• UK Deportations 2020: how BA, #Easyjet and other airlines collaborate with the border regime

    The Home Office’s deportation machine has slowed during the corona crisis, with hundreds of people released from detention. But a recent charter flight to Poland shows the motor is still ticking over. Will things just go “back to normal” as the lockdown lifts, or can anti-deportation campaigners push for a more radical shift? This report gives an updated overview of the UK deportation system and focuses in on the role of scheduled flights run by major airlines including: #BA, Easyjet, #Kenya_Airways, #Qatar_Airways, #Turkish_Airlines, #Ethiopian_Airlines, #Air_France, #Royal_Jordanian, and #Virgin.

    On 30 April, with UK airports largely deserted during the Covid-19 lockdown, a Titan Airways charter plane took off from Stansted airport deporting 35 people to Poland. This was just a few days after reports of charter flights in the other direction, as UK farmers hired planes to bring in Eastern European fruit-pickers.

    The Home Office’s deportation machine has slowed during the corona crisis. Hundreds of people have been released from detention centres, with detainee numbers dropping by 900 over the first four months of 2020. But the Poland flight signals that the Home Office motor is still ticking over. As in other areas, perhaps the big question now is whether things will simply go “back to normal” as the lockdown lifts. Or can anti-deportation campaigners use this window to push for a more radical shift?
    An overview of the UK’s deportation machine

    Last year, the UK Home Office deported over seven thousand people. While the numbers of people “removed” have been falling for several years, deportation remains at the heart of the government’s strategy (if that is the term) for “tackling illegal immigration”. It is the ultimate threat behind workplace and dawn raids, rough-sleeper round-ups, “right to rent” checks, reporting centre queues, and other repressive architecture of the UK Border Regime.

    This report gives an overview of the current state of UK deportations, focusing on scheduled flights run by major airlines. Our previous reports on UK deportations have mainly looked at charter flights: where the Home Office aims to fill up chartered planes to particular destinations, under heavy guard and typically at night from undisclosed locations. These have been a key focus for anti-deportation campaigners for a number of reasons including their obvious brutality, and their use as a weapon to stifle legal and direct resistance. However, the majority of deportations are on scheduled flights. Deportees are sitting – at the back handcuffed to private security “escorts” – amongst business or holiday travellers.

    These deportations cannot take place without extensive collaboration from businesses. The security guards are provided by outsourcing company Mitie. The tickets are booked by business travel multinational Carlson Wagonlit. The airlines themselves are household names, from British Airways to Easyjet. This report explains how the Home Office and its private sector collaborators work together as a “deportation machine” held together by a range of contractual relationships.

    Some acknowledgements

    Many individuals and campaign groups helped with information used in this report. In particular, Lesbians and Gays Support the Migrants shared their valuable research and legal advice, discussed below.

    We have produced this report in collaboration with the Air Deportation Project led by William Walters at the University of Carleton in Canada, funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Corporate Watch received funding from this project as a contribution for our work on this report.

    Names, numbers

    First a quick snapshot of deportation numbers, types and destinations. We also need to clear up some terminology.

    We will use the term “deportations” to refer to all cases where the Home Office moves someone out of the country under direct force (for scheduled flights, this usually means handcuffed to a security “escort”). In the Home Office’s own jargon, these are called “enforced returns”, and the word “deportation” is reserved for people ejected on “public policy” rather than “immigration” grounds – mostly Foreign National Offenders who have been convicted by criminal courts. The Home Office refers to deportations carried out under immigration law euphemistically, calling them “removals” or “returns”.i

    As well as “enforced returns”, there are also so-called “voluntary returns”. This means that there is no direct use of force – no guard, no leg or arm restraints. But the term “voluntary” is stretched. Many of these take place under threat of force: e.g., people are pressured to sign “voluntary return” agreements to avoid being forcibly deported, or as the only chance of being released from detention. In other cases, people may agree to “voluntary return” as the only escape route from a limbo of reporting controls, lack of rights to work or rent legally, or destitution threatened by “no recourse to public funds”.

    In 2019, the Home Office reported a total of 18,782 returns: 7,361 “enforced” and 11,421 “voluntary”.ii
    These figures include 5,110 “Foreign National Offenders” (27%). (The Home Office says the majority of these were enforced returns, although no precise figure is provided.)
    There is a notable trend of declining removals, both enforced and “voluntary”. For example, in 2015 there were 41,789 returns altogether, 13,690 enforced and 28,189 “voluntary”. Both enforced and voluntary figures have decreased every year since then.
    Another notable trend concerns the nationalities of deportees. Europeans make up an increasing proportion of enforced deportations. 3,498, or 48%, of all enforced returns in 2019 were EU citizens – and this does not include other heavily targeted non-EU European nationalities such as Albanians. In 2015, there were 3,848 EU enforced returns – a higher absolute figure, but only 28% of a much higher overall total. In contrast, EU nationals still make up a very small percentage of “voluntary” returns – there were only 107 EU “voluntary returns” in 2019.
    The top nationalities for enforced returns in 2019 were: Romania (18%), Albania (12%), Poland (9%), Brazil (8%) and Lithuania (6%). For voluntary returns they were: India (16%), China (9%), Pakistan (9%).

    We won’t present any analysis of these figures and trends here. The latest figures show continuing evidence of patterns we looked at in our book The UK Border Regime.iii One key point we made there was that, as the resources and physical force of the detention and deportation system are further diminished, the Border Regime is more than ever just a “spectacle” of immigration enforcement – a pose for media and key voter audiences, rather than a realistic attempt to control migration flows. We also looked at how the scapegoat groups targeted by this spectacle have shifted over recent decades – including, most recently, a new focus on European migration accompanying, or in fact anticipating, the Brexit debate.

    Deportation destinations

    Home Office Immigration Statistics also provide more detailed dataiv on the destinations people are “returned” to, which will be important when we come to look at routes and airline involvement. Note that, while there is a big overlap between destinations and nationalities, they are of course not the same thing. For example, many of those deported to France and other western European countries are “third country” removals of refugees under the Dublin agreement – in which governments can deport an asylum seeker where they have already been identified in another EU country.

    Here are the top 20 destinations for deportations in 2019 – by which, to repeat, we mean all enforced returns:

    It is worth comparing these figures with a similar table of top 20 deportation destinations in the last 10 years – between 2010 and 2019. This comparison shows very strongly the recent shift to targeting Europeans.

    The Home Office: who is targeted and how

    As we will see, the actual physical business of deporting people is outsourced to private companies. The state’s role remains giving the orders about who is targeted for arrest and detention, who is then released, and who is forced onto a plane. Here we’ll just take a very quick look at the decision-making structures at work on the government side. This is based on the much more detailed account in The UK Border Regime.

    The main state body responsible for immigration control in the UK is the Home Office, the equivalent of other countries’ Interior Ministries. In its current set-up, the Home Office has three divisions: Homeland Security, which runs security and intelligence services; Public Safety, which oversees the police and some other institutions; and Borders, Immigration and Citizenship. The last of these is further divided into three “directorates”: UK Visas and Immigration, which determines visa and asylum applications; Border Force, responsible for control at the frontiers; Immigration Enforcement, responsible for control within the national territory – including detention and deportations. Immigration Enforcement itself has an array of further departments and units. Regular restructuring and reshuffling of all these structures is known to bewilder immigration officers themselves, contributing to the Home Office’s notoriously low morale.v

    At the top of the tree is the Home Secretary (interior minister), supported by a more junior Immigration Minister. Along with the most senior civil servants and advisors, these ministers will be directly involved in setting top-level policies on deportations.

    For example, an enquiry led by then prisons and probation ombudsman Stephen Shaw into the Yarl’s Wood detention centre revolt in 2002 has given us some valuable insight into the development of modern Home Office deportation policy under the last Labour government. Then Home Secretary Jack Straw, working with civil servants including the Home Office permanent secretary Sir David Omand, introduced the first deportation targets we are aware of, in 2000. They agreed a plan to deport 12,000 people in 2000-1, rising to 30,000 people the next year, and eventually reaching 57,000 in 2003-4.vi

    Nearly two decades later, Home Secretary Amber Rudd was pushed to resign after a leak confirmed that the Home Office continued to operate a deportation targets policy, something of which she had denied knowledge.vii The 2017-18 target, revealed in a leaked letter to Rudd from Immigration Enforcement’s director general Hugh Ind, was for 12,800 enforced returns.viii

    As the figures discussed above show, recent austerity era Conservative governments are more modest than the last Labour government in their overall deportation targets, and have moved to target different groups. Jack Straw’s deportation programme was almost entirely focused on asylum seekers whose claims had been refused. This policy derived from what the Blair government saw as an urgent need to respond to media campaigns demonising asylum seekers. Twenty years on, asylum seekers now make up a minority of deportees, and have been overtaken by new media bogeymen including European migrants.

    In addition, recent Home Office policy has put more effort into promoting “voluntary” returns – largely for cost reasons, as security guards and detention are expensive. This was the official rationale behind Theresa May’s infamous “racist van” initiative, where advertising vans drove round migrant neighbourhoods parading “Go Home” slogans and a voluntary return hotline number.

    How do Home Office political targets translate into operations on the ground? We don’t know all the links, but can trace some main mechanisms. Enforced returns begin with arrests. One of the easiest ways to find potential deportees is to grab people as they walk in to sign at an Immigration Reporting Centre. 80,000 migrants in the UK are “subject to reporting requirements”, and all Reporting Centres include short-term holding cells.ix Other deportees are picked up during immigration raids – such as daytime and evening raids on workplaces, or dawn raids to catch “immigration offenders” in their beds.x

    Both reporting centre caseworkers and Immigration Compliance and Enforcement (ICE) raid squads are issued with targets and incentives to gather deportees. An Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration (ICIBI) report from 2017 explains how reporting centre staff work specifically to deportation targets. The inspector also tells us how:

    Staff at the London Reporting Centres worked on the basis that to meet their removal targets they needed to detain twice the number of individuals, as around half of those detained would later raise a barrier to removal and be released from detention.

    ICE raid teams are set monthly priorities by national and regional commanders, which may include targeting specific nationalities for deportation. For example, the Home Office has repeatedly denied that it sets nationality targets in order to fill up charter flights to particular destinations – but this practice was explicitly confirmed by an internal document from 2014 (an audit report from the director of Harmondsworth detention centre) obtained by Corporate Watch following a Freedom of Information legal battle.xi

    Day-to-day deportation and detention decisions are overseen by a central unit called the National Removals Command (NRC). For example, after ICE raid officers make arrests they must call NRC to authorise individuals’ detention. This decision is made on the basis of any specific current targets, and otherwise on general “removability”.

    “Removability” means the chance of successfully getting their “subject” onto a plane without being blocked by lack of travel documents, legal challenges and appeals, or other obstacles. For example, nationals of countries with whom the UK has a formal deportation agreement are, all other things being equal, highly removable. This includes the countries with which the UK has set up regular charter flight routes – including Albania, Pakistan, Nigeria and Ghana, and more recently Jamaica and a number of EU countries. On the other extreme, some nationalities such as Iranians present a problem as their governments refuse to accept deportees.

    The Home Office: “arranging removal” procedure

    A Home Office document called “Arranging Removal” sets out the steps Immigration Enforcement caseworkers need to take to steer their “subject” from arrest to flight.xii

    On the one hand, they are under pressure from penny-pinching bosses keen to get the job done as quick and cheap as possible. On the other, they have to be careful not to make any mistakes deportees’ lawyers could use to get flights cancelled. Immigration Officers have the legal power to order deportations without the need for any court decision – however, many deportations are blocked on appeal to courts.

    Here are some of the main steps involved:

    Removability assessment. The caseworker needs to assess that: there are no “casework barriers” – e.g., an ongoing asylum claim or appeal that would lead to the deportation being stopped by a court; the detainee is medically “fit to fly”; any family separation is authorised correctly; the detainee has a valid travel document.
    Travel Document. If there is no valid travel document, the caseworker can try to obtain an “emergency travel document” through various routes.
    Executive approval. If all these criteria are met, the caseworker gets authorisation from a senior office to issue Removal Directions (RD) paperwork.
    Risk Assessment. Once the deportation is agreed, the caseworker needs to assess risks that might present themselves on the day of the flight – such as medical conditions, the likelihood of detainee resistance and of public protest. At this point escorts and/or medics are requested. A version of this risk assessment is sent to the airline – but without case details or medical history.xiii
    Flight booking. The caseworker must first contact the Airline Ticketing Team who grant access to an online portal called the Electronic Removal Form (ERF). This portal is run by the Home Office’s flight booking contractor Carlson Wagonlit (see below). Tickets are booked for escorts and any medics as well as the deportee. There are different options including “lowest cost” non-refundable fares, or “fully refundable” – the caseworker here should assess how likely the deportation is to be cancelled. One of the options allows the caseworker to choose a specific airline.
    Notice of removal. Finally, the deportee must be served with a Removal Directions (RD) document that includes notification of the deportation destination and date. This usually also includes the flight number. The deportee must be given sufficient notice: for people already in detention this is standardly 72 hours, including two working days, although longer periods apply in some situations.

    In 2015 the Home Office brought in a new policy of issuing only “removal window” notification in many cases – this didn’t specify the date but only a wide timeframe. The window policy was successfully challenged in the courts in March 2019 and is currently suspended.


    The electronic booking system is run by a private company, #Carlson_Wagonlit_Travel (#CWT). CWT is also in charge of contracting charter flights.

    Carlson Wagonlit has been the Home Office’s deportation travel agent since 2004, with the contract renewed twice since then. Its current seven year contract, worth £5.7 million, began in November 2017 and will last until October 2024 (assuming the two year extension period is taken up after an initial five years). The Home Office estimated in the contract announcement that it will spend £200 million on deportation tickets and charters over that seven year period.xiv

    Carlson is a global #business travel services company, i.e., a large scale travel agent and booker for companies and government agencies. Its official head office is in France, but it is 100% owned by US conglomerate #Carlson_Companies Inc. It claims to be active in more than 150 countries.

    A report on “outsourced contracts” by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration gives us some information on CWT’s previous (2010-17) contract.xv This is unlikely to be substantially changed in the new version, although deportation numbers have reduced since then. The contract involved:

    management of charter flights and ticketing provision for scheduled flights for migrants subject to enforced removal and escorts, where required, and the management of relationships with carriers to maintain and expand available routes. […] Annually, CWT processed approximately 21,000 booking requests from Home Office caseworkers for tickets for enforced removals. Some booking requests were for multiple travellers and/or more than one flight and might involve several transactions. CWT also managed flight rescheduling, cancellations and refunds. The volume of transactions processed varied from 5,000 to 8,000 per month.

    The inspection report notes the value of CWT’s service to the Home Office through using its worldwide contacts to facilitate deportations:

    Both Home Office and CWT managers noted that CWT’s position as a major travel operator had enabled it to negotiate favourable deals with airlines and, over the life of the contract to increase the range of routes available for enforced removals. (Para 5.10).

    The airlines: regular deportation collaborators

    We saw above that Home Office caseworkers book flight tickets through an online portal set up and managed by Carlson Wagonlit Travel. We also saw how CWT is praised by Home Office managers for its strong relationships with airlines, and ability to negotiate favourable deals.

    For charter flight deportations, we know that CWT has developed a particular relationship with one charter company called Titan Airways. We have looked at Titan in our previous reports on charter flight deportations.

    Does the Home Office also have specific preferred airline partners for scheduled flights? Unfortunately, this isn’t an easy question to answer. Under government procurement rules, the Home Office is required to provide information on contracts it signs – thus, for example, we have at least a redacted version of the contract with CWT. But as all its airline bookings go through the intermediary of CWT, there are no such contracts available. Claiming “commercial confidentiality”, the Home Office has repeatedly information requests on its airline deals. (We will look in a bit more depth at this issue in the annex.)

    As a result, we have no centrally-gathered aggregate data on airline involvement. Our information comes from individual witnesses: deportees themselves; their lawyers and supporters; fellow passengers, and plane crew. Lawyers and support groups involved in deportation casework are a particularly helpful reference, as they may know about multiple deportation cases.

    For this report, we spoke to more than a dozen immigration lawyers and caseworkers to ask which airlines their clients had been booked on. We also spoke to anti-deportation campaign groups including Lesbians and Gays Support the Migrants, who have run recent campaigns calling on airlines to refuse to fly deportees; and to the trade union Unite, who represent flight crew workers. We also looked at media reports of deportation flights that identify airlines.

    These sources name a large number of airlines, and some names come up repeatedly. British Airways is top of the list. We list a few more prominent collaborators below: Easyjet, Kenya Airways, Ethiopian Airlines, Qatar Airways, Turkish Airlines, Royal Jordanian. Virgin Airlines is the only company to have publicly announced it has stopped carrying deportees from the UK – although there have been some questions over whether it is keeping this promise.

    However, the information we have does not allow us to determine the exact nature of the relationship with these airlines. How many airlines appear in the CWT booking system – what determines which ones are included? Does CWT have a preferential arrangement with BA or other frequent deportation airlines? Does the Home Office itself have any direct interaction with these airlines’ management? How many airlines are not included in the CWT booking system because they have refused to carry deportees?

    For now, we have to leave these as open questions.

    British Airways

    We have numerous reports of British Airways flying deportees to destinations worldwide – including African and Caribbean destinations, amongst others. Cabin crew representatives in Unite the Union identify British Airways as the main airline they say is involved in deportation flights.

    The airline has long been a key Home Office collaborator. Back in 2003, at the height of the Labour government’s push to escalate deportations, the “escort” security contractor was a company called Loss Prevention International. In evidence to a report by the House of Commons home affairs committee, its chief executive Tom Davies complained that many airlines at this point were refusing to fly deportees. But he singled out BA as the notable exception, saying: “if it were not for […] the support we get from British Airways, the number of scheduled flight removals that we would achieve out of this country would be virtually nil”.xvi

    In 2010, British Airways’ role was highlighted when Jimmy Mubenga was killed by G4S “escorts” on BA flight 77 from Heathrow to Angola.

    Since 2018, there has been an active calling on BA to stop its collaboration. The profile of this issue was raised after BA sponsored Brighton Pride in May 2018 – whilst being involved in deportations of lesbian and gay migrants to African countries where their lives were in danger. After winning a promise from Virgin Airways to cease involvement in deportations (see below), the group Lesbians and Gays Support the Migrants (LGSM) have made BA the main target for their anti-deportation campaigning.

    The campaign has also now been supported by BA cabin crew organised in the union Unite. In December 2019 Unite cabin crew branches passed a motion against airline scheduled flight deportations.xvii

    Kenya Airways

    We have numerous reports from caseworkers and campaigners of Kenya Airways flying deportees to destinations in Africa.

    The typical route is a flight from Heathrow to Nairobi, followed by a second onward flight. People deported using this route have included refugees from Sudan and Somalia.


    We have numerous reports of Easyjet flying deportees to European destinations. Easyjet appears to be a favoured airline for deportations to Eastern European countries, and also for “third country” returns to countries including Italy and Germany. While most UK scheduled deportations are carried out from Heathrow and Gatwick, we have also seen accounts of Easyjet deportations from Luton.

    Qatar Airways

    We have numerous reports of Qatar Airways carrying deportees to destinations in the Middle East, Asia and Africa. Qatar Airways has carried deportees to Iraq, according to the International Federation of Iraqi Refugees (IFIR), and also to Sudan. (In March 2019 the airline suspended its Sudan route, but this appears to have been restarted – the company website currently advertises flights to Khartoum in April 2020.xviii) Other destinations include Pakistan, Bangladesh, China, Thailand, the Philippines, and Uganda. The typical route is from Heathrow via Doha.

    Turkish Airlines

    We have numerous reports of Turkish Airlines carrying deportees. The typical route is Heathrow or Gatwick to Istanbul, then an onward flight to further destinations including Iraq and Afghanistan. According to the International Federation of Iraqi Refugees (IFIR), Turkish Airlines has been one of the main companies involved in deportations to Iraq. A media report from June 2019 also mentions Turkish Airlines carrying someone being deported to Somalia via Istanbul.xix In August 2017, a Turkish Airlines pilot notably refused to fly an Afghani refugee from Heathrow to Istanbul, en route to Kabul, after being approached by campaigners – but this does not reflect general company policy.xx

    Ethiopian Airlines

    We have reports of this airline deporting people to Ethiopia and other African countries, including Sudan. Flights are from Heathrow to Addis Ababa. In April 2018, high-profile Yarl’s Wood hunger striker Opelo Kgari was booked on an Ethiopian flight to Addis Ababa en route to Botswana.

    Air France

    Air France are well-known for carrying deportees from France, and have been a major target for campaigning by anti-deportation activists there. We also have several reports of them carrying deportees from the UK, on flights from Heathrow via Paris.

    Royal Jordanian

    According to IFIR, Royal Jordanian has been involved in deportations to Iraq.

    Virgin Airlines

    In June 2018, Virgin announced that it had ceased taking bookings for deportation flights. Virgin had previously been a regular carrier for deportations to Jamaica and to Nigeria. (NB: Nigeria is often used as a deportation transit hub from where people are subsequently removed to other African countries.) The announcement came after the Windrush scandal led to the Home Office apparently suspending deportations to the Caribbean, and following campaigning by Lesbians and Gays Support the Migrants (LGSM) – although Virgin claimed it had made the decision before being contacted by the campaign. A Virgin statement said:

    we made the decision to end all involuntary deportations on our network, and have already informed the Home Office. We believe this decision is in the best interest of our customers and people, and is in keeping with our values as a company.xxi

    But there are doubts over just how much Virgin’s promise is worth. According to a report by The Independent:

    The airline had agreed to deport a man to Nigeria […] a day after announcing the decision. The only reason he wasn’t removed was because the Home Office agreed to consider new representations following legal intervention.xxii

    Do airlines have a choice?

    In response to its critics, British Airways has consistently given the same reply: it has no choice but to cooperate with the Home Office. According to an August 2018 article in The Guardian, BA says that it has “a legal duty under the Immigration Act 1971 to remove individuals when asked to do so by the Home Office.” A company spokesperson is quoted saying:

    Not fulfilling this obligation amounts to breaking the law. We are not given any personal information about the individual being deported, including their sexuality or why they are being deported. The process we follow is a full risk assessment with the Home Office, which considers the safety of the individual, our customers and crew on the flight.xxiii

    The last parts of this answer fit the process we looked at above. When booking the flight, the Home Office caseworker sends the airline a form called an Airline Risk Report (ARA) which alerts it to risk issues, and specifies why escorts or medics are needed – including an assessment of the likelihood of resistance. But no information should be shared on the deportee’s medical issues or immigration case and reasons for deportation.

    But is it true that an airline would be breaking the law if it refused a booking? Lesbians and Gays Support the Migrants have shared with us a legal opinion they received from law firm Duncan Lewis on this issue. We summarise the main points here.

    The law in question is the Immigration Act 1971, Section 27(1)(b)(iii). This states that, when issued the correct legal order by the Home Office, the “owner or agent of a ship or aircraft” must “make arrangements for or in connection with the removal of a person from the United Kingdom when required to do so [by appropriate Removal Directions]”. It is an offence to fail to do so “without reasonable excuse”.

    The offence is punishable by a fine, and potentially a prison sentence of up to six months. As a minor “summary only” offence, any case would be heard by a magistrates’ court rather than a jury.

    In fact many airline captains have refused to carry deportees – as we will see in the next section. But there are no recorded cases of anyone ever being prosecuted for refusing. As with many areas of UK immigration law, there is simply no “case law” on this question.

    If a case ever does come to court, it might turn on that clause about a “reasonable excuse”. The legal opinion explains that the airline might argue they refused to carry a deportee because doing so would present a risk to the aircraft or passengers, for example if there is resistance or protest. A court might well conclude this was “reasonable”.

    On the other hand, the “reasonable excuse” defence could be harder to apply for an airline that took a principled stand to refuse all deportations as a general rule, whether or not there is disruption.

    Again, though, all this is hypothetical as the Home Office has never actually prosecuted anyone. Virgin Airlines, the first company to have publicly stated that it will not fly deportees from the UK, so far has not faced any legal comeback. As reported in the press, a Virgin spokesperson explained the company’s position like this:

    We’ve made the decision to end all involuntary deportations on our network, and have informed the Home Office. We always comply with the law and would continue to comply with legislation; however, we have ended our contractual agreement to carry involuntary deportees.xxiv

    Due to our lack of information on Home Office agreements with airlines, it’s hard to assess exactly what this means. Possibly, Virgin previously had an outstanding deal with the Home Office and Carlson Wagonlit where their tickets came up on the CWT booking portal and were available for caseworkers, and this has now ended. If the Home Office insisted on contacting them and booking a ticket regardless, they might then be pushed to “comply with the law”.

    Above we saw that, according to evidence referred to in a report of the House of Commons home affairs select committee, in 2003 the majority of airlines actually refused to carry deportees, leaving the Home Office to depend almost exclusively on British Airways. Even in this context there were no prosecutions of airlines.

    This is not an uncommon situation across UK immigration law: much of it has never come to court. For example, as we have discussed in reports on immigration raids, there have been no legal cases testing many of the powers of ICE raid squads. To give another example, on numerous occasions campaigners have obstructed buses taking detainees to charter flights without any prosecution – the Stansted 15 trial of protestors blocking a plane inside the airport was the first high-profile legal case following an anti-deportation action.

    Even if the government has a legal case for prosecuting airlines, this could be a highly controversial move politically. The Home Office generally prefers not to expose the violence of its immigration enforcement activities to the challenge of a public legal hearing.


    We want to conclude this report on an upbeat note. Deportations, and scheduled airline flights in particular, are a major site of struggle. Resistance is not just possible but widespread and often victorious. Thousands of people have managed to successfully stop their “removals” through various means, including the following:

    Legal challenges: a large number of flights are stopped because of court appeals and injunctions.
    Public campaigning: there is a strong tradition of anti-deportation campaigning in the UK, usually supporting individuals with media-focused and political activity. Common tactics include: media articles highlighting the individual’s case; enlisting MPs and appealing to ministers; petitions, letters of support; mass phone calls, emails, etc., to airlines; demos or leafletting at the airport targeting air crew and passengers.
    Solidarity action by passengers: in some high-profile cases, passengers have refused to take their seats until deportees are removed. This creates a safety situation for the airline which may often lead to the pilot ordering escorts to remove their prisoner.
    Direct action by detainees: many detainees have been able to get off flights by putting up a struggle. This may involve, for example: physically resisting escorts; taking off clothes; shouting and appealing to passengers and air crew for help. Unless the deportee is extremely strong physically, the balance of force is with the escorts – and sometimes this can be lethal, as in the case of Jimmy Mubenga. However, pilots may often order deportees off their plane in the case of disruption.

    There are many reports of successful resistance using one or more of these tactics. And we can also get some glimpses of their overall power from a few pieces of aggregate information.

    In a 2016 report, the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration revealed one telling figure. Looking at the figures for six months over 2014-15, he found that “on average 2.5 tickets were issued for each individual successfully removed.”xxv Some of this can be put down to the notorious inefficiency of Home Office systems: the Inspection report looks at several kinds of coordination failures between Home Office caseworkers, the escort contractor (at that point a subsidiary of Capita), and Carlson Wagonlit.

    But this is not the biggest factor. In fact, the same report breaks down the reasons for cancellation for a sample of 136 tickets. 51% of the sampled cancellations were the result of legal challenges. 18% were because of “disruptive or non-compliant behaviour”. 2% (i.e., three cases) were ascribed to “airline refusal to carry”.

    Where there is resistance, there is also reaction. As we have discussed in previous reports, one of the main reasons prompting the development of charter flights was to counter resistance by isolating deportees from passengers and supporters. This was very clearly put in 2009 by David Wood, then strategic director of the UK Border Agency (Home Office), who explained that the charter flight programme is:

    “a response to the fact that some of those being deported realised that if they made a big enough fuss at the airport – if they took off their clothes, for instance, or started biting and spitting – they could delay the process. We found that pilots would then refuse to take the person on the grounds that other passengers would object.”xxvi

    For both deportees and supporters, charter flights are much harder to resist. But they are also very expensive; require specific diplomatic agreements with destination countries; and in some cases (Iraq, Afghanistan and Sri Lanka) have been blocked by legal and political means.xxvii The Home Office cannot avoid the use of scheduled flights for the majority of deportations, and it will continue to face resistance.

    Annex: issues with accessing airline information

    We will expand a bit here on the issues around obtaining information on the Home Office’s relationships with airlines.

    Under UK and EU public sector procurement rules, central government departments are obliged to publish announcements of all contracts valued over £10,000, including on the contractsfinder website. However, there is no publicly available information on any contracts between the Home Office and specific airlines. This is legally justifiable if the Home Office has no direct contractual agreements with airlines. It has a signed contract with Carlson Wagonlit Travel (CWT), which is published in a redacted form; and CWT then makes arrangements with airlines on a per-ticket basis.

    The Home Office certainly has knowledge of all the tickets booked on its behalf by CWT – indeed, they are booked by its own employees through the CWT maintained portal. And so it certainly knows all the airlines working for it. But it has refused all requests for this information, using the excuse of “commercial confidentiality”.

    There have been numerous attempts to request information on deportation airlines using the Freedom of Information Act.xxviii All have been refused on similar grounds. To give one standard example, in December 2018 A. Liberadzki requested statistics for numbers of removals carried out by British Airways and other scheduled airlines. The response confirmed “that the Home Office holds the information that you have requested.” However, it argued that:

    “we have decided that the information is exempt from disclosure under sections 31(1)e and 43(2) of the FOIA. These provide that information can be withheld if its disclosure would have a detrimental effect on the Home Office and its ability to operate effective immigration controls by carrying out removals or would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any persons (including the public authority holding it).”

    In April 2019 Kate Osamor MP put similar questions to the Home Secretary in parliament.xxix She received the same reply to all her questions:

    “The Home Office does not disclose the details or values of its commercial contracts. Doing so could discourage companies from dealing with the Home Office.”

    Of course this answer is blatantly false – as we just saw, the Home Office is legally obliged to disclose values of commercial contracts over £10,000.


    #rapport #corporate_watch #compagnies_aériennes #British_Airways #avions #renvois #expulsions #asile #migrations #déboutés #sans-papiers #UK #Home_Office #résistance #Jimmy_Mubenga

    ping @isskein @karine4 @reka

  • Lobbying : l’épidémie cachée | Les Amis de la Terre

    La crise actuelle est propice à l’absence de transparence dans les décisions publiques. Une aubaine pour le secteur privé, qui bénéficie d’un accès privilégié aux décideurs politiques. C’est ce que révèle le rapport « Lobbying : l’épidémie cachée » publié aujourd’hui par les Amis de la Terre France et l’Observatoire des multinationales.

    Il montre comment, alors que la situation sanitaire attirait toute l’attention, les industriels et leur lobbys ont lancé une grande offensive auprès des pouvoirs publics avec un double objectif.


  • Fermeture des vols intérieurs : « Si Aurillac est sur la liste, le Cantal est mort » | Public Senat

    #Air_France_KLM va réduire de 40 % ses vols nationaux d’ici à 2021. Les sénateurs dont les territoires sont concernés par ces fermetures de ligne craignent l’#enclavement de leur région mais aussi les conséquences économiques.

    Pour Air France, un plan d’aide peu écolo et non contraignant

    Pour faire face aux conséquences économiques de la pandémie de Covid-19, le gouvernement va accorder 7 milliards d’euros d’aides à Air France. En échange, la compagnie est censée devenir « plus respectueuse de la planète ». Mais les conditions environnementales posées ne sont ni ambitieuses ni contraignantes

    Liens cités dans l’article de Reporterre :
    Réseau Action Climat, Climat : que vaut le plan du Gouvernement pour l’aérien ?, https://reseauactionclimat.org/publications/climat-que-vaut-le-plan-du-gouvernement-pour-laerien

    The Shift Project, « Crise(s), climat : préparer l’avenir de l’aviation » : les propositions du Shift de contreparties à l’aide publique au secteur aérien, https://theshiftproject.org/article/climat-preparer-avenir-aviation-propositions-shift-contreparties

    #changement_climatique #transport_aérien #aménagement_du_territoire #développement_durable

  • Coronavirus : l’Etat vole au secours d’Air France avec une aide à hauteur de 7 milliards d’euros

    La compagnie aérienne va bénéficier de prêts bancaires et de prêts directs de l’Etat mais sa nationalisation « n’est pas à l’ordre du jour », précise Bruno Le Maire. Le gouvernement néerlandais a promis, lui, 2 à 4 milliards d’euros pour aider KLM.

    Un plan « historique » pour « sauver notre compagnie nationale » . Le ministre de l’économie, Bruno Le Maire n’a pas hésité sur les mots ni sur les moyens pour soutenir Air France. Les Etats français et néerlandais ont ainsi promis des aides massives pour sauver le groupe de transport aérien Air France-KLM face aux conséquences désastreuses de l’épidémie liée au coronavirus, avec, au total, une dizaine de milliards d’euros de prêts.

    Air France va recevoir une enveloppe de 7 milliards d’euros, a indiqué le ministre de l’économie, lors d’une interview au journal de 20 heures de TF1. Cette aide se décomposera de 4 milliards de prêts bancaires garantis à 90 % par l’Etat et 3 milliards de prêt direct de l’Etat. M. Le Maire a, en revanche, souligné que la nationalisation de la compagnie n’était « pas à l’ordre du jour » , alors que l’option avait pu être évoquée. (...)

    Alors que la quasi-totalité de ses avions sont cloués au sol, Air France-KLM fait face à une situation critique. Les mesures annoncées vendredi sont prises « pour sauver les 350 000 emplois directs et indirects qui vont avec » , a indiqué M. Le Maire.
    Ce soutien « n’est pas un chèque en blanc » , a-t-il toutefois souligné. « Nous avons fixé des conditions à Air France. Des conditions de rentabilité, car c’est l’argent des Français donc il faut qu’Air France fasse un effort pour être plus rentable, et des conditions écologiques. Air France doit devenir la compagnie aérienne la plus respectueuse de l’environnement de la planète. C’est la condition à laquelle je suis le plus attaché » , a-t-il affirmé. (...)

    #Air_France #écologique #transports_aérien #économie

  • Comment les géants de la tech manipulent la recherche sur l’éthique des IA | korii.

    Après le greenwashing, l’ethicalwashing ? Un ancien chercheur du MIT Media Lab témoigne. Dès 2018, il est devenu difficile de suivre les nombreux scandales liés à l’IA sur fond de contrats controversés : entre Facebook et Cambridge Analytica ; entre Google et le Pentagone sur les drones ; entre Amazon, IBM et la police sur la reconnaissance faciale ; entre Microsoft et les services de l’immigration sur le contrôle des frontières... Derrière plusieurs hashtags (#TechWontBuildIt, #NoTechForICE, (...)

    #Accenture #Altran #Bouygues #CambridgeAnalytica #DeepMind #Google #Microsoft #Orange #SNCF #Air_France #USDepartmentofDefense-DoD #IBM #MIT #Amazon #Facebook #algorithme #drone #activisme #biométrie #éthique #migration #police #racisme #facial (...)

    ##législation ##reconnaissance ##discrimination ##vidéo-surveillance ##frontières ##lobbying ##surveillance ##greenwashing ##bug

  • Crash du Rio-Paris : le non-lieu pour Airbus et Air France scandalise les victimes

    Dix ans après le crash du vol AF447 et ses 228 morts, les juges d’instruction ont blanchi Airbus et Air France, malgré les nombreux éléments à charge figurant au dossier. Enquête sur les incohérences de ce non-lieu, contre lequel le parquet de Paris et les familles de victimes ont fait appel.

    #JUSTICE #Air_France,EASA,_Airbus,_Justice,_AF447,_Rio-Paris,_Entraide%26_Solidarité_AF447,_SNPL,_DGAC,_A_la_Une

  • Votre visage comme carte d’embarquement ? Air France teste la reconnaissance faciale aux US

    Plutôt que de demander une carte d’embarquement à ses passagers, Air France compte utiliser la reconnaissance faciale pour les identifier. À terme, le groupe espère mettre ce système en place partout aux États-Unis. Comme la compagnie aérienne chinoise China Southern Airlines en 2017, l’alliance Air France-KLM veut utiliser la reconnaissance faciale pour identifier les passagers. Selon un article du Center for Aviation (via Engadget) publié le 11 juillet, le groupe compte tester cette technologie (...)

    #Air_France #CCTV #biométrie #facial #surveillance #voyageurs



  • #Gilets_noirs : les #sans-papiers envahissent #Roissy !

    Communiqué des Gilets Noirs et de #La_chapelle_debout :

    « Dimanche 19 mai, 14h : les Gilets Noirs (migrant.e.s à la rue et foyers de toute l’Ile-de-France en lutte) et le collectif La Chapelle debout viennent d’envahir l’#aéroport de Roissy Charles de Gaulle !

    Ils et elles sont plusieurs centaines.

    Contre les déportations et pour des papiers pour tous.tes ! Il veulent parler au PDG d’Air France et au premier ministre Edouard Philippe.

    Ce n’est pas par hasard que nous nous retrouvons dans ce lieu. Ce n’est pas une contestation symbolique. Ce lieu est la base arrière et l’avant poste de la guerre contre les sans papiers et tou.tes les étranger.eres illégalisé.es.

    Depuis plusieurs mois, nous nous organisons. Nous avons déjà arraché des victoires. Aujourd’hui, nous lançons aujourd’hui une campagne contre la peur et la honte et pour l’égalité, la dignité, la justice et leur déclinaison concrète :


    Merci de relayer le plus massivement possible le communiqué

    La lutte continue

    ثورة ثورة حتى النصر »

    Les Gilets Noirs et La chapelle debout

    Formidable !

    Grand moment de courage des plus opprimé.es de la hiérarchie sociale, dans l’antre même de la machine qui les fait travailler dans les tâches les plus humiliantes ou bien, selon l’humeur de l’État et de sa police, qui les expulse avec la collaboration de la compagnie d’Air France et de la société ADP, qui sépare touristes et expulsé.es au moyen d’un simple rideau dans l’avion comme un voile sur la réalité du monde !

    Magnifique élan de solidarité de celles et ceux qu’on surnomment désormais les gilets noirs, au cœur de la convergence des luttes. Car, nous le savons bien : nous ne nous sauverons pas seul.es, à l’écart, replié.es sur nous-mêmes dans notre petit coin du monde, dans notre petite corporation professionnelle, dans notre petite famille ou sous le tampon certifié de je ne sais quelle identité nationale.

    L’émancipation sociale sera celle de tou.tes les opprimé.es ou ne sera pas.

    Merci camarades sans-papiers, gilets noirs, sœurs et frères humains de l’exemple que vous nous offrez !

    Yannis Youlountas

    #résistance #renvois #expulsions #régularisation #migrations

    ping @nepthys @reka @isskein

    • France: Hundreds of People Occupy Airport to Protest Airline’s Role in Deportations

      Several Hundred People have occupied terminal 2F of the airport #Charles-de-Gaulle in #Roissy, #France, to protest against Air France’s collaboration in deportations from France and the asylum policy of the French state.

      The protest was organised by the collective Gilets Noirs (Black Vests), a group of migrants without papers (“sans-papiers”) in the Ile-de-France region, and the pro-migrant activist group la Chapelle debout. Around 500 people occupied the terminal for two hours. The protests denounced those who benefit from the removal of people considered “illegal” and demanded that Air France stops financial, material logistic and political support of deportations. The airline was also asked to stop pressuring members of staff and passengers who oppose deportations. In the afternoon, four representatives of the Gilets Noirs were received by a delegation of the airline.

      The occupation forms part of a series of actions to protest the restrictive character of French and EU asylum policies and ask for the provision of accommodation and regularisation of the status of the migrants, most of which come from former French colonies.

      The airport is located next to one of the biggest migrant detention centres in France, the centre de rétention administrative (#CRA) of #Mesnil-Amelot. In 2018 more than 1000 people were deported from there.

      #rétention #détention_administrative

    • « Gilets noirs » : des sans-papiers occupent Roissy pour dénoncer la « collaboration » d’#Air_France

      Plusieurs centaines de sans-papiers ont occupé l’aéroport de Roissy dimanche après-midi. Une opération menée par un collectif de « gilets noirs », pour dénoncer le rôle d’Air France dans les expulsions.


    • Crni prsluci: Nedokumentirani migranti bore se za prava i dostojanstvo u Francuskoj

      Inspiriran Žutim prslucima, u Francuskoj raste novi pokret pod nazivom Gilets Noirs ili Crni prsluci. Crni prsluci su pokret nedokumentiranih radnika migranata u Francuskoj koji su, zbog svog statusa, prisiljeni živjeti i raditi u nesigurnim i izrabljivačkim uvjetima.

      Njihov primarni zahtjev je da se svim migrantima bez dokumenata u Francuskoj odobri boravišni status. Također zahtijevaju poštivanje njihovih osnovnih ljudskih prava uključujući: pravo na sklonište, normalne radne uvjete, prestanak policijske represije i rasističkog postupanja od organa vlasti, zatvaranje izbjegličkih pritvornih centara...

      U petak, 12. srpnja, oko 700 pripadnika Crnih prsluka mirno je okupiralo Panteon u Parizu, iznoseći navedene zahtjeve i pozivajući na sastanak s francuskim premijerom Edouardom Philippeom. Prosvjedovali su ispod kipa na kojem piše: “Živi slobodno ili umri”.Grupa je u izjavi na Twitteru rekla: „ Zauzeli smo Panteon jer u Parizu ima 200.000 praznih domova dok mi spavamo ispod obilaznica."

      “Mi smo bez dokumenata, bez lica i bez glasa. Dolazimo do grobova vaših velikana kako bismo osudili vaše skrnavljenje uspomena naših drugova, naših očeva i majki, naše braće i sestara na Mediteranu, na ulicama Pariza, u domovima i kućnim zatvorima,“ dodaje se u priopćenju. Policija je na prosvjed odgovorila represijom. Najmanje 50 osoba je ozlijeđeno, uhićeno je njih 37 od kojih je 20 ostalo u pritvoru.

      Dosadašnje protestne akcije Crnih prsluka također su istaknule nesigurne, izrabljivačke radne uvjete, kao i općenito loše uvjete života. Prije mjesec dana, 12. lipnja, migranti-aktivisti organizirali su demonstracije okupirajući ured francuske multinacionalne ugostiteljske tvrtke Elior u poslovnoj četvrti Pariza. Elior je izabran zbog toga što tvrtka redovito iskorištava migrantske radnike bez dokumenata. Prosvjednici su naveli kako Elior neredovito isplaćuje migrante bez dokumenata te im često ne dozvoljava prekovremeni rad. Kada je jedan radnik istaknuo ovaj problem, tvrtka je zaprijetila prijavom imigracijskim vlastima.

      Osim krađe na nadnicama, Elior također profitira držanjem radnika migranata u ranjivim uvjetima. Pokret je izvijestio da Elior redovito odbija potpisivati ​​dokumente za svoje radnike migrante koji bi im omogućili da osiguraju redoviti imigracijski status. Francuske imigracijske institucije ne izdaju papire migrantima ako poslodavac ne potpiše navedene dokumente. Prosvjednici su istaknuli kako ti primjeri ukazuju da postoji partnerstvo između francuskih tvrtki i države s ciljem zadržavanja migranata u nesigurnim uvjetima kako bi ih i dalje lakše iskorištavali.

      Na spomenutim demonstracijama Crni prsluci su tražili sastanak s premijerom i predsjednikom uprave tvrtke Elior. Uspjeli su se sastati s upravom koja je potpisala sporazum u kojem se obvezuje da će poraditi na njihovim zahtjevima. Prije toga, u svibnju, Crni prsluci su zauzeli zračnu luku Charles de Gaulle(CDG) u Parizu kako bi iskazali svoj bijes protiv prisilnog protjerivanja migranata. Prosvjedi su bili usmjereni upravo na Air France koji je izvršio sve deportacije u suradnji s francuskom vladom.

      Prosvjednici su zauzeli terminal 2F zračne luke CDG koja ima glavni ured Air Francea i većinu internih EU letova. Ovom akcijom željeli su skrenuti pozornost na slobodu kretanja koju uživaju građani EU-a, dok nedokumentirani migranti ulaze u terminal samo kada ih se deportira ili kada rade kao čistači, zaštitari ili rukovatelji prtljage. Prosvjednici su zahtijevali da zrakoplovna kompanija prestane s “bilo kakvim financijskim, logističkim ili političkim sudjelovanjem u deportacijama”.

      Odgovornost je na Francuskoj

      Središnja poruka pokreta također je isticanje veze između imperijalističkih akcija Francuske i eksploatacije migrantskih radnika u Francuskoj. Mamadou, pripadnik Crnih prsluka, rekao je Lukeu Butterflyu koji piše za OpenDemocracy: “Oni ne žele da zemlje u Africi budu neovisne, jer onda ne mogu zaraditi na nama. Oni žele da ostanemo na koljenima, kako bi mogli iskorištavati naše resurse i zarađivati. Stoga je vrlo važno razgovarati i o tome dok se nalazimo u La Défenseu(pariškoj poslovnoj četvrti) budući da mnoge tvrtke odavde iskorištavaju resurse i prodaju oružje u Africi. Oni izazivaju podjele među ljudima u Africi kako bi ih mogli kontrolirati.”

      Osim što prozivaju profitere i one koji omogućavaju represiju nad migrantima, ove kolektivne akcije dale su i hrabrost mnogim ranjivim migrantima da progovore, zatraže svoja prava i budu solidarni sa svojim drugovima. Pokret radi zajedno s La Chapelle Deboutom, kolektivom za prava koji djeluje u Parizu posljednjih pet godina fokusirajući se na pomoć migrantima da dobiju pristup stanovanju i zdravstvenoj zaštiti, odupirući se deportacijama i baveći se drugim administrativnim pitanjima. Crni prsluci također rade kako bi se udružili sa Žutim prslucima, pokretom koji je inspirirao njihovu borbu.

      Ahmed Abdul Karem, sudanski izbjeglica, izjavio je nakon demonstracija protiv Air Francea: „Izbjeglice se mora tretirati dobro, kao ljudska bića. Europa je odgovorna za probleme u Africi. Europa iskorištava Afriku. Mi smo ovdje samo da bismo preživjeli, a ipak nas ne tretiraju kao ljudska bića. U priopćenju objavljenom na protestu u petak, Crni prsluci poručuju: “Mi se ne borimo samo za dokumente već i protiv sustava koji nas stavlja u ovaj položaj”.


  • Un référendum pour dire non à Emmanuel #Macron – La Chronique Éco

    Un référendum d’initiative partagée sur la #Privatisation d’Aéroports de Paris ? Sur le principe, le Conseil Constitutionnel a approuvé sa tenue si cette proposition recueille la signature de 10% des électeurs. Dans ce nouvel épisode de la Chronique Éco, l’économiste atterré Henri Sterdyniak souligne toute l’absurdité d’un tel projet de privatisation et rappelle que « l’État doit rester le garant du bien commun ».

    #Économie #ADP #Aeroport #Air_France #Economie #FDJ #Française_des_jeux #Referendum #Service_public #Social

  • Indignés par les conditions d’expulsion de sans-papiers, des passagers d’Air France devant la justice - Bondy Blog

    Les procès s’enchaînent. Celui de Caroline est directement suivi par le procès de Jean-Luc* et Armand* qui s’avancent à leur tour à la barre. Ils ne se connaissaient pas avant d’embarquer dans le même avion Air France à destination de Dakar, le 31 décembre 2017. Pour leur avocat, Maître Teffo, ces affaires sont liées, il décrit un « mécanisme » : « La personne reconduite à la frontière apparaît, un tissu dans la bouche, un casque sur la tête, les pieds et mains liés, elle est bâillonnée, hurle et se débat, les gens vont réagir et l’administration va choisir des personnes au hasard dans le but de frapper les esprits, et de leur dire : vous ne pouvez plus vous indigner dans ce pays. ».

    Les similitudes entre les deux affaires sont effectivement déroutantes. Tous les trois ont été expulsés de leur vol à cause de leurs protestations. A bord du Paris-Erevan, Caroline interroge les policiers sur l’homme, bâillonné et casqué, qui se débat dans l’avion, un policier affirme qu’il a violé une mineure. Cette affirmation sera par la suite contredite par le dossier de l’homme en question, auquel Me Marcus a eu accès. Comme Caroline l’imaginait dès lors, il est reconduit en Arménie pour sa « situation irrégulière » mais n’a jamais été condamné.

    De la même façon, dans le vol Paris-Dakar, l’homme, maintenu de force sur son siège, est présenté comme « un dangereux criminel » aux passagers, qui ont pour consigne de rester silencieux. La consigne n’a visiblement pas été respectée. Un témoin, qui s’avère être la compagne de Jean-Luc, est appelée à la barre : « Les gens n’ont pas trouvé ça normal, tous les passagers de la cabine se sont levés. » Jean-Luc s’indigne, la tension monte. Sa compagne affirme avoir ensuite été violemment giflée par une policière. Elle perd connaissance et ne peut pas assister à la suite de la scène.

    Ému, Armand se lance face à la juge dans un récit poignant : « Il y avait un homme derrière moi, en chemise molletonnée à carreaux avec un casque, il se débattait, il criait et quand, parfois, il ne faisait plus aucun bruit, il fallait deux neurones pour comprendre qu’il était en train d’être étouffé ! ». En colère, il s’indigne contre un « traitement inhumain », se plaint d’Air France et refuse de prendre cet avion. La même policière de l’escorte lui rétorque : « Eh bien pourquoi vous n’avez pas pris la compagnie de votre pays ? ». C’est la voix chargée d’émotions qu’Armand reprend son récit. « Ça fait mal, affirme-t-il. Est-ce qu’elle savait ce qu’était mon pays ? » Me Teffo, son avocat, souligne devant le tribunal que le dossier comporte également un rapport d’Air France dans lequel une cheffe de cabine dit avoir l’habitude de ce type de vols et conseille aux hôtesses de « ne pas se laisser impressionner par des Sénégalais qui ont la manie de parler fort. »

  • #métaliste sur la #résistance de #passagers (mais aussi de #pilotes) aux #renvois_forcés.

    #avion #réfugiés #asile #migrations #expulsions

    Pour info, il y a aussi une métaliste de #témoignages de #forces_de_l'ordre, #CRS, #gardes-frontière, qui témoignent de leur métier. Pour dénoncer ce qu’ils/elles font et leurs collègues font, ou pas.
    –-> pas uniquement en lien avec les migrations :

    ping @isskein @reka

  • Réfugiés : violente expulsion sur un vol Air France Paris-Kinshasa - regards.fr

    Jeudi 18 janvier, l’intervention de forces anti-émeutes au sein d’un vol Air France Paris-Kinshasa, malgré l’opposition de plusieurs passagers, illustre le durcissement et la violence de la politique anti-migrants de l’ère Macron.

    À la suite des récentes circulaires sur la politique migratoire critiquées par de nombreuses associations et membres de la société civile, le gouvernement continue de hausser le ton et maintient coûte que coûte sa politique d’expulsion et de déportation des migrants.
    Illustration, jeudi 18 janvier, à l’aéroport de Roissy-Charles de Gaulle, où nombreux furent ceux qui se rendirent afin de tenter d’empêcher l’expulsion d’un homme congolais qui vivait en France depuis 2006 et dont les enfants étaient nés en France.

    Avec HUMANITÉ qu’il disait…
    #immigration #sans_papier #expulsion #Congo #violences_policières #racisme #Air_france

  • L’Etat privatise une partie des expulsions de sans-papiers

    La police délègue certaines reconduites d’étrangers en situation irrégulière à des sociétés privées. Des escortes payées par les compagnies aériennes qui, par ailleurs, si elles refusent d’embarquer un #sans-papiers doivent s’acquitter d’une lourde amende.

    Au sein d’Air France, la demande a fait l’effet d’une petite bombe. « La violence légitime est le monopole de l’Etat. Seul un service de l’Etat peut contraindre un passager à rester dans l’avion », tonne la direction de la sûreté de la compagnie dans ce même mémo de juin 2017. « Air France est une société de transport, ce n’est pas une société de sécurité. La coercition est une mesure régalienne », renchérit le service presse de la compagnie aérienne.

    Pour faire pression sur les compagnies aériennes, la police dispose d’un argument de poids. La loi du 7 mars 2016 prévoit une amende pouvant aller jusqu’à 30.000 euros pour les transporteurs qui refusent d’embarquer un sans-papiers. La plupart du temps, ce sont des raisons de sécurité qui sont invoquées par les commandants de bord. De nombreux expulsés contestent leur renvoi de manière virulente. Et en l’absence de policiers, impossible de faire revenir le calme dans l’appareil. « Avec une telle amende, un vol régulier n’est plus rentable », explique un commandant de bord. Seule solution pour les compagnies aériennes : embaucher des agents de sécurité privés.

    #privatisation #compagnies_aériennes #asile #migrations #réfugiés #expulsions #France #amendes #rétorsions #Air_France #sociétés_de_sécurité_privées #escortes_privées #police #tous_les_moyens #réacheminement #Turkish_Airlines
    cc @reka

    Et pour @sinehebdo, une spéciale dédicace, voici un nouveau mot, pour sa collection :

    les #INAD [étrangers non-admis sur le territoire français et interpellés à leur descente de l’avion]

    Dans l’article on utilise aussi le mot cool (?) « le #sans-pap’ »

    #mots #vocabulaire #terminologie

    cc @isskein

  • Le mystérieux parachute de #Florence_Parly licenciée d’Air #France

    Florence Parly Déjà au cœur d’une polémique sur ses revenus à la #SNCF, la ministre des armées, Florence Parly, a empoché 675 800 euros bruts lors de son licenciement d’Air France en septembre 2014, officiellement « en raison de désaccords stratégiques ». Une nouvelle illustration des avantages perçus par une petite minorité de hauts fonctionnaires de Bercy.

    #Air_France #ministère_des_armées

    • Air France affirme « se conformer aux exigences » des Etats-Unis

      Air France a déjà refusé d’embarquer une quinzaine de personnes vers les Etats-Unis depuis la signature par le président américain du décret anti-immigration. Les passagers dont l’embarquement a été refusé sont des ressortissants de des pays concernés, « mais cela ne veut pas dire qu’ils venaient forcément de ces pays », a précisé le porte-parole de la compagnie. « Chaque compagnie aérienne, peu importe le pays d’arrivée, est obligée de se conformer aux exigences d’entrée du pays desservi. Ce n’est pas une situation propre à Air France, précise-t-il auprès de nos confrères de LCI. Nous avons pris en charge tous ces passagers, personne n’est bloqué à Paris, on a pris les dispositions nécessaires pour réacheminer ces personnes à leur point d’origine. » La compagnie a prévu de prévenir les passagers par courriel ou SMS sur les nouvelles règles et leur éviter de prendre un vol et de se voir refuser une fois arrivés à Paris l’embarquement à bord d’un vol Air France pour les Etats-Unis.

  • #Air_France : pilotez l’avion et économisez sur le billet !

    C’est sans doute l’une des merveilles de la mondialisation, du progrès, lorsque vous prenez un vol intérieur Air France, vous achetez votre billet via leur site Web (pas d’humain), vous éditez vous-même votre carte d’embarquement […]

    #Economie #@SFR_SAV #digital #Numérique #SFR #Transformation

  • American and British Spy Agencies Targeted In-Flight Mobile Phone Use

    In the trove of documents provided by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden is a treasure. It begins with a riddle : “What do the President of Pakistan, a cigar smuggler, an arms dealer, a counterterrorism target, and a combatting proliferation target have in common ? They all used their everyday GSM phone during a flight.” This riddle appeared in 2010 in SIDtoday, the internal newsletter of the NSA’s Signals Intelligence Directorate, or SID, and it was classified “top (...)

    #NSA #smartphone #écoutes #GCHQ #Air_France

  • #procès Air #France : peines légères et loterie judiciaire

    Trois des cinq salariés poursuivis pour violences aggravées contre des cadres d’Air France ont été condamnés à trois ou quatre mois de prison avec sursis. L’affaire si symbolique de la « #chemise arrachée » s’est singulièrement dégonflée. Mais les éléments retenus pour condamner sont légers.

    #Air_France #CGT #Pierre_Plissonnier #social #Xavier_Broseta

  • #Air_France dénonce la « #concurrence inéquitable » du #TGV sur Paris-Bordeaux

    Ce lundi, à Bordeaux, le PDG d’Air France-KLM, Jean-Marc Janaillac, a dénoncé la différence entre les charges d’infrastructures payées par le #transport_ferroviaire et le #transport_aérien. Malgré la réduction du temps de parcours du TGV entre Paris et Bordeaux en juillet 2017, Air France entend maintenir sa navette.

  • Le secteur de l’aviation refuse toute réduction effective de ses émissions de #gaz_à_effet_de_serre

    Si l’aviation était un pays, ce serait le septième plus gros émetteur mondial de gaz à effet de serre. Le secteur pollue autant que les 129 pays les moins émetteurs ! Pourtant, sous la pression des lobbies, c’est le seul secteur avec le #transport maritime, qui ne soit pas soumis à un objectif de réduction des émissions. En Europe, on s’apprête à investir 75 milliards de dollars dans 800 projets d’extension ou de construction de nouveaux aéroports, dont celui de Notre-Dame-des-Landes. Les États du monde (...)


    / #Transports, #Énergies_fossiles, #Lobbying, #changement_climatique, gaz à effet de serre, #influence, transport, A la une, Air France (...)

    « https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-only-five-years-left-before-one-point-five-c-budget-is-blown »
    « http://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Documents/ICAO%20Environmental%20Report%202016.pdf »
    « http://www.iata.org/policy/environment/Documents/atag-paper-on-cng2020-july2013.pdf »
    « http://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/Documents/2016-09-06-02-french.pdf »
    « http://www.oeko.de/oekodoc/2394/2015-552-en.pdf »
    « http://www.bastamag.net/Avec-Air-France-compenser-les »
    « http://www.fern.org/icaodeclaration »
    « https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkn25g-zHFs

    « http://www.bastamag.net/Accord-de-Paris-sur-le-climat-gisements-petroliers-et-gaziers-devront »
    « https://france.attac.org/se-mobiliser/changeons-systeme-pas-climat/article/petition-le-secteur-aeronautique-doit-reduire-ses-emissions-pas-les-co »
    « http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/airport-construction-mid-year-review-2015-usd441-billion-in-airpo »
    « http://www.icao.int/Meetings/a39/Documents/WP/wp_209_en.pdf »
    « http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-credits-system-tarnished-wikileaks »
    « http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/09/world/asia/incentive-to-slow-climate-change-drives-output-of-harmful-gases.html?pagewa »
    « http://www.cdcclimat.com/IMG/pdf/12-05_climate_brief_no13_-_supply_demand_for_cer_eru_in_the_ets.pdf »

  • Délicieux réquisitoire du procureur Bourion contre les (supposés) arracheurs de chemise d’Air France http://www.bastamag.net/Proces-Air-France-les-accuses-assimiles-a-des-hordes-sauvages

    Une « horde » de « #casseurs », des « voyous », des « gros bras hyperprotéinés »... Les adjectifs n’ont pas manqué au procureur Philippe Bourion pour qualifier la #CGT, ce 27 septembre, lors de son réquisitoire qui a clos deux jours d’audience dans l’affaire des « chemises arrachées » d’#Air_France. Après deux reports, le procès a enfin pu se tenir au tribunal correctionnel de Bobigny.

  • L’affaire de la « chemise d’Air France » : enfin le #procès

    Les images de deux dirigeants d’Air France torse nu, bousculés par une foule de salariés en colère le 5 octobre 2015, ont fait le tour du monde. Après deux reports, les quinze personnes mises en cause vont être jugées. Rappel des enjeux de ce dossier moins simple qu’il n’y paraît.

    #Economie #Air_France #CGT #chemise #Pierre_Plissonnier #social #Xavier_Broseta

  • Affaire de la « chemise » à Air #France : El Khomri valide le #licenciement du délégué #CGT

    Contrairement à l’avis de l’inspection du travail, le ministère du Travail a validé le licenciement d’un délégué syndical CGT d’Air France, impliqué dans l’affaire de la « #chemise arrachée ». Une étincelle de plus dans un dossier qui hérisse le milieu syndical.

    #Air_France #inspection_du_travail #Myriam_El_Khomri #social