UK: Union urges pilots not to fly w/ air marshals on board

BBC On Line ^ | Tuesday, 30 December, 2003

[yankeedame]

Last Updated: Tuesday, 30 December, 2003, 16:50 GMT

Union advises pilots not to fly

Airport security has increased

Airline pilots should not take off with armed marshals on board, the British Airline Pilots' Association has said.

The union (Balpa) has advised members not to fly until agreement is reached on the roles of marshals.

The announcement came after consulting lawyers to see if pilots could legally refuse to fly their plane with an armed police officer on board.

UK ministers say the move is a "responsible and prudent" response to the heightened terror alert in the US.

Balpa has also called for an emergency world summit of pilots to consider the plans by the US to demand marshals be used on some international flights to and from the country.

The UK's marshals were expected to begin working on some transatlantic routes on Monday or Tuesday.

"Until adequate written and agreed assurances are received, flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are carried."- Capt. Mervyn Granshaw Balpa chairman

The union wants to meet Transport Secretary Alistair Darling to secure assurances about the safety of the initiative.

Balpa chairman Captain Mervyn Granshaw said: "The minister said yesterday, rather belatedly, that captains will be told when armed guards are on board their aircraft.

"We want to hear that the captain will be the one in command of the aircraft at all times, we seek reassurances about the weapons to be used and the training given.

"We want a written protocol, an agreement, on when and how armed guards should be deployed."

'No solution'

Balpa general secretary Jim McAuslan claimed the government proposal was clearly in response to the US demand and this needed a worldwide response from pilots.

"We are calling for a world pilot summit through the International Federation of Air Line Pilot Associations," he said.

"We shall spell out why putting armed guards on aircraft rather than stopping armed terrorists on the ground is far from a universal solution."

Critics fear air marshals may fuel passenger anxiety Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said: "Our advice to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances are received, flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are carried.

Critics fear air marshals may fuel passenger anxiety

"If assurances are not forthcoming we strongly believe it is within the flight crew's rights to refuse to operate the flight on the basis of the safety of the aircraft, its passengers and crew as well as the uncertainty about the legal position of flight crew.

"We have had detailed discussions with our lawyers overnight, and these have continued today. Their advice is that captains are within their right, as commander of the craft, not to fly."

In announcing the move on Monday, Mr Darling stressed the best control was to prevent potential hijackers boarding planes in the first place.

But he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme air marshals were "the last line of defence".

[yankeedame]

"Until adequate written and agreed assurances are received, flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are carried."

IOW, until the Union has squeezed a few more quid out of British Air.

[Drango]

The pilots and the unions has every right to ban air marshals.

Oh, and the United States has every right to ban planes without air marshals. Fly your planes to Romania, Uganda or China. We don't care where as long as you don't fly 'em here.

[stylin_geek]

I agree it is better not to even let the terrorists get on the plane. However, in the real world, one cannot assume this is always possible. I might add, fine with me if the planes don't fly. Then it would be certain no terrorists are coming into the U.S. via international flights.

[Tailback]

Exactly, the union will come around as soon as the Air Marshalls have to pay BALPA dues.

[rhombus]

Oh, and the United States has every right to ban planes without air marshals. Fly your planes to Romania, Uganda or China. We don't care where as long as you don't fly 'em here.

This is an interesting way of helping the American airline business. Given the choice, who would not want to select an airline that has the added safety of air marshals.

[Defend the Second]

Exactly.

What kind of pussies are these guys? They would rather place themselves at the tender mercies of Al-Qaeda? Who do they want to have the guns? These guys are so September 10.

[philetus]

"Union urges pilots not to fly w/ air marshals on board"

Philetus urges airlines to fire pilots who won't fly.

[Alouette]

We need air marshals like Todd Beamer, Jeremy Glick, Tom Burnett....

[jstolzen]

These guys apparently don't get it.

No air marshals?

No entry into US airspace.

Pretty simple, cut and dried to me.

BTW..this is just ANOTHER example of how far off of the rocking horse people are today. Even those in ally countries put idiotic "political correctness" and political philosophy/wrangling above safety and preventing mass death.

WHEN are people gonna frickin' GET IT? We are ***AT WAR***.

How many dead people will it take until the socialists and the liberals WAKE UP and start protecting themselves and others??

This is a good move by the Admin. Now they need to continue with more "good moves" and apply similar thinking to the massive illegal immigration problem.

[bandleader]

That's Right,The British view guns as"inherently EVIL"(except in 1939,when we had to send them some)!!!!!!!!

[bandleader]

I think you have NAILED That One!!

[bandleader]

I was going to add that the ONLY people(with any sense)that would rather fly without armed Sky-Marshals would be HiJackers!!!

[randog]

Critics fear air marshals may fuel passenger anxiety...

So do fire extinguishers. Let's ban those on planes. How about the oxygen mask training before every flight? Let's quit doing that because we're scaring the passengers.

[aShepard]

Great!

Is it time to buy stock in US airlines now that the foreign airlines are bitching about our rules??

[GladesGuru]

Last I heard, sky marshalls can't fly planes - even the agency nutters know this. The union is clearly headed by a nutcase.

[Criminal Number 18F]

This is nothing but a chest-wig game. The pilots want to be reassured that they are the ones in charge.

In the US, AMs always identify themselves to the captain and usually to the flight and cabin crew. They can be sitting anywhere on the plane (it is the marshal's call, or rather the team leader's call, as they normally work in teams). The captain can decline to take the marshal on board. I have never heard of one doing it, but he or she has that authority.

Most pilots are very glad to have an AM on board. Prior to 9/11 air marshals were few but very highly trained.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[ExSoldier]

Well, see...I was very concerned about this, until I realized that they're just being smart. In their "gunless" society (well everybody except the criminals) the sad fact is that nobody can safely handle weapons especially the cops. They just don't want to get "shot down" by their own guys. Literally.

I think a much better solution is to publicly make a big deal of pulling the sky cops off the planes, and then quietly put SAS on board with sidearms and let them enjoy the ride. Maybe even put "hushpuppies" on their sidearms so if something happens while the cabin is asleep, nobody will even have their beauty sleep disturbed: WHUFF! WHUFF! Drag the bodies to the rear rest room and mark it "Out of Order."

I had the pleasure of training with both 1st SAS and 1st "Para" back in the 1980s. They were just amazing to watch. I learned a lot of neat woodcraft from them.

[ExSoldier]

BTW, I just posted the exact comment above on the BBC site that reads "HAVE YOUR SAY." Let's see if they put it online!