Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
TCX To Stop US Flights If Sky Marshalls On A/c  
User currently offlineGKirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24951 posts, RR: 56
Posted (10 years 10 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5350 times:

http://icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/thejournal/content_objectid=13785438_method=full_siteid=50081_headline=-Row%2Dover%2Darmed%2DMarshals-name_page.html

This security thing is getting way too serious now though, and as it seems that the UK government aint listening to the people that fly the planes then, seems correct to stop the flights to the USA. No terrorist would try and get on a charter airline for god sake.

So, should air marshalls be allowed onboard?
My opinion, is No.


When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
32 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBA757 From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2832 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted (10 years 10 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5268 times:

I agree - air marshals should not be allowed on board, we have tried for years to stop guns getting onboard and now we are putting them on - not good.

But, charter airlines are a target as much as any other airline. After all, it was a charter flight that had a missile fired at it a few years ago. (the Arkia one)

Adam


User currently offlineGKirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24951 posts, RR: 56
Reply 2, posted (10 years 10 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5241 times:

Yes you have a point about the Arkia incident.
But remember, the a/c used on 9/11 were not full. Charter airliners generally are, the TCX A330 to SFB from NCL usually is pretty full, so I dont think it'd be hard for 370 people to overpower 3 or 4 hijackers.
But we'll have to wait and see. Guns onboard an a/c is not a good thing at all.



When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlineDemoose From Canada, joined Mar 2001, 1952 posts, RR: 23
Reply 3, posted (10 years 10 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5203 times:

I'm all for there being some sort of security guard onboard certain flights, but bringing a gun into the equation doesn't seem the safest thing to be doing. Surely there's otherways to stop a terrorist onboard which does not involve such a risk, maybe some kind of sedative or something.

Thomas Cook Airlines will today have a chance to air their views with the UK Department of Transport. I wonder what the view is of the other charter airlines flying in US airspace.

I do agree with Thomas Cook's apparent theory that if the threat to a flight is significant enough to warrent an armed marshal onboard then the flight should not be leaving the ground in the first place.

BBC News also has a report on TCX's statement...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/3370323.stm

Mark



Take a ride...fly across the sky
User currently offlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19239 posts, RR: 52
Reply 4, posted (10 years 10 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5131 times:

"We have tried for years to stop guns getting onboard and now we are putting them on - not good."

But guns would be brought on by trained professionals, not John Smith.




"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
User currently offlineGKirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24951 posts, RR: 56
Reply 5, posted (10 years 10 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5102 times:

And where would these trained professionals come from? What if one of these professionals had an unknown link to terrorism? What if one of these professionals turned out to be a terrorist?
The British government should not take this risk...



When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlineTOLtommy From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (10 years 10 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5097 times:

You'd have a different opinion if the 9/11 planes had hit Buckingham Palace or the Tower of London. If TCX thinks it is good business to stop flying to the US, that's their choice.

User currently offlineGKirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24951 posts, RR: 56
Reply 7, posted (10 years 10 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5064 times:

"You'd have a different opinion if the 9/11 planes had hit Buckingham Palace or the Tower of London"

Actually I wouldnt. I'd probacare less if it hit one of those two buildings as I dont give a hoot about Buckingham Palace as I think the Royal Family is useless anyway.
Remember if some UK charter airlines stopped flying to Florida, then it would also hit the US tourism economy, so it's better for all sides if they continued flying.
How is 1 Air marshall going to cope against 7 or 8 terrorists. They'd easily overpower him and take the gun and then all hell would break loose.



When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlineVoodoo From Niue, joined Mar 2001, 2095 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (10 years 10 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5059 times:

I don't actually think the UK pilots are objecting the marshalls per se, but to the fact that if a flight is deemed such a risk so as to require sky marshalls, should the flight leave the ground in the first place. And you'll never train enough properly motivated good natural shots to take these jobs to have them on every flight anyway.


` Yeaah! Baade 152! Trabi of the Sky! '
User currently offlineTOLtommy From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (10 years 10 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5023 times:

Remember, if some UK charter airlines stop flying to the US, Britons will find another way to get to the US. Another charter operator will see the demand, and take their place. Trust me, I see plenty of sunburned Brits on their way home to the UK!  Big grin

How will 1 Air Marshal cope against 7 or 8 terrorists? First of all it liely would be more than 1, secondly, the possibility of an Air Marshal on board acts as a deterrent. Let's face it, most terrorists don't try to start trouble when there's the possibility of failure. They only attack when they feel they will have no resistance.


User currently offlineTOLtommy From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (10 years 10 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5017 times:

Voodoo -

Then El Al should never fly, is that what you are saying?


User currently offlineVoodoo From Niue, joined Mar 2001, 2095 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (10 years 10 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4971 times:

The old El Al argument is completely invalid as their security (ground/air) is thoroughly integrated and the threat is constant. No comparison is possible.


` Yeaah! Baade 152! Trabi of the Sky! '
User currently offlineGKirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24951 posts, RR: 56
Reply 12, posted (10 years 10 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4960 times:

TOLtommy: But 370 Geordies on an A330 should be able to overcome7 or 8 terrorists, who shouldnt have weapons if they have went through security on the ground properly.


When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlineMD88Captain From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1333 posts, RR: 21
Reply 13, posted (10 years 10 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4902 times:

Why do you insist that the terrorists won't have weapons? They will. Airport security is not perfect. It is not inpenetrable. Are you aware of the many prohibited items that make it onto aircraft today? Are you aware of the threat that multiple terrorists can each board a seemingly harmless component and then construct a weapon after they are onboard? Relying on ground security is silly. A layered approach including AM's is the best way to go. I want AM's every time I go to work. They are professionals.

User currently offlineGoboeing From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 2706 posts, RR: 15
Reply 14, posted (10 years 10 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4872 times:

"Airport security is not perfect. It is not inpenetrable. Are you aware of the many prohibited items that make it onto aircraft today?"

Absolutely right. I almost inadvertently boarded a Southwest Airlines flight 2 weeks ago with a swiss army knife in my bag. They found my nail clippers, but didn't say a word about a tool with multiple knife blades!!! I checked the bag in so I could keep my nail clippers, but I could have boarded the plane with the knife with no problem at all.

Nick


User currently offlineGKirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24951 posts, RR: 56
Reply 15, posted (10 years 10 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4810 times:

Yes its not perfect, but it should be. Talking about air marshalls, the ground security needs to be perfect, or as close to perfect as it can be.


When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlineArsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7792 posts, RR: 20
Reply 16, posted (10 years 10 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4763 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Unfortunately there is no such thing as 100% security, there has never been and never will be. Conventional methods such as screening and metal detectors are as far as we can go at the moment, although new technology will surely help. The nightmare scenario though, is the prospect of a terrorist swallowing a liquid form of explosive into their stomachs and detonating inflight, how do you detect that. We already have a problem with Jamaicans who swallow drugs into their stomachs and bring them into the UK on Air Jamaica flights to LHR.



In Arsene we trust!!
User currently offlineCainanUK From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2002, 551 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (10 years 10 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4742 times:

GKirk...

You ask how one air marshall would cope with 7 or 8 terrorists. It is very rare for a flight with marshalls on board to only have one marshall. They usually travel in teams of 2-5 marshalls. Also, I am sick of the perception put forth by the liberal media that these marshalls would be a bunch of gun toting Yank cowboys. These air marshalls are trained, counter terrorism officers. In the US, many come from the military special forces community including Delta Force and the US Nave SEALs (specifically SEAL Team 6, the designated point unit in the counter terrorism effort). They know what they are doing and how to handle themselves in a sticky situation. They are trained in hand to hand combat. They are also trained as to the effects of firearms on an aircraft and to only use them as a last resort. The dont go willy nilly losing their guns or accidentally shooting them. They dont even advertise that they are who they are.

Personally, I feel better knowing that they may be on board. I hope that they would be on board every single flight, not just the threatened ones.



Cainan Cornelius
User currently offlineGKirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24951 posts, RR: 56
Reply 18, posted (10 years 10 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4726 times:

Ok, but it should be up to the Captain who should be allowed on board, if they want a marshall onboard with a gun, then fair enough, if not, then the marshall shouldnt be allowed on.
Remember, the Captain is the one in charge of the a/c.



When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlineCarduelis From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2001, 1586 posts, RR: 10
Reply 19, posted (10 years 10 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4701 times:

I almost inadvertently boarded a Southwest Airlines flight 2 weeks ago with a swiss army knife in my bag. They found my nail clippers, but didn't say a word about a tool with multiple knife blades!!! I checked the bag in so I could keep my nail clippers, but I could have boarded the plane with the knife with no problem at all.

Where did you have the security check - before or after checking-in?

If it was after check-in (as normal) how did you almost board the aircraft?

Was the bag you checked-in, with your nail clippers, the same bag that contained your Swiss Army knife?

If it was - how can you say you almost inadvertently boarded?

When did you realise that you had your knife in the bag?

Reason for asking these question is to try and understand your posting.





Per Ardua ad Astra! ........ Honi Soit Qui Mal y Pense!
User currently offlineFinnWings From Finland, joined Oct 2003, 640 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (10 years 10 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4605 times:

Personally I don't believe at all that Air marshals are good solution. It is funny to read such a comments that they are trained, professionals, knows what to do...etc.etc...

Terrorists have big advantage in aircraft as they can take hostages and use those as human shields. Air marshals have to take care that they don't shoot towards passengers, windows or other places which may cause damage for the aircraft. Terrorist don't afraid to kill and they can shoot anywhere without thinking the damage they may cause. It is also honor for them to die and they don't afraid it. Do you really also think that few Air marshals on board can easily look after maybe 300-400 passengers all the time! As the passengers are sitting on their seats you aren't even able to see their hands! There can also be many "sleeping terrorists" on board, which react only after they have seen who are Air marshals...

It is funny to read all your "facts" which don't base for any truth... I guess many of you writing those opinions don't have any ideas of military tactics, psychology or how terrorists act? I'm not professional either, but at least I know something as I'm reserve officer of Air Force and has been involved in many different training operations with guns.

Like said before, my opinion is that security screening at the airport and bullet proof cockpit doors are best what we can do... Aircrafts and guns just are not good mixture, even on the hands of professionals like Air marshals. My national carrier as well as many European carriers have announced they will rather cancel the flights than take guns on board. I'm delighted of their decision...

Safe Flying,
FinnWings


User currently offlineLeskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 70
Reply 21, posted (10 years 10 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4556 times:

First of all, even though Sky Marshalls are trained, I think I'd continue to feel safer on a plane if there were no guns aboard... not that I'd know if an armed Sky Marshall is on board anyway, but nonetheless...

Second, I think it's Thomas Cook Airlines' right to decide not to fly planes with Sky Marshalls on board - just as much as it is the right of the American side to deny them access to the US: but I think that it is somewhat idiotic to go around telling everyone that you won't have Sky Marshalls on board - to me that sounds a bit like an invitation to terrorists, even if the chances for that happening are slim.

Third, and this is something that's just occurred to me: who exactly knows if Sky Marshalls will be on board a plane? The pilots? Dispatch? Someone in the airlines' management?

I know there has been some discussion as to whether or not hijackers would be overwhelmed by the passengers as soon as they got up - but, and this is the actual point I'm getting at with the "who knows" question above: what if hijackers posed as Sky Marshalls? Would the passengers really know the difference? Would the crew know, before it's too late?

Regards,
Frank



Smile - it confuses people!
User currently offlineScottishLaddie From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2004, 2384 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (10 years 10 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4458 times:

Here's the latest on the fiasco in general.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3372395.stm


User currently offlineJmc757 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2000, 1300 posts, RR: 7
Reply 23, posted (10 years 10 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4397 times:

hmmmm interesting... good for Thomas Cook, standing up for what they believe in. Wonder if any other airlines will board this bandwagon??

May be dreaming, but sure I heard on the radio that the governement were going to hold talks with BALPA and other unions this week to talk about this matter??

You'd have a different opinion if the 9/11 planes had hit Buckingham Palace or the Tower of London

Find this comment amazing. I know I wouldnt have a different opinion. What happened on 9/11 was tragic, but terrorism is not a new problem, we've dealt with our fair share.


User currently offlineEugdog From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2001, 518 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (10 years 10 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4367 times:

I have generally been in support of air marshals . But some of the arguements made by some of the above has made me rethink this.

I find the arguement that terrorists could take hostages as human shields and use it to overwhelm one or two air marshalls (they will be seated in different parts of the plane) obtain their weapons is a very strong arguement against AM.


Now I am not so sure if AM are a good idea!


25 Mlsrar : Find this comment amazing. I know I wouldnt have a different opinion. What happened on 9/11 was tragic, but terrorism is not a new problem, we've deal
26 Stretch 8 : How about this: unarmed sky marshalls. Recruit big, beefy young guys, 4 or 5 per high-risk flight, blackbelts in tae kwon doe, stationed throughout th
27 DCA-ROCguy : I have generally been in support of air marshals . But some of the arguements made by some of the above has made me rethink this.I find the arguement
28 Necigrad : I say keep putting in the new flight deck doors. Give the pilots a meal, several bottles of water, and a portapotty. Then DON'T OPEN THE DOOR! Ablout
29 Pe@rson : "And where would these trained professionals come from? What if one of these professionals had an unknown link to terrorism? What if one of these prof
30 Gigneil : Arguments against their professionalism is ridiculous. Most sky marshals in the US are just that, either part of the US Marshals Service or a similar
31 Gc : "You'd have a different opinion if the 9/11 planes had hit Buckingham Palace or the Tower of London. If TCX thinks it is good business to stop flying
32 Mir : Reading this, I couldn't help have the thought that the crew could just announce that there was an air Marshall onboard the flight so that even if the
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Scenic (US) To Stop Pax Flights-Return To Airtours posted Wed May 17 2006 16:32:45 by FATFlyer
Sky Marshalls On Indian Flights posted Tue Jul 26 2005 08:19:42 by HAWK21M
Sky Marshalls On SIN-OZ Flights posted Mon Dec 15 2003 22:51:21 by Bd1959
Air-India Plans Non-stop US Flights posted Sun Jan 29 2006 20:13:34 by LAXDESI
BA To Stop 1000 Flights From LHR posted Wed Sep 15 2004 16:49:35 by GLAGAZ
Sky Marshalls On Every Flight? posted Thu May 23 2002 18:02:14 by 767-332ER
Security Fees To Be Doubled On Intra-US Flights? posted Sun Feb 12 2006 10:13:45 by LH492
SAS:No Armed Guards-possible Stop Of Flights To US posted Tue Feb 15 2005 09:03:26 by TR
Sky Marshal On All The Flights From/to Rome posted Thu May 23 2002 13:24:54 by Airblue
No Visitors To Cockpit On US Flights... posted Fri Oct 27 2000 15:43:45 by Boeing727