Air Marshals Will Refuse Orders to Go to the Border, Prefer First Class Cabins

https://viewfromthewing.com/air-marshals-will-refuse-orders-to-go-to-the-border-prefer-protecting-first-class-cabins/

by pessimizer • 4 years ago

139 160 4 years ago

Seems like a completely failed program to me. Any organization should be able to quantitatively prove their value on some level. As the article points out, for the DHS to say they do “not have information on [the air marshal program’s] effectiveness” while also averaging a cost of $200 million per arrest is an insane statistic that should immediately require changes in the program.

Rebelgecko2• 4 years ago

I haven't checked recently to see if this stat is still true, but at one point the number of people arrested by air marshals was actually lower than the number of air marshals who have been arrested.

oneoff7862• 4 years ago

Like ever? Or while acting as an Air Marshal?

skorpeon878• 4 years ago

The overwhelming majority of the time, "arrests" on airplanes are made by regular passengers and the flight attendants, who beat up the offender then hogtie him with duct tape. Air marshals are completely pointless.

Sakos• 4 years ago

Do other countries have anything like this program?

Animats• 4 years ago

Israel.[1] They had one big success in 1970.

[1] https://www.securitysolutionsmedia.com/2018/04/20/air-marsha...

yamtaddle2• 4 years ago

I'm sure this has something to do with that entire re-organization feeling more like an excuse to create some contracts for companies connected to administration insiders than it did anything actually useful that couldn't have been accomplished without the creation of a huge new department (and several smaller ones).

m463• 4 years ago

averaging a cost of $200 million per arrest

You could play that game with anything. How much does our military cost?

Or maybe, what was the total cost of one 9/11 airplane running into a target?

And there is the hidden properties of deterrence

Karellen• 4 years ago

averaging a cost of $200 million per arrest is an insane statistic

That depends on the deterrence of having air marshals.

The argument sounds like one that gets brought up here regularly, when executives lay off 90% of the sysadmins because "nothing ever goes wrong, so why are we paying for them?", and teams that are constantly running round looking like heroes for fixing broken stuff all the time get more kudos than the teams that keep things quietly humming along without any issues.

kelnos6• 4 years ago

This was my thought as well, but I still think we need evidence of this. If air marshals are primarily there to deal with terrorist threats (and not things like unruly/drunk/whatever passengers), then my feeling is that two things post-9/11 are responsible for the low risk of terrorist acts involving planes (or even just run-of-the-mill ransom-type hijackings):

1. Would-be hijackers can no longer get into cockpits. Pilots would much rather a hijacker kill every passenger and crew member on the plane than gain control of the plane.

2. Passengers don't take shit anymore. They know that, if terrorists successfully take control of a plane, the most likely outcome is that they're all dead. So they'll attack -- and hopefully subdue -- the hijackers.

I expect the effects of #2 have lessened somewhat, given that 9/11 was over 20 years ago, and the memory of it is less raw (not to mention many adults who fly now were young children or not even born in 2001).

If air marshals really do act as a deterrence, there must be some evidence to back that up.

rdtsc• 4 years ago

Any organization should be able to quantitatively prove their value on some level.

There is danger there with corrupt and immoral organizations. They might just start generating false incidents and then run to save the day to pad their stats "look how effective we are!".

Luckily, that only happens with deeply corrupt organizations. Like for instance FBI [1], when they were sending their informants to mosques in US looking to recruit terrorists. Up until the the members of the mosque ended up reporting the FBI agents to the FBI.

--- Niazi and another mosque member had reported Monteilh to the FBI, claiming that Monteilh was espousing terrorist rhetoric and trying to draw them into a plot to blow up shopping malls ---

[1] https://www.ocweekly.com/news-the-fbi-the-islamic-center-of-...

heavenlyblue• 4 years ago

Like for instance FBI [1], when they were sending their informants to mosques in US looking to recruit terrorists. Up until the the members of the mosque ended up reporting the FBI agents to the FBI.

I am not saying what FBI does is good, but this reminds me now that the only way to deal with constant threat of phishing is actually to create false fishing attacks all the time, so that people would be aware of the thread. Could be generally a good approach if the methods employed were more public rather than clandestine.

mensetmanusman• 4 years ago

If air marshals could get rid of security checks, it would be worth the cost

roflyear3• 4 years ago

Imagine being the politician or person who cancels the program, only to have a plane hijacked or whatever.

Spending a few billion of taxpayer money is fine if the cost is your political career or a hit to your political party.

LatteLazy2• 4 years ago

“The rank and file air marshals are going to refuse to deploy and risk termination,” David Londo, a 16-year DHS employee and president of the Air Marshal National Council, told the Washington Examiner on Tuesday. “You’re almost going to have a mutiny of a federal agency, which is unheard of.”

I think the US would be better having a clearer line between civilian and military branches. It feels really weird to me that they are (self) describing this as a mutiny and talking about refusing to "deploy". But they are just employees right? Not soldiers?

staunch10• 4 years ago

Yeah, too many people seem to accept the idea that law enforcement officers are not civilians. In my view, which seems to be the correct legal definition, anyone that is not a member of the military is a civilian.

skorpeon878• 4 years ago

What's the real difference between the government stationing armed soldiers in your town to maintain the peace, and stationing armed police in your town to maintain the peace? The former became unfashionable so it was replaced with the later. Such soldiers were renamed for "PR" but the situation is functionally equivalent. Officially there are some differences, like police being accountable to civilian courts instead of military courts... but I think it is now generally acknowledged that civilian courts have a double standard for police. So this distinction is more theoretical than practical.

In my view, it's fair to consider anybody who carries a gun for the state as a soldier, in an informal sense.

nerdponx2• 4 years ago

Not to mention the abject hypocrisy of the federal government just last week crushing a strike by rail workers who wanted 7 days of sick leave (those Socialists!).

zoklet-enjoyer• 4 years ago

Fire them all

nerdponx2• 4 years ago

No, that's just for air traffic controllers and non-cops.

staunch10• 4 years ago

Seems like we could very safely abolish the air marshal program. It may have been useful pre-9/11 but Flight 93 seems to prove that it's not necessary anymore.

Anyone attempting to hijack a flight full of Americans is going to be attacked every single time, and terrorists surely know this, and that's the real deterrent. Hijackers might think they can overpower a single armed officer but they know they can't overpower dozens of passengers that feel forced to fight or die.

It might even be a good idea for pre-flight training videos to explicitly tell passengers to immediately attack anyone attempting to hijack the plane. Though this is probably unnecessary, it could act as a strong additional deterrent and help coordinate people in the event.

jopsen• 4 years ago

It might even be a good idea for pre-flight training videos to explicitly tell passengers to immediately attack anyone attempting to hijack the plane.

You'll have a lot of passengers attacking each other for no reason. This is a remarkably bad idea.

Fact is: plane hijackings isn't really a problem anywhere. Low-tech solutions like locking the cockpit goes very far.

Stopping those really determined is probably hard/impossible, the best tools is probably old school humint.

But it's probably best to accept that attacks are not impossible. Spend the money on something else.

staunch10• 4 years ago

You'll have a lot of passengers attacking each other for no reason. This is a remarkably bad idea.

Why are people going to attack each other for no reason? Hijackers typically do very obvious things, like try to break into the cockpit and make announcements/threats to the passengers.

The training video could tell passengers to attack anyone trying to break into the cockpit or to wait to attack until the pilot instructs them to, etc. It would take a bit of thought for sure.

Fact is: plane hijackings isn't really a problem anywhere. Low-tech solutions like locking the cockpit goes very far.

They're not a problem since 9/11 when passengers attacked the hijackers and then cockpit doors were reinforced. I believe the deterrent is the combination of these two changes.

sixstringtheory• 4 years ago

Flight 93 seems to prove that it's not necessary anymore

That flight crashed killing everyone on board.

andirk2• 4 years ago

Locking the flight deck door, like the terrorists did, has probably been the biggest security upgrade since that day.

toast0• 4 years ago

The lesson about consequences of letting your plane be hijacked was learned and applied in less than two hours.

Nobody on that flight made it to their intended destination, including the hijackers. Now that it is known that passengers will attack would be hijackers and that cockpit doors will be locked, making it hard to get control of the plane, the risk/reward for hijacking looks poor. That shooting down hijacked flights was authorized may also be a deterent, altough realistic response time is long, so maybe not a big factor. Terrorists are better off doing something else.

skorpeon878• 4 years ago

Air Marshals and the TSA are both pointless jobs programs and security theater. The problem of hijackers was solved in the morning of 2001/9/11 when the passengers of United Airlines Flight 93 fought back against the hijackers. Since then, there have been numerous cases of passengers beating the shit out of any jackass trying to start trouble on a flight.

Locked cabin doors are also good. Metal detectors at airports would be fine, if they were staffed by private security contractors rather than the unaccountable TSA. Also their xray backscatter machines are pointless, their paranoia about shoes is pointless, and their insane paranoia about water-bottles is pointless. Other countries don't have these things, and things are fine for them. By all means have people walk through a metal detector to stop carryon handguns, but the rest of this crap is completely pointless.

lostmsu2• 4 years ago

Other countries don't have these things, and things are fine for them.

Hm, is this true in EU?

dottedmag• 4 years ago

Water bottles paranoia we do, I suspect because it so profitable for the shops past security control.

But nothing like air marshals or TSA as they are described.

babypuncher• 4 years ago

It's been about a decade, but when I spent some time flying around Europe I remember their airport security being considerably less onerous.

cogman10• 4 years ago

In my experience, when a flight is international then the checks end up being pretty similar to what you see with the TSA in an American airport. When they are regional then there's nothing happening.

(granted, that was dealing with a UK->US and US->UK flights)

skorpeon878• 4 years ago

As far as I'm aware, America is the only country that makes you take your shoes off. Certainly it's not the norm.

xrayarx• 4 years ago

AFAIK, depending on the destination, the airline and other parameters, there will be air marshals. Contrary to the US, these are „normal“ special police, and they won’t do this on a regularly basis.

ZanyProgrammer• 4 years ago

Why would private security be more accountable (you say it as if it’s self evident)? ELI5 and despise libertarianism.

skorpeon878• 4 years ago

A private contractor would not have sovereign immunity, so you can sue them without the government's assent. They would not receive special legal protections, like the signs the TSA put up threatening you with steep fines if you "verbally abuse" the TSA workers (even police in America don't receive such protection against verbal abuse, but apparently TSA workers do.) If they consistently understaff their security checkpoint, as the TSA routinely does during periods of anticipated heavy travel, the airport could fire them and hire another contractor who can do the job properly.

Airport security in America used to be done by private contractors. The TSA didn't exist before 2001. And before 2001, airport security checkpoints generally ran much smoother and faster than the TSA.

(I am not a libertarian, so spare me the jabs.)

Cyberdog• 4 years ago

That’s the way I see it. Give the people the means and expectation to protect themselves in a dangerous situation and the rest of the problem solves itself.

hristov3• 4 years ago

United Airlines Flight 93 crashed and everyone on board died. That does not seem like a problem solved type of situation to me.

The TSA is far more accountable than private security contractors. In fact I really like the TSA, those security checks became far more civil and professional and pleasant after the TSA came in.

As far as private security contractors -- this is what usually happens when they hire them for airport security. Because airport security is sinecure ... there is no competition or option, it is treated as a way to extract the most money by a well connected businessman. A well connected businessman will get the contract, and then attempt to extract as much value from it by spending the minimum amount possible on salaries. So all the "private security contractors" will be minimum wage jobs.

But the airport is a terrible place to work for a minimum wage worker. Travel to and from the airport is usually difficult and expensive, and parking is very expensive. In fact parking is usually more expensive per hour than the minimum wage. So most minimum wage workers avoid airport jobs.

So who takes these jobs? Minimum wage workers that cannot find any other minimum wage jobs. These end up being mostly ex-cons. So you get the situation that ex-cons provide security for one of the most vulnerable parts of our transportation infrastructure. This was the case pre 9/11 and it is one of the reasons why none of the hijackers had any trouble smuggling knives on their flights.

tastyfreeze• 4 years ago

The hijackers were going to crash the plane and kill everyone on board and anybody at the target crash site. The calculus for using a plane as a missile has changed. Passengers simply won't allow it to happen and there is a locked cockpit door. A similar event isn't impossible but nothing TSA or air marshals do is preventing a hijacking.

iso16315• 4 years ago

Yet the 9/11 problem was solved by locking the cockpit door.

searedsteak• 4 years ago

Locked cabin doors are also good.

These have 150 confirmed kills [1], and another 239 suspected kills [2]. They also weigh a lot, so a lot of excessive fuel is burnt because of them every day. They also sometimes break, causing delayed and cancelled flights.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370

iso16315• 4 years ago

The problem on 9/11 wasn't the crashing of the plane, people accept risk in transport -- the deadliest means of transport in the US in 2001 was an automobile -- 10 times deadlier than being a passenger on a plane. The problem was the using the plane as a weapon.

car - 4600 billion pax miles, 42,000 deaths, 1 per 100 million miles

plane - 500 billion pax miles, 246 deaths of airline travellers on 9/11, 265 from Queens, about 1 per 1 billion miles

elzbardico• 4 years ago

I firmly believe that there was not another 9/11-style attack because 9/11 didn't do shit of what the bad guys wanted. Simply, it is not cost-effective. I find it very hard to believe that the security theater of the TSA would have any chance of denying well-financed and trained attackers. Yeah, it probably works against the stupid kind of kidnappers from the '70s ("I want 1 million dollars in non-marked notes, refuel and want to go to Havana, and while we're at it, I want my girlfriend who is in jail because of drug charges, to be released and brought to this plane"), but at what cost?

mring33621• 4 years ago

Are they hiring?

hn_throwaway_992• 4 years ago

“You’re almost going to have a mutiny of a federal agency, which is unheard of.”

It's not really "unheard of". Air traffic controllers, employed by the FAA, famously went on strike in the early 80s and were subsequently all fired by the Reagan administration.

In this case, honestly I'd be like "fine, go ahead and try insubordination, and then get fired." As this article makes exceedingly clear, it will be much easier to continue air travel without air marshals than without air traffic controllers, and the US govt still managed that situation pretty decently.

csw-0012• 4 years ago

I thinks that’s the key though - the argument is that the program should be shutdown, not that they should all be put on border patrol duty… assigning them to a random alternative post is going to make recruiting good new folks really hard.

hn_throwaway_992• 4 years ago

I mean, it's a win-win for all then? I could certainly understand that, if I were hired to be an air marshal, and then re-assigned to border patrol duties, I'd be like "Peace out, this isn't what I signed up for."

But I'm assuming at least some percentage would be OK with it, and the ones who aren't would have to find new jobs. Very similar to when companies downsize one department, but try to find jobs for existing employees by giving them jobs in other departments. Some will take it, some will reject it, but it's a pretty fair outcome for all.

UncleEntity• 4 years ago

My reading is a mutiny of armed federal employees is the unheard of part.

Be like all the FBI agents refusing to suppress minority groups or something.

factsarelolz2• 4 years ago

Be like all the FBI agents refusing to prosecute minority groups or something.

FTFY.

The FBI is a political organization and chooses who they will persecute based on the political leanings of FBI leadership.

pkaye• 4 years ago

So it will go from 92% unprotected to 99% unprotected? Seems not a big difference since they don't accomplish much.

dawnerd2• 4 years ago

I've been on two flights now that have had to divert due to a passenger causing issues and in both cases there was no marshal onboard, just the flight attendants and some good passengers.

To me it seems the air marshals we have now are just in it for the free vacations. If airlines want their own security they should be able to employ their own in flight guards.

And doesn't needing air marshals prove that TSA is a joke?

x3n0ph3n3• 4 years ago

And doesn't needing air marshals prove that TSA is a joke?

The TSA _is_ a joke, but this is not evidence of that. It's typically to have multiple layers of security in case any of them fail.

0cf8612b2e1e2• 4 years ago

That is some truly trash luck.

I have wondered what kind of punishment is likely for someone who ends up diverting a flight.

throwaway59595• 4 years ago

From what I understand they can never fly on that airline again and given how few airlines there are now (and probably fewer in the future) that probably sucks. And I’m totally OK with that.

throwaway09223• 4 years ago

If a flight diverts, there are good odds that the offender will be criminally prosecuted under 49 U.S. Code § 46504.

Big penalties. Looks like getting a few years in prison isn't uncommon for fairly moderate physical interactions (spitting, pushing).

dawnerd2• 4 years ago

The one caused us to divert to a some airforce base, I'm guessing that guy had a great night...

Both cases were just drunks not knowing how to act in public, and oddly both were on flights to Orlando.

yamtaddle2• 4 years ago

Air Marshals may be (are) useless at best, but I'm sympathetic to resisting an employer's attempt to radically alter one's job. Sign up for one thing, get told to do something very different that upends your life and may not be anything you're interested in or feel comfortable (for a variety of possible reasons) doing, yeah, that's bullshit.

throwaway59595• 4 years ago

Tell that to the hundreds of thousands that have been laid off this year.

factsarelolz2• 4 years ago

Could you cite a source? I thought unemployment was at an all time low. Where are these hundreds of thousands of laid off workers?

csw-0012• 4 years ago

This article very clearly articulates at length that there is a problem hiring (and one can assume, retaining) good Air Marshals. Seems to me that randomly reassigning them to border duty is highly unlikely to fix that problem. The premises here don’t reach the stated conclusion.

throwaway59595• 4 years ago

We should just ban alcohol on flights. It’s a few hours, people can suck it up. So many of these flights where people get unruly involve alcohol.

cheeze• 4 years ago

I'm a heavy drinker and I agree with this

Arrath2• 4 years ago

It’s a few hours, people can suck it up.

While I completely agree, this would just shift the problem to the terminal, where people would gulp down as much as they can at airport bars, and become unruly when denied boarding at the gate due to inebriation.

mjevans• 4 years ago

They would also sneak it on in flasks... So presumably they'd be compelled by police for a breathalyzer or comparable blood test at the destination terminal if they consume all of the drink.

delecti• 4 years ago

Even if it ended up being true, and it caused more trouble at terminals, that's still better. Airports already have security, and security in an airport is already able to easily move around the airport. It would take fewer security officers per-flight to secure unruly travelers at the gate than in the air.

maximilianburke• 4 years ago

Would it not be possible to limit the number of drinks people could have in the terminal?

I guess that might make people drink before they go to the airport, but public intoxication is already an offense, which could be identified at security screening.

pitaj• 4 years ago

People will just get drunk in the airport ahead of time instead, which is arguably worse, because boarding is the worst time to be inebriated.

throwaway59595• 4 years ago

OK, fine, ban drinking/alcohol at airports. Or if you’re intoxicated on a flight you get banned from flying with that airline again. There are so many options here.

lamontcg• 4 years ago

because boarding is the worst time to be inebriated.

The drunk people who wind up causing the plane to be diverted in the air seem 100x worse than someone needing to be escorted away from the plane at the gate.

roflyear3• 4 years ago

Drinking on a plane is the only good part of flying, though!

simonebrunozzi• 4 years ago

No air marshal has ever stopped a terrorist or hijacker since the service was founded in 1962.

At this point, I'd say they are completely useless.

JoeAltmaier• 4 years ago

Isn't the existance of Air Marshalls providing a 'chilling effect' on potential troublemakers? How would we show the dimensions of that effect?

Until that's done, it's disingenuous to claim that Air Marshalls have prevented only thus-and-such incidents. That's not counting what didn't happen just because they are there (or might be there).

E.g. a reasonable argument is to diminish the Air Marshall service because they are individually problematic, while keeping the rumor that they may be on any flight. That doesn't fly in the face of statistics but uses it to reinforce an argument.

whatshisface• 4 years ago

You can't just go around running expensive government programs on the basis of there being no proof that they don't help, that would lead to an infinite number of programs and a huge disincentive to run those studies.

surfpel• 4 years ago

It’s flying bus that a) can be rather easily converted to a missile, and b) is sealed until it touches down so any craziness is locked in for hours possibly.

I’m more comfortable as a flyer and as someone who’d like to do business in the US if I know that there are air marshals. Surely this pays for itself this way, especially given the ever increasing accessibility of air travel. I say this an American who knows how crazy our population can be.

woodruffw2• 4 years ago

The impression I get is that in-flight crimes (or general disturbances) have increased roughly proportionately (and sometimes beyond pace) with the flying population. If the object of the Air Marshals is to provide a "chilling effect," that effect has not been demonstrated.

ericmcer• 4 years ago

Is a single air Marshall more effective than an entire plane of passengers?

Post 9/11 a plane full of people is not going to let a guy with a knife take control of the plane. It is pretty unlikely that one Marshall is going to notice a suspicious person versus the 12 people sitting within 6 feet of them.

miguelazo3• 4 years ago

Wow, even worse than I thought. Just fire them all already.

fedeb953• 4 years ago

Just pointing out that the "no marshal have ever stopped a terrorist" is a bad argument. It may be a deterrent. We don't know

kelnos6• 4 years ago

We shouldn't be spending billions of dollars on a 60-year experiment for possible benefits that we can't quantify.

Certainly there are ways to measure if the air marshal program works as a deterrent. Even if there isn't, I'd argue we still need to axe the program, given the cost, abuse, risks, and lack of clear benefits.

fedeb953• 4 years ago

Yes, reasonable measures must be adopted, and if none justifies the program, it makes sense not to continue it. I'm talking about the argument alone, it doesn't add anything

trgn• 4 years ago

Reminds me of the elephant powder joke https://www.reddit.com/r/dadjokes/comments/4pqgjk/how_to_kee...

fedeb953• 4 years ago

"May" is the keyword there. Also there may not be elephants in a city, while there may be terrorists on planes (I think some incident happened in the past, but I'm unsure). The conclusion is that it's unknown, and calls for a proper evaluation of the matter. The argument by itself is useless. Why are you using a seat belt to prevent mortal incidents, when there aren't mortal incidents with seat belts?

miguelazo3• 4 years ago

Is this where our "September 11th Security Fee" goes? UGH

rendall• 4 years ago

This is not a very good article. What does "go to the border" even mean? If it means "act as border control" they are right to refuse, as it's not their job.

It plays with numbers in a sketchy way, as well. "5,000 incidents" out of how many flights? 148 arrested out of how many employed? "Between 2002 and 2012" but what about since then? "$200 million per arrest" but "deterrent effect is unknown".

That's really it for data. The rest are anecdotes. The "not trained" link was to a NY Post interview with a former air marshal expressing an opinion.

Maybe there is a serious problem with the program, but this article does not do much more than try to get its readers upset.

B1FF_PSUVM• 4 years ago

Just a hit piece, not even a very good one - simply a pile-up of unfavorable anecdotes.

A waste of time. Could not even figure out what "going to the border" was.

Air Marshals Will Refuse Orders to Go to the Border, Prefer First Class Cabins

Related Stories