British Airways Cancels Flight to D.C.

[velocity]

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Britain-Flight-Canceled.html

January 1, 2004
British Airways Cancels Flight to D.C.
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 1:07 p.m. ET

LONDON (AP) -- British Airways canceled one of its three daily flights from London to Washington on Thursday following security advice from the government, a spokesman for the airline said.

A Department of Transport spokeswoman said she was unable to comment on matters of security or whether the cancellation was a result of a specific threat.

The same flight, BA 223, on Wednesday was kept on the tarmac at Washington Dulles International Airport for several hours shortly after landing. U.S. authorities questioned all passengers and crew on board, the spokesman said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

...cut....

why is it only foreign carriers. The US flights go without problem. Mmmmmm

[mitchtv]

1. with out the US market

Air France. BA are in deep trouble. Who's next, Lufthansa?

[grasswire]

3. gad....

...I wonder if the area on the up-river approach to National Airport has been changed. It used to be that you could park your car in a lot, get out and stand on a short bluff just under the jets as they were landing. You could see the pilots' faces. Heck, you could even sit in your car with god knows what and be just a couple hundred feet from the jets as they came in low overhead. Lots of people enjoyed that. And people would bring radios that broadcast the tower talk.

[Kellanved]

6. hmm

Lufthansa cooperates with United (if you book LH you can end up in an United flight and vice-versa ). And Lufthansa/Germany introduced Air-Marshalls shortly after 9/11.

[Demeter]

2. This Whole Terror Alert Thing is Getting Silly

The obsession with cancelling flights, turning them back in mid-course, etc, etc, guns in NY harbor ad nauseum. It feels like McCarthyism: wildly insane gyrations in an alcoholic delerium. Or something out of Dr. Strangelove.

If anything tilts the balance against the current Administration, it will be the inanity. When facts can't get you purchase, good taste might.

[POed_Ex_Repub]

4. Gotta keep people good and scared...

Pay no attention to the men behind the curtain.

[IggleDoer]

5. No Holiday Carol

"Do you fear what I fear?"

[impeach the gop]

7. Where's the Outrage

smirk needs a smack up side of that bone head of his!

[Kelvin Mace]

8. Curious

I don't seem to recall and foreign carrier's planes being involved in the 9/11 attack. In fact, for years, foreign carriers such as Air France, Lufthansa, and BA, having to deal with terrorism for years, had much tighter security than the US had, or has today. And most of it did not involved annoying passengers.

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org
Distrusting the Government Since 1984

[gauguin57]

9. keep the pressure on

Journalists must keep the pressure on the Homeland Security Dept. ... if this was done for a specific reason, they HAVE to tell us, eventually, what it was all about -- all these cancelled and quarantined flights. I DEMAND to know from MY government to whom I pay TAXES ... what in the hell is this all about? Is this a) fearmongering, to get the sheeple to re-elect the chimp; b) a legitimate threat (yeah, right!); c) the result of bogus chatter, designed by the terrorists to bankrupt the U.S. by making authorities think they're always on the verge of attacking us (and beefing up security alla time); or d) None of the above?

Tom "Eddie Munster" Ridge had better 'fess up!! I'm sick of this crap!

[RadioFlyer]

10. Foreighn Carriers

>>I don't seem to recall and foreign carrier's planes being involved in the 9/11 attack. <<

Politics aside, AQ's trump card has been assymetric attacks. It would be unwise for us to constantly "fight the last battle." If there was intel indicating a problem with these flights, what would you prefer: 1) doing nothing and letting the flights continue, possibly ending in a terrorist attack of some sort, or 2) cancelling or postponing them, resulting in delay and inconvenience?