BA will refuse to fly with armed guards

[pinto]

Juliette Jowit, transport editor
Sunday January 4, 2004
The Observer


Controversial plans to put armed guards on British passenger planes were in disarray last night after British Airways effectively refused to fly with them aboard because it would mean there was a 'significant threat' to passengers.

An internal BA memo obtained by The Observer makes clear that executives are deep-seatedly opposed to the scheme unveiled by the Government last week as a vital new step to protect aircraft against hijackers.

The memo - sent on Friday from Mike Street, BA's operations director - said the airline 'would not operate a single flight unless we were satisfied totally that it was safe to do so'. The sky marshals will be deployed only on flights where there has been a specific warning, prompting some pilots to voice concerns about security that a guard may be unable to prevent.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/waronterrorism/story/0,1373,1115929,00.html

[GRClarkesq]

1. I can understand the part about

wanting to be sure the "sky marshals" are proprely trained, equipped etc.

I do not understand the bit about the sky marshals not be able to stop all security threats. If nothing happens the sky marshal eats some peanuts and takes a ride on the govt. payroll, if something does happen maybe he/she can help. They can't help on the ground.

Of course, some of this sounds like fighting the last war instead of the next war.

[TolstoyAndy]

7. "fighting the last war"

Very well put, GR.

My gut instinct has been that they've done the plane thing, they can move on to something else.

And then Kindasleezy Rice can come out and say, "no one ever thought of someone using a truck as a bomb and driving it into a mall", or whatever.

The only way to stop terrorism is for our governments to stop being terrorists. Underground people with murderous anger will always be able to come up with something new and crazy.

Let's not even talk about how several 9/11 pilots were trained at US bases, etc ad nauseum. Make mine MIHOP until all these questions are answered. LIHOP on a day I'm feeling charitable.

[readmylips]

2. Americans in love with guns...

especially, the booshman. Other countries and their citizens, fear guns and they don't have guns available for each person to purchase. Is the gun industry behind this policy of arming foreign airplanes? They seem to want to arm each citizen$ of the world through fear. Cash in boys!

[Robb]

3. Are there no lawyers in government?

Hello?!? If guards only go on flights where a risk has been determined to exist, and BA allows flights w/guards to continue, they open themselves up to lawsuits based on negligence! "You knew there was a risk, yet you continued the flight anyway." :eyes:

[GRClarkesq]

4. Will BA stick to this policy?

If the US says no BA flights and Virgin has already signed on to the sky marshal plan?

[pinto]

5. good question

Sounds like a stand-off between security positions, BA/US...
I don't see US moving back from the sky marshall requirement.
And BA sounds firm about cancelling flights if they are given warning...

[GRClarkesq]

6. Cancelling flights sounds like the better policy

if you have specific information related to a specific flight.