I think this could be setting a dangerous precedent.
How would America like it if passengers to France had to obtain permission from both the U.K. and Ireland? Maybe Iceland too. Or passengers to China and Korea requiring permission from Japan and Russia? Or passengers to South Korea requiring permission from North Korea?
Imagine the nightmare of someone travelling from Norway to South Africa.
And doesn’t this go against the convention set when America allowed ( ) Gagarin to overfly the US?
Ah, but you see this is based on the principle that It’s OK If America Does It. It would be unacceptable for those countries to make the same kinds of demands, because they aren’t America.
Something doesn’t seem right about that article. I can understand restricting flights over U.S. airspace, but it doesn’t make sense to screen people that aren’t passing over the U.S. I bet that the flights that fall under this rule really do pass through U.S. airspace, as Lord Feldon’s maps show, and the article is just glossing over that fact.
Alessan, you may want to talk to Native Americans about the value of pieces of paper that the American Government signed that later became inconvenient for them.
On the list of really bad ideas since 9/11, this is about number 117. The real bad ideas, indefinite detention sans charge, state sponsored and condoned torture,extraordinary rendition have already made the dangerous precedents you fear and not just in the US and A.
We *are *taking about airline rights. If the airlines decide to transport passengers the U.S. does not approve of, does the U.S. government have the right to stop them? If so, what’s to prevent the U.S. from forbidding an airline to transport *any *passengers or crew through American airspace - emptying the First Freedom of any meaning?
This is American, we do whatever we want, and if you don’t agree, then you’re wrong.
If we signed some paperwork before, who cares, because we only signed it because we didn’t foresee a conflict in the future. Thus, we take our signature off because we don’t actually agree anymore.
I don’t get, why is this appearing now? 11 years after 2011? What has suddenly made the world so dangerous that they have to implement this, when we’ve been just fine for the last 11 years allowing people to recklessly fly near the US with no checks.
Their sovereignty isn’t being breached by the US refusing to allow flights terminating in their airports to fly through its airspace. As far as why airlines are complying, I imagine it’s to avoid negative repercussions for their flights actually terminating in the US.
To answer your OP, though: yes, it’s a dangerous precedent. And a silly one.
) Gagarin to overfly the US?