Qantas resists costly missile shield system

Sydney Morning Herald ^ | September 5, 2003 | Cynthia Banham

[presidio9]

Qantas is resisting pressure to install new systems to defend its fleet against terrorist missile attacks, throwing the responsibility for protecting its aircraft back onto government.

The airline's CEO, Geoff Dixon, rejected suggestions that it deploy expensive decoy systems against surface-to-air missiles, saying these would would cost nearly $700 million to protect the international fleet alone.

Mr Dixon also questioned the effectiveness of the systems and said the best way to deal with the missile threat would be for governments in Australia and the region to identify potential launch sites near airports.

His comments came after the Prime Minister, John Howard, revealed that the airlines were in talks with the Federal Government over the possibility of deploying anti-missile systems.

In other developments:

 Mr Howard confirmed that Australian Federal Police were still waiting to hear if they could gain access to Abu Dahdah, the Spanish al-Qaeda suspect with reported links to two Australian Islamic leaders  Indonesia's Vice-President, Hamzah Haz, accused the United States of being the "king of terrorists", using language similar to that of many of the Bali bombers .

The issue of aircraft anti-missile defences was also taken up yesterday at a joint parliamentary inquiry into aviation security, where Transport Department officials revealed that they were holding talks with the Defence Department and the Defence Intelligence Organisation about the threat.

Terrorism experts have warned that international flights are more vulnerable to missiles strikes than hijacking.

Mr Howard said he agreed with this assessment, adding: "I'm also told that our airlines are investigating the deployment of these decoy devices, which are employed in a very limited way around the world. I'm not saying we're going to employ them, but that is being investigated."

He acknowledged the high cost of the anti-missile devices but said "we're trying, within the bounds of reasonableness and commonsense, to cover every base we can".

However, Mr Dixon issued a statement saying that there was "no specific intelligence that Australian aviation interests at home or abroad were at risk from shoulder-fired, surface-to-air missiles" and calling for a "balanced approach to aviation security".

"Where there is a risk, the most effective preventive strategy is for the relevant government to identify likely launch areas round airports - not for commercial airlines to install anti-missile systems as those currently used on military aircraft.

"The cost of installing such anti-missile systems is huge and their effectiveness is very uncertain. It would cost Qantas $US442 million, about $A692 million, to install the proper systems on just our international fleet of Boeing 747s and 767s."

The Prime Minister's office declined to respond to Mr Dixon's comments.

Officials from the Transport Department told the parliamentary hearing that the missiles threat was "an issue".

The first assistant secretary of the Transport Security Regulation Group, Andrew Tongue, said: "We're working with the Department of Defence about the nature of the weapons.

"These aren't robust weapons you can grab off the shelf, throw in a backpack, run around with, pull out of the backpack and fire them. They do actually take skill."

[grobdriver]

said the best way to deal with the missile threat would be for governments in Australia and the region to identify potential launch sites near airports.

Hah! Roads, too?
How about any van with a moon roof?

[JohnGalt]

Interesting story bump.

Imagine if the government told the people they were responsible to defend themselves? Gosh, makes global hegemony seem pretty silly.

[KellyAdmirer]

Easy to say negative things about this, but have you ever heard of a Qantas plane involved in a crash?

[presidio9]

"Oh that's gonna do me a lot of good because QANTAS doesn't fly to Los Angeles out of Cincinnati, you have to get to Melbourne! Melbourne, Australia in order to get the plane that flies to Los Angeles!" -Charlie Babbitt

[jriemer]

I, I , I only fly Qantas...

[Bon mots]

Imagine if the government told the people they were responsible to defend themselves? Gosh, makes global hegemony seem pretty silly.

Exactly.
Don't we all pay taxes to the government so that they defend us? I suppose if they made Qantas tax exempt, then they could push them to spend money on their own defense. For all of their existence they have paid taxes to the government to protect them. The government is now saying that it can't... or doesn't want to pay for it.

Tax strike time!

[JohnGalt]

Its a stunning admission from the Australian government that they cannot perform the only role they are allegedly capable of performing, outside of maintaining weights and measures.

[JoJo Gunn]

Make the Middle East one huge glass ashtray, and the rest of us won't have to worry about things like this.