e-mail sent and also posted it on another board

Complaint lodged.

Sent mine as well. I've flown over a million miles with American, I guess they don't want my business any more.

Maybe one of you high rollers should send a link to this post to AA. It might help.

Here is my response to AA:

I just found out about your new policy banning firearms as checked baggage to/from Europe and Asia. Wow, that is a going to cost you a LOT of money. This policy is flying (pun intended) around the web right now and I can assure you there are many, many NRA members, SCI members, etc. that will never again fly American Airlines. This is clearly not a policy designed to generate revenue, but instead it is one destined to kill revenue.

To be honest, I am not an American Airlines elite customer, but I am Platinum on Sky Team and Gold on Star Alliance (with whom I will be traveling internationally with firearms tomorrow). But I do fly AA often. Those days are over.

I own a small software company. Until now, we have not had a formal travel policy. Well, we do now. It is simple and elegant: you can't fly American Airlines.

If you change your policy, I will change ours.

This is my e-mail to American Airlines:

I have received information that you no longer accept firearms as checked luggage to/from Europe and Asia.
Please know that this is going to cause me to not use your airline for ANY travel. Seems odd that the word "American" is in your name and yet you do this. There are many people like me that hunt internationally AND we need to get there somehow. There are are a lot of hunters that fly for business and pleasure also.
I would hope that you reconsider this stifling and ignorant rule. The National Rifle Association and Safari Club International has many members (4+Million) that fly all over the world. I am sure their interest will reflect what a devastating effect your new rule will have on your business.
I will never fly AA as long as this rule is in place. My AA credit card will also not be used. My company used the card for 100's of thousands worth of purchases in most recent years. Good luck. I think you may have erred.
Sincerely,
Randy Raymond Sr.

I sent a formal letter by snail mail and suggest that some of you do also. There is nothing like a pile in the mail room to get attention--it can't be deleted by a keystroke.

Wanderer: I also have more than a million miles on AA, and have redeemed FF miles for first class R/T tickets for my last four safaris. I had planned on using miles on my next trip, but that won't be happening unless AA rescinds the rule.

AnotherAZWriter: I also issued my first travel policy to employees--no reimbursement for travel on AA.

Ladies and gents, late this p.m. i received word from corp dude at AA that part of the ban was rescinded. I synopsised the thing on african travel forum.

Message sent and I will not be using them in the future, nor my CitiBank AA Card. I am disappointed by their un-American actions.

I wonder if a follow-up about the UK is needed or if they are getting the message already. Many people go through the UK with firearms legally.

I doubt very much that this was a UK issue at all. Why ban ALL of Europe? And why ban Asia at all?

Sounds like a lot of corporate butt covering and scapegoating.

It would be interesting if some of our UK members could perhaps get the word from the authorities there for the straight scoop.

Looks like British Airways has no problem with firearm transport and has not changed their policy:

http://www.britishairways.com/travel/bagsport/public/en_gb

Sounds like American's rationale regarding issues with the UK is a bit thin.

The UK bans the transportation of firearms of any kind to Zim...This is a long standing embargo which has been in place for a number of years now.

I believe there is a similar EU embargo, but other member countries don't seem to include sporting firearms....

I've not heard of any recent changes to any laws regarding sporting firearms being transported via the UK or indeed for visitors bring them into the UK for sporting use...

Got this update in the SCI "In the Crosshairs" e-mail:


Thanks to the vigilance of SCI members, Safari Club International was alerted immediately when American Airlines changed its policy on firearms to prohibit them on flights to Europe and Asia . The change was made effective on September 24, 2007. Working closely together with the National Rifle Association, SCI lobbyists made contact with American Airlines and requested an immediate review of the new regulation and its scope. Some seventy-two hours later, American Airlines has announced it is lifting its blanket prohibition on firearms on flights to Europe and Asia . Regrettably, due to onerous restrictions in the United Kingdom , American is currently unable to lift the prohibition for flights destined for the UK . However, discussions between American, SCI and the NRA continue, with the goal of resolving this issue as well.



SCI President Dennis Anderson lauded the speedy turn-around, saying "This accomplishment illustrates the power of sportsmen when we work together. SCI is pleased with the progress we have made on this issue, working cooperatively with the NRA, and we remain committed to resolving the issues that remain." American Airlines has issued a press release and its text follows here. It can also be accessed on its website at: http://www.aa.com/content/amrcorp/pressReleases/2007_09/26_firearms.jhtml



"American Airlines recently implemented a policy, effective for tickets purchased on or after Sept. 24, 2007, that it would no longer allow the transportation of civilian firearms in checked luggage to Europe and Asia, as a result of onerous restrictions in the United Kingdom .

After hearing from our customers and interested parties, including the National Rifle Association (NRA) and Safari Club International (SCI), American has determined that it can modify its policy to allow legally declared firearms to be transported on nonstop flights to other destinations in Europe outside of the UK , and to our Asian destinations. We regret that, at this time, as a result of UK policies we can not allow civilian transport of firearms into the UK .

We look forward to working with the NRA, SCI, and other industry groups in an attempt to resolve those issues in the hopes of allowing civilian firearms to be transported to the UK on American Airlines in the near future."

Here is the reply I recieved this morning from AA.

quote:

September 27, 2007

Dear Mr. Knight:

Thank you for contacting us about our recent implementation of a policy, effective for
tickets purchased on or after September 24, 2007, that would no longer allow the
transportation of civilian firearms in checked luggage to Europe and Asia, as a result
of onerous restrictions in the United Kingdom (UK).

After hearing from our customers and interested parties, including the National Rifle
Association (NRA), we've determined that we can modify our policy to allow legally
declared firearms to be transported on nonstop flights to other destinations in Europe
outside of the UK, and to our Asian destinations. We regret that, at this time, as a
result of UK policies we can not allow civilian transport of firearms into the UK.

We look forward to working with the NRA and other industry groups in an attempt to
resolve those issues in the hopes of allowing civilian firearms to be transported to
the UK on American Airlines in the near future. We appreciate that you took the time
to share your perspective about this important issue.

Mr. Knight, we are disappointed by your intention to travel with other airlines as a
result of this experience. I am truly sorry you no longer believe American Airlines
can satisfy your travel needs. I hope that in time you will reconsider your decision.
It would be our privilege to welcome you aboard once again.


Sincerely,

Jeri J. Simar
Customer Relations
American Airlines

My only regret -- now that the dust seems to have settled a bit -- although not sure that all is resolved due to the UK scenario -- is that---- WE SHOULD HAVE CC'D EVERY AIRLINE IN THE UNIVERSE WITH OUR EMAILS AND CORRESPONDENCE!!!! -- that might have given them a bit of perspective as to how this foo-baugh actually was recieved by us lowly passengers (customers)!!!

Ahh, so this is about the fecking Brits, eh?

Doesn't AA have a hub on the continent?

I just told them that I am recommending that my employer not purchase any more Airpasses, ($10,000 paid in advance for 25,000 miles of travel per year), and that we will seek another carrier.

Hey, if AA excludes firearms/ammunition on international flights, too bad for them! Competition and free enterprise will dominate and they will loose! To all: boycott AA for all trips; US and international!!

Billtux

Done. And our company will not be utilizing them also!

According to the latest issue of The Hunting Report, AA has been fined and penalized repeatedly in recent times by the UK government for not following its rules regarding transport of firearms, and that was the reason for AA's policy change.

AA took action that was far too broad, of course, and has backed off to the extent it feels it can. The problem seems to be with the UK government.

FWIW, my feeling is that AA is working with us to fix this administrative screw up, so I would not boycott them. Don Causey is likewise not recommending a boycott.

On the other hand, if BA can get it done within the UK's legal framework, then I don't quite understand how AA can't do so as well. I flew through Heathrow twice the week before last and last week, both times with a rifle, and BA handled it perfectly both times. Sure there was paperwork, and some special handling involved, but so what? Hardly more than would be involved for any oversized sporting luggage, IMHO.

I would not boycott AA, but would back efforts, like those of the NRA, to push them to comply with the UK's rules.

Here is a related topic:

U.N. Members, Gun Lobby Face Arms Fight
CHARLES J. HANLEY, AP Special Correspondent

UNITED NATIONS - Britain, Japan, Australia and others are pushing for an unprecedented treaty regulating the arms trade worldwide, in a campaign sure to last years and to pit them against a determined American foe, the National Rifle Association.

In what U.N. officials say is an "overwhelming" response, almost 100 governments have submitted ideas for such a treaty, to be reviewed over the next year. There's an "extremely urgent" need for controls on the international gun trade, says Kenya, echoing the sentiment in much of guns-besieged Africa.

But in the U.S., the NRA says it sees a creeping attempt to limit civilian gun ownership within nations — even though the focus now is on setting standards for arms exports and imports.

The international issues "necessarily will come to involve at some point domestic laws and policies regarding firearms," said former congressman Bob Barr, a leading NRA voice on the subject.

"That's not what we're looking at here," countered Greg Puley, of the Control Arms coalition of pro-treaty advocacy groups. "The point is to control trade in weapons that contribute to conflict and atrocities."

The NRA and other U.S. gun lobbyists have helped blunt earlier efforts at the United Nations to rein in the weapons trade. Last December, the U.S. delegation cast the lone negative vote when 153 nations approved a General Assembly resolution initiating this new treaty process.

Now, alone among the world's top 10 arms suppliers, the United States — by far the biggest, with almost $13 billion in arms export agreements in 2005 — has not filed a requested report to the United Nations with its views on a treaty.

"The United States has not yet decided whether it will or will not participate in (the review), and thus we will have no submission at this time," Richard Kidd, a deputy assistant secretary of state, told The Associated Press.

The treaty campaign may encounter resistance beyond Washington as well. The reports from Russia and China, two other big arms exporters, offered only lukewarm endorsement for stricter controls.

"This is just the beginning of the process. There will be a lot said on the issue," noted Pamela Maponga, conventional arms chief in the U.N. Disarmament Affairs Office here.

Britain, a $3-billion-a-year arms exporter, has spearheaded the effort with a half-dozen co-sponsoring nations, saying unscrupulous traders capitalize on gaps and differences in various nations' export-import laws in order to ship assault rifles and other weapons into areas where they inflame conflict and oppression.

The United States and other industrialized countries generally keep close oversight on arms sales, but dozens of nations have no regulations specific to weapons exports and imports. Only 37 nations, for example, have laws governing the operations of private arms brokers.

In its submission, Britain proposes a legally binding treaty requiring governments to authorize weapons exports only after ascertaining that they will not provoke or prolong armed conflicts, aid in human rights abuses, destabilize countries or undermine peace in other ways.

Treaty advocates favor standardizing export-import documents for weapons, and requiring governments to exchange information about weapons transfers, to ensure that the end-use criteria are being met. The British say a "mechanism for enforcement and monitoring" would be necessary — implying some kind of U.N. arms watchdog — along with provisions for punishing states breaking the rules.

Barr said the NRA, long opposed to government tracking of gun owners, fears that any international "watch list" of gun purchasers might violate U.S. privacy rights. In addition, he said, U.S. firearms manufacturers are "extremely concerned" about trade restrictions.

Britain, Canada, France and others propose a treaty that would cover the full range of conventional weapons, from handguns to tanks and combat aircraft. But concerns about illicit sales and smuggling have mostly focused on AK-47 assault rifles and other smaller weapons, especially in Africa. Experts estimate one-quarter of the $4 billion-a-year international small arms business involves illicit dealings. Up to a half-million people are believed killed each year by small arms, and more than 600 million such weapons are believed in circulation.

"We urge all governments to act in the interest of those millions dying," Kenya said in its submission.

In the next step, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is expected this month to name an experts' group from two dozen nations to review the submissions of 98 governments and report back to the General Assembly in the fall of 2008 on what kind of arms trade treaty might be feasible.

In a "best-case scenario," Puley said, the experts would recommend that a working group be established to draft a treaty text. General Assembly adoption of a pact wouldn't be expected before 2010.

quote:

October 1, 2007

Dear Mr. Marshall:

Thank you for contacting us about our recent implementation of a policy, effective for
tickets purchased on or after September 24, 2007, that would no longer allow the
transportation of civilian firearms in checked luggage to Europe and Asia, as a result
of onerous restrictions in the United Kingdom (UK).

After hearing from our customers and interested parties, including the National Rifle
Association (NRA), we've determined that we can modify our policy to allow legally
declared firearms to be transported on nonstop flights to other destinations in Europe
outside of the UK, and to our Asian destinations. We regret that, at this time, as a
result of UK policies we can not allow civilian transport of firearms into the UK.

We look forward to working with the NRA and other industry groups in an attempt to
resolve those issues in the hopes of allowing civilian firearms to be transported to
the UK on American Airlines in the near future. We appreciate that you took the time
to share your perspective about this important issue.

Sincerely,

Barbara McKay
Customer Relations

Got this a few days ago. It pays to work together on issues like these!

quote:

AA took action that was far too broad, of course, and has backed off to the extent it feels it can. The problem seems to be with the UK government.

Thanks for the clarification Mike. It makes it somewhat easier to understand AA's initial position.

quote:

Originally posted by bwanamrm:

quote:

October 1, 2007

Dear Mr. Marshall:

Thank you for contacting us about our recent implementation of a policy, effective for
tickets purchased on or after September 24, 2007, that would no longer allow the
transportation of civilian firearms in checked luggage to Europe and Asia, as a result
of onerous restrictions in the United Kingdom (UK).

After hearing from our customers and interested parties, including the National Rifle
Association (NRA), we've determined that we can modify our policy to allow legally
declared firearms to be transported on nonstop flights to other destinations in Europe
outside of the UK, and to our Asian destinations. We regret that, at this time, as a
result of UK policies we can not allow civilian transport of firearms into the UK.

We look forward to working with the NRA and other industry groups in an attempt to
resolve those issues in the hopes of allowing civilian firearms to be transported to
the UK on American Airlines in the near future. We appreciate that you took the time
to share your perspective about this important issue.

Sincerely,

Barbara McKay
Customer Relations

Got this a few days ago. It pays to work together on issues like these!

quote:

AA took action that was far too broad, of course, and has backed off to the extent it feels it can. The problem seems to be with the UK government.

Thanks for the clarification Mike. It makes it somewhat easier to understand AA's initial position.

So why couldn't they of just said no firearms on flights connecting to UK in the first place instead of banning them to all of Europe and Asia?