[Torie]

I don't generally like union work stoppages, but I'm wholeheartedly behind this one.

I think they should be fired if they refuse to fly. Who elected them to make these policy decisions? They are 10 folks who would be eager to take the place of each of them, sans guns unless and until the public square deemed it prudent.

[Scott from the Left Coast]

If I had a life and death issue at my workplace, I think I'd want a say in its resolution as well. No one elected them, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't primarily involved in issues of their working conditions -- especially life and death issues.

[Alberta's Child]

Well, you can bet that if airline pilots' unions stage large-scale job actions or everyone calls in sick for a few days, there won't be too many airlines left anyway.

And if they try to fly these planes with replacement pilots, I'm sure there won't be too many people flying with them.

[vbmoneyspender]

When did you go off of the deep end! You're prepared to have passenger jets shot down by our fighters if terrorists gain control of the jets, but you don't think it is justified for the pilots to constitute a last line of defense in the cockpits before a jet is shot down.

What you just said doesn't make sense. And I have to say I am surprised cuz usually you make sense. The whole point of this is that we shouldn't act like victims. And to rely solely on Air Marshals for the defense of passenger jets is a recipe for victimhood.

[vbmoneyspender]

Just a question Torie, but do you own any guns?

[cfrels]

Let the customer decide...a choice between an armed flight crew and an unarmed crew. I'd bet the "armed planes" would be full.

[backlash]

Thats a damned cavalier attitude to take with someone elses life. What if it was you? Would you willingly fly unarmed if there was a chance it would be a one-way trip into a tall building? Would you allow other people to decide if you should be armed? No skin off your butt, right? Just fire the sorry SOBs.

[bootless]

My father was an airline captain. In my mind, this is a safety issue. As pilot in command, the wheels didn't roll until he was convinced all safety issues were resolved. They are not resolved until the pilots can be armed.

[Centurion2000]

I think they should be fired if they refuse to fly. Who elected them to make these policy decisions? They are 10 folks who would be eager to take the place of each of them, sans guns unless and until the public square deemed it prudent.

Are you some kind of retard ? THE PUBLIC has deemed it prudent to arm pilots .... the congress is the one standing in the way .....

[Centurion2000]

I think they should be fired if they refuse to fly. Who elected them to make these policy decisions? They are 10 folks who would be eager to take the place of each of them, sans guns unless and until the public square deemed it prudent.

Are you some kind of retard ? THE PUBLIC has deemed it prudent to arm pilots .... the congress is the one standing in the way .....

[El Gato]

until the public square

And what part of an airline cockpit is in the public square? Last I looked the airplanes were private property. The law, but not FAA policy, already allows for pilots to be armed. Seems the "Public Square" spoke on the issue sometime ago. It's just that unelected bureacrats didn't go along with their supposed masters. All they need to do is run the pilots through the shooting and safety part of the sky marshalls course, and let the Airlines buy them the proper ammunition.

Then of course there is the little issue of the pilots being part of the group called by the term of art "the people" in the Constitution. That group whose right to keep nad bear arms is not be infringed, per the terms of the second article of amendment to that documnet.

[Texas Mom]

I think they should be fired if they refuse to fly. Who elected them to make these policy decisions? They are 10 folks who would be eager to take the place of each of them, sans guns unless and until the public square deemed it prudent.

Sure, 10 trained ready to take their place. Eager even.. I don't think so.

It is their Constitutional right to defend themselves and their duty to defend the cockpit.

I find most people who are against pilots having guns are against anyone else have guns either.

[Brian Allen]

And what would those ten be in their "real" lives? Psychobabble teachers? Touchy feely fruit cakes? Child abandonment center "workers?' Buss boys?

[Mercuria]

I'm no big union cheerleader (not because I disagree with the concept of unions, but oh, the ABUSE), but show me where it's stated that airline pilots must surrender their Constitutional rights in order to perform their jobs.

What's more, a pilot has the authority to "ground" flights if he doesn't believe it would be safe to fly (overload, mechanical problem, et c.). He's the captain. That's his responsibility.

If pilots do not believe that it would be safe to fly without the benefit of being armed to protect their passengers and crew, how is it any different than any of the other situations I've mentioned?

[riley1992]

until the public square deemed it prudent.

Would this be the same public square that doesn't deem it 'prudent' to allow law abidding citizens to carry arms in their own states? That was a ridiculous statement.

[Elsie]

They areThere are 10 folks who would be eager to take the place of each of them,

Yup, and 8-9 of them are named Mohammed or Abdul or Ibrahim!

---

Actually, since there seems to be quite an oversupply of planes right now (or is it an undersupply of passengers?), why not put TWO flights in parallel to each city?

One with "Pilot's carry weapons" and the other with "Unarmed pilots" clearly indicated at the gate.
Then, let the MARKET decide which they wish to fly on.

[packrat01]

There are 67,000-member Air Line Pilots ..., and you're saying that there are 670,000 willing to take the pilots place? No thanks. I don't want YOU driving a plane where I'm a passenger. Get a clue.

BTW, how many of the 670,000 are terrorists? Who's side are you on?

[nevergore]

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

[steve-b]

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.

[longleaf]

No matter what you say, pilots will eventually have to be allowed this option because airlines will notice, once the bailout runs out, that there are a lot of people out here like me who will not fly again, unless it is an absolute emergency, until they are. Economics will overpower the anti-gunners on this one.

[harpseal]

think they should be fired if they refuse to fly. Who elected them to make these policy decisions? They are 10 folks who would be eager to take the place of each of them, sans guns unless and until the public square deemed it prudent

Maybe they will be and we will see how many of the public will wish to fly with brand new replacement pilots. As for me I am not flying until there are armed pilots and a whole bunch more armed honest Americans up on the plane than just a lone sky marshall.

Stay well - Stay safe - stay armed - Yorktown