U.S. to Require Passenger Lists for Flights

[bush_cheney2004]

Try flying to Asia if you don't live on the west coast. Try flying to Europe if you don't live on the eastern seaboard. Most inconvenient. Want to go to Anchorage? Go to Seattle then go another couple of hundred miles west then turn right. Ya it would be a pain in the ass for us to get to Mexico and South America but most of our traffic is from either coast so not that difficult and it would also be inconvenient for Canadian carriers to stay out of Alaskan airspace on their way to Asia but not as inconvenient and you have far more flights.

But Americans...many millions of 'em...do live on the west coast, or in the midwest with connections through Seattle, San Fran, or L.A. The "Canadian market is so much smaller" hence less inconvenience actually works to a greater disadvantage as a percentage of all flights.

[Wilber]

But Americans...many millions of 'em...do live on the west coast, or in the midwest with connections through Seattle, San Fran, or L.A. The "Canadian market is so much smaller" hence less inconvenience actually works to a greater disadvantage as a percentage of all flights.

Really, Salt Lake, Denver, Minneapolis, Chicago all major American hubs which put far more flights through Canadian airspace to Europe and Asia than Canada does. Just wonderful having to connect through SFO, LAX and JFK to go anywhere, not to mention the fuel costs and your new contribution to global warming plus the increased congestion in those airports. It would suck for both of us but if you want to compare relative costs and number of inconvenienced passengers, you would lose.

[bush_cheney2004]

Really, Salt Lake, Denver, Minneapolis, Chicago all major American hubs which put far more flights through Canadian airspace to Europe and Asia than Canada does. Just wonderful having to connect through SFO, LAX and JFK to go anywhere, not to mention the fuel costs and your new contribution to global warming plus the increased congestion in those airports. It would suck for both of us but if you want to compare relative costs and number of inconvenienced passengers, you would lose.

Methinks you have invented a pissing contest that does not exist, nor am I interested in the relative costs vis-a-vis "GW". Do you really think the Americans would curtail international travel over such issues? I happen to love connections through SEA or SFO.

[August1991]

It seems to me that one's opinion about the US government collecting this information largely turns on whether one is anti-American or not. And that often turns on whether one has a problem with authority.

Anyway, Wilber is generally not anti-American but opposes this policy:

I object to this for three reasons the first and least important is that the US will have my travel information although as I am not on any no fly list that I know of, I don't believe they have any right to it. But say you are headed across the border to do some shopping with your newly inflated loonies. The man swipes your passport and says, I see you went to Cuba last winter. We don't want your sort here. Turn around. Do I think this will happen? No. Could it happen? You're damn right. There are no legal restrictions on what can be done with this information and who says it will stop at the present proposal. Governments never decide they want less information.

The second and more important, I don't want a whole bunch of other governments having this info once this thing snowballs.

Which brings me to the third reason. If you look at my posting history you will find that I am as pro American as any Canadian on this forum. I genuinely like the US and am proud to have Americans as personal friends. I really don't believe this will do much of anything to improve the security of the US and is another step in the alienation of countries which the US needs for its security whether it likes it or not.

The third point is a good one, IMV. Will this improve security? It seems to me that it's not hard for someone smart to pretend to be someone else. (That's the idea behind identity theft.) Nevertheless, it's the bureaucratic impulse to create lists and we have many of them. (Anyone heard of CPIC?) These lists catche stupid people and they also (more important perhaps) protect senior bureaucrats from the wrath of angry politicians who are under pubic pressure after some horrific incident. "You mean you have no way of knowing if someone has a criminal record?")

Nevertheless, I can understand why Americans are now creating a no-fly list. They have to do something and this seems a reasnable first step.

----

Wilber worries about governments (foreign or Canadian) getting information. Wilber, government bureaucrats have alot of information about you. (For the most part, they fortunately don't care.) In such a context, my flight itinerary seems to be a minor problem. If you travel by land, you would need a transit visa.

I agree that governments should be less intrusive in daily lives. But intrusion of this sort seems reasonable and I just don't have a major problem with it. I would be more concerned about what recourse an individual could have to remove their name from the no fly list.

One solution would be if the Canadian government had access to the US no-fly list. By this, I mean that we could vet names and let the US know of any hits. Otherwise, the Americans would not know of who is crossing their territory.

I happen to think that Canada should integrate (yes, that word) our security (and passport control) with the US. We should control who enters North America because we can. Once someone is here, it is very hard to control what they do. A plane departing from Toronto or Montreal destined to Winnipeg or Vancouver could be highjacked and flown to New York. The plane would still be loaded with alot of fuel when it hit its target.

The hole in lower Manhattan and the change to the NYC skyline make things different. As the US Ambassador said. This is our problem too.

Edited October 14, 2007 by August1991

[Wilber]

I didn't take the first shot in this pissing contest but let's both hope it never becomes a real one.

[bush_cheney2004]

I didn't take the first shot in this pissing contest but let's both hope it never becomes a real one.

If it does...life will go on. Canada can do as it pleases in response to "unreasonable" American demands, but I doubt it will piss away such shared advantages just to prove your theory correct.

[Wilber]

If it does...life will go on. Canada can do as it pleases in response to "unreasonable" American demands, but I doubt it will piss away such shared advantages just to prove your theory correct.

Depends on you my friend, you are the ones making the demands.

[bush_cheney2004]

Depends on you my friend, you are the ones making the demands.

That's what "you" said about softwood lumber too. Most Americans didn't even know (or care that) it was an issue.

[Wilber]

That's what "you" said about softwood lumber too. Most Americans didn't even know (or care that) it was an issue.

A board is pretty much a board, as long as a store has one when you need it, there's not much of a problem. I think they would notice if they now had to make a stop, it took over six hours longer to get where they were going and their ticket reflected the additional costs to the airline.

I can't imagine it will come to that but don't think we have no bargaining power on this.

[bush_cheney2004]

A board is pretty much a board, as long as a store has one when you need it, there's not much of a problem. I think they would notice if they now had to make a stop, it took over six hours longer to get where they were going and their ticket reflected the additional costs to the airline.

I can't imagine it will come to that but don't think we have no bargaining power on this.

Oh, I'm sure "you" do, but please realize that the vast majority of Americans go through life not giving a damn about such things of so great import to Canada. Air travel had already become a major pain-in-the-ass long before 9/11 and additional security. 85% of Canadian exports go to the oblivious USA.

[Guest American Woman]

I honestly am amazed at the controversy providing full name, DOB, and gender to the U.S. government has aroused. As I've said, anyone who's travelled here before already has that information. Anyone who has travelled anywhere outside their country has given that information to other nations. Everyone gives that information to people countless times when asked for IDs, when opening a bank account, apply for a credit card, get a drivers' license, get a bank loan, even when travelling within one's nation. An endless number of people have that information already and yet I'm guessing no one has spent sleepless nights worrying about identitty theft.

The bottom line is, as I said, the U.S.'s fear of another terrorist attack trumps anyone else's fears. As has already been pointed out, we've all been subjected to inconveniences since 9-11. Personally this makes a lot more sense to me than going to war in Iraq, for example. I feel this is something that could make a difference; that could make me safer. For example, I wouldn't want to be on a plane that two Saudis who trained at the same flight school as a 9-11 hijacker were on. Would any of you?

[jdobbin]

For example, I wouldn't want to be on a plane that two Saudis who trained at the same flight school as a 9-11 hijacker were on. Would any of you?

I wouldn't want my data used to give money to support possible terrorist activities of the two Saudis because of poor security of airlines requiring to collect that data. Can't the government protect from that as well?

Edited October 14, 2007 by jdobbin

[Guest American Woman]

I wouldn't want my data used to give money to support possible terrorist activities of the two Saudis because of poor security of airlines requiring to collect that data. Can't the government protect from that as well?

As I've already pointed out, countless people already have that information. Are you as concerned about that as you are about giving it to the U.S. government? Have you been worried about that? And again. The U.S. government already has that information regarding anyone who has ever visited the United States. Have you?

Now here's an honest question. Which do you think would go further to stop a terrorist attack-- preventing a potential terrorist/hijacker from getting on a plane, or not getting your name, DOB, and gender?

I'd also like an honest, direct answer from those of you who are objecting to having to give your name, DOB, and gender, so I'll ask again:

I wouldn't want to be on a plane that two Saudis who trained at the same flight school as a 9-11 hijacker were on. Would any of you?

Edited October 14, 2007 by American Woman

[jdobbin]

As I've already pointed out, countless people already have that information. Are you as concerned about that as you are about giving it to the U.S. government? Have you been worried about that? And again. The U.S. government already has that information regarding anyone who has ever visited the United States. Have you?

Now here's an honest question. Which do you think would go further to stop a terrorist attack-- preventing a potential terrorist/hijacker from getting on a plane, or not getting your name, DOB, and gender?

I'd also like an honest, direct answer from those of you who are objecting to having to give your name, DOB, and gender, so I'll ask again:

I wouldn't want to be on a plane that two Saudis who trained at the same flight school as a 9-11 hijacker were on. Would any of you?

It isn't just the U.S. government I am concerned about when it comes to personal information. If we consent to give this information, I want solid guarantees that this won't be used for other purposes. I don't want it to be used as a fishing expedition by all levels of government for anything they see fit. Airport security which is now a federal responsibility in the U.S. cannot even guarantee that we won't be robbed for submitting to their security plans. Are we to trust them completely in regards to personal information?

Put some real teeth in the Privacy Act and maybe security concerns about safeguarding against terrorism can be addressed. I don't know that I trust third party airlines collecting the data and not using it for their own purposes or sharing it with others.

Identity theft is already providing millions to terrorists. Should that not be as big a concern? The airlines are just one potential target. There are countless others for a well funded group.

Edited October 14, 2007 by jdobbin

[Guest American Woman]

I understand you have concerns, but I'll ask again. As things stand now, which do you think would go further to stop a terrorist attack-- preventing a potential terrorist/hijacker from getting on a plane, or not getting your name, DOB, and gender?

And--

I wouldn't want to be on a plane that two Saudis who trained at the same flight school as a 9-11 hijacker were on. Would any of you?

I'm asking these questions because I think the answers are important in understanding why the U.S. wants this information. Like I already said, I think this would make people safer than attacking Iraq and would be obviously be much less intrusive on the people involved. I think the benefits would outweigh the possibility of any negative effects, and I'm having a difficult time understanding the strong, negative reaction to this.

As a matter of curiousity, do you demand solid guarentees that your information won't be used for other purposes every time you give someone your ID? Airlines are already collecting this information. Furthermore, you question whether or not we should completely trust the federal government in regards to personal information. Should we trust any nations government with that information? As I said, every time you travel to another country you are giving that country that information-- and more.

[jdobbin]

I understand you have concerns, but I'll ask again. As things stand now, which do you think would go further to stop a terrorist attack-- preventing a potential terrorist/hijacker from getting on a plane, or not getting your name, DOB, and gender?

And--

I wouldn't want to be on a plane that two Saudis who trained at the same flight school as a 9-11 hijacker were on. Would any of you?

I'm asking these questions because I think the answers are important in understanding why the U.S. wants this information. Like I already said, I think this would make people safer than attacking Iraq and would be obviously be much less intrusive on the people involved. I think the benefits would outweigh the possibility of any negative effects, and I'm having a difficult time understanding the strong, negative reaction to this.

The threat of terrorism can make us justify a lot of things: warrantless searches, torture, rendition, invasion, occupation and assassination.

There is already a no fly list in Canada. It is compiled in cooperation with U.S. security. Why is this not good enough? I've never heard a good enough reason why it isn't. Is the future of security going to be fingerprints and DNA for everyone? And if so, how will that information be secured?

[Guest American Woman]

The threat of terrorism can make us justify a lot of things: warrantless searches, torture, rendition, invasion, occupation and assassination.

There is already a no fly list in Canada. It is compiled in cooperation with U.S. security. Why is this not good enough? I've never heard a good enough reason why it isn't. Is the future of security going to be fingerprints and DNA for everyone? And if so, how will that information be secured?

It can make some people justify anything. But this issue isn't about warrantless searches, torture, rendition, invasion, occupation, or assassination. It's about giving your full name, DOB, and gender to a country that I'm assuming, by your lack of response, you've already visited and given that information to-- and furthermore, are likely to visit again, giving that information to the government again.

You keep avoiding my questions, such as have you the same concerns about other people, businesses, countries that you've given that information to?

I'd also like to point out that birth records, like death records, are public records. Anyone who wants a full name, DOB, and gender to "steal" someone's identity has easy access to those records. Giving this information, information that is already given to the airlines, to the U.S. is really not going to raise the possibility of you having your identity stolen.

But you say Canada has compiled a no fly list in cooperation with U.S. security. So evidently you have no problem with such a list existing. Your problem is that the U.S. wants to check passengers against the list along with Canada. That seems to be the main issue here. But it's not "Canada" that the U.S. isn't "trusting" to check the list; it's the airlines. Is the Canadian government going over the passenger lists ahead of time like the U.S. government wants to? No. So it's not an issue of 'not trusting Canada, our friend' as some are making it out to be.

You said you've never heard a good enough reason why the no fly list is not good enough, but I've given the very real scenario of two Saudis who trained at the same flight school as a 9-11 hijacker being on a KLM flight as the reason for this action. I do think that's a good enough reason. I think the chance of that happening again is worth asking people for their full names, DOB, and gender. No one is asking for your fingerprints or DNA, so that is merely a hypothetical on your part, and as such, has no bearing at all on the issue.

Edited October 14, 2007 by American Woman

[jdobbin]

It can make some people justify anything. But this issue isn't about warrantless searches, torture, rendition, invasion, occupation, or assassination. It's about giving your full name, DOB, and gender to a country that I'm assuming, by your lack of response, you've already visited and given that information to-- and furthermore, are likely to visit again, giving that information to the government again.

You keep avoiding my questions, such as have you the same concerns about other people, businesses, countries that you've given that information to?

I'd also like to point out that birth records, like death records, are public records. Anyone who wants a full name, DOB, and gender to "steal" someone's identity has easy access to those records. Giving this information, information that is already given to the airlines, to the U.S. is really not going to raise the possibility of you having your identity stolen.

But you say Canada has compiled a no fly list in cooperation with U.S. security. So evidently you have no problem with such a list existing. Your problem is that the U.S. wants to check passengers against the list along with Canada. That seems to be the main issue here. But it's not "Canada" that the U.S. isn't "trusting" to check the list; it's the airlines. Is the Canadian government going over the passenger lists ahead of time like the U.S. government wants to? No. So it's not an issue of 'not trusting Canada, our friend' as some are making it out to be.

You said you've never heard a good enough reason why the no fly list is not good enough, but I've given the very real scenario of two Saudis who trained at the same flight school as a 9-11 hijacker being on a KLM flight as the reason for this action. I do think that's a good enough reason. I think the chance of that happening again is worth asking people for their full names, DOB, and gender. No one is asking for your fingerprints or DNA, so that is merely a hypothetical on your part, and as such, has no bearing at all on the issue.

That flight did not come from Canada.

As for the hypothetical on fingerprints and DNA, the U.S. has already put a fingerprint program in place and wants to extend it.

I have been to the U.S. and I do carry a passport. The information the U.S. wants goes beyond DOB, name and gender. They want itineraries collected by the airlines as well which I have already said could result in several problems, delays and confusion. Federal security at airports has already made travellers vulnerable to theft of goods.

Canada's no fly list has already run into problems with people sharing the same name. One Conservative MP has been caught up in that. The U.S. has run into the same problems. Ask Ted Kennedy about that.

I have no problems with targeted approaches to security and passports required for international travel. I do have problems with third party data collection because of how many hands it passes through.

[Guest American Woman]

That flight did not come from Canada.

As for the hypothetical on fingerprints and DNA, the U.S. has already put a fingerprint program in place and wants to extend it.

I have been to the U.S. and I do carry a passport. The information the U.S. wants goes beyond DOB, name and gender. They want itineraries collected by the airlines as well which I have already said could result in several problems, delays and confusion. Federal security at airports has already made travellers vulnerable to theft of goods.

Canada's no fly list has already run into problems with people sharing the same name. One Conservative MP has been caught up in that. The U.S. has run into the same problems. Ask Ted Kennedy about that.

I have no problems with targeted approaches to security and passports required for international travel. I do have problems with third party data collection because of how many hands it passes through.

I realize that the flight didn't come from Canada, but the U.S. isn't requesting the information exclusively of Canada, but of every nation that has flights over U.S. airspace. The fact that it happened at all justifies the government's concern. Do you honestly think Canadian airline workers are immune from making a similar error? Do you think it's up to the airlines exclusively to screen for potential terrorists? Remember, it's not Canada's government that's doing that, but the airlines that fly out of Canada.

As for the information the U.S. "wants" above and beyond full name, DOB, and gender-- wanting and requiring are two different things, and the government is not requiring itineries:

Canadian airlines would be required to provide:

* Passengers' full name

* Date of birth

* Gender

* 'Known traveller number' -- an identifier given to passengers the U.S. deems do not pose a threat

But under the proposal, the U.S. would also like information such as passengers' itineraries, including departure airport code, departure time, and arrival destination and time. Link

So even though the U.S. would "like" that information, it's not included in the "required" information. So I imagine it would be up to your government to deal with what information it is willing to pass on.

As for "shared names," I imagine that's why a DOB is also being required. The likelihood of a shared name AND a shared DOB of someone on the list would be slim. I imagine that's why the U.S. would like the information up to 72 hours in advance, too, to clear any matters like this up ahead of time.

If this program had been in place when the Canadian was deported back to Syria, likely it would have been dealt with before the plane took off, which may have been an inconvenience for him, but not a horror like being deported to Syria was.

I'm not sure where you are getting this "third party" passing of information from since the airlines already has the information and it's being passed on to the U.S. government, not a third party.

Edited October 14, 2007 by American Woman

[Michael Hardner]

Auguste

The third point is a good one, IMV. Will this improve security? It seems to me that it's not hard for someone smart to pretend to be someone else. (That's the idea behind identity theft.) Nevertheless, it's the bureaucratic impulse to create lists and we have many of them. (Anyone heard of CPIC?) These lists catche stupid people and they also (more important perhaps) protect senior bureaucrats from the wrath of angry politicians who are under pubic pressure after some horrific incident. "You mean you have no way of knowing if someone has a criminal record?")

What you said about the lists is right, but giving more powers to security agencies generally improves security, creates another obstacle against attack.

[jdobbin]

* Passengers' full name

* Date of birth

* Gender

* 'Known traveller number' -- an identifier given to passengers the U.S. deems do not pose a threat

But under the proposal, the U.S. would also like information such as passengers' itineraries, including departure airport code, departure time, and arrival destination and time.[/i]

So even though the U.S. would "like" that information, it's not included in the "required" information. So I imagine it would be up to your government to deal with what information it is willing to pass on.

As for "shared names," I imagine that's why a DOB is also being required. The likelihood of a shared name AND a shared DOB of someone on the list would be slim. I imagine that's why the U.S. would like the information up to 72 hours in advance, too, to clear any matters like this up ahead of time.

If this program had been in place when the Canadian was deported back to Syria, likely it would have been dealt with before the plane took off, which may have been an inconvenience for him, but not a horror like being deported to Syria was.

I'm not sure where you are getting this "third party" passing of information from since the airlines already has the information and it's being passed on to the U.S. government, not a third party.

They just finished talking about this on some of the political talks shows in Canada. The itineraries are also required. It isn't an optional area for the airlines. U.S. Ambassador Wilkins confirmed that in interviews.

Air Canada doesn't presently collect date of birth dates from what I can remember. They only require photo ID or a passport to match the name you are booking with. Giving them your birthdate and itinerary is extra information collected. The airlines are what I consider third party handling of my information.

The passport should be enough information to board a plane and it should be seen by official agents for security and customs combined with a watch list of names.

[Guest American Woman]

They just finished talking about this on some of the political talks shows in Canada. The itineraries are also required. It isn't an optional area for the airlines. U.S. Ambassador Wilkins confirmed that in interviews.

Air Canada doesn't presently collect date of birth dates from what I can remember. They only require photo ID or a passport to match the name you are booking with. Giving them your birthdate and itinerary is extra information collected. The airlines are what I consider third party handling of my information.

The passport should be enough information to board a plane and it should be seen by official agents for security and customs combined with a watch list of names.

The airlines are already collecting that information, as I stated, and any official ID does include the DOB. That includes non-passport IDs for children too young to have a drivers' license.

As for the itinery required, it doesn't sound as if it's passengers' itineries, but the airlines':

Under the Secure Flight NPRM, TSA would require covered aircraft operators to send to TSA

Secure Flight Passenger Data (SFPD) that will consist of the below listed elements, to the extent

available.

(1) full name;

(2) date of birth;

(3) gender;

(4) redress number (if available);

(5) known traveler number (if implemented and available); and

(6) passport information (if available)

Itinerary information includes the following information about a covered flight: (1) departure airport code; (2)

aircraft operator; (3) departure date; (4) departure time; (5) arrival airport code; (6) flight number; (7) operating

carrier (if available).

Link

Edited October 14, 2007 by American Woman

[Wilber]

Canadian airlines would be required to provide:

* Passengers' full name

* Date of birth

* Gender

* 'Known traveller number' -- an identifier given to passengers the U.S. deems do not pose a threat

But under the proposal, the U.S. would also like information such as passengers' itineraries, including departure airport code, departure time, and arrival destination and time. Link

So even though the U.S. would "like" that information, it's not included in the "required" information. So I imagine it would be up to your government to deal with what information it is willing to pass on.

Canadian domestic flights which travel over the US are exempt. Wonder why? Couldn't be that it would make it problematic for US carriers flying to Alaska? After all a typical US route flight from Toronto to Vancouver can be in US airspace for 90% of it's duration and pass over cities such as Detroit, Chicago and Minneapolis. Apparently our no fly list provides perfectly adequate safety on these flights.

Lets look at this. First there is the known traveler number, or in other words passengers the US government wishes to remain anonymous. You will notice there is no mention of it being reciprocal. If the Canadian government wishes a passenger to be anonymous, they will have to ask for US permission? You wouldn't call that a violation of our sovereignty? We can't send our diplomats to other countries without your knowledge and permission?

It says that it would "like" this other information. What does itinerary mean? If a Canadian business man from company with branches in North and South America goes flies from Toronto to Mexico City. From there he plans to carry on to Lima, Santiago, Buenos Aires, Sao Paolo then home, does that mean the itinerary after Mexico City as well? No explanation.

One wonders how long it will be before they demand this information or how uncomfortable they will make it for those who don't "volunteer" it. Pardon, you say you want additional gates at this airport? Jeez, can't understand why it takes you so long to get services, flight plans etc? Sorry.

AW, if you looked at the responses below that news article you will see that they were overwhelmingly negative. The fact is, regardless of their personal feelings for you and your country, their willingness to combat the terrorists of this world or how their own government relates to yours, your present government is not trusted by a majority of the populations of your allies and every few months they seem to come up with something else that justifies that mistrust.

It is after all a government which imprisons foreign nationals outside its own territory in order to circumvent its own laws. People may understand the rational behind it. Some may even reluctantly feel it is necessary but it also sends a clear message that the rights of foreign nationals mean nothing to these people if it infringes on their objectives. In short, "Trust me" from these folks doesn't cut it.

[jdobbin]

The airlines are already collecting that information, as I stated, and any official ID does include the DOB. That includes non-passport IDs for children too young to have a drivers' license.

As for the itinery required, it doesn't sound as if it's passengers' itineries, but the airlines':

Under the Secure Flight NPRM, TSA would require covered aircraft operators to send to TSA

Secure Flight Passenger Data (SFPD) that will consist of the below listed elements, to the extent

available.

(1) full name;

(2) date of birth;

(3) gender;

(4) redress number (if available);

(5) known traveler number (if implemented and available); and

(6) passport information (if available)

Itinerary information includes the following information about a covered flight: (1) departure airport code; (2)

aircraft operator; (3) departure date; (4) departure time; (5) arrival airport code; (6) flight number; (7) operating

carrier (if available).

The airlines in Canada are not collecting DOB or full itineraries. They check against the name and photo and only need to know if there are adults and children. There is nothing in their reservation system where you let them know your DOB presently nor do they type it in in when you arrive at the airport. It would be an additional step of travel.

[Guest American Woman]

The airlines in Canada are not collecting DOB or full itineraries. They check against the name and photo and only need to know if there are adults and children. There is nothing in their reservation system where you let them know your DOB presently nor do they type it in in when you arrive at the airport. It would be an additional step of travel.

As I said, the itineries required are apparently not the itineries of the passengers, but of the airlines. But I'm curious, how do you know at check-in that they aren't checking/typing in your DOB? And even if they aren't, they can see it. Whether they type it in or not, it's there if they desire to steal your identity. They have access to it.

Canadian domestic flights which travel over the US are exempt. Wonder why? Couldn't be that it would make it problematic for US carriers flying to Alaska? After all a typical US route flight from Toronto to Vancouver can be in US airspace for 90% of it's duration and pass over cities such as Detroit, Chicago and Minneapolis. Apparently our no fly list provides perfectly adequate safety on these flights.

Mexican domestic flights are exempt too. I really have no answer/explanation for this. It really doesn't make any sense.

Edited October 14, 2007 by American Woman