Air Travel

Question:

Re: US Pressures Foreign Airlines Over Pax Manifests   Nothing wierd about it, the Saudi government is merely making a statement that the tactics now being employed by the US against it’s own citizens, will not be tolerated against Saudi citizens. The planes that were hijacked on Sept. the 11th were hijacked by Saudi citizens. If The Saudies knew of their participation in subversive groups the Saudi government should had let us know.  It stands to reason that the US would demand a px list of any incoming over seas flight.  Especially if that plane has px that are terrorists.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Re: US Pressures Foreign Airlines Over Pax Manifests   > Nothing wierd about it, the Saudi government is merely making a > statement that the tactics now being employed by the US against it’s own > citizens, will not be tolerated against Saudi citizens. > The planes that were hijacked on Sept. the 11th were hijacked by Saudi > citizens. > If The Saudies knew of their participation in subversive groups the > Saudi government should had let us know.  It stands to reason that the > US would demand a px list of any incoming over seas flight.  Especially > if that plane has px that are terrorists.

it is hard to see how knowing who is flying to one’s country is a ‘tactic’ that undermines anyone’s freedom or sovereignty or whatever.

Response:

> <<  (I suppose US law has no business regulating foreign carriers.  Only > recourse would be to deny then the right to continue flying to the US.) > That’s what the law requires only the implementation of that won’t occur until > sometime after the first of the year.

Why is the Commisioner of Customs demanding it now instead of when the law takes effect??  >> He is only saying if that airline waits then its passengers get extensive screening. It’s called applying the pressure. It’s his perogative as commissioner.

Response:

> Looks to me like the European carriers, whose data privacy laws are > more strict than anyplace I know of, have had no problem complying.

I heard that as of last thursday’s deadline, only 8 airlines worldwide had been able to comply with that new requirement. That leaves about 50 airlines if I remember correctly.

Response:

:>CNN had a report on the issue. :>Saudi Airlines has not responded yet. (different from saying that they refuse :>to comply). :>They also mentioned that some country’s data privacy law may prevent certain :>airlines from providing this information Then the citizens of these countries have the choice to change their laws or spend many hours processing in immigration and customs. :>                                         as well as some airline’s computer :>systems not being geared to do this on such short notice. Originally this :>measure was supposed to come in effect in 60 days, but someone decided it :>should be this coming thursday. Then the people have the choice of flying with those airlines that are not prepared and spending hours in customs/immigration or flying with an airline that is prepared. Simple, isn’t it? — http://www.dissensoftware.com

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > THE NEW YORK TIMES > http://www.nytimes.com > November 27, 2001 > AIRLINE SECURITY > U.S. Pressures Foreign Airlines Over Manifests > By ROBERT PEAR > WASHINGTON, Nov. 26 ? The United States has told Saudi, Russian, > Chinese and other foreign airlines that their passengers arriving in > this country will be put through extremely rigorous, lengthy searches, > starting Thursday, if the airlines did not provide information needed > to identify potential terrorists. > The new aviation security law, signed by President Bush on Nov. 19, > requires foreign carriers to cooperate.

One interesting question here: would US-based airlines be willing to do the same thing in a reciprocal manner if asked? (I suppose US law has no business regulating foreign carriers.  Only recourse would be to deny then the right to continue flying to the US.)

Response:

> One might be the cost of implementing this properly. Consider the case of > the rich sheik who buys a last minute first class ticket 10 minutes before > flight leaves. Consider a no-show. How would the USA react if someone > shows up whose name was not previously submitted, or someone whose name > was submitted but who did not present himself at the customs/immigration > point.

I assume the normal solution is to transmit once the doors are closed. > Depending on their computer systems, the logistics of supplying an > accurate passenger manifest within the deadlines imposed by the USA might > not justify the trouble especially if they only have one or two flights to > the USA.

Perhaps someone could buy them a fax machine? I am sure someone will step up to the plate and offer an intermediary service (doing data entry on the faxed data and transmitting it to the INS) if this proves to be a major need. > Consider also the problem of name recognition. The USA systems may be > great at knowing that there are many "John Doe" and that if one John Doe > blows up a building, it doesn’t mean that all John Doe’s are terrorists. > But these systems (and people) may not be so great with common arabic > names and this might result in too many false arrests when the guy walks > out of the plane at the USA airport.

That’s probably one of the reasons why they ask for nationality, birthdate, and passport number. Also, it seems moot as the guy’s still going to be held up after landing; it’ll just take longer while they look up his name, which they could otherwise have done during the flight. If they had the name in advance, they could let everyone else pass right through and only hold up the potential trouble cases. > Look back at TWA800 and how long it took TWA to come up with the passenger > manifest. You’re now asking airlines in foreign countries to be able to > provide the manifest electronically within a certain time limit > before/after the flight has left. It took days for TWA to reconcile the > paper boarding passes to get a paper list of passengers.

Yet TWA manages to meet the INS requirements for flights back into the US. miguel — Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu

Response:

[incorrect attribution elided] >Right, from what I understand this is not really a requirement.  It’s >more like a courtesy for the passengers: "we are going to do extensive >screening, we can either do some of it in advance while your plane is on >the way here, or we can do all of it while your passengers cool their >heels in the immigration lines." >It’s not mandatory. It’s something they can do to save their passengers >a lot of time in the immigration lines.  They don’t have to do it — >that just means longer waits for their passengers. >This could quickly become a competitive issue: "fly American Airlines to >the U.S. and breeze pre-cleared through immigration, or fly Air Saudi >and wait for 5 hours in line once you get there."  That alone may >convince the refuseniks to reconsider.

All very well if there are multiple queues.  My experience of government bureaucracies suggests that all those on the "competitive" flight will be queued behind those on the "refusenik" flight and both will suffer.  Its all the same to the customs folks who will be there all day in either case.    Sort of like arriving at Heathrow immediately behind four 747s from Karachi, Bombay, Calcuta, and Jakarta.

Response:

> <<  (I suppose US law has no business regulating foreign carriers.  Only > recourse would be to deny then the right to continue flying to the US.) > That’s what the law requires only the implementation of that won’t occur until > sometime after the first of the year.

Why is the Commisioner of Customs demanding it now instead of when the law takes effect??

Response:

>CNN had a report on the issue. >Saudi Airlines has not responded yet. (different from saying that they refuse >to comply). >They also mentioned that some country’s data privacy law may prevent certain >airlines from providing this information as well as some airline’s computer >systems not being geared to do this on such short notice. Originally this >measure was supposed to come in effect in 60 days, but someone decided it >should be this coming thursday.

Looks to me like the European carriers, whose data privacy laws are more strict than anyplace I know of, have had no problem complying.  

Response:

<<  (I suppose US law has no business regulating foreign carriers.  Only > recourse would be to deny then the right to continue flying to the US.)

 >> That’s what the law requires only the implementation of that won’t occur until sometime after the first of the year.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I assume the normal solution is to transmit once the doors are closed. > easier said than done. The USA wants it electronically transmitted. And if > your official list is from the flight is from boarding passes, you have to > reconciliate the boarding passes with the computer reservations and then allow > the computer to transmit the reservation data (assuming that passport info was > captured during check-in). > Not everyone has magnetically encoded barding cards that are read as you walk > through the gate. > Perhaps someone could buy them a fax machine? > No, INS requires it in electronic form.

So, Customs should invest in software that can pull data from a fax.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> THE NEW YORK TIMES > http://www.nytimes.com > November 27, 2001 > AIRLINE SECURITY > U.S. Pressures Foreign Airlines Over Manifests > By ROBERT PEAR > WASHINGTON, Nov. 26 ? The United States has told Saudi, Russian, > Chinese and other foreign airlines that their passengers arriving in > this country will be put through extremely rigorous, lengthy searches, > starting Thursday, if the airlines did not provide information needed > to identify potential terrorists. > The new aviation security law, signed by President Bush on Nov. 19, > requires foreign carriers to cooperate. > One interesting question here: would US-based airlines be willing to do > the same thing in a reciprocal manner if asked? > (I suppose US law has no business regulating foreign carriers.  Only > recourse would be to deny then the right to continue flying to the US.)

And likewise those same countries deny flying rights to all US based carriers in return.  Catch 22, SoundsGoodToMe!

Response:

CNN had a report on the issue. Saudi Airlines has not responded yet. (different from saying that they refuse to comply). They also mentioned that some country’s data privacy law may prevent certain airlines from providing this information as well as some airline’s computer systems not being geared to do this on such short notice. Originally this measure was supposed to come in effect in 60 days, but someone decided it should be this coming thursday.

Response:

> I assume the normal solution is to transmit once the doors are closed.

easier said than done. The USA wants it electronically transmitted. And if your official list is from the flight is from boarding passes, you have to reconciliate the boarding passes with the computer reservations and then allow the computer to transmit the reservation data (assuming that passport info was captured during check-in). Not everyone has magnetically encoded barding cards that are read as you walk through the gate. > Perhaps someone could buy them a fax machine?

No, INS requires it in electronic form. I do not know how much info they require, but if they require passport number and passport country, and possibly birth date, they would have to fetch such information in the main reservation system to transmit only those records where the boarding pass was collected at the gate. Also consider the cases where a passenger interlines. He checked in with air mauritius and transfer to a Saudi flight. Saudi airline must make sure that it acquires the required information from that passenger because Air Mauritius wouldn’t be the one transmitting it to the US govt. > Yet TWA manages to meet the INS requirements for flights back into the US.

TWA got a rude awakening about the inadequacy of its IT systems for its TWA800 accident. Not sure all airlines around the world did.

Response:

> The choice is to (1) send the advance information or (2) have your passenger > wait in the terminal and be searched while the information is being processed. > Saudi chooses (2). > Weird logic.

I don’t know what reason the saudis have used, but I could think of a few why one would be reluctant to do this. One might be the cost of implementing this properly. Consider the case of the rich sheik who buys a last minute first class ticket 10 minutes before flight leaves. Consider a no-show. How would the USA react if someone shows up whose name was not previously submitted, or someone whose name was submitted but who did not present himself at the customs/immigration point. Depending on their computer systems, the logistics of supplying an accurate passenger manifest within the deadlines imposed by the USA might not justify the trouble especially if they only have one or two flights to the USA. Consider also the problem of name recognition. The USA systems may be great at knowing that there are many "John Doe" and that if one John Doe blows up a building, it doesn’t mean that all John Doe’s are terrorists. But these systems (and people) may not be so great with common arabic names and this might result in too many false arrests when the guy walks out of the plane at the USA airport. Consider how many USA citizens with arab sounding names have been arrested and are still detained simply due to their name or because they lived near someone who was a suspected terrorist. It might be simpler to show up unannounced and submit to the baggage searches compared to being automatically arrested upon landing and having to sort yourself out of a mess due to the USA not knowing you have the equivalent of an arabic "John Doe" name. Personally, I think that the Saudis should simply comply.  Australia has a similar system and those who are "pre-cleared" can use a faster immigration’s queue and you essentially walk though the booth with just the formality of passport being stamped and the agent telling you you are crazy/masochist for cycling in Australia. The thing about Australia is that it isn’t a "requirement", it is a service to make the process faster. If the USA makes it a requirement, then an airline must ensure that it complies 100% and this make have implementation costs that are not worth it. Look back at TWA800 and how long it took TWA to come up with the passenger manifest. You’re now asking airlines in foreign countries to be able to provide the manifest electronically within a certain time limit before/after the flight has left. It took days for TWA to reconcile the paper boarding passes to get a paper list of passengers.

Response:

> Nothing wierd about it, the Saudi government is merely making a statement > that the tactics now being employed by the US against it’s own citizens, > will not be tolerated against Saudi citizens.

… in favor of the gentle coddling and supreme regard for civil liberties that Saudis enjoy at the hands of their own government? > Just one government standing up for it’s citizens in the face of another. > Sure, it may be a hassle for Saudi citizens once they reach the US, but if > it persists, perhaps the Saudi business people traveling to the US can > make an even bigger statement, by taking their oil-rich millions and spend > them with businesses that aren’t in the US.  Anything is possible.

There’s probably some sort of connection between the millions and the business travel to the US. Just guessing. miguel — Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu

Response:

   [ snipped ] :>Saudi Arabian Airlines and the Saudi Embassy declined to comment on :>the new requirement. A spokesman for the Saudi Embassy said last month :>that his country was not in any hurry to sign up for the passenger :>information system. :>"At this time," the spokesman said, "hundreds of Saudi citizens are :>being detained and questioned with regard to the hijackings. A lot of :>them are innocent people. That number would probably quadruple if we :>shared advance information on air passengers with the United States." The choice is to send the information ahead or ‘customs inspectors will search "all hand-carried and checked baggage on every flight arriving in the United States." The searches could add hours to the clearance process for overseas travelers.’ The choice is to (1) send the advance information or (2) have your passenger wait in the terminal and be searched while the information is being processed. Saudi chooses (2). Weird logic.    [ snipped ] — http://www.dissensoftware.com

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Morrow) >    [ snipped ] > :>Saudi Arabian Airlines and the Saudi Embassy declined to comment on > :>the new requirement. A spokesman for the Saudi Embassy said last month > :>that his country was not in any hurry to sign up for the passenger > :>information system. > :>"At this time," the spokesman said, "hundreds of Saudi citizens are > :>being detained and questioned with regard to the hijackings. A lot of > :>them are innocent people. That number would probably quadruple if we > :>shared advance information on air passengers with the United States." > The choice is to send the information ahead or ‘customs inspectors will search > "all hand-carried and checked baggage on every flight arriving in the United > States." The searches could add hours to the clearance process for overseas > travelers.’ > The choice is to (1) send the advance information or (2) have your passenger > wait in the terminal and be searched while the information is being processed. > Saudi chooses (2). > Weird logic.

Nothing wierd about it, the Saudi government is merely making a statement that the tactics now being employed by the US against it’s own citizens, will not be tolerated against Saudi citizens.  Just one government standing up for it’s citizens in the face of another.  Sure, it may be a hassle for Saudi citizens once they reach the US, but if it persists, perhaps the Saudi business people traveling to the US can make an even bigger statement, by taking their oil-rich millions and spend them with businesses that aren’t in the US.  Anything is possible.

Response:

THE NEW YORK TIMES http://www.nytimes.com November 27, 2001 AIRLINE SECURITY U.S. Pressures Foreign Airlines Over Manifests By ROBERT PEAR WASHINGTON, Nov. 26