Return to Transcripts main page

Q&A

Should Planes Carry Armed Sky Marshals?

Aired December 30, 2003 - 11:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
TOM RIDGE, SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY: ... one of our international aviation partners said the threat to passenger aircraft is an international challenge.

ZAIN VERJEE, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR (voice-over): The U.S. orders international air carriers to place armed officers on flights when Washington tells them to. While most say they will comply, some in the airline industry are still worried.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We don't believe a gun should be in an aircraft, (UNINTELLIGIBLE). We want a proper protocol for the deployment of these sky marshals.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think there is a recognition worldwide that we live in dangerous times.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We ought to remember too that even in the United States, our pilots are not entirely comfortable with the notion that there is somebody back in the cabin with a firearm.

VERJEE: On this edition of Q&A, making the airways safe.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

VERJEE: Welcome to Q&A. Initial reaction from the British Pilots Association was that they don't want to see weapons on aircrafts. The International Air Transport Association is also reluctant to see that, but they also say this may have to be the action taken to keep the skies safe. Is it -- what are the dangers associated with it?

With us from London, Kieran Daly, the editor of "Air Transport Intelligence." With us from Washington, James Carafano, a senior research fellow for defense and homeland security at the Heritage Foundation. And on the line from Bangkok, Anthony Concil, the spokesman for the International Air Transport Association, or AYATA.

We're opening up the phone lines as well. We really want to hear what you have to say about this. Would you feel safer with air marshals on planes with guns? Call us now, tell us what you think, 404-827-1010. Dial 1 before dialing that number.

Kieran Daily, if we can start with you. Is this a good idea?

KIERAN DALY, EDITOR, AIR TRANSPORT INTELLIGENCE: My concern is not so much whether having guns on aircrafts is dangerous. Although I think we should listen to the pilots in particular, who have -- who are absolutely at the sharp end of this and are worried about it. My real concern is what it says about the mindset of the people who are responsible for security.

I think this is really a distraction. The one thing we've learned over the last couple of decades trying to defend against hijackers, against bombers, are -- is that airline security is a difficult, tedious, grinding process that needs an enormous amounts of focus, and it needs money and time and resources to be spent wisely. And this just feels to me like a distraction. It's not at all clear under what circumstances it would actually be useful to have armed marshals on the aircraft. I just think that people should be worried much more about basic intelligence and how we find out who the bad guys are going to be, and identify them much sooner, before they are on the aircraft.

VERJEE: James Carafano, is it a distraction, as Kieran Daly is saying, or an added protective layer, as Homeland Security, as Tom Ridge is saying?

JAMES CARAFANO, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: Well, I mean, I think there is some value at it. I agree that -- that transport security, particularly airline security is an immensely complex system, and there is lots of opportunities for failures along the way. And so, what you need is a security system that does not rely on stopping the terrorists at any one point.

Of course, the best thing would be to get the guy before he gets near the airport, but you have to have intelligence beforehand, you have to have security at the airport, you have to have security in flight and security at arrival point. What this does is it gives you another tool to put in the kitbag, sort of to say that something between canceling a flight, which is what we did with a handful of flights from Paris lately.

VERJEE: OK.

CARAFANO: ... or, you know, doing nothing. So to me it's a nice capability to have, you know, in a plethora of capabilities that you need.

(AUDIO/VIDEO GAP)

ANTHONY CONCIL, AYATA: ... if you have air marshals who are armed, then you may have a gunfight onboard a plane. Surely, that can't be right.

VERJEE: James Carafano, that's the problem, a shootout up in a plane.

CARAFANO: Well, there is obviously a lot of problems associated with this. A plane distinguishing between a terrorist and an air marshal, making sure the air crew and the pilots know.

But, you know, the United States and several other countries have been doing this for years. They've gone through all these different scenarios. They have air marshals that are very well trained, that work these things, and so they've taken kind of these things into account. And I think that's the really important thing.

But the one thing you don't want to do is give a guy a gun, tell him to go on a plane and guard people. You have to have a program that's very well thought out, you have to have a very comprehensive training, you have to very well established cause, you have to have a very detailed coordination between the airlines (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

VERJEE: Anthony, are you convinced that this program is very well thought out are you worried that there could be a shootout on a plane, and endanger passengers?

CONCIL: Well, I think the key sense of (UNINTELLIGIBLE) industry is that we should stop (ph) hijackers before they board the aircraft or the airport for that matter, and that goes back to Kieran's (UNINTELLIGIBLE) about having (UNINTELLIGIBLE) before they become a danger to air transport. Obviously, the air transport industry is (UNINTELLIGIBLE) secure transport to people, but in the case of air marshals, they use it as very much something that the airlines (UNINTELLIGIBLE) with, but as a long term solution, I think we really need to put the emphasis on (UNINTELLIGIBLE) solve the problem.

VERJEE: Anthony Concil, what exactly is AYATA's position on this? Are you going to comply with U.S. government requests if they ask air marshals to be put on international flights?

CONCIL: OK. Well, first off, AYATA is not an airline, we are an association of airlines, so it would be up to individual members to comply with their own government's regulation, firstly. And then, if they are (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the United States, they also have to do -- determine whether or not they will comply with what the U.S. is requiring. Our association, the key (UNINTELLIGIBLE), but (UNINTELLIGIBLE) specific information, it seems to be a targeted response to what appears to be a heightened risk level. And the airlines, I believe, will comply with that in order to keep flying to the United States.

But the one thing that I think we need to (UNINTELLIGIBLE) is the cost of potentially getting (ph) involved in this. The security is not airline (UNINTELLIGIBLE), it's a government issue, it's (UNINTELLIGIBLE) issue, it's an issue of national security. And one of the things that we absolutely believe is that governments should take care of the costs associated with this, and that includes compensating the airlines for lost revenue, and to having (UNINTELLIGIBLE), and also the costs of the marshals deployment itself.

VERJEE: Jane in Germany is on the line with a question. Go ahead, Jane.

CALLER: Hello, I would like to say that I would feel much safer with air marshals on the plane. When I think that some of these hijackers, they were only armed with a nail file or some other sharp instrument, a trained guard could...

VERJEE: Looks like we lost Jane, but a point really is that she feels safer with armed guards on a plane. What do you think, Kieran Daly?

DALY: Well, the point is, it's going to be a very rare event that you do have an air marshal on a plane. In order to have air marshals on any significant number of flights, you would need an absolutely enormous staffing, and there is no suggestion of that happening. I think the number of flights in reality will have a guard on the aircraft will be way, way, way below 1 percent. I haven't done the math, but I guess maybe .001 percent is more reasonable.

So, there isn't really any level of comfort involved. I think, the one -- the one thing that can be said for this, is -- and maybe it's been achieved already -- is that by sowing some tiny degree of uncertainty in the minds of the terrorists, that just maybe there could be a sky marshal on board, and just maybe they'd been identified...

VERJEE: OK.

DALY: ... as the -- as perpetrator already, then you are already started to deter them from trying to make an attack.

VERJEE: James was also saying, James Carafano, that do the sky marshals really need guns, could they be armed with other weapons?

CARAFANO: Well, I think that's a really important point. I mean, I think sky marshals are going to be a part of airline security for years to come. There is a tremendous amount of work being done in the area of what's called non-lethal weapons, ways to restrain and incapacitate people without using guns. And I think there is an enormous (UNINTELLIGIBLE) some of those technologies and look at them, and I think eventually we can come up with some ways that can really reduce the risk of violence on an airplane if you need to arrest or restrain someone.

VERJEE: Anthony Concil, you brought this point up a little bit earlier, but let me ask you, who do you think should pay for this -- the airlines, the governments of countries where the airlines are from, or the U.S. government, if it requests that airlines put air marshals on planes?

CONCIL: The only thing I can say is that I don't think it should be the airlines. Whether it's the U.S. government, or the other countries complying with the U.S. requirements, it's all up to the governments to determine amongst themselves. But our key position is that airlines (UNINTELLIGIBLE) part of airline security issue, it's a national security issue, and governments need to take care of that.

VERJEE: Kieran Daly, who should pay?

DALY: Well, I think the airlines are going to pay, and in the end the customers are going to pay. And that's always the story, really, of the airline industry. I think we've over the years it's now really become accepted that air travel is almost, if you like, part of individual nations' national infrastructure and in a sense it's part of the global infrastructure. And one way or another, I think it's reasonable that the passengers end up paying for this, and you know, some days you're going to be flying from the cheap countries, some days you're going to be flying from an expensive country. But overall, if you want the system to work and we're going to go down this road, which it looks as if in the short term, we are, then I think the traveler will pay in the end, and should do.

VERJEE: James Carafano, at the end of the day, the passenger, we pay?

CARAFANO: Well, I think security is part of the cost of doing business, not just for airline safety but for lots of types of industries. I think it's just going to become a factor of cost in the future.

Now, what does concern me is that -- and we haven't said how we're going to apply this, so it's really hard to answer this question now, but if we start applying this to very small countries who have very limited resources, you know, basically what we're doing is we're putting an additional tax on free trade, and we're telling countries, get in the global marketplace, join the global economy, join the global networks, while we keep raising the bar in security and things that they have to do to do that, so that's got to be addressed as well.

VERJEE: Anthony Concil, I'm just wondering would a pilot be informed if an air marshal is on a plane, would they know who he or she was?

CONCIL: I don't think the system has been worked out yet. Certainly, we think that the pilot should know. The pilot is the person who is responsible for the aircraft, ultimately, so he should know who's on board, and if the sky marshal (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the sky marshal is on with a weapon, the pilot should know, and I think the pilots (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

VERJEE: If something were to happen on a plane with a sky marshal on it, who ultimately would have final control of the aircraft, you think the pilot or the air marshal, who gives the final orders?

CONCIL: I think the pilot is ultimately responsible for the aircraft, but you know, these are all issues that need to be thought out, and no one has really run (ph) any details, and I hope we explore this issue (UNINTELLIGIBLE), one of the things that will have to be discussed.

VERJEE: Kieran Daly, these are significant and important issues. Have they not been well thought out, clearly thought out enough, or is it still too early?

DALY: No, I mean, I think that's a very good point, because your guest in America there was saying that so long as there is a clearly thought out process and there is a clear plan here, then it's a reasonable thing to do. I think if, quite clearly, there is not a reason -- a sensible, well thought out, coherent plan yet, and what Anthony Concil there is absolutely emphasizing that point, that this is being done in the most tremendous rush. It means that for the first time the captain of the aircraft really will not be in control of the aircraft anymore. It's quite obviously the case. And if there is some sort of disturbance, or if there is a genuine attack in the cabin of the aircraft, then the sky marshal is going to have to act first and discuss it later. That's clearly part of the plan.

So who is now running the airplane? Now, you can't legislate for clearly in a dangerous situation, you can't legislate for every possibility, but that whole philosophy of how you're supposed to conduct essentially mid-air combat just hasn't been thought out, and I don't think there really is a way of doing it.

VERJEE: John from Germany is on the line, with a question. John, what is it?

CALLER: Yes, my question is, how far can we actually check -- see these air marshals that are going to be going up into the aircraft and carrying guns, are they going to be screened in such a way that we know 100 percent sure that one of these so-called air marshals isn't going to turn the plane against a building in the United States or something? I mean, we trained people in the States to be pilots that were from other countries, and they did just that. What can we do to counter these air marshals, these so-called air marshals on trying to prevent them from doing some type of terrible deed there?

VERJEE: OK, James Carafano, very quickly.

CARAFANO: Excellent question. And I just point out that since 9/11, we've (UNINTELLIGIBLE) have been over in the public record, about 400 incidents and 23 arrests. None of them made headlines because they were all done extremely professionally, so if you have a good program, no reason why it can't be successful.

VERJEE: James Carafano, a senior research fellow for defense and homeland security at the Heritage Foundation, Kieran Daly, the editor of "Air Transport Intelligence," also with us, and thanks to Anthony Council, the spokesman for International Air Transport Association, AYATA, in Bangkok. Thank you so much, all of you, for joining us on Q&A. We'll have more news in a moment.

END

TO ORDER VIDEOTAPES AND TRANSCRIPTS OF CNN INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMING, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE THE SECURE ONLINE ORDER FROM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com