WARNING
In an attempt to prevent this debate becoming 'circular' with the very obvious differences between the UK/EU and US cultures, I will again ask posters to refrain from their usual 'willy waving' techniques. Stating the obvious, we have the US government and a cross section of their pilots on here advocating and supporting the edicts that are making our ministers over here 'jump' to their tune of "let's put guns everywhere and solve potential problems". On the other hand we have the reluctance by the UK pilots to what is seen as an ill thought through, knee-jerk reaction that does little to prevent the problem and an extremely limited chance to stop it if it should occur.
The difference in attitudes to guns is very evident in both cultures. However, we have had over a generation to deal with aviation security issues. There are still flaws but, without belittling the tradgedy that happened on 9/11, it was the US reluctance to heed advice on security issues that allowed that tragic event to occur. What we have now is the massive overreaction that some believe is the solution to potential suicide hijacking.
What is happening over here in the UK, and no doubt in other countries too, is a reaction to being told that on flights that are deemed to be at specific risk we are to carry armed sky marshals. There has been no consultation on how all this is to be implemented and how any legal formalities that will affect us are to be handled. BALPA has been asking for over a year for a meeting with the government to discuss this and they have been ignored. Now we have an edict from the US, the UK government make an announcement about the carriage of armed sky marshalls on flights that are at specific risk and some of our US cousins are unable to understand why we are refusing to fly on those flights.
I have no doubt, that if this had been handled properly by this governement, in consultation with the pilots and without all the hype and huge appetite for 'sound bites' from our esteemed ministers this issue wouldn't even be in the news today. We all know that real security is not the cosmetic farce that the travelling public see at the airport but the intelligence agencies in conjunction with the security services getting on with their jobs, out of the limelight. When they have done their jobs properly there is no news and no public thanks. When they haven't, as in 9/11, they again get no thanks.
So, the US pilots believe that an armed pilot and an armed sky marshall is the solution to making pax feel safe and is a last resort to any breach of security. We believe that there is a long way to go before the need for armed sky marshals are needed. Introducing a gun into what is supposedly a gun sterile environment is just a step backward. There are enough opportunities for anyone to introduce a 'weapon' after passing through the current system of induction loops and an x-ray machine. Let's deal with that problem first and there will be even less need to have armed sky marshalls on board.
The first we pilots over here heard about the introduction of armed sky marshals on our flights was an announcement on a radio programme. That's how well thought through this decision was implemented. We were told that they would only be introduced on specific flights at high risk. Do they think we are muppets and are incapable of realising what that means? Does your life insurance policy pay out to your family if anything happens to you because you knowingly operated on a flight with a specific risk known about before departure? There are many similar issues to be dealt with and without consultation why shouldn't we refuse to operate specific flights?