I'd be happier if these guys had crossbows. Equally lethal, but not so likely bring down the aeroplane. I don't trust the sound of these frangipani bullets that can't do any damage except to the baddies.

Up until September 11th the sensible thing to do in any hi-jacking was to do absolutely nothing. It wasn't cowardice or apathy, it was commonsense. So, you get hi-jacked to some place you hadn't meant to go to, but that's just a few hours delay. If some hero is trying to shoot the hijackers you could end up dead from a stray bullet or a de-pressurised plane. Heroes were more of a danger than hi-jackers.

September 11th changed all that. I would think that the likelihood of getting away with a hijacking in mid-air, just by slitting a few throats or threatening to slit them, is probably absolutely zero.

The danger that still very much exists is that someone might smuggle some kind of explosive on to a plane, and blow everything up. Like Bobert I can think of a few ways of doing that which I haven't seen mentioned anywhere; and I'm not going to mention them here. But I can't see how "marshalls" with guns significantly reduces the danger of that happening. Only much better security checks before loading people and baggage can hope to do that.

I think the pilots who've said they don't like the idea of "marshalls" are worried that this is just a PR exercise, and that it will be accompanied by a slackening-off of the security checks which matter, but which cause delays that cost money, and are a bit of a nuisance.

And why "marshalls" - why not "guards"? Wyatt Earp belongs on the ground.