From: Jim Dixon [mailto:jdd@vbc.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 2:01 AM> >> Or they could just fly plainclothes armed marshals on
US flights.
> >>
> >> Apparently they tried this years ago, but stopped because it was
> >> "uneconomical". I guess the airlines have figured out how to
> >> put a dollar
> >> amount on human lives.
>
> excuse me, but I don't think that the airlines were paying
for those
> marshals. Please look towards uncle sugar, for that gaff.The US government paid for the marshals' airplane tickets?
To my understanding, the airline didn't charge the marshals and the marshals
didn't charge the airline, quid pro quo. I remember some senator raising a
big stink about airlines getting preferential treatment, at the time. An
aircraft is considered private property. They only did it on domestic
flights, as I recall, due to international jurisdictional issues. There was
also the issue of firearms and aircraft pressure hulls. There was a big push
to find a round that was effective, yet wouldn't create problems there. That
was about the time that the Tazer was invented (a real problem with multiple
assailants, per man).
I recall this from another life and the memory is not clear (as well as
being more than 20 years old).