Growing up in the South -- on the schoolyard we found the bullies back off when they find you will fight - one of the most useful lessons we learned in school.
It is simple, when the bad guys find everyone will fight them -- they are less likly to try harm.
Todd Beamer Society
No, a risky proposition is relying on a 120 lb. stewardess who thinks she's a ninja after a 1-day "seminar" on hijacker defense.
In the case of private authority, pick an example, take the red cross, in any emergency they 'take over" become self appointed cops, you can't "help" unless you are part of their already established clique support structure, no matter your expertise or intentions.
Same with the airline "security", they only trust their own employees, the stewardii servers have just barely a handle on "controlling" passengers, they are afraid of losing that control. At the airports they "trust' some weirdo looking 'security officer' named umgallah from a foreign country WAY before they are gonna trust anyone not in their employ.
Ya, in a pinch when it's obvious they can't handle a situation, they would be forced to accept help, but before that, I doubt they would "officially" welcome it, except in the vaguest terms.
I've had a few conversations with my girlfriend on this since 9-11, she's retired skygoddess, that's her/their general viewpoint. On a low level they will accept "help" once it was obvious they can't deal with it, but before then, they really only want some official cop assigned to the flights, and perhaps their captain to be armed. They have an ingrained "us versus them" mentality as regards passengers that is very similar to cops "us versus them" mentality to civvies in general. There is about zero trust. It's weird, but there ya go.
Until the situation is so bad it's undeniable, there won't be a lot of cooperation or acceptance beyond this putting big guys on the aisle seats.
Here's another example, pure tactics, the curtain between first class and serf class, tactically they should lose it, so you can see up and down the aisles, realistically they won't lose it. Tactically, the only place for a sky marshall to sit and be effective is the very last row in the back, which means they are easy to spot by the badguys. they don' talways sit there, but most of the time they do.
Realisitically it would be better for citizens with carry permits to be armed on the planes, but, that is WAY more of a threat to the existing entrenched government than ANY terrorist attack, that's why it's not even being considered. They DESPARATELY do not want the US citizenry armed as per the second, only armed at best in a controlled, non-practical way. I mean, any fool can see quite clearly that none of the skyjackings would have occurred if there had been a dozen or more armed US citizens on each of those planes. It takes one second thought to see that, YET, this prez, any other prez, any other government-that's the very bottom of the barrel last 'solution" they can even contemplate, because it's a THREAT to their continual scam fake out running of the country. They are concerned with the continuation of their command and control, it is acceptable to them to absorb losses rather than diminish theior command. They do not want to lose the ability to threaten the citizenry, to have the citizenry jump when they bark, or to show that there's any "solution" that exists outside of "government" doing it, because although our nations setup is that the legit people here are the government, these people who work for us really, really, really do not see it or want it that way. They think a perq of the job is that they are now "massah" and you are now automatically "boy".
EVERY decision, ruling, guideline, edict, whathaveyou out of government is primarily first designed to perpetuate that "continuation of command and control" aspect, no matter the subject. That's exactly why you saw the order/authorization for a miljet shootdown in the face of another skyjacking, instead of preventing a skyjacking in advance by making it imppsible in most scenarios for a badguy or guys to take over a plane.A miljet shootdown perpetuates governmental control, armed non governmental employees just at random on the plane does zero to perpetuate that control, even though it would be WAY more effective in keeping the plane from being taken over. shootdown=crashed plane, everyone perishes, armed citizenry = no successful hijacking, any governmental employee not needed in the least. It's clear as day there.
There will never be a change in this until constitutionally-bent politicos get "elected", and that includes the bulk of the current crop, who are most definetly NOT constitutionally bent. And if you go back and look, it has made zero difference in meatworld which of the two parties are in executive branch office or in "control" of the legislative branch, none, other than in some almost unimportant ways. They are both united against the people FIRST, their mission is perpetuation of power, period. Both sides every election cycle go way out of their way to promise this or that, the results have always been no significant change back to constitutional government. there hasn't been any, all anyoner has to do is honestly LOOK, go back pretty far, just look. How they can fake people out like this for generations is beyond me. I think people are just so used to being faked out that they consider it their duty or something.
It's gonna be in a small scale reflection exactly what happens with these airlines, more governmental control and "ownership" in a practical sense. Basically, it's an entire industry that's being nationalized as we speak, but most folks won't see that or say it out loud yet. Same with "energy" that is already half way nationalised, full nationalisation is coming. Same with "healthcare", as soon as they have enough doses to start the forced vaccinations, and they will use this saying to accomplish their goal of more command and control - "you agree with us totally, 100%, or you are with the terrorists. and this will get rah rah rahed on by most people. You can see it happening already. I can guarantee I'll get flamed over this here, too. No deviation from the command and control party line is acceptable, any even small question or disagreement-different perspective is greeted with "you're a traitor, and etc, etc, go back to your terrorist buddies, you (*&^%%&**(()". No deviation in thought is acceptable, play "follow the leader" right on down the line, every single minute step, OR you are an untermenschen worthy only of extermination, one or the other.
This guy in the article understands that, he knows that his method is actually more practical, and it's actuaally closer to 'the law' as originally designed and setup, a lot of people understand that, but, they are a small minority in the population,and they will get shouted down by the mass sieg heiling, guaranteed. I wouldn't bet a penny against it.
*1--yep, said "general", so really don't need 'any-someone's' exception to the rule personal example used as a flame "proof". thanks in advance.
HA! The brave Pilot's union is for it, and the girls and pansies of the Stew's union is against it. Kind of a microcosm of the gun debate.
If the FAA had done their job we'd not be having this discussion-
You know, this kind of stupidity is why I don't have a lot of friends who are flight attendants! "Act out" is a term generally applied to misbehaving grammar-school children, not adults in a life-or-death struggle on an aircraft. The use of this term gives me a pretty good idea what this lady thinks of passengers- children to be herded around and made to behave!
"It's a very risky proposition," Deeks said. "I realize passengers are going to act out, especially knowing what they know now. But we should concentrate on training the flight crews first." She added that flight attendants have received no terrorism training."
OK, let's listen to the advice from the soccer mom. This Stewardess has had no training and she's telling people that it's a "risky situation". Well, D'oh! It's a hijacking, woman. Think!
Act out? That's what you term a two-year old doing if he doesn't get attention. How about "fighting back"?
No doubt headed and penned by a N.O.W./sucker mom/million mooer who would prefer to fly to her death.