Originally Posted by
Transpacificflyer
And what of the other for profit companies who have similar expenses? Have you ever heard of CN or CP Rail? They cover the costs of their own security. Why does Air Canada believe it is so special that it should be the only airline in the developed world that receives compensation for costs associated with its business operations?
.....
Please explain to me why the Eaton Center, site of multiple crimes over the years, and more fatalities than associated with attacks on AC flights, pays for its own security, but you believe AC should not. Yes, there are some administrative costs with the inflight security, so what. Shopping mall operators, rail companies, cruise lines and many others all have costs somewhat unique to their operations. At the end of the day its a cost of doing business.
......
If a security official requests a specific seat, it is because it is necessary for the security of the aircraft. I flew back from FRA a year ago with an individual who fit the profile of trouble. The security agent sat 2 seats behind and watched him the entire flight.
Both CP and CN have their own private police force that operates on the level of an RCMP detachment. This affords both rail lines the opportunity investigate and ultimately get perps prosecuted that would otherwise get swept under the rug. For example, RCMP and city police are unlikely to conduct sting operations looking for trespassers along the rail lines, its just not worth their time. The private police forces on the rail lines do routinely investigate and prosecute trespassing offences.
Using the Eaton Center example in relation to AC and air marshal program. This would be equivalent to the RCMP forcing Cadillac Fairview to kick out Rietmans from high profile center court location, pay out compensation to the tenant, and then allow the RCMP to set up shop rent free. While there are malls that have police detachments in them; the police force pays market rent and consequently gets the cheapest places available that are generally not commercially viable.
I agree with AC that if an individuals risk factors necessitates introduction of a federal air marshal onto the flight, then perhaps that individual should not be travelling by air. Either cancel the flight or deny boarding to the passenger.