General disobedience could be embarrassing

The edict issued Dec. 29 by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security calling on foreign operators flying to the U.S. to embark armed security guards/sky marshals on flights deemed at risk has stirred they very antithesis of international harmony. Countries and operators that do not comply could be denied...

For immediate service; more information; and multi-user access (site license), non-profit organization, educational institute pricing, contact Karen Garner kgarner@accessintel.com at (301) 354-1612.

This story is only available to paid subscribers. Please login below with your username and password if you are a subscriber.

Username:
Password:
	What is my password?

Subscribe     Trial

The edict issued Dec. 29 by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security calling on foreign operators flying to the U.S. to embark armed security guards/sky marshals on flights deemed at risk has stirred they very antithesis of international harmony. Countries and operators that do not comply could be denied access to U.S. airspace. Mexico's three airlines - Aeromexico, Mexicana and Aviacsa, are complying. "Whatever request they make, we will adopt immediately," said a Mexicana official. However, Mexican pilot and flight attendant unions expressed their opposition.

The French pilots union announced it is "firmly opposed" to such a step. Meanwhile special French security agents already are aboard some Air France flights to the United States. These teams are dressed as civilians and reportedly are armed with stun guns.

A spokesman for Poland's LOT airline said the carrier was prepared to embark armed guards on its U.S.-bound flights to "guarantee our passengers' safety."

The Thais are balking. "We don't need to go that far, since we always conduct proper checks from our end and our planes stop at one destination," said Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

Mogens Holgaard, head of the Danish Pilots Association, said bluntly, "This is a very bad idea, because it risks having catastrophic consequences on passengers and crew if there is an armed fight on board between a hijacker and an agent:" However, if the affected Scandinavian governments and SAS management assented, the pilots would comply.

UK ministers say the U.S. edict is a "responsible and prudent" response to the heightened terror alert, and undercover agents reportedly have been on some British Airways flights to the United States. Jim McAusian, general secretary of the British Air Line Pilots Association (BALPA), said pilots need to know if an armed air marshal is aboard. "The commander needs to retain authority over the whole of the aircraft," he said.

The International Air Transport Association (IATA), representing some 270 airlines around the world, reacted coolly. "Our basic stance is that we do not want guns aboard the aircraft. We certainly don't want the cockpit to be armed," said IATA spokesman Anthony Concil. Moreover, he said, governments, not airlines, should pay for the cost of added security. "The airline community does not want to get billed for that," Concil said.

A regional precursor to the global controversy occurred last September, when New Zealand officials balked at an Australian proposal that armed air marshals should be placed randomly on trans-Tasman flights. At the time of this disagreement, an Australian official said the air marshals should be exempted from New Zealand's strict gun laws. "New Zealand is more of a pivot these days for flights from the Pacific Islands, which are regarded as being potential areas where terrorists might depart," he explained. "From Australia's security point of view, it's more likely a terrorist would start off at one of these locations than San Francisco or New York."