!! 8O

It's all a diplomatic compromise with the EU Commission mafia I'm afraid. A real insult for those who died last summer.

This article is a good summary of the last EU joke:

http://www.eurocockpit.com/archives/indiv/E006978.php

I'm really sorry this one is only published in french.

I'm more and more disgusted by the EU mafia that we pay with OUR taxes.

FB.

jelger · Post by **jelger** » 23 Mar 2006, 08:20

if you want YOUR taxmoney well spent then set up a coup and be a dictator. that is the only way you can guarantee "the government"/"the authority" will do exactly what YOU want. otherwise every method will leave you disgusted with this or that.

this list is a good start i suppose. it certainly won't be the final station yet.

LX-LGX · Post by **LX-LGX** » 23 Mar 2006, 11:31

Don't regard this as a political statement: the list is not what the European Parliament has promised ("one for all": blacklisted in one country would mean blacklisted in the whole EU +Switserland).

the initial reason for the European blacklist was protection of the European tourist, after the crash of a Flash 737 near Sharm el Sheikh (SU-ZCF, 03 Jan 2004).

On 30th August 2005, Italy announced that it had blacklisted 4 charter companies: Hemus Air (Bulgaria), Kuban Airlines (Russia), Gee Bee Air (Greece) en Ozu Avia Air Company (Kazakhstan).

They're not banned. Are they safe now?

Advisor · Post by **Advisor** » 23 Mar 2006, 11:54

What we know is that the EU has banned 92 airlines, mainly African carriers, from operating in its area in a move to improve air security.

Airlines banned include 50 from the Democratic Republic of Congo, 13 from Equatorial Guinea, as well as Thailand's Phuket Airlines and some carriers from Kazakhstan and Afghanistan.

Anybody has the complete list

jelger · Post by **jelger** » 23 Mar 2006, 12:01

in the meantime we have more efficient travel in the EU thanx to our taxmoney spent on meetings between taxmoney paid politicians.

i long back to the times Austrian immigration officers would be checking kayaking people in the rivers... on their way to Germany. (no joke.. that actually DID happen)

so.. conclusion :
back to the (also incomplete, and taxrobbery) national blacklists as that is apparently safer and more respectfull to victims, rather than the EU list.

also, all these deregulation talks that our taxmoney was spent on is also wasted. it ruined the Belgian airlines. there you go!

France invaded Holland. oow.. where are the good old times of the 50s when everything was perfect?

jelger · Post by **jelger** » 23 Mar 2006, 12:02

jan_olieslagers wrote:
Advisor wrote:Anybody has the complete list
it is given in the french-language post mentioned above

even worst.. .. the complete list was directly linked !

OO-VEX wrote:Here is the blacklist
http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/air ... ist_en.pdf

some people need more taxmoney spend on education???

Flying-Belgian · Post by **Flying-Belgian** » 23 Mar 2006, 14:35

jelger wrote:if you want YOUR taxmoney well spent then set up a coup and be a dictator. that is the only way you can guarantee "the government"/"the authority" will do exactly what YOU want. otherwise every method will leave you disgusted with this or that.

this list is a good start i suppose. it certainly won't be the final station yet.

Interesting debate, but strange statement.

As European citizen I was expecting something stronger. It was an occasion to go into the US slipstream and ban real airlines that represents real danger for all citiezns. Don't you think ??

The only country that dared to ban effective carriers was Switzerland so far.

Not a single word about Russian and others ex-CIS carriers, China, Indian sub-continent. I guess that from Mr Baroso's point of view it was much more politicaly correct to ban airlines that don't fly anymore or fly no further than 1500 kms of their home base. Sad assumption.

And then the EU will wonder...

FB.

jelger · Post by **jelger** » 23 Mar 2006, 14:55

you know,.. there are too many independent nations involved in something like this with all their own interests... whate else did you expect?

some miracle suddenly? however i do agree it MIGHT be a missed ooportunity, but i didnt expect much more than this. too many participating VOICES ALWAYS result in mediocre lists or decisions. rule 1 of politics.

i find this mockery about taxmoney this and that so typical of mocking citizens that i just sorted that if people are so fed up with compromise decisions that they should take power just in order to get what they see as the best decision. that is the only way that that particular mocking citizen will always be 100% satisfied.

as said, it isd all about expectations. i dont expect some revolutionary kind of list to come up. especially due to all the 25 different national interests. you simply cannot compare central US government with a de-central EU "government" that is tied down to the say of domestic governments... until we have a real central EU government (which most of the people find a ridiculous taxmoney wasting project anyways - so in the end the reasoning goes nowhere) there won't be an ultimate blacklist.

LX-LGX · Post by **LX-LGX** » 23 Mar 2006, 16:03

According to Gazet van Antwerpen, our Silverback DC-8 would leave BRU today?!

http://www.gva.be/nieuws/Binnenland/def ... 0DDC34CFAF}

(first post mentionned 707 - not DC-8 - LX-LGX)

jelger · Post by **jelger** » 23 Mar 2006, 16:19

not quite. basically it doesnt say anything at all.

page filling...

the plane has to get out of the country, out of teh EU, but not without guaranteeing the "safety" of it... the spokesperson was asked to confirm whether it would leave today (for some reason) and the spokesperson won't deny, NOR confirm it.

when do journalists learn it is pointless to ask stupid questions??? it is logical there will be a neutral answer. the Rwandan authorities also still have to give some guarantees or so ("attesten") - in other words the plane COULD leave BRU today ONLY IF complying with the given conditions. if NOT, it won't leave

in other words... still an open end, and so it will be tomorrow, and the day after and the day after and so on..

media...

LX-LGX · Post by **LX-LGX** » 23 Mar 2006, 17:14

jelger wrote:not quite. basically it doesnt say anything at all.

Allow me to disagree. The article is ver clear: "... the Ministry of Transport could not deny or confirm an earlier statement by André Van Hove (Belgian CAA) that the DC8 would leave for Rwanda today."

Although the blacklist appears already on the EU-website, Silverback is not officially banned yet. The blacklist will only be published in the Official EU Journal on Friday 24th March 2006, and implementation of EU Regulation 2111/2005 is 20 days after that publication.

Which means: if the plane doens't leave BRU before 12th April 2006, it will probably stay here forever (er end up as Aline - the TEA A300/310 with c/n 2).

Legislation involved (please read Article 17):

http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUri ... 150022.pdf

Post by **sn26567** » 23 Mar 2006, 17:49

LX-LGX wrote:According to Gazet van Antwerpen, our Silverback DC-8 would leave BRU today?!

You should also read Luchtzak Latest News

Avro · Post by **Avro** » 23 Mar 2006, 22:13

Flying-Belgian wrote:
Interesting debate, but strange statement.

As European citizen I was expecting something stronger. It was an occasion to go into the US slipstream and ban real airlines that represents real danger for all citiezns. Don't you think ??

I totally agree with you Flying-Belgian.

It's a good step that Europe finally decided to bring one blacklist, but after having a look at it I'm really disappointed.

First of all I wonder what's the point to list all those airlines that would never fly to Europe. All small airlines (based in Congo or not) operating inside Africa with one or two regional planes don't care about this ban ? I really don't see why we ban them and let other more important dubious airlines fly in and out of our countries........

Then there is the strange story of Hewa Bora !! I have nothing against them, but there is a total inconsistency around this ban. IMHO you either ban an airline or not, but letting one plane fly and the rest not is not the way to go ! Why should the L-1011 9Q-CHC be better maintained, or having a better crew than the other planes of HBA ?? The planes are maintained in the same hangars as the other HBA planes as far as I know. And the crew is from the same airline (so same type/level of training). If one airline cannot maintain the level of safety on its entire fleet I don't see why it can on its L-1011 - I'm sorry but it's true. Don't tell me that HBA is doing everything for their sole L-1011 while they let the rest of the fleet fly in "unsafe" conditions...

So as I said, either they don't mention HBA at all in the list or they ban the Tristar as well.

I hope someone can tell me why.
But I'm really disappointed seeing all those inconsistencies done by the EU. I would have liked to see other airline names on that list...

Chris

jelger · Post by **jelger** » 24 Mar 2006, 10:10

LX-LGX wrote:
jelger wrote:not quite. basically it doesnt say anything at all.
Allow me to disagree. The article is ver clear: "... the Ministry of Transport could not deny or confirm an earlier statement by André Van Hove (Belgian CAA) that the DC8 would leave for Rwanda today."

which is exactly my point.

tomorrow it will be the same when a journalist asks about the status. until Silverback AND the Ruandan authorities comply with the requirements there will always the nor deny nor confirm answer from Belgian authorities. very predictable. very logical.

LX-LGX · Post by **LX-LGX** » 24 Mar 2006, 10:29

I was referring to a firm statement by André Van Hove, nr 1 from the Belgian's CAA, that the Silverback would leave on Thursday. If Van Hove indeed said that, it's almost a certitude.

In another post in the Silverback topic, someone asks if it's true that the bird will leave today. I would also like to know that, because I have 2 children, and I would like to know when we have to hide in our nuclear bomb shelter (this is a remark, with all respect for Sabena Technics).

regi · Post by **regi** » 24 Mar 2006, 12:21

no worries dear froend, the plane departed already.
To avoid that rubber tyres would fall off, they have removed the wheels and welded steel skies under the fuselage.
Her new name is now "Sparky"

fob1943 · Post by **fob1943** » 26 Mar 2006, 08:35

I see the list as an ill-concealed attempt at putting a damper on the arms for diamonds trade, don't you?

I mean, why should the EU worry about flight safety in the Congo? or Swaziland? or Ecuatorial Guinea???

And the list names ALL carriers in the DRC, so that he who shall remain nameless.....! doesn't just use one of the others (well, the are not on the list are they....type of thing). Sierra Leone...who runs planes registered in that tiny country...? You guessed it!

Maybe I'm being silly, but I can't see the connection between the list and flight safety for Europeans, I'm sure there are others that would better qualify to be on it. I suppose those that need maintenance done in the EU won't get it now, making their position even worse. Bogus parts, here we come! Ever heard of a bogus toilet pump?

And I bet there's a roaring trade going on in re-registering aircraft. That bloke in Kent is working overtime no doubt.

I wonder when the next list will appear with sensible additions or deletions.....

Yours till the cows come home

fob