Two things are being mixed up all the time and it's about agreements between the US, middle, south america, Asia and Europe!
Agreement one says that all passenger information (passport) will be in the US before a plane departs to any destination in the US.
Agreement two says that all airlines will check the US "blacklist" before any flight departs that has to use US air space to avoid being denied into the US airspace.
KLM didn't check and/or didn't notice those 2 passengers on the US "blacklist".
The Mexican authorities did check this list and noticed the 2 passengers on this flight.
As agreed the US was informed about this and denied the plane in US air space, so did Canada due to this same agreement.
Everybody now looks strange and asks how could this happen and even nicer KLM says they "didn't knew about this list".
I will keep my comments decent but this is 'playing the victim at it's best.'
The governement and KLM knew very good about this agreement especially since they are the European NW partner.
So I think it is not fair to blame a country that is just following the rules as agreed all together before.
Like I said it is not only the US but also Canada and surounding countries that did follow this agreement, nothing wrong with that.
Greetz,
Erwin
KLM plane bound for Mexico denied entry into US airspace.
Moderator: Latest news team
I don't agree: the no-fly-list only applies to flights to a US-airport.
Trust we can regard CNN as an neutral source. This is what they said about the incident: "Currently, the United States requires international airlines to make certain that passengers on flights to and from the United States are not on a list of suspected terrorists. But no such check is required if a plane is transiting -- flying over the country without landing".
Repeat: CNN: "But no such check is required if a plane is transiting -- flying over the country without landing" = deze check moet niet gebeuren als een vliegtuig enkel door het US-luchtruim vliegt, zonder er te landen.
Even if I read this a third time, it remains the same: But no such check is required if a plane is transiting -- flying over the country without landing". But no such check is required if a plane is transiting -- flying over the country without landing.
My thaught about the policy from the U.S. towards KLM = with friends like this, we don't need enemies.
Trust we can regard CNN as an neutral source. This is what they said about the incident: "Currently, the United States requires international airlines to make certain that passengers on flights to and from the United States are not on a list of suspected terrorists. But no such check is required if a plane is transiting -- flying over the country without landing".
Repeat: CNN: "But no such check is required if a plane is transiting -- flying over the country without landing" = deze check moet niet gebeuren als een vliegtuig enkel door het US-luchtruim vliegt, zonder er te landen.
Even if I read this a third time, it remains the same: But no such check is required if a plane is transiting -- flying over the country without landing". But no such check is required if a plane is transiting -- flying over the country without landing.
My thaught about the policy from the U.S. towards KLM = with friends like this, we don't need enemies.
Have we not since heard that the two men concerned have since arrived in Mexico without further incident? I think i read that somewhere.....
IN which case why did the Mexicans (allegedly) inform the US about these guys and then let them in??
Someone appears to be talking out their *rse and it is difficult to work out who!!!
Though I agree with your sentimnents - I am not sure I would ever call CNN a neutral unbiased source.....it is a LESS biased source when coming to US affairs than some but that is about all that can be said. See the difference between CNN in the US and CNN everywhere else.....its pretty amazing.
IN which case why did the Mexicans (allegedly) inform the US about these guys and then let them in??
Someone appears to be talking out their *rse and it is difficult to work out who!!!
Though I agree with your sentimnents - I am not sure I would ever call CNN a neutral unbiased source.....it is a LESS biased source when coming to US affairs than some but that is about all that can be said. See the difference between CNN in the US and CNN everywhere else.....its pretty amazing.
IMHO, this serves to portray that the terrosits seem to be winning their "alleged war" against the west. Look at how much they have disrupted the lives of innocent people (e.g. the KLM passengers, countless others who have to contend with stricter immigration control laws, increased levels of indecent body searches etc. etc.) The reactions of the americans was indeed extreme. Sending the plane back to Holland was rather extreme and foolish in light of other options which I believe would have been less dramatic and more appropriate such as:
1. Shepherd the plane into a restricted or secure airspace, allow it to continue its journey, monitor the flight and act if there was any need to.
2. Alert the crew to secure the aircraft (cockpit) and/or the "offending" passengers for the duration of the flight within US airspace.
I think we have to review how much of our daily freedoms we are giving away to terrorists. The US is not the only country on the globe that has been struck by terrorists and such extreme measures may only succeed in creating new enemies rather than heal old wounds. What happened to the principle of one being innocent until proven guilty?
I respect the need for heightened security in light of 9/11 and feel for those who lost friends/relatives (i lost 2 buddies and a relative when the terrorists hit the US embassy in Nairobi) but i think by disrupting our lives to such extremes only serves to grant victory to the terrorists on a silver platter.
My $0.02
Cheers,
Walter.
1. Shepherd the plane into a restricted or secure airspace, allow it to continue its journey, monitor the flight and act if there was any need to.
2. Alert the crew to secure the aircraft (cockpit) and/or the "offending" passengers for the duration of the flight within US airspace.
I think we have to review how much of our daily freedoms we are giving away to terrorists. The US is not the only country on the globe that has been struck by terrorists and such extreme measures may only succeed in creating new enemies rather than heal old wounds. What happened to the principle of one being innocent until proven guilty?
I respect the need for heightened security in light of 9/11 and feel for those who lost friends/relatives (i lost 2 buddies and a relative when the terrorists hit the US embassy in Nairobi) but i think by disrupting our lives to such extremes only serves to grant victory to the terrorists on a silver platter.
My $0.02
Cheers,
Walter.
Now here is an interesting development: the Dutch Minister of Justice has said that the KLM plane could in fact land in Canada, but that KLM decided to fly it back to Holland instead.
Source (AT5).
Source (AT5).
and when you watched the news you would know that the airports where the plane could land, where to small to handle a B747. Thats the reason the klm plane came back to amsterdam.earthman wrote:Now here is an interesting development: the Dutch Minister of Justice has said that the KLM plane could in fact land in Canada, but that KLM decided to fly it back to Holland instead.
Source (AT5).
earthman wrote:Now here is an interesting development: the Dutch Minister of Justice has said that the KLM plane could in fact land in Canada, but that KLM decided to fly it back to Holland instead.
The text is: De KLM liet het vliegtuig echter om "bedrijfsmatige redenen'' naar Schiphol terugkeren"
"bedrijfsmatige redenen'' means for operational reasons.
KLM decided to have the denied access BA747 return to base.
The is a mainly operational based decision.
Imagine they put on ground that B747 in Canada, this aircraft would at least be immobilised until the crew had had its legal rest, some 24h plus repositioning time and turn around.
Now some 7 extra flying hours plus turn around time was lost.
Furthermore all costs, including external costs were repatriated* at base.
Any 'qualified' base-station manager would have come to that decision, if it were not that this scenario is already in the station handbook.
I do not see why this is a 'development' earthman, it is just a rational consequence, as aviation is not improvisation, what politics sometimes look to be.
*At base all airlines have the better control instruments.
Which news would that be?V-Bird wrote:and when you watched the news you would know that the airports where the plane could land, where to small to handle a B747. Thats the reason the klm plane came back to amsterdam.earthman wrote:Now here is an interesting development: the Dutch Minister of Justice has said that the KLM plane could in fact land in Canada, but that KLM decided to fly it back to Holland instead.
Source (AT5).
All I can find is the Minister said they could land in Canada, but KLM decided to fly back for operational reasons, not because there was no place they could land.
Furthermore - also on Dutch news sites today:
there were no handling facilities at the Canadian airports that were offered. Not even stairs to disembark the 278 passengers!
what about the cargo load - those 15 expensive race horses? They had to go into quarantaine if the plane would have landed in Canada.
what would have happened to the 2 passengers euh terrorists? Would they have been arrested by the Canadians, and handed over to the U.S.?
This flight was regarded as hostile and the plane became a military target. It's about time the U.S. learn how to select friends end enemies.
there were no handling facilities at the Canadian airports that were offered. Not even stairs to disembark the 278 passengers!
what about the cargo load - those 15 expensive race horses? They had to go into quarantaine if the plane would have landed in Canada.
what would have happened to the 2 passengers euh terrorists? Would they have been arrested by the Canadians, and handed over to the U.S.?
This flight was regarded as hostile and the plane became a military target. It's about time the U.S. learn how to select friends end enemies.
re
According to the 16.00 hrs RTL4 journaal, the plane was flown back because the airports can`t handle that kind of planes ( and i don`t say that it could not land there but handle )there are no handling facilities at the Canadian airports that were offered. There is an difference between landing and handleearthman wrote:Which news would that be?V-Bird wrote:and when you watched the news you would know that the airports where the plane could land, where to small to handle a B747. Thats the reason the klm plane came back to amsterdam.earthman wrote:Now here is an interesting development: the Dutch Minister of Justice has said that the KLM plane could in fact land in Canada, but that KLM decided to fly it back to Holland instead.
Source (AT5).
All I can find is the Minister said they could land in Canada, but KLM decided to fly back for operational reasons, not because there was no place they could land.
Horses?
V-Bird wrote:According to the 16.00 hrs RTL4 journaal, the plane was flown back because the airports can`t handle that kind of planes ( and i don`t say that it could not land there but handle )there are no handling facilities at the Canadian airports that were offered. There is an difference between landing and handle
There is an difference between landing and handling indeed...
You must be joking...., canadian airports would be able to land but not to handle B747's, even if were a B747 mixed cargoes.
Maybe they could not handle the cargo? What about these horses on board?
I don't mean some of those stewardesses.
It is not a british privilege or monopoly ....Hold your horses... I was joking. 8)
Maybe the horses on board might have caused problem as well, although Canada is used to handle horses.
(there were no handling facilities at the Canadian airports that were offered. Not even stairs to disembark the 278 passengers! )Canada heeft inderdaad een aantal luchthavens beschikbaar gesteld waar de Boeing 747 kon landen, stelt een woordvoerder van KLM. Maar deze vliegvelden waren volgens de maatschappij niet ingericht op het afhandelen van een groot vliegtuig als een 747. Er waren bijvoorbeeld geen trappen beschikbaar, zodat de passagiers het toestel niet konden verlaten. Vandaar dat de KLM besloot uit bedrijfsmatige redenen het toestel te laten terug keren.
Source NOS internet
yes, all those "sources". Isn't it strange that Newsweek couldn't reveil the NAMES of the 2 passengers? If their "sources" where that good, that would be the first relevant information to publish.
And even if Newsweek's story is true: why did the US not force the plane to land? By sending them back to Holland, they gave the 2 terrorists another seven more hours to hijack the plane and crash: in Canada, or in Europe - f.e. onto the European Nato Headquarters in Evere (Brussels). Or even worse: they could setup a crash on Manneke Pis.
Once again: with friends like this, Europe doesn't need enemies.
And even if Newsweek's story is true: why did the US not force the plane to land? By sending them back to Holland, they gave the 2 terrorists another seven more hours to hijack the plane and crash: in Canada, or in Europe - f.e. onto the European Nato Headquarters in Evere (Brussels). Or even worse: they could setup a crash on Manneke Pis.
Once again: with friends like this, Europe doesn't need enemies.
This article explains everything about this incident.
The facts are very clear.
http://www.investors.com/breakingnews.a ... d=27048530
The facts are very clear.
http://www.investors.com/breakingnews.a ... d=27048530