Sky Marshalls: Press Release
Thread Starter
Sky Marshalls: Press Release
I'm sorry but it is purely window dressing. we have just seen a 15 year old boy in Tampa demonstrate the crux of the problem.
<a href="http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/story_22186.asp" target="_blank">http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/story_22186.asp</a>
<img src="eek.gif" border="0">
<a href="http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/story_22186.asp" target="_blank">http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/story_22186.asp</a>
<img src="eek.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm pro VB but I think given the numbers of marshall's involved they should be prepared to give up the seat and argue to toss later. By publicly refusing to have the Sky marshalls they are pretty much saying " here we are...come and have it boys"! I do agree though that the cost of a federally mandated security program should be the governments. Its a matter of national security in the end.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Usually Australia
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GG
I disagree that "the cost of a federally mandated security program should be the governments" (read taxpayer). September eleventh has simply upped the ante. The airlines provide the where-with-all for some nut case to carry out his idiotic wishes and in the process eliminate three thousand unsuspecting office workers who had absolutely no thought about aviation.
The government is simply providing protection to those citizens because the airlines are unable to. VB should be soundly condemned for their apparent disregard for the non-flying public. Anyway, it seems that it only costs $5 for a VB seat!
I disagree that "the cost of a federally mandated security program should be the governments" (read taxpayer). September eleventh has simply upped the ante. The airlines provide the where-with-all for some nut case to carry out his idiotic wishes and in the process eliminate three thousand unsuspecting office workers who had absolutely no thought about aviation.
The government is simply providing protection to those citizens because the airlines are unable to. VB should be soundly condemned for their apparent disregard for the non-flying public. Anyway, it seems that it only costs $5 for a VB seat!
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
And is check-in baggage being screened? NO!
So you can put a Wyatt Earp (or 2) on EVERY flight, but if there's a bomb in the hold then they are worth diddly squat!
Security checks are still just a "pacifier" for the public - something highly visible, but next to useless in the fight against the trained terrorist, who doesn't care if he/they die during their mission.
So you can put a Wyatt Earp (or 2) on EVERY flight, but if there's a bomb in the hold then they are worth diddly squat!
Security checks are still just a "pacifier" for the public - something highly visible, but next to useless in the fight against the trained terrorist, who doesn't care if he/they die during their mission.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I accept your opinion dragshute, however where do you draw the line? If the government decides that one skymarshall isn't enough and makes it two or three are the airlines at their mercy to keep giving up revenue seats? I appreciate that BOTH the flying public and non flying public have an interest in this issue. The taxpayer pays for national defense and it would seem to me that anti terror programs have now very much become a national security/defense issue. The aim of Sept 11 was to topple the American economic machine and thus the country itself. I think that makes it a tax payer interest to protect against such an occurence here. I think given the reletively small number of sky marshalls being deployed in the near future the initial cost to VB would be minimal and thus they should take them on for the sake of public safety and confidence. I don't think they are wrong for wanting to discuss the matter of having that cost covered in the longer term.
Nunc est bibendum
Hera are a few figures to throw around.
We are talking about 120ish Air Marshalls at $55K per annum. Tack on Super and associated cost and you are talking an all up price of about $8 Million.
By the time you tack on shooting practise, administration and other costs you are probably pretty close to the $10 million mark. That also doesn't include the 'cost' to the airline of a lost seat or the 'cost' to the government of a bought seat- even at subsidised rates!
I'm no expert on the matter but I'm guessing that $10 Million plus per annum would buy a fair bit of 'on the ground' security to prevent stuff getting into the air.
We are talking about 120ish Air Marshalls at $55K per annum. Tack on Super and associated cost and you are talking an all up price of about $8 Million.
By the time you tack on shooting practise, administration and other costs you are probably pretty close to the $10 million mark. That also doesn't include the 'cost' to the airline of a lost seat or the 'cost' to the government of a bought seat- even at subsidised rates!
I'm no expert on the matter but I'm guessing that $10 Million plus per annum would buy a fair bit of 'on the ground' security to prevent stuff getting into the air.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been following news reports about the troubled birth of the sky marshal scheme. Two recent writers (Christopher Kremmer SMH 4 Jan; James Morrow Australian 10 Jan) say that we should abandon the idea and arm the pilots instead. While I share their doubts about the effectiveness of a few sky marshals I don't believe we should arm pilots.
The prospect of a shoot-out in the air, surely the last line of defence, is not encouraging no matter who has the gun. The main problem has always been to prevent dangerous persons and objects from getting onto aircraft - period. it is here that we should concentrate our resources. The UK has come to this view and scrapped the sky marshal plan in favour of "making sure that nothing dangerous gets onto our aircraft" (British Airways spokesperson - SMH 7 Jan).
Concerning this it has been reported from the US (Jim Lehrer Newshour SBS 26 Dec) that despite the events of Sept 11, very little screening of baggage is being done. If that is reflected in Australia we are at risk - a risk no sky marshal can prevent. Since Sept 11 everything and everybody travelling via airline should be screened.
That may be expensive. Neglect may prove disastrous.
Time to hear from our decision-makers?
The prospect of a shoot-out in the air, surely the last line of defence, is not encouraging no matter who has the gun. The main problem has always been to prevent dangerous persons and objects from getting onto aircraft - period. it is here that we should concentrate our resources. The UK has come to this view and scrapped the sky marshal plan in favour of "making sure that nothing dangerous gets onto our aircraft" (British Airways spokesperson - SMH 7 Jan).
Concerning this it has been reported from the US (Jim Lehrer Newshour SBS 26 Dec) that despite the events of Sept 11, very little screening of baggage is being done. If that is reflected in Australia we are at risk - a risk no sky marshal can prevent. Since Sept 11 everything and everybody travelling via airline should be screened.
That may be expensive. Neglect may prove disastrous.
Time to hear from our decision-makers?
