The European Union has issued a blacklist banning more than 90 airlines from operating in the region. I haven't yet found the list but 90 is a large number! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4832648.stm

Here is the list:http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/air/sa...ell_list_en.pdf

Is the Democratic Republic of Congo some sort of free haven for crappy airlines?-

The list is both short (considering the total number of operators in the business) and misleading (in that many if not most of the operators listed don't operate to Europe anyway).The number 90 is furthermore misleading in that multiple entries for some airlines are included when only part of their fleets are banned (like Buraq Air, which has 3 entries listing explicitly which aircraft are and are not banned per type and class of restriction).

It's because Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Liberia, and Swaziland obviously don't have acceptable regulatory procedures - if they have any. It's not surprising to see Liberia on the list, given its well known approach to maritime regulation and safety.

flag of convenience countries exist in aviation as they do in shipping.No safety or operational standards, no reporting or anything, no taxes to be paid (instead pay some token bribes to certain officials), makes those countries extremely convenient to register your company.You basically don't have to conform to any laws of the country you're actually operating in because your ship (or aircraft) and company don't fall under that country's laws.Zaire (or DRC as it's currently known) has effectively no government at all, just some tribal chiefs fighting each other almost constantly.Liberia is similar.Swaziland is a monarchy ruled by royal decree by some tribal chief or other.Eq. Guinea is probably no better off.In all such places you can get any piece of paper signed with an official looking stamp if you only bring enough money, drugs, or weapons.

>It's because Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea,>Liberia, and Swaziland obviously don't have acceptable>regulatory procedures - if they have any. It's not surprising>to see Liberia on the list, given its well known approach to>maritime regulation and safety.Thats like saying if something isnt "accepted" by the FDA in the US, it shouldn't be on the market as a drug. Ridiculous beuocracy that gets in the way of smaller companies from dirt poor countries trying to make a living and allowing wealthy nations to continue their stranglehold on this as well as other markets.

It's funny to see, that the beuocrats of the EU don't even know, how to spell Libya correctly! :-lol

>It's funny to see, that the beuocrats of the EU don't even>know, how to spell Libya correctly! :-lolWhat's even funnier, is that you don't realize they aren't talking about Libya. ;)

>Thats like saying if something isnt "accepted" by the FDA in>the US, it shouldn't be on the market as a drug. Ridiculous>beuocracy that gets in the way of smaller companies from dirt>poor countries trying to make a living and allowing wealthy>nations to continue their stranglehold on this as well as>other markets.Having lived and traveled the world over, I am quite happy to have both the FAA and the FDA standing as a sh**-shield at the gates of my homeland. The safety of a government's citizens should carry a tad more weight than the hurt wittle feelings of the poor wittle companies that can't manage to meet basic safety standards.I've been up-close to aircraft from some of these banned outfits...veritable accidents looking for a place to happen. No civilized country should have to assume the risk they pose to those around them.Bob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-V L-300Santiago de Chile

shouldn't that be the choice of the passengers? and what about the air france runway excursion or southwest runway excursion? is that bad safety records? Or is it OK for "civilized" society to make mistakes but anyone else who cannot afford such inspections or who does not have political connections should be banned whenever some mistakes happen?

interesting how no Libya carriers are on there.

"shouldn't that be the choice of the passengers?"The problem isn't just the passengers--it's the people on the ground. They have no choice, other than hoping the government is keeping a watchful eye on their safety. Like Bob, I've flown in the third world and I've seen examples of the aircraft these types of restrictions protect us from. Not everything is about the big bad U.S. or E.U. trying to stomp on the little guy. Some of these restrictions save lives. -John

"interesting how no Libya carriers are on there."I saw Buraq air listed right towards the bottom of the list.

Is a drug that isnt FDA approved unsafe?