How do we make the airlines safe "quickly"?

Post #9,797 by brettj 9/20/01 12:45:30 AM Reply	How do we make the airlines safe "quickly"? Quick-fix safetly locks on cock-pit doors? Sky Marshals on all flights until we can switch to random Marshals? Screening seems to be working so far. Is there some way for the entire industry to "share" passengers in order to fill flights until things resume to normal? These are not normal times so we should look for "un-normal" solutions, don't you think?
Post #9,903 by tuberculosis 9/20/01 3:25:11 PM Reply	Ground them OK, thats not what you were looking for. I'm in favor of armed guards on the plains - real federal officers - not rentacops. I'm in favor of rigorous screening of luggage as well. I'm in favor of extremely rigorous screening of non-citizens.
Post #9,908 by addison 9/20/01 3:42:39 PM Reply	Re: How do we make the airlines safe "quickly"? Screening seems to be working so far. It "worked" for many many years. Notice that many of the arrests apparently worked for the catering companies? (access to airplanes, not even as well screened as passengers). And the rental car had maintenance badges (even less screening, in my experience). No, the "increased" scruitany is a waste of time. Fine, if it makes people feel better. Soon it will be as rote as the "didyoupackyourbagshaveyourbagsbeenwithyouallday".... Is there some way for the entire industry to "share" passengers in order to fill flights until things resume to normal? Errrr. Brett? Do you want to go to LA, rather than Sacremento? :) "Ah, well, we've shared you to United, and they're going to LA" Quick-fix safetly locks on cock-pit doors? Which will work how well when throats are being cut? (Better than last week would have). Addison
Post #9,950 by brettj 9/20/01 5:53:30 PM Reply	Same city flights would be smarter than going to LA if you want SFO. Are you saying that no flights fly from the same city to the same destination? ie. Boston to LAX? Seems two of those were hijacked at almost the same time. I guess I'm missing your argument, but I appreciate your input (as I always have).
Post #9,955 by addison 9/20/01 6:08:06 PM Reply	Re: Same city flights would be smarter What I was saying, is to "share" passengers requires another order of magnitude calculation. Right now, the airports use hubs and spokes. So if you want to go from A to D, you also might go to B or C, depending. The next airport goes from A to D via 1 and 2. If they have the same ultimate destination. So instead of a non-stop from A-D, like you might have, you could end up, for the same trip, making 2 stops. Or something. The airlines currently juggle who's on the plane, with what planes are needed - If 20 people miss a flight, and all were connecting somewhere else, then you might not need as big a plane for a later stage. If every airline flew the same routes, with comparable planes, it wouldn't be as problematic, but right now it would be very difficult to have "sharing" work. Add to that, that for instance, I won't fly United, and prefer not to fly US Air, for instance.. the only airline I like is SouthWest... Now you swap me to United so they can get money for being utter bastards? Addison
Post #9,961 by brettj 9/20/01 6:25:58 PM Reply	No one said it would be easy. I'm just tossing out what I thought was an unusual solution. I really was hoping for more intriguing ideas, instead of having my off-the-top possibilites criticized. But I do see your point, even if you don't see mine.
Post #9,968 by Ashton 9/20/01 6:44:08 PM Reply	NRA antidote? Now that it's war, of a kind - civilians indistinguishable from 'military' - the "are guns good?" arguments rendered moot, for the foreseeable: Blackjacks issued to all passengers who want one (no revealing who has one; issued behind 'screens'). Not nearly so fraught with implications as any projectile weapon. Ineffective against thugs armed with those, though an opening could occur - certainly better than bare hands against sharp weapons. Good use for a handheld, laptop too.. via leather carry straps. It seems that - any future hijacker will need guns and.. if outnumbered 10:1 - only human performance each event, can determine next outcome. I'm sure there are dozens of good ideas, among the thousands - which could next tip the odds, and without massive airframe alterations. (Fly nekkid under paper disposables, for one). Time for that vaunted Yankee ingenuity !! A.
Post #9,920 by bepatient 9/20/01 4:27:25 PM Reply	Already done... ...simply by showing everyone that there is a new hijacker profile. They don't necessarily want to take the plane to Cuba anymore. Passengers will not sit back and wait for someone to save them anymore. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #9,990 by duke 9/20/01 9:13:19 PM Reply	One has already happened, another could be done The sheep mentality of "hijackers threaten, we cave" is gone forever. If I'm on a plane and a hijacker tries to take it over, I'll take a bullet or risk getting blown up before I let that plane be crashed somewhere. I am not exactly the most fit person in the world (I have an arthritis-like condition in one hip), but if I can get in the hijacker's way long enough for someone more physically able to take him out, it would be worth it. Next, ban carry-on luggage. Make the potential hijackers carry their weapons on their person rather than concealed in their bags. The amount of luggage people carry with them onto airplanes is ridiculous. Okay, so maybe you don't ban all carry-on luggage - but you certainly ban this stuffed-full-to-the-brim crap people bring with them. One item, briefcase sized or less. Max.
Post #10,084 by CRConrad 9/21/01 11:27:44 AM Reply	That would make you... I am not exactly the most fit person in the world (I have an arthritis-like condition in one hip) Harris?!? (What's with this whole rash of pseudonyms and login changes, recently?) Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything -- Except That...

Welcome to IWETHEY!