provided Dazo carriage to Toronto, delegated its screening responsibility to Globe. Thus, Dazo concedes, as she must, that Globe acted as TWA’s agent when she passed through the security checkpoint. The Warsaw Convention extends to an airline’s agents and employees, a premise not challenged by the majority. See, e.g., Reed v. Wiser, 555 F.2d 1079, 1089-92 (2d Cir.1977); Kabbani v. Int’l Total Servs., 805 F.Supp. 1033, 1039-40 (D.D.C.1992); In re Air Disaster at Lockerbie, Scotland on Dec. 21, 1988, 776 F.Supp. 710, 712-14 (E.D.N.Y.1991); Baker v. Lansdell Protective Agency, Inc., 590 F.Supp. 165, 170-71 (S.D.N.Y.1984). Hence, to the extent that Globe acts as agent of TWA, it must be afforded the protection of the Warsaw Convention. See, e.g., In re Air Disaster, 776 F.Supp. at 714 (<HOLDING>). The majority implies that if Globe provided
holding security interest in insurance premiums perfected by creation of security interest holding that although a financing statement may be used to assist in the interpretation of the security agreement the financing statement does not create a security interest and cannot extend a security interest beyond what has been unambiguously described in a security agreement holding a variable annuity issued by an insurance company to be a covered security holding that the trustee could not avoid a security interest under section 549 when that security interest was authorized by the bankruptcy court holding airport security company protected by the convention