I realize it is all politics (as is most of everything) but I have personally been annoyed more than once with "cavalier" denials of over flight permissions. I am neither for or against Bolivia and their politics at the moment. Ostensibly, the flight was denied permission to proceed because there was a suspicion that Snowden was on board. So what? If he had managed to obtain Bolivian "help" in his quest for asylum then the "diplomatic" flight of the president's plane should have been unobstructed. How would we as US citizens feel if BO was traveling to Moscow and "suddenly" the Finns or Poles or some country between here and there decided to forbid AF1 from proceeding?

International law regarding airspace is fairly new but has had time for "politics" to intervene. We have some "international" rules that are good and some not so good. Speaking English on the airwaves is one good thing, meaning only one language for all. But needing over flight permission for many countries usually means those countries that might not be as friendly to one's own country as one would hope. When I flew a trip from Brunei westbound to the US, I was denied over flight permission in many Arab countries and landing permission in most. I could over fly Saudi Arabia but not land there, for instance.

It would be lovely if we could have "freedom of the skies" as proposed by Ike which had a slightly different context but still was the essence of what I proclaim.

Best regards,

RA1

I thought this was despicable. To stop the president of another country to make sure someone we were hunting was not on board is a true slap in the face for not only Bolivia but for all other countries as well.

When will we ever learn?

I thought this was pretty ballsy of the U.S. to ask the European countries to do this but not surprising given the present tenor of the Admin and Congress. However, for the Europeans to accede to this over-the-top request was a major international relations faux pas that is most embarrassing to them. It paints them as toadies of the U.S., shows gross disrespect for Evo Morales, President of Colombia, and to Latin American nations in general. Can one imagine that China, Russia, Germany, or France, to name a few, would be treated this way by the U.S. and any other 'major' countries? Any apology to Evo Morales is insufficient short of a complete confession to the whole sordid affair and a mea culpa from the head of state of each offending country. It would be surprising to see that treatment extended to a Latin American Head of State. Certainly not without intense international pressure and who will bring that to bear since many of the players are the offenders?

BTW, I'm surprised this has gotten so little play in the U.S. so far. Unlikely to get any more given the holiday, when the news and the people take a long weekend leaving the reporting to photographers, parades and fireworks displays. By Monday that story will be wrapping the catch-of-the-day in your local supermarket.

You can bet it hasn't gone unnoticed in Latin America. Just one more high profile example of the US and Europe exhibiting their colonial powers credentials to those who already remember them well. The U.S. cannot get out of its own way when dealing with Latin American nations. It doesn't depend on who the party is or the President. We are just incapable of dealing with them without bullying or insulting them.

Just one more example of why we have been regarded as the Ugly Americans in the past. However, in fairly modern times, using "air space" as a political football is not unusual. Whether you think we should have gone on this mission or not, you may remember that France and Spain denied the US military over flight permission when RR decided to try to take out Gaddafi using F-111 Aardvark bombers based in England. They had to fly much further because they flew via far out at sea the entire trip.

Also, landing rights between countries, are granted strictly on business/politics. If British Airways wants to fly non-stop London-Dallas, you can bet American Airlines will get permission for the same route.

It used to be (slightly before my time) that a pilot's license was as good as a passport (+visas) in most countries. Earlier in my career, I could fly from the US to the UK before being asked to show a passport, meaning through Canada, Greenland, Iceland. Not now.

A few years ago when Boeing and Airbus were in the middle of one of their many squabbles, suddenly United pilots had to have a visa to fly to France. Naturally, the US retaliated with requiring Air France pilots to have visas for the US.

Diplomatic and private flights should not be subject to all this foolishness but here we are. This planet is not progressing very well, is it?

Best regards,

RA1

Appalling actions on behalf of the US and the European nations involved. I have to wonder who and how high up in the US government made such a request, and what were they thinking about the ramifications involved with doing this? The US is going down that slippery slope and we are becoming our own worst enemies in many regards because of how we are dealing with these things.

However, in fairly modern times, using "air space" as a political football is not unusual. Whether you think we should have gone on this mission or not, you may remember that France and Spain denied the US military over flight permission when RR decided to try to take out Gaddafi using F-111 Aardvark bombers based in England. They had to fly much further because they flew via far out at sea the entire trip.

Its one thing to deny airspace rights for a military mission or for tit-for-tat economic tussles, quite another to deny a head of state overflight or refueling stops. The former is being circumspect about being drawn into military action as an accomplice or retaliation for some perceived economic slight, the other a straightforward slap in the face to the state and its head. This will not be forgotten for decades south of the border.

How is what you said different from what I said? Just curious.

Best regards,

RA1