Ejector Pump, Blue Hauler et al,
All very sensible and valid points...
Indeed Sky Marshalls would probably have prevented the Sept 11 attacks. Sept 11 however was an exceptionally isolated case (never happened before!), and generally hijackings in the past have been resolved peacefully. Also, historically the most catasrophic form of airline terrorism simply involved a bomb in the hold. Sky Marshalls can't do all that much in those cases.
If you want to argue the point about being effective combatants of 'air rage' incidents, consider we have unarmed uniformed guards on trains nowdays that do exactly the same thing...
The liklihood of having another attack is so remote I don't see how armed marshalls on board an aircraft can be justified. There are better places to spend the finances and resources on aviation security as the Marshalls can only be 100% effective on the aircraft they're on, and they won't be on all.
How many times has an Australian aircraft NEEDED to have an armed guard on board. I cannot think of one. This seems to be an overreaction to placate a nervous travelling public (parhaps that is the main reason?) and needs more consideration and definately more consultation for all involved.
Perhaps we will all know a little more and be in a better position to comment when details are made available.
Hopefully any resolution will ensure that the skies remain safe, and that the crew can still interact effectively without being inhibited by complicated legislation or procedures.
Lancer