Has anyone though to ask the travelling public what their opinion is, also the cabin crew? Where I am the first to respect the authority of the Commander of a flight in normal operation, once the cabin is siezed and he is locked behind his bullet proof cockpit door there is little the Captain can do control whats happening behind him, save dumping cabin pressure or throwing the aircraft around a bit and getting it on the ground, that I'd argue is enough to be getting on with in the situation, why resist additional help down the back? Yes, there are caveats on the training of the sky marshalls and the type of weapons employed etc. all I agree should be co-ordinated with airlines and their procedures established, that naturally offers a sensible approach.
The Sky Marshalls proposal is a last line of defence and offers a better bet than being without them. The risks of firearms in the cabin argument doesn't hold water, security people have been flying around with guns on board since flying began. Given the world we are living today, and the events we have witnessed over the past few years- thinking has to change- 'teddys in the corner' by BALPA and a few airlines are not contributing to safer skys. Every obstacle presented to a would be hijacker is the potential for failure, I as a travelling member of the public certainly support covert sky marshalling and Thomas Cook Airlines is one that I will avoid.