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

drudge report ^ | 1/2/2004 | Drudge

[hadrian]

FLASH: Cancellation of British Airways flights is not in response to U.S. safety concerns, but rather is being prompted by refusal of British pilots to fly with armed marshals on board... Developing...

[Jeff Gordon]

Thank you for clearing that up for me. I guess I assumed that the NY Times was run by the same sort of idiots that run the LA Times. I wonder why I thought that? :-)

[henderson field]

I'd like to see them ban flights of our F-16s into their country.

[cajungirl]

Excuse me, excuse me! The Brits are our most loyal friends. How quickly you forget that.

[GeronL]

they could try

[Squantos]

Stop you ?!?!?! Post MORE !

[clintonh8r]

I'll be flying to the UK in September....on Delta, thank God.

[Mike Darancette]

The more they drink the better they feel about their chances

[pepsionice]

This is all a union thing...trying to get more cash out of the company in order to cooperate. BA needs to state a policy....no cooperation then no pay for the canceled flight, period. If BA pilots still want to make this a big episode...we can always bring TWA back and let them enjoy the route and its profits.

[marron]

There is another way to look at it. They supposedly have specific intel that a certain individual on the flight might be a terrorist. Yet they are going to let him board, but place an armed man on the plane to shoot him if he trips on his way to the restroom.

If I were the pilot under the circumstances, I would cancel the flight.

[eastforker]

What is the down side to that scenario?

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

Our response is 100% right on. No armed marshalls = no landing priveledges. Way to go GW!

[SendShaqtoIraq]

Better safe than sorry.

[Nita Nupress]

but at some point you'll get the asses in the media and Howard Dean starting to talk about "intelligence failures" regarding this. You will likely see this start on Monday.

You're right. But you know what? Let 'em. As a wise man once said, "Bring it on." The American people are in no mood, IMO, to attack a president who is being cautious about the possibility of terrorism on commercial flights.

And the American people are in no mood to fault a President whose threshold question is "Would you let your son or daughter fly on that plane?", as Bush stated to Ridge.

Conversely, bill clinton's threshold question would have been:

"Is there any chance Debra Schiff is on that flight?"

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

First they say that the only reason the flights were cancelled was that the pilots refused to fly with air marshalls on board. The very next paragraph states that they're uncertain if they have succeeded in foiling a terrorist plot.

The thing that the Brits and the French have to understand is that THIS IS OUR CALL!!! If they don't play by our rules, they don't fly into our airspace, F*ING PERIOD EXPLANATION POINT!

[bluefish]

Haven't gotten through all the thread yet, so maybe this has been suggested:

Maybe the pilots aren't scared of armed marshalls, but they are simply using this stated priciple to avoid working.

Or, a more frightening scenario: What if they actually don't fear the armed marshalls, but it makes for a convenient excuse? What if the pilots themselves are so convinced that a terrorist plot is in the works that they themselves are too afraid to fly, DESPITE armed marshalls on board? Wouldn't that be a doozy? If an armed marshall has been assigned to a particular flight, there is plenty of cause to be concerned about that particular flight. Object to the armed marshall, don't fly, avoid what appears to be a higher risk flight!

[bluefish]

I guess somebody WAS thinking along the same lines as me. As usual, they stated it a little more succinctly!

[HardStarboard]

Plaudits to BA for decreasing airspace congestion over our major airports.

[oceanview]

actually, fox had an el al security person tonight who said that was exactly what should be done. place squads on the flights and intercept the event. I don't think I am in favor of that, because all that has to happen is for the bomber to get into the lavatory and its game over. that scenario may work with regards to a hijack attempt, but not a bomber.

[White Eagle]

First thing I thought of when I saw the headline. Simple solutions are always so easy to understand and apply. And, that's usually because they are the correct thing to do.

[HardStarboard]

>>>Let me get this straight; instead of an air marshal being on board to stop a terr, these moron pilots would rather be blown out of the sky by a F-16? <<<

Well, the solution is obvious. You say that US policy will be to blow any suspect flight out of the air if air marshals *approved by the US* are not on board.

Then let the free market work its magic.