CanadaEH Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 OTTAWA, Oct 24 (Reuters) - Canada said on Friday it was assessing the future of El Al [ELAL.UL] flights to Toronto after one of the Israeli airline's planes was diverted twice because of an unspecified security threat. Officials would not say what Thursday's threat had been but security experts speculated that it might have involved a shoulder-fired missile. Transport Minister David Collenette said police and officials from his ministry were investigating the nature of the security threat to El Al flights headed for Toronto's Pearson airport. "As for subsequent El Al flights, that is something we will have to deliberate (on), considering the various intelligence we receive ... I can't answer what is going to happen with other El Al flights," he told a news conference. "This was a specific threat against El Al at Pearson airport. I want to assure travelers that there is not a problem with traveling to Pearson, to Toronto." The El Al jet was bound for Toronto from Tel Aviv and was forced to land first in Montreal, and then again in Hamilton, Ontario, to allow some passengers off. It then continued to Los Angeles. The plane again landed at Hamilton instead of Toronto on its return leg on Friday, a spokesman for Hamilton's airport said. A spokesman at the Israeli embassy in Ottawa said Israel was fully co-operating with the investigation. ((Reporting by David Ljunggren, editing by Rob Wilson; Reuters Messaging: david.ljunggren.reuters.com@reuters.net; 613 235 6745)) If this story is true, I wonder how serious the threat was to warrant assessing the future of flights from El Al to Toronto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 Considering the security surcharge, you would think the government would deploy resources around Pearson and its takeoff approach paths when El Al is arriving or departing. They have a right to use the airport. If our answer to security threats is to cancel services, maybe we should reassess the security tax (again). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 "They have a right to use the airport." With all due respect Dagger, I don't believe El Al actually has a "right" to anything in this country. With todays ever worsening geo-political issues the grounding of El Al may become necessary. It is a sad bloody world! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 We have a bilateral aviation agreement with Israel which grants them access to Toronto, and like it or not we are a player in the war on terror. We may be able to sit out the war in Iraq but we can't sit out the war on terror. What happens if terrorists target US carriers, or British Airways? Do we ban them, too? Really... with all due respect... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 I don't like the word "ban". If and when any carrier becomes a "target" regardless of its home country or destination someone has to take a sober second look at the continuation of operations. I'm not sure if that's the case here but, this incident and the govs reaction considering the previous event in Africa suggest somethings up. I agree, let's take the steps necessary to deal with the terror threat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 News reports say there was a threat of a missile attack, presumably in Toronto. If a terrorist is sitting in Toronto with an anti-aircraft missile - no actual weapon may exist, the threat may have been bogus - we would have a serious problem. Given Al Queda's anti-American rhetoric, I don;t think we can assume that only El Al would be a target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trader Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 I would agree...what happens when the trigger happy terrorist, just itching to meet Allah decides a big Red Leaf, Teal flash or a Green Smiley face will be his 2nd choice target? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sky High Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 I think I would have problems with the thought of anyone sitting around Pearson with a hand launched missile. El Al may have been the one threatened but does anyone think a determined terrorist wouldn't take the opportunity to cause damage to a secondary target if he thought it would get attention and create havoc? My suspicion is this was a hoax threat but one that has to be taken seriously anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 I'm probably not in disagreement with you in any way other than the "right" issue. When it comes to terror I'm certain we're on the same page. I wish some gov somewhere had the balls to deal with this terror issue in a meaningful way. Lip service, political correctness, and at least with airports, placebo security treatments seem to be the methods of choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ECB Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 Good point! I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hawkeye Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 << "If and when any carrier becomes a "target" regardless of its home country or destination someone has to take a sober second look at the continuation of operations". >> With terrorist attacks already occuring on United & American, should two of the world's largest airlines really consider ceasing operations? I think our goverment collects more than enough to cover the required security for the airline industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crow Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 David Collenette is still an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaydee Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 I think this is the first time I have ever seen EVERYONE agree on something !! No matter who you work for....he has managed to (*%*&((^%(**&) us all at one time or another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 Don't know why, but that was the best chuckle I've had in a while. Thanks. neo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Labtec Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 Defcon, you are off base here in my view. Under your idea all a competitor would have to do or any one with an axe to grind, (govt or otherwise) is create a controversy and virtually destroy a company. We have already seen what this type of thinking has done to our beef industry. Do we want to enable this to occur to our aviation sector as well? While your idea appears as a sound reaction it is just a reaction. There are bigger issues here. Labtec Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MDA Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 Your right you know, but somehow I doubt we get any Via rail folks browsing this forum. And they might have a different take on the subject. Sorry, the little devil on my shoulder made me do that :-) ('specially starting a sentence with 'and') Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gino Under Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 Yes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gino Under Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 Yeah? Like what? If we KNOW (which is the case here) a carrier operating into any of our airports has a 'credible' threat against it which essentially states one of its flights will be shot down by a SLR approaching to land or taking off from a Canadian airport, then it is the responsibility of whomever enforces the safety and security of that airport to do something. In this case (El Al) it is El Al, TC, the RCMP, CSIS, GTAA, etc., etc., etc., who must take responsible action. If that means banning the 'target' carrier from operating into and out of CY?? airport, then that carrier MUST be banned. What is it you don't understand about security? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gino Under Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 I'm not sure the bulk of security funding in this country should go to any one carrier. If a single carrier requires a greater amount of dollars to provide 'specialized' security then that carrier foots the bill. If, indirectly, that carrier poses undue strain on OUR financial resources, then I think it's reasonable to ban them until the threat level is reduced or simply disappears. It's a known fact that security for this particular airline is HUGE but they handle it like no other in the business. Yet, it remains their problem. Therefore, let them fund it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gino Under Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 If CSIS is to be believed, based upon news reports both past and present, then Canada provides (intentionally or unintentionally) opportunity and haven to these terrorist 'cells'. In a country that assumes everyone is truthful and honest then it's about time many "woke up and smelled the coffee". The threat may have been a hoax but none the less, a response is expected in this and any subsequent threat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 Considering that Americans are terrorist targets - remember the Shoe Bomber? - then we should ban all such airlines. And since that would then force terrorists to focus on our airlines, we should ban them, too. Frankly, the more you make your argument the weaker and weaker it gets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 Last I heard, El Al provides it own air marshalls and it is reputed to have equipped all of its aircraft with anti-missile defences. So they are hardly draining OUR system. Air security is for the human being pilots, flight attendants and passengers, and for people on the ground or in office towers in the event of a missile strike of hijacking. It is not a corporate issues. It doesn't matter whether a country has one big airline or several. It's not the corporation that's the target. The corporation is a symbol of the country. The flag is the target - the Stars and Stripes, The Star of David, the Union Jack or even the Maple Leaf. Therefore your suggestion that what you call the large target company bear the brunt of security costs is bogus. We are the targets.... All of us... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mars Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 Hey! Maybe Gino is really Collenette! By banning all flights his dream train project becomes a necessity;-). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 I'm pretty certain that El Al has the best security in the world bar none. As I understand the media report, Israel's intelligence agency sounded the alarm and I'd bet they wouldn't do that based on a simple phone call. New question - Saudia Arabia doesn't allow us to freely visit or vacation there. Why do we not reciprocate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 "With terrorist attacks already occuring on United & American, should two of the world's largest airlines really consider ceasing operations?" The terrorist attacks of 911 came close to killing American, United and the entire industry. "I think our goverment collects more than enough to cover the required security for the airline industry." IMO it's not about the money but rather, the gov's generation of false public perceptions and political correctness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.