FLASH: BA flights cancelled by refusal of British pilots to fly with armed marshals on board

drudge report ^ | 1/2/2004 | Drudge

[hadrian]

FLASH: Cancellation of British Airways flights is not in response to U.S. safety concerns, but rather is being prompted by refusal of British pilots to fly with armed marshals on board... Developing...

[The Duke]

Let me see...what would Ronald Reagan do here?

[the Real fifi]

Drudge;s source for this not likely claim if the NYT--ergo--fuggadaboutit..

[Lee'sGhost]

To paraphrase poor Winston Churchill who must be turning over in his grave: Never have so few run so quickly from such nothing.

[IncPen]

The French laugh at the Brits....

As I pointed out to a lady frog (who I've not seen posting since my exchange with her on the topic)... My father - and his father - stood to defeat the enemies of the French and British in their own lands. I was not called to serve.

I rather wish to ensure that my son not have to risk his life defeating the Islamists in France and the UK for their lack of resolve.

And I'm willing to give Bush and Blair plenty of leeway to see that it's taken care of before my son is needed.

[Quix]

Why are we not surprised.

No are WE amused!

Sheesh.

I thought the French had a monopoloy on cowardice on that side of the Atlantic.

[alnick]

CNN is now running a COUNTER-STORY.

Excerpt:

However, U.S. officials tell CNN's Justice Department correspondent Kelli Arena that intelligence from an informant and other sources regarding British Airways Flight 223 is what led to its cancellation two days in a row.

The sources said the information had nothing to do with the passenger list, but instead focused on the flight number. And while there remains some question about the credibility of the information, officials say authorities cannot take any chances.

[Jeff Gordon]

Are we now allowed to copy and post the full text of NY Times articles?

[ahadams2]

militant wimps, will wonders never cease?

[Prodigal Son]

New York Times has never been a problem. It's only Washington Post, LA Times, Newsweek and some affiliated websites. NY Times has always been good.

[ScoJoe]

Why does this not surprise me?

[L`enn]

It actually has started:


But with that aggressive approach have come questions about the quality of the intelligence information. In the case of the Air France cancellations, for instance, the discovery of a name on the passenger manifest similar to that of a Tunisian pilot with possible extremist links ratcheted up concern. But officials said it turned out to be a case of mistaken identity; the name of the passenger was that of a child, a senior official said in an interview. Other apparent "hits" from American terror watch lists turned out to be an elderly Chinese woman who owned a restaurant and a Welsh insurance agent, an F.B.I. official said.


The entire article is posted here---->


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/03/national/03TERR.html?ei=5062&en=9f681213929ea54d&ex=1073710800&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=print&position=

[Polybius]

If true, we should present BA with a choice: Immediately fire all reluctant pilots, or your certificate to fly to or within the United States will be revoked. No flights to America ever. There are several U.S. airlines that would love to pull some planes out of mothballs and take over those routes.

The British Government would retaliate by banning U.S. flights to Britain.

There is no need to get into a trade war. It's no skin off our nose if British Airways wants to lose money by allowing itself to be grounded by it's own pilots.

A British Airways airliner that never gets airborne is no threat to the U.S.

[JSteff]

Okay, so we got the French and Brits to cancel flights, now can we get the Mexicans to cancel hiking?

[Mike Darancette]

Looks like US Carriers will have to add a few new flights.

[Yaelle]

Frankly, what else can Bush and Ridge do? They have three choices. Come down hard on everything suspicious, or ruffle some feathers but don't inconvenience anyone, or do nothing and laugh at the threats. No matter what happens, only the first one will clear them of accusations of not trying to protect the country.

The problem, of course, that results from taking this hard line, for which I bless them, is the same one that confronted Chicken Little. Eventually no one will believe that the sky could really fall.

But it could. We saw it fall on 9/11 and it could happen again.

[prairiebreeze]

This from the UK times: Suspects revealed al-Qaeda plot to blow up aircraft

And this:

The authorities are now focusing on BA's daily flight 223. Paul Beaver, a defence analyst, said: "The intelligence is very, very precise which is why this one flight has been cancelled. We have got intelligence, I am told, that there was a plan to take the aircraft and destroy it over Washington or fly it into something. Washington is the definite target."

Quoted from Terror In The Sky: The Net Tightens per the BBC. Interesting what the Brit papers are saying....

Prairie

[azcap]

The Free Market will fix BA's pilot problem soon enough. Even people who may agree politically with the Pilots Union are going to avoid BA because most people don't book flights across the Atlantic for the heck of it. They need to go on schedule. Every business traveler and every vacation traveler has to look at BA now and say "Yeah but if I book BA will my flight get off the ground? I'll take another carrier please - thank you."

[admiralsn]

Agree. I would rather inconvenience a few hundred people every now and then if it is to possibly save a few hundred thousand. And we may never know if we were saved, but I thank this President and his people for doing everything necessary to protect this nation.