BA flights cancelled by refusal of...

[Boomhauer]

BA flights cancelled by refusal of British pilots to fly with armed marshals on board


In another indication of the turmoil resulting from the increased security measures, an American official said that the cancellation of the British Airways flights was not in response to United States safety concerns, but rather was prompted by the refusal of British pilots to fly with armed marshals on board. The United States put other nations on notice earlier this week that it would not allow certain suspicious flights into its airspace without armed marshals on board.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/03/n...800&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=print&position=

 

[avbug]

The old joke with the Bobbies (unarmed) used to be "Halt, or I'll yell "halt!", again!!"

 

[Flywrite]

Just to play Devil's Advocate for a minute...

Perhaps in the eyes of the British Airways pilots it is the United States Government that is the arrogant a$$hole. Without jumping all over me and accusing me of being a traitorous left-wing commie towel-head, just put yourselves in their shoes for a minute.

How would you as PIC of an aircraft like it if Britain or Belgium or Spain started dishing out draconian and unilateral demands on US air carriers in the way that the US Govt did last week?

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the BA pilots, but just the other day someone on this board was saying how they were fed up with everyone in their company and the govt trying to usurp the Captain's authority and that the Captains (backed up by the FOs) should take back what is theirs. It seems to me that the "arrogant a$$holes" at BA are doing just that.

Just my 2 cents....fire away.

 

[Yaegermeister]

In light of current security concerns and the successful history of air marshals, I think they can sod off.

Keep the refusals going and BA will lose more and more $$$ and pilots their jobs.

I don't see a legitimate reason to dis-allow air marshals.

 

[350DRIVER]

I don't blame them. I personally would be pretty pi$$ed off as well if I was a BA pilot and had to listen to a botched Wdumbya administration. What a joke...


3 5 0

 

[DoinTime]

In light of current security concerns and the successful history of air marshals, I think they can sod off.

Keep the refusals going and BA will lose more and more $$$ and pilots their jobs.

I don't see a legitimate reason to dis-allow air marshals.

We will see who is losing the money when England locks American, United, and Delta out of Heathrow in reciprication. I would't allow armed security personel from a foriegn country on my aircraft and I wouldn't expect anyone else to do it either.

I bet the rag wrappers laugh their a$$es off to see Americans tremble in fear every time they pick up their cell phone.

 

[Yaegermeister]

We will see who is losing the money when England locks American, United, and Delta out of Heathrow in reciprication. I would't allow armed security personel from a foriegn country on my aircraft and I wouldn't expect anyone else to do it either.

I bet the rag wrappers laugh their a$$es off to see Americans tremble in fear every time they pick up their cell phone.

fantasy land, bro. We're not locking carriers out of the country - just putting some security restrictions on them.

England won't be locking any carrier out of their country. Given the political relationship between countries and the tourist money, there is just zero chance of that happening. The flights in question were shut down by the English gov't anyway, I believe, not by the BA's pilots refusal to fly with marshals on board.

If the gov't and BA complies and the pilots won't do it, they'll end up looking for jobs. Something tells me their resolve isn't as steadfast as their rhetoric pretends to be.

 

[efiscompmon]

or maybe....

the BA crew felt that, given "specific, credible intelligence" the prudent thing to do would be to decline to fly the trip.

You know, those old concepts like "safety of the flight" and "this is a job, not something worth dying over".

If my gov't were that worried about my SPECIFIC flight I sure wouldn't want to be the good soldier who went hoping things were okay in the back--kevlar door or no.

I don't know how many of you had access to the FAA AvSec warnings prior to 9/11. The last one they issued, dated 9/06/01 I have framed in my office at home--it warned all US Air Carriers that SALMAN RUSHDIE was not permitted to board any US registered aircraft out of concerns for the safety of those around him because he offended a few of his fellow muslims. Talk about having your finger far from the pulse....

So yeah, If someone pulled me aside and said "Captain E., we have grave concerns about your flight but we put some guys with guns in the back, so we are pretty sure it'll all work out...."

Well, let's just say I would be coughing all the way to my AME while dialing my ALPA rep on the phone...

I gave up being a soldier when I resigned my commission. You want me to fight back--make me a federal officer. But I don't recall any cops fighting crime with a school bus. My Code of Ethics as an airline pilot requires me to think of my passengers first.

They want to go to IAD, not the OK Corral.

 

[bart]

an American official said that the cancellation of the British Airways flights was not in response to United States safety concerns, but rather was prompted by the refusal of British pilots to fly with armed marshals on board.

Yeah this from the paper that brought us Jayson Blair. I would bet the reporter's brother in law emptys trash cans at Foggy Bottom and was quoted for the story...

 

[Timebuilder]

How would you as PIC of an aircraft like it if Britain or Belgium or Spain started dishing out draconian and unilateral demands on US air carriers in the way that the US Govt did last week?

I would applaud the fact these countries are not only willing to supply intelligence that would keep my fellow citizens safe, but they would also generously supply me with trained security personnell to help maintain the safety of the flight, should I choose to make the trip given the circumstances.

Here is the situation, given the elements you provided. I'm flying to someplace across the ocean, let's say Spain, since you mentioned it. Spain says they have intellignece that there could be some bad people who would try to take over my airplane. OK, that's pretty scary. BUT, they also say that they have some of their best people ready to board to keep order should that be necessary. Since we do not know that there is a CERTAIN event about to happen, in which case I would not make the flight, I would welcome the presence of people who can counter the possible bad guys with deadly force if neccessary in order to keep myself, my crew, and my passengers alive.

BA won't stop coming here, and it is far better to ground a flight that will be used as a flying bomb than it is to fear offending some folks who think we are too heavy handed.

I bet the rag wrappers laugh their a$$es off to see Americans tremble in fear every time they pick up their cell phone.

Who are they seeeing tremble in fear? I don't know anyone who is afraid. Are you?

 

[Flywrite]

OK, besides Timebuilder, lets have a show of hands...who would gratefully welcome armed foreign officials aboard their aircraft at their home base?

Who would remain grateful and happy if they were told they had to carry those armed foreigners or not go?

Rhetoric aside, I bet the true answer is "not many".

 

[Timebuilder]

OK, besides Timebuilder, lets have a show of hands...who would gratefully welcome armed foreign officials aboard their aircraft at their home base?

Would these armed officials be from the same country that saved us (speaking as a European for the purpose of this discussion) from Nazi takeover in the forties, and beyond? The same country that stood against the USSR and created a balance of power that stabilized Europe? The same country that is the only major force for good in this tainted world?

Oh. That country.

Who would remain grateful and happy if they were told they had to carry those armed foreigners or not go?

If I remain alive and able to still complain about their presence on an internet message board after the flight instead of being pulverized to dust in a conflagration of jet fuel and building materials, then yes. I'm VERY happy about that.

In fact, the smart move is to put El AL in charge of security on those flights. They don't worry about offending anyone, they get the job done, period.

 

[Flywrite]

Ahhh...I see...it all comes down to that old standard. It's OK for the US to do whatever it wants because Europe owes the US for saving it from countless foes in the past century. Since Spain doesn't fit the profile you offer, I suppose your initial example was in error.

My sincerest apologies for assuming that other countries enjoyed the same sovereign rights as the the US.

 

[Beechnut]

Where does it say that the armed officers aren't English?

S.

 

[bart]

Would not bother me to have foreign security services armed on my airplane. I have flown foreign military in my A/C with their weapons in the past. I fly armed and provided I knew who they were, I would have no problems.

I would not allow third world or raghead security officers armed on my flights, because in general their training is sub-standard at best.

Since when is "unilateral" such a bad word? Seems to me this country was built on unilateral action. I would not hesitate to always act in my best interests without consulting my neighbors.

You should also consult the news wires. AP and Reuters both have stories quoting British Govt officials as saying they cancelled the flights and that BA had nothing to do with it. I would bet that we have another liar at the newspaper of record, or he quoted the janitor at the State Dept.

 

[Dieterly]

Are you guys really that stupid? Ever considered NY Times might be wrong on this one, but then again, I see "timebuiilder" is involved in the thread and I'm no longer suprised.

 

[Timebuilder]

I see "timebuiilder" is involved in the thread and I'm no longer suprised.

That's me, I run the NY times, didn't you know? Al Gore and I invented the internet, and I am instituting a full day kindergarden for liberals who hate the United States.

Always a good feeling to be insulted by Dieterly. I know it's going to be a good year.

 

[surplus1]

Since when is "unilateral" such a bad word? Seems to me this country was built on unilateral action. I would not hesitate to always act in my best interests without consulting my neighbors.

That's interesting. To some, and that includes me, it seems this very attitude is the underlying cause of many of the problems that we as a nation now face.

I find it humorous that you find it OK to act in our own best interest without consulting our negighbors, yet if one of our neighbors decides to act in its best interests without consulting us, we find that highly objectionable and respond by acting like spoiled children and selling "Freedom Fries" in the nation's capital.

If British pilots find armed individuals (whether theirs or ours) objectionable in the cabins of their aircraft it is fully reasonable for them to decline to operate those aircraft, regardless of whatever cowboy attitudes may prevail in the United States, and whether or not this results in cancellation of the flight.

As professionals we may differ as to the safety implications of discharging weapons in the cabins of pressurized airliners. Many of "us" (Americans) also think that way. We just don't happen to have as strong opinions re the gun-toting advocates (given our relatively short history of attempting to dictate through the muzzle of a six-shooter or the mouth of a cannon). The very least we could do is acknowledge that the British are every bit as competent and professional as we are and have a right to disagree and make their own determination ..... without the benefit of all the negative rhetoric.

Our "my way or the highway" attitudes have already cost us far more than most of you seem to realize or ever wanted to pay, and will undoubtedly cost even more in the future.

As for those who advocate we adopt the Israeli model, let us not forget that their policy is to destroy the airliner (using their marshalls) rather than allow it to be highjacked. The only real difference in our method is that we are prepared to shoot down the airliner with a missle fired from outside by an American pilot, so we're already there (just a different method). The British seem to have a better idea ... don't fly the trip.

The Israeli effort to prevent terrorism by becoming even more deadly terrorists themselves has failed to prevent terrorist attacks for more than 50 years. Perhaps we might do better to emulate a different "teacher".

The use of miltary power, or six shooters, or any other type of weapon, whether by "super powers" or no-count powerless, has never accomplished anything other than destruction and mass killing since the advent of mankind. It has never prevented or solved any of man's problems, real or imagined yet we continue to repeat it, time and again. Even the scriptures tell us that the Old Testament protocol of "an eye for an eye" is not the way. Will we ever learn?

 

[350DRIVER]

surplus1, I could not have said it any better. Very well put. I hope the British pilots and all other foreign carriers do not give in to this botched administration and that they continue to fight against these ridiculous things. It has gotten to the point of being a complete joke.

I just hope that the damage that this cowboy has caused since he has taken office will be able to be corrected in a timely manner when the new administration takes over..

what a joke,

3 5 0

 

[350DRIVER]

The Israeli effort to prevent terrorism by becoming even more deadly terrorists themselves has failed to prevent terrorist attacks for more than 50 years. Perhaps we might do better to emulate a different "teacher".

Sharon and all of them are nothing more than terrorists, I hope the Palestinians continue to go after them harder than ever and not stop until they are left alone and the killing of innocent women and children come to an end.

In fact, the smart move is to put El AL in charge of security on those flights. They don't worry about offending anyone, they get the job done, period

TB, what a joke... Those jews are among the most hated people in the world, that is why they have to have that kind of security.


3 5 0

 

[Hawker rider]

OK. I'll jump in too.

Firstly off I know that on European Airline flight, the subject of armed marshalls on board is no new thing, as a matter of fact I know that France and Germany and some of the smaller countries have had armed marshalls on board since the eighties and continued to do so since. The fact that the "normal" public doesn't know about that shows that they are effective in all the ways it was supposed to be.

EL-AL offcoursewith tepecial forces on board arking and hav the whole stuff down to an art, those guys might not even need guns since they are trained to such a high standard.

And as far as intelligence goes, It's a law over here that the CIA and the FBI can't "spy" on citizens within the US without getting a judge to sign off for a wiretapp etc. It has always been an understanding between the Uk and the US that the british intelligence keeps tabs in the US while the US keeps tabs within the Uk and exchange information.

As far as intelligence goes though I would much rather have the British MI-whatever keep a look out for the terrorists than the CIA

PS whoever said that the Israeli method is to rather destroy the airliner then allow it to be highjacked...... please back up your statement as I can recall numerous times that the "safety officers" on baord an EL-AL flight took out the terrorists and kept the people on baord alive and well, but shaken up.

Please give me an instance of an EL-AL flightor any israely airliner beingdeliberatly taken down by the marshalls, butI can't recall that ever happen, so I wonder how you go that point of view

 

[Hawker rider]

Well 350driver that last post really was a smart one!

You agree with suicide bombings ??

Sharon and all of them are nothing more than terrorists, I hope the Palestinians continue to go after them harder than ever and not stop until they are left alone and the killing of innocent women and children come to an end.

I always thought you were pretty informed about a lot of stuff, but in this thread you truly show that you got a little sidetracked somewhere, i hope it's just for once.

Offcourse i am for peace in the middle east, but to backup the palestinians?? i don't think so. Arafat's hands are mighty dirty, it's very surprising that he didn't get taken out a while ago. might I remind you that he also has quite a bit of american blood on his hands, and still you back the palestinians ??

As far as GW goes... offcourse I don't agree with everything he's saying and doing either. and you trust the intelligence agencies to give good inte about airplane terrorists, but you doubt the info they give to our commander in chief that he can't make public, e.g. Iraq/afghanistan?

This country would have been in a lot worse state would Al Gore have been elected. Ever considered that option??

 

[Yaegermeister]

It's a fallacy to equate Israel's (and El Al's) record against terrorism with their history in airline security. One's perfect and the other's bad so don't take the discussion off-track.

It'd be great to have such solid intel that we can always just "not fly the trip." But the reality is that this intel is going to be tenous and the aviation indutry cannot just cancel flights based on scuttlebutt.

They need to make the trips and, in the unlikely event a terrorist/hijacking scenario presents itself, deal with it directly, which, like it or not, is having an agent on the plane that can combat the nutjobs that wish to take the plane over and (possibly) transform it into a suicide mission. This is a problem that's not gonna go away and that makes just cancelling flights unrealistic for all involved.

 

[350DRIVER]

Hawker rider,

I am against terrorism in all forms but I surely will not be on Israel's side ... Am I for the suicide bombings.? No but I am not against them either since the Palestinian people have absolutely no way to get back at Israel for the daily killings of innocent women and children. If you believe other wise then you need to take a few history lessons and stop buying into the false propaganda. If Israel continues the killings then I would only hope that Palestine does retaliate. (which it will) You would have to be one fuc$ed up dude if you thought that the Palestinian people did not have a right to fight back against Israel after seeing family members being killed day after day.

Offcourse i am for peace in the middle east, but to backup the palestinians?? i don't think so. Arafat's hands are mighty dirty, it's very surprising that he didn't get taken out a while ago. might I remind you that he also has quite a bit of american blood on his hands, and still you back the palestinians ??

To back Israel up is just as ridiculous in my opinion. Sharon is just as bad as Arafat, probably worse. The crazed jew is a war criminal and if you do a little research you will see his track records sure backs this up. Sharon knows better than to take Arafat out since doing so he will even pi$$ more of the middle east off and in doing so all he!! would break loose over there. Sharon may be a jew but he is not a stupid one. I proudly say "yes" I would back and support them any day of the week over Israel.

As far as the GW argument goes, I think the facts speak for itself.

3 5 0

 

[Hawker rider]

sure ,I would like to get into a personal argument with you, but this is not the place or the time for that.

My best friend is married to a native Israeli girl, so I do know quite a bit about the history over there. I"ve always tried to stay objective about the issue though.

Offcourse you know, since you are a self proclaimed "expert" on the issue that since the last few ceased fires between the israeli's and the palestinians it was the palestinians that broke the cease-fire agreement with their suicide bombings. And that means to me that Israel retaliates agiainst the palestinians for attacking their civillians and not the other way around.

By the way do you have a problem with people that follow the jewish religion? You sure sound like anti-semite in your previous posts

 

[surplus1]

For the record, I am not myself opposed to the idea of air marshalls on board certain flights. I merely think that British airline pilots have the right to decide that for themselves, just as American airline pilots have the right to decide differently. I do not think that we should call them a$$holes because they have a different point of view on the issue of flight safety as it relates to weapons discharged on board aircraft in flight.

On the issue of El Al security: There is no doubt that Israeli airline security measures are better than those of anyone else. However, suggesting that they be implemented in the US is somewhat naive. El Al is Israel's only international airline and very small. They also have a limited number of airports and very few aircraft. The duplication of their airline security measures would bring the US airline industry to a screeching halt, with an economic impact that we cannot accept. Exactly what the terrorists would like to see happen. We must find a different way.

Israeli air marshalls have not lost any aircraft and I did not say they did. I said it was the policy of the Israeli government that it would rather lose the aircraft, with its passengers, than permit it to be hijacked. Where did I get that idea? Statements of the Israeli government made when hijacking was prevalent and the policy was instituted. They have killed a few hijackers in flight, as well as a few passengers. The hijackings stopped, thanks in part to the policy and in part to their preflight screening and security. Perhaps a good policy for them. A highly questionable policy for us.

Today's hihacker doesn't seek publicity, he's a suicide bomber. If he gets on the airplane with his tools he will not be afraid of an air marshall. His objective may well be to sacrifice himself in order to "get" the aircraft and kill its passengers. That he will die with it is already a foregone conclusion. Therefore, are air marshalls a deterrent or is their purpose also suicidal in order to prevent the use of the aircraft as a missile?

I don't find it healthy to compare the Israeli State nor its politics with the United States, no matter how "justified" their brand of terrorism may be to some. Terror breeds more terror whether or not you share the political views of the particular terrorist group.

After the tradegy of 9/11 our President told us that he would not, and that we should not, allow the terrorists to force us to change the American way of life. Unfortunately, he has allowed that to happen and many of the posts in this thread appear to indicate that we are more than willing to do the same. I do not share that point of view.

I'm all for defending "the American way". I'm just not willing to give it up, in order to claim that I'm protecting "national security". If national security cannot be achieved without the loss of traditional American rights and freedoms, then national security is of no value. What would we be securing, our own form of tyranny?

I would not want to be the US fighter pilot that has to carry out an order to shoot down a civil aircraft (one that he himself may have flown the week before and that today may be flown by one of his buddies - a very real possibility given that most of our US combat cover pilots are members of the National Guard whose regular job is that of airline pilot). Neither would I want to be the person that has to give that order. Would you?

Let's use the American ingenuity for which we have become famous, not pervert it by giving up our freedoms in the name of defending our freedoms. Let us not start wars in foreign nations that pose no immediate threat to the United States and that have not attacked us. Unless we are prepared to invade every nation run by a dictator, let us not invade or occupy other nations whose politics we may not like.

We were the leaders that created the concept of a world community and forum of United Nations that could jointly improve the planet on which we live. When we choose to ingnore that community of nations because it disagrees with the politics of a handful of American leaders, we do not help ourselves. We must practice what we preach, not take the stance of imperial overlords thanks only to the "super power" status of our armed forces. The purpose of the United States military is the defense of the United States, not the invasion and occupation of foreign nations.

In the face of immediate danger or in response to an attack yes, we must act (as we did in Afghanistan), and if necessary alone, to defend our country. We had the support of virtually ALL nations in doing that.

Invading and occupying another nation, killing hundreds of our own soldiers and thousands of their people, soldiers and innocents alike, destroying its infrastructure and expending hundreds of billions of the people's money because we "think" it may have or be developing WMD or because our leader doesn't "like" or approve of its leader is not a good idea. If we were to follow through on that concept, we would be at war with more than 1/2 of the people on this planet, which would be another bad idea.

Nation building requires the consensus of the world community. When that concensus cannot be achieved, we come off as bullies, not liberators nor defenders of freedom. We do not need "permission" to defend the USA, but we do need and should have the support of the world's leading nations before we engage in wars like this war in Iraq. We could have obtained that consensus, just as we did in Afghanistan, in the Balkans, or in the '91 war to remove Iraq from Kuwait. We did not get that support for this war simply because a handful of high officials in our country were too arrogant to seek it effectively.

The damage to our reputation as a nation will be long lasting. There was never a doubt that the United States could militarily defeat Iraq, we won the war. There is serious threat that we may lose the peace.

Yes, we have displaced the Iraqi dictator and he is our prisoner. We have replaced him with a more benevolent dictator named Uncle Sam. We don't need to give Uncle Sam WMD, as we did Saddam Hussein, he already has them.

While the instant gratification of military victory may satisfy the Rambo mentality, the long term well being of this Republic has been placed in question, the credibility of its leaders is doubted by a majority of the world and the foreign policy of our country is anybody's guess. Some may call that progress but I am not among them. We can do better by paying more attention to whom we choose as our leaders.

The real world in which we live, together with billions of people who are NOT Americans, is not a TV show to gain favorable Nielsen ratings from the naive for the incumbent. The dazzling photo ops of carrier landings are not the substance of world leadership. If the FOX network has become what we now define as journalism we're in dire straits. I wouldn't classify any of those theatrics as "conservatism". A comical but tragic pharse might be more fitting.

There is a reason why we are disliked by so many of the world's people. I think we would do better to find out why and correct it, than to brandish our own weapons of mass destruction, whether they take the form of shoot-to-kill air marshalls or bunker-bursting bombs dropped on some Middle Eastern populace.

JMO

 

[bart]

You all point to Israel as the model of how not to deal with terrorism.

I AGREE.

They have allowed an Egyptian to live and murder at will in their country far too long. They have bowed to outside pressure not to put this murderer on trial.

Someone like this in the States would have died an ugly death long ago, and with him his murdering ways. Israel's failure to act unilaterally has caused most of the terrorist killings they experience today.

AS A SIDEBAR:

I have yet to see another news source corroborate the NY Times story, which tells me the guy either quoted a janitor or just made up the story.

 

[Flywrite]

Surplus,

Your last post is probably the most intelligent and eloquent I've seen in a political thread on this board.

 

[OrcasC180]

Surplus1,

Very well put. I agree 100%.

 

[350DRIVER]

sure ,I would like to get into a personal argument with you, but this is not the place or the time for that.

Hawker rider, I do not look at this debate as a matter of personal argument between you or I as you have put it. I tend to look at it more in the way of it being a difference of opinion(s), nothing more and nothing less. I have met many from both sides but my opinion is based on history, personal preference, and what I think is right verses wrong. We could debate this issue untill he!! freezes over but for what reason?.

My best friend is married to a native Israeli girl, so I do know quite a bit about the history over there. I"ve always tried to stay objective about the issue though.

I have met many people over time from both sides as well but I will not be influenced by others through there personal & political beliefs. I am glad to hear that your friend is married to a native Israeli girl and I can only wish them the best of both worlds.

Offcourse you know, since you are a self proclaimed "expert" on the issue that since the last few ceased fires between the israeli's and the palestinians it was the palestinians that broke the cease-fire agreement with their suicide bombings. And that means to me that Israel retaliates agiainst the palestinians for attacking their civillians and not the other way around.

I do not recall ever stating that I am a "self proclaimed" expert on the issue, it is nothing more than looking at the situation and seeing the innocent lives that are being taken daily. You can make a claim about the Palestinians being the ones at fault but if you look hard the case can/does make it out to be the other way around. Israel has failed on many attempts per Sharon's needs/desires and until there is a change there the violence will not come to an end. I find it a tad ludicrous when you state the the people of Palestine have no right to blow themselves up but it is "ok" for Israel to use the F-16's, tanks, troops, etc, etc, to go into the settlements of Palestine and kill innocent people. Palestinian people will not just sit back and do nothing, one cannot fault them since they have absolutely no other way to retaliate.

By the way do you have a problem with people that follow the jewish religion? You sure sound like anti-semite in your previous posts

I don't have a problem with the people who follow the religion and those from the region, I do have a problem with the politics and leadership over there. I would never ever support the actions that are taking place present day over there within the Israeli gov't.

3 5 0