Pilots threaten to stop service if kept unarmed

Union Leader ^ | 10/05/01 | KATHRYN MARCHOCKI

[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 .....

[vbmoneyspender]

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.

Another quick question Torie, if we put the Bill of Rights to a vote before the public square, how many of our rights do you think would survive?

P.S. Didn't mean to hit you too hard, but I feel very strongly that the best defense to terrorism is to not act like victims, but instead to arm yourself and fight back whenever the opportunity presents itself.

[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 .....

[Taxman]

Maybe the passengers should refuse to fly until they can carry also?

If an armed society is a polite society, an armed society on an airplane will probably be just as polite.

I do not recall any phrase in the Second Amendment which says government gets to choose which "special" group of citizens "is allowed" to carry -- we all are allowed to carry!

For the want of four pistols, nearly 7,000 people lost their lives! How tragic. How utterly stupid!

Government at its best!

[backlash]

You sound as if your reliance on big brother has precluded your ability to assess a situation for yourself. How high should the bodies be piled before the efficacy of armed pilots becomes apparent?

[Jay W]

My argument against undercover sky marshalls is: How are the crew going to know who is a undercover sky marshall and who is an undercover suicide bomber?

That's one good argument.

Another is cost. Some estimates place the number of skymarshalls required at around 100,000 men. That's 10 divisions worth of troops. The cost of this many marshalls, plus the cost of training them, would be quite a bill. Guess who pays? Yup, the taxpayer AND the airline passenger. It would be cheaper to arm the pilot and copilot, and secure the cockpit door, and make other changes such as installing a system that puts the plane into autopilot during a hijacking which cannot be overriden without a code or signal from the ground or which allows remote control of the jet to steer it away from urban areas.

Captains and officers of passenger liner ships that sailed the oceans used to be armed. Why can't the captains of the air be likewise armed? And arm the bus drivers too.

The proposals that have been made like canceling -curbside check-in or having dump inspections of carry-on bags don't even begin to address the problem, let alone have a whole lot of potential for solving it. Skymarshalls might help, but they'll have all the problems that you mentioned.

I'd feel a lot safer knowing the pilots were armed.

[gc4nra]

Yesterday, on one of the talking-head shows(I apologize for not remembering which one), a guest said "There could be dire consequences if Pilots are armed." How stupid and unthinking can these people be? How much more dire can the consequences be than what happened on 9-11?

[Torie]

THE PUBLIC has deemed it prudent to arm pilots ...

Did you take a poll or something? Not that I would hew to polls when emotions run high. That is why we have brakes on that kind of thing. But post the poll that supports your supposition in any event.

[Torie]

Are you suggesting that armed pilots are a Bill of Rights issue, or is this just a rhetorical and irrelevant point?

[Jay W]

assuming the cockpits are secured with bullet proof and secure doors, as is now at last happening asap.

A tip out of the pages of home security:

NEVER ASSUME that a door is secured or will remain secured.

Always have a backup system or plan. The bad guy does -- he's got a backup plan. You'd be foolish to not have one. By the way, this not only includes the airlines, but also that safe suburban neighborhood you say you are fortunate to live in. Guess what? The crime wave's headed in that direction, outward from central city urban areas. Good luck. You'll need that, and much more.

[Swordmaker]

Re: "...cooler heads..."

Iam absolutely certain that the captains and co-pilots of four hijacked air liners would have been willing to submit their immediate desire for a firearm, any firearm, to a committee of "cooler heads" somewhere in a no-longer smoke filled room in Washington for decision.

Perhaps the committee would decide the pilots could match the box-cutter wielding hijackers, weapon for weapon, but no guns, in the interests of fairness?

[vbmoneyspender]

My point was that when something is right (and having armed pilots is undisputably the right thing to do), you shouldn't have to rely on the 'public square' (as you so quaintly put it) to justify having them as a last line of defense before the plane is shot down.

BTW, I don't think you are quite aware of the training and testing the passenger jets pilots have to undergo before they are given the keys to a multi-million dollar piece of equipment like a 747. That is the reason why no American passenger jet pilot has ever gone postal. Simply put, if you are against arming passenger pilots, logically you should have a problem with police being armed because alot more police have gone postal over than years, than have passenger jet pilots.

[dcwusmc]

I AGREE> Kudos to THIS union!!!!!

[Britton J Wingfield]

No. But I live in a very low crime suburb.

So did Sharon Tate and Nicole Simpson.

[RobFromGa]

Good points.

Congress needs to realize that PILOTS are already armed with something a lot more dangerous than a gun which can only be used to kill the people on board, if you could get them to stand still and if you had enough ammo.

In reality, pilots control a large gasoline can moving at high speed totally under their control, as the Terrorists so ably demostrated. The pilots are armed to the teeth, why not give them a measly little gun to PREVENT the big weapon from getting out of their control.

It is soooo logical to arm pilots that I can't stand it. Why would additional personnel (marshalls) in the cabin where the marshalls are subject to hijacking be preferable to just setting up the last line of defense and making sure no one could be better armed than that last line without destroying the plane???

[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.

[Swordmaker]

"...Bill of Rights issue..."

DAMN RIGHT IT IS!!!

What part of "...shall not be infringed" do you fail to understand???

[Torie]

Neither actually lived in a suburb. One had an unfortunate significant other. The other was just plain unlucky. But a Manson like crew would stick out a bit more where I live than in Laurel Canyon where they would just seem like the neighbor next door. Not that Laurel Canyon isn't a great place. It really is.

[Torie]

Another time. I am impressed that you think you are a second amendment constitutional scholar. If you are really interested, I will link you to a rather complete law review article on the subject. In any event, apparently you think the pilots should have a right to arms on the job even when their employer says no. Whatever.

[backlash]

I think 'aware' is the key word here. He smugly speaks as if the old rules are still relevant to this new threat. Thousands of dead Americans speak for self-defence. How anyone can argue otherwise is beyond me.