Skip to comments.
Pilots threaten to stop service if kept unarmed
Union Leader ^
| 10/05/01
| KATHRYN MARCHOCKI
Posted on 10/04/2001 9:38:13 PM PDT by kattracks
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 241-245 next last
To: Torie
"I don't doubt the pilots ability to handle firearms tempermentally provided they are trained for it. But I don't think anyway here has really made the case that they are needed provided the cockpits are secure. And THAT is my point. If someone really wants to make the point that the cockpits can never really be made secure, and that guns in the cockpit is statistically reasonably likely as a matter of prediction to thwart foul play that would otherwise obtain after securing the cockpits, have at it. I will respectfully listen." This turkey is acting as if it ain't gonna happen unless he's convinced it's a good idea!
Don't let him get you worked up, folks. In this "debate", his opinion ain't worth a flyspeck in a pepper factory. The pilots are gonna get what they want -- and if by some grand stroke of stupidity they don't, then the passengers will go on strike.
In fact, it would appear that the passengers have already gone on strike.
121
posted on
10/05/2001 3:23:58 AM PDT
by
Don Joe
To: kattracks
"Were hearing members of Congress say they dont want a bunch of armed hooligans running around, said Giuda, a New Hampshire state representative."
What a supercilious little b$%^&*d. Send him an e-mail at robert.giuda@leg.state.nh.us. I'm so angry right now that I need to think about what to write.
Carolyn
122
posted on
10/05/2001 3:33:08 AM PDT
by
CDHart
To: kattracks
Sorry! I thought Giuda was saying that, but he's on our side!
Carolyn
123
posted on
10/05/2001 3:36:30 AM PDT
by
CDHart
To: El Gato
and let the Airlines buy them the proper ammunition. I want a job where my employer pays my ammo bill.
To: vbmoneyspender
If is the middle word in life. It comes between 'birth' and 'death'.'death' if 'birth'; every time.
''cept maybe twice in the Old Testament.
To: kattracks
As before, this question has to be asked: Why are some people in Congress against armed crewmembers? These are the same people in Congress who want to disarm all U.S. citizens and let their god, the government, protect them.
126
posted on
10/05/2001 3:43:38 AM PDT
by
waxhaw
To: waxhaw
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater...confidence than an armed man. - Thomas Jefferson![](http://www.ipl.org/ref/POTUS/images/tjefferson.gif)
:
127
posted on
10/05/2001 3:56:40 AM PDT
by
ppaul
To: boltfromblue
Are you Ron Paul? What a pleasure to see you here if true. I live in Texas, proud of you and proud of my State. Eagles Up!
To: waxhaw
As before, this question has to be asked: Why are some people in Congress against armed crewmembers? These are the same people in Congress who want to disarm all U.S. citizens and let their god, the government, protect them. The politicians and bureaucrats aren't supposed to do anything that costs the airlines money. That's why the airline special interest group lobbies government. It pays the government to look the other way. Government made it illegal for any airline to advertise its safety record. Why? Because the FAA doesn't evenly enforce regulations they set. If enforcing a regulation will cost the airline too much money and it's not considered an immediate or imminent danger (how they determine that I don't know, but it has failed just the same) then the regulation and or fine is not enforced.
It is incredibly moronic. If an airline harms or kills it's customers it should go out of business. Airlines should not be sending money to political parties to "legitimize" harming their own customers. The airlines wouldn't be able to buy political and FAA bureaucratic favors if politicians didn't put their political/government power up for sale in the first place. Snake-oil salesmen. Prostitutes that in the end, the citizens pay for, sometimes with their lives.
129
posted on
10/05/2001 4:32:10 AM PDT
by
Zon
To: kattracks
If it comes to pass that there are pickets associated with a national suspension of air service, at such times and in such manner as is deemed appropriate by the leadership of the Air Line Pilots Association, I will be there on the picket line with the pilots. In fact, I herewith announce the creation of
APAP
Airline Passengers for Armed Pilots
Consider yourself a charter member if you are in favor of the concept and have written at least one email, letter, or fax to a congresscritter on this subject.
Anecdotally, both of the Delta pilots of my acquaitance are ex-military, one of them is my state senator. One flew F/A-18's in the Marines, the other C-130's in the Air Force. Both are class acts, the kind of people I would be more than happy to have walking around with sidearms, on an aircraft on which I was a passenger.
To: Torie
Bwahahahaha.... Fire them.... Who is going to replace them???
They are being asked to take unecesarry risks that could easily be prevented but is being (IMHO) "illegally" blocked by the Federal government. FAA regulations already allow for pilots to carry weapons but the regulation is written in such a way that no pilot could carry without first meeting a FAA approved course which the FAA has intentionally never defined.
They are not setting policy, there simply stating that they won't come back to work and place themselves and their passengers at further risk because of stupid politicians......
Do you have the nerve to put your livelyhood on the line for principal. Would you walk in today to your employer and tell them you needed to carry a weapon to protect yourself and your customers from harm???
This is very courageous on the pilots part and is not a self absorbed "union" move to increase pay or benefits.....
NeverGore
To: kattracks
Pilots threaten to stop service if kept unarmed Damn right! And I won't feel secure on board a plane until the pilots are armed.
To: kattracks
In the land of the GUN FREE ZONES, the box cutter man is king!
To: Torie
They are 10 folks who would be eager to take the place of each of them Yes, and four of them did just that on 9/11. That's why they should be armed.
134
posted on
10/05/2001 5:21:28 AM PDT
by
steve-b
Comment #135 Removed by Moderator
To: gonzo
Hey Gonz, ain't it ironic that just a few weeks ago a couple of Arab a'holes proved that an airliner is the biggest cruise missile of all, and yet the people who regularly pilot these airliners - who are the very epitome of doing things "by the book" - are now not being trusted to carry a stinkin' pea shooter onboard their own aircraft?
You can always trust the good Ol' USA to do the stoopid thing, can't ya?
To: Torie
I just think cooler heads should determine whether the gun thing is efficacious and necessary. That determination should be made by the people who have a clue about the situation -- the pilots.
137
posted on
10/05/2001 5:26:39 AM PDT
by
steve-b
To: Torie
In any event, apparently you think the pilots should have a right to arms on the job even when their employer says no. The proper function of government is protection of citizens against war and crime. An employer that wants to run potential flying bombs around the country without taking prudent steps to keep them secure is a legitimate subject of government concern, up to and including laws prohibiting such recklessness. QED.
138
posted on
10/05/2001 5:31:56 AM PDT
by
steve-b
To: dcwusmc
Somebody who live where Torie does has NO IDEA what REAL life is about. The People's Republic of Taxachusettes?
139
posted on
10/05/2001 5:32:41 AM PDT
by
steve-b
To: vbmoneyspender
Yep. This issue highlights the dividing line between people who think that firearms are talismans of evil and people who think that they are tools with rationally measurable advantages and disadvantages.
For people who take the former view, it only stands to unreason that pilots should not be exposed to an object that will slowly corrupt its bearer, like the One Ring.
140
posted on
10/05/2001 5:36:09 AM PDT
by
steve-b
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 241-245 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson