Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

European Airlines Win Concessions On Sky Marshalls
Independent (UK) ^ | 1-17-2004 | Stephen Castle

Posted on 01/16/2004 4:18:45 PM PST by blam

European airlines win concessions on sky marshals

By Stephen Castle in Brussels
17 January 2004

The United States yesterday said it will not ban European airlines without sky marshals from its airspace, providing alternative security measures are deemed satisfactory.

Asa Hutchinson, the deputy secretary of the Homeland Security Department, announced the compromise following talks with European Union officials in Brussels. Mr Hutchinson said there was no "blanket policy" to prevent airlines without armed guards from entering American territory.

The Homeland Security Department announced last month that airlines would be required to place armed law enforcement officers on flights to America when a threat assessment deemed it necessary.

But Mr Hutchinson said the American authorities "would look at all measures" to determine whether any specific flight could enter its airspace. He added that alternatives to armed sky marshals could include full vetting of the passenger and crew lists. He said: "If a country develops a very comprehensive, complete and thorough system that gives a high level of confidence this is something to be considered as alternative measures."

He said the US would retain final say over which airlines could make transatlantic flights. Mr Hutchinson said: "If we believe that there is a gap in that security then we reserve the right to say that flight cannot enter our airspace."

The sky marshal issue has divided European countries into three camps: those willing to train armed guards, those willing to contemplate their use in certain circumstances and those who oppose the plan.

Sweden, Denmark and Finland said they would not use armed guards on planes, preferring to cancel flights deemed at risk. The UK and France are drawing up training programmes for sky marshals.

Meanwhile, the European Commission drew up a minimum list of articles which passengers boarding in the EU will be banned from taking on to planes. The list ranges from guns, explosives and machetes to ice skates, lacrosse sticks and cricket bats. Fireworks, bleach and radioactive material will be among goods banned from hold baggage.


TOPICS: News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: airline; airlinesecurity; armedmarshals; concessions; dhs; european; marshalls; sky
Fly on American airlines.
1 posted on 01/16/2004 4:18:46 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: blam
...the United States yesterday said it will not ban European airlines without sky marshals from its airspace, providing alternative security measures are deemed satisfactory...

Good.

And the best 'alternative security measure' would be a short bio of Todd Beamer, on the back of the emergency evacuation brochure.

2 posted on 01/16/2004 4:21:07 PM PST by Byron_the_Aussie (http://www.theinterviewwithgod.com/popup2.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Byron_the_Aussie
Not just a bio on Todd, but maybe we provide nearby downtown areas with skyscrapers with SAMs.

The slightest sign that something is amiss, the missiles are launched and as much as possible of the interdicted terrorist attack is vaporized (so that we don't have any nasty old hard lumps raining down on people.)

3 posted on 01/16/2004 4:28:48 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Hmmmmm.

I dunno about that one, champ. Imagine if the terrorists commandeered one of the SAM sites.

4 posted on 01/16/2004 4:37:02 PM PST by Byron_the_Aussie (http://www.theinterviewwithgod.com/popup2.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: blam; muawiyah
"If we believe that there is a gap in that security then we reserve the right to say that flight cannot enter our airspace meet it off our coast with air-to-air armed F-16s."
5 posted on 01/16/2004 4:43:03 PM PST by TXnMA (No Longer!!! -- and glad to be back home (and warm) in God's Country!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Byron_the_Aussie
No doubt terrorists could commandeer any static skyscraper defense system if we let them. On the other hand, we can build surface-to-air military sites in suitible areas.

One Freeper proposes just using plain old jet fighters. Last time I looked we are, in fact, using them.

European aircraft intending to enter American airspace have been at some level of risk since 9/11. The risk level will increase if they do not allow the use of armed air marshalls.

6 posted on 01/16/2004 4:52:39 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: blam
If they divert at all from the planned flight path, our fighters must shoot them down. Lets publcize that very clearly.
7 posted on 01/16/2004 5:09:33 PM PST by waterstraat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson