USA v EU : The Battle For The Sky.

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 02:03 PM
link   
The deployment of air marshals on British flights is still a big problem for the government, after talks between the pilots union and the Transport Secretary broke up without agreement.

And as more European countries made clear their opposition to air marshals, the Government faced further accusations that they're simply kow-towing to America yet again.

The argument seems particularly academic - it remains the case that the very security information that would lead to an air marshal being put on board a flight would almost certainly cause the airline to cancel the flight entirely.

It's possible the US may start to insist on marshals riding on random flights to the US - or even eventually all of them. Security measures that other countries - Spain, Portugal, Denmark and Sweden - all said no to.

As Europe prepares to square up to its battle of the skies, BA flight 223 found out just how inconvenient the US authorities can make life for foreign airlines and their passengers.

www.channel4.com...

Is it possible that Europe could ban all flights with armed air marshals in it's airspace if the US insists that they must be on flights entering the USA?

Might businessmen from Europe be forced to fly via Canada and Mexico to get to the USA while American bussinessmen fly via Africa or Israel?

Could this be the ground Europe decides to fight on with all the crippling consequences to the tourism industry on both sides of the Atlantic?

I hope so.It's time for Europe to stand up to that bully Bush.




posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 02:12 PM
link   
On a side note does anyone know what is the problem in the minds of British pilots with the idea of air marshalls?

Is it a loss of authority?

Is this a union thing?

I have not heard an reason for this disagreement to this point.



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 02:16 PM
link   
Interesting point, but I'll bet it's money...and a question of non-union workers, etc.



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Well,The British don't like the idea of guns being taken on airplanes.They are pressurised you know???

On a side note.Does anyone have any idea why Americans seem obsessed with taking guns on airplanes??

Is it a cultural thing?

Unlike the USA before 9/11 the British and other European countries had extensive security before passengers got on the planes unlike the USA.

Stop the terrorists getting on the planes in the first place instead of firing guns in pressurised cabins.



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 02:25 PM
link   
I agree with John Bull. I'm from Canada and I think our security is still fairly lax, sad to say. However, I don't want to see a bunch of cowboys from the states flying around with guns either (they even give them the name marshall...jesus they're asking for trouble).

The pilot cabins are pressurized make sure the terrorists don't get on the planes and keep the guns out of the air.



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 02:25 PM
link   
When I was last in the USA,before 9/11, getting on an internal flight was like getting on a double decker bus here in the UK.

No security.

You've wised up.Good!!

But you are now going over the top.

[Edited on 6-1-2004 by John bull 1]



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 02:26 PM
link   
its a safety issue they dont want a gun in a plane for the simple reason of if you fire a gun in a plane and it penetrates the aircrafts hull ( remember the pressure diffrence between the inside of the plane and the high altitude ) = bye bye sucker's



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Well I am no expert, but there are numerous options for subduing a person on an aircraft even when using a gun in terms of ammo and type of gun, that are not a threat to the aircraft itself.

Secondly I agree that the idea is to stop terrorists before they get on the plane but this does not seem to be a perfect process to date.



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 02:28 PM
link   
THE NEO,

Guns are a perfect process...give yourself a shake man. We definitely need to think about this from a different angle...it took box cutters to take over the plane, surely we don't need guns to take it back.



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 02:33 PM
link   
All major carriers today have sealed cockpits.

A terrorist can't get to the pilot now anyway.



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 02:53 PM
link   
What stops a terrorist for killing passengers one by one till the pilot opens the door. Whats the magic number. The morals of terrorists and pilots are different, it doesnt take a forced entry into the cockpit to take control of the plane.



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Firearms on aircraft carried by a marshall or other law enforcement officer is not the problem most media leads people to believe.

The use of Frangible Ammo in firearms prevents pucture of aircraft skin or secondary targets, they also will not ricochet.

For more info start here; www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/frangible.htm

So whats the problem? politics maybe - most likely!



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 02:58 PM
link   
GabRaz,What with?

Box cutters?

I mean just as the passengers were about to tackle the terrorists the Airforce shot the plane down.

But I forget that they are all martyrs now.Heroes of the New Republic.



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 02:59 PM
link   
New Republic?

Star Wars?



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by John bull 1
Well,The British don't like the idea of guns being taken on airplanes.They are pressurised you know???

On a side note.Does anyone have any idea why Americans seem obsessed with taking guns on airplanes??

Is it a cultural thing?

Unlike the USA before 9/11 the British and other European countries had extensive security before passengers got on the planes unlike the USA.

Stop the terrorists getting on the planes in the first place instead of firing guns in pressurised cabins.


well it sure works for israel, im sure air marshalls are trained in hand to hand combat, i doubt a trained air marshall wont stupidly fire a gun and shoot the plane.

like with israel, in their airport terminals its guarded with armed guards to stop terrorists from boarding.

you need to know the facts before taking a side, the US is trying to prevent hijackings because not even the tightest security on the ground can prevent every hijacker from boarding.

think of it like the ground security is a firewall and an air marshall is the anti-virus that catches what the firewall misses.



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by John bull 1
All major carriers today have sealed cockpits.

A terrorist can't get to the pilot now anyway.



im sure its not locked though, a hijacker could sneak in and lock it and then the plane is screwed..



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Nothing to stop the air marshall becomming a terrorist to be honest then.



posted on Jan, 7 2004 @ 08:29 AM
link   
Many of you are making up stories and repeating inflammatory remarks to support your case.

I would like to submit the following information, which is gladly provided by my cousin Kathleen's husband, Kyle, who happens to be an Air Marshall employed by the TSA.

First of all, most hanguns cannot penetrate the hull or double-paned windows in most modern passenger aircraft. Modern aircraft are designed from the onset to survive just such an occurance, and most handguns do not have sufficient muzzle velocity to do enough damage to force a rapid, catastrophic decompression of the main passenger cabin. (there are a few exceptions, most in the large caliber hunting pistols, such as the .44 Magnun and Desert Eagle class of handgun).

IF a gunshot were to induce rapid decompression of a cabin, it is highly unlikely that would cause any loss of control or instability in an aircraft, unless the aircraft is travelling at supersonic speeds or over 45K feet in altitude. There is only one passenger aircraft that fits this description, and it was recently retired from the BA and Air France fleets last year. Otherwise, emergency oxygen procedures would be activated and the pilot would most likely descend to a safer altitude within a few minutes. Despite what Hollywood likes to present, when an aircraft cabin decompresses, it does not throw passengers around, people do not have the air sucked out of their lungs instantly, and planes do not go into a fatal spin. Surely it is a dangerous situation, but hardly a catastrophy (this is assuming that the cabin remains intact).

Prior to 911, Americans ALSO didnt like the idea of guns on our aircraft, but they were there, despite what everyone thinks. We do not have a "cultural thing" about guns. However, we recently discovered that a loaded passenger jet can be used effectively as a cruise missle agaist soft targets. We just dont like the idea of having alot of cruise missiles flying over our heads with people we either a) dont know, or b) don't trust at the controls.

By the way, the Air Mashalls is not a new idea, they have been around for many, many years. They just recently have been greatly expanded. Also, federal and state law enforcement officals have been carrying their weapons with them on aircraft for DECADES without incident, because the FAA prefers that handguns and ammunition NOT be put in with checked luggage (they dont trust the baggage handlers). Thousands or FBI agents, US Marshalls, and members of the various State Police forces travel with their handguns every year. So where are all these planes being brought down by guns on an aircraft?

Flying a foreign-controlled aircraft into US airspace is a privilege, not a right, and we are free to dictate any security requirement as a condition of entry that we want or feel is necessary. If you don't like the requirement, feel free to stay away. Our airlines will probably be happy to pick up the slack. If you feel that you must penalize us on you end for our security policies (such as Brazil), go for it. We either won't complain about it, or we won't come to your country.

Personally, it doesnt surprise me that the pacifist European nations all have their panties in a bunch over this. After all, most Europeans only associate a gun with having a gun pointed in their face. Centuries of killing each other, including the last 2 world wars, will do that to you. Americans (generally) dont have the same feeling about guns. We have never been defeated in war on our own land, nor have we ever had foreign invaders march us off to death camps at the barrel of a rifle. The few time foreigners (and you know who you are) have tried to wage war on us in our own land, it was the militia and common people, equipped with their own, personal weapons they kept in their homes, who threw the aggressor back out to sea. We also have the advantage of having alot of open space to hunt and shoot if and when we feel like it, so gun ownership does not have the same stigma here as it does in Europe. Do not believe what Hollywood and the liberal media tries to tell you. This is not the wild west over here and guns do not figure that prominently in our lives.

I guarentee that the average passenger flying with an Air Marshall has alot more to fear from shoddy maintenance work on their aircraft, or their pilot's flying ability, than the possibiliy of the Air Marshall's weapon causing them harm.

[Edited on 7-1-2004 by Pyros]



posted on Jan, 7 2004 @ 08:48 AM
link   
I want an air marshall on the plane if these crazy arabs are going to do anything I want their azz kicked!

If most people were not cowards I would say to hell with the air marshalls but I can't expect Joe average chicken to stand up for anything let alone fight a terrorist.





new topics
top topics
 
0

log in

join