»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Special flight: Women and children only!
| The Alley |
|
Special flight: Women and children only! |
|
|
walker Member Elite
since 2001-02-11
Posts 2240Florida |
Would you feel safe traveling with your children on special flights for women and children only? I think I would. Would feel bad for my husband who would end up traveling alone until we get to our destination. Is this a crazy idea? |
||
| © Copyright 2001 walker - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Nan
Administrator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-05-20
Posts 21191Cape Cod Massachusetts USA |
I personally feel that our men are every bit as important as we and our children are... I'd feel safer if the US Government would put armed sky marshals on EVERY commercial flight. Costly, you say? I say that I'd prefer to know that I'm safe than to have that extra bag of peanuts - I'll bring a box lunch if necessary. The airlines should MAKE room for a budget that would support armed protection on every single flight that leaves the ground. It's a no brainer... IMHO [This message has been edited by Nan (edited 10-05-2001).] |
||
Marge Tindal 
since 1999-11-06
Posts 42384Florida's Foreverly Shores |
I can't imagine what sort of protection traveling on a flight with just women and children would afford any of us. (?) I'm totally with Nan on the use of armed Sky Marshalls~ I believe that their presence would be a deterrent and in the event it didn't deter a potential hijacker ... at least the odds would favor the passengers of an airflight~ Personally, I'm not taking any flight - anywhere and still I fear for those who do~ Anyone who honestly believes the security at the airports is foolproof is fooling themselves. My choice ... my lack of confidence in the system ... but, I'm dealing with it in the way that suits me best~ I'm gathered in the 'No-Fly' zone !  ~*The pen of the poet never runs out of ink, as long as we breathe.*~ |
||
|
Poet deVine
Administrator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-05-26
Posts 22612Hurricane Alley |
So you think there couldn't be a female or child hijacker? That could be true, especially with the Islamic group that hijacked the planes last month - women are not allowed to do anything so they would not have been involved. So if men had to fly alone, would THEY be safe? 'Armed guards' on planes scare me - sure give someone a weapon to grab and use against the other passengers! I don't think airplanes are a place for any weapon. Sorry. |
||
|
Marge Tindal
since 1999-11-06
Posts 42384Florida's Foreverly Shores |
There are plenty of individuals of other nationalities and/or religious groups who carry out murder and terrorism. And they will use anyone they can successfully brain-wash to achieve their hatred goals. Children and women have been used as human bombs in many incidents. quote:I can understand someone's fear of guns as weapons on a plane. I feel the same way about box-cutter knives and blades. No matter what the weapon of choice, it has been proven that it can be used against passengers, flight attendants and pilots. We already know passengers have them to use, due to the total lack of proper security measures taken. Personally, I'd rather have trained Marshall's wielding the weapons for my protection. I realize it's all a matter of different levels of personal priority, understanding and perspective. It's possible they could make it a ticket option - Armed Marshall flight or No Resistance flight. Guess which booking the terrorist would likely opt for ? And then guess which one I'm pushing to family and friends ? ~*The pen of the poet never runs out of ink, as long as we breathe.*~ |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
It's a little strange. When I got out of the Marines, I was stationed at a reserve base in my home town, Battle Creek, for the last three months of my sentence, er, I mean enlistment. I found a part-time job nights, flipping hamburgers, but also started putting in my application at a lot of "real" jobs. The Corps had taught me to do only one thing well, and my applications reflected that. I applied at most of the local police forces, as a security guard at a big hospital, and - since this was 1970 and the program was in its infancy - as a Sky Marshal. Strangely enough, the Federal government called me, I interviewed, and was eventually invited for a second interview. I never went on that second interview, though, because the place where I was flipping hamburgers asked me to manage one of their restaurants. I suspect my life would have been very different if not for that small fork in the road. There are two problems with putting Sky Marshals back in the air, neither of which is insurmountable. The first problem is cost. It will add substantially more to the cost of a ticket than just a bag of peanuts or an unpalatable meal. You won't be paying just the man's daily wages, but also for the whole support structure necessary to make his presence possible. For long flights, the percentage increase would probably be manageable. For shorter flights, however, it could literally double the cost. The other problem, the much bigger problem, is one of availability. To put specially trained personnel on every flight would literally require a not-so-small army and take years to build. While I'm sure it's changed a lot in thirty years, the training that was detailed to me was extensive, expensive, and lasted in the neighborhood of eight weeks. Now, multiply that by a hundred thousand flights a day… I think there's also a psychological problem, albeit only a possibility at this point. When I applied to the program, flights were being hijacked to Cuba at an alarming rate and it appeared the Sky Marshal group would grow very large. It didn't, because for a variety of reasons hijackings became more rare as the years passed. People were unwilling to pay for a deterrent that appeared less and less necessary. Strangely, a police action that is effective soon makes itself look superfluous. I have no problem with armed men aboard an airplane IF THEY ARE PROPERLY TRAINED. But that's a big IF. And an expensive IF. If you put a hundred thousand men in any kind of job, some of them are going to be bad at the job. Guaranteed. How many will depend on the training and selection process. Considering the possible repercussions, I think this is one we should plan to do right. (Don't get me started on the idea of handing out guns to untrained pilots…) |
||
|
Nan
Administrator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-05-20
Posts 21191Cape Cod Massachusetts USA |
Ron, you just don't like peanuts... I'll have yours, OK?...  My metaphorical analogy was just that. I honestly feel that the cost of a program such as this would be very worthwhile in this day and age. Every policeman in this country carries a gun among the populace. The streets of our cities and towns aren't a proper place for weapons either. Police have to have them, though. We accept that. Every sky marshal should be equally well trained. I see it as a viable option. |
||
|
Poet deVine
Administrator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-05-26
Posts 22612Hurricane Alley |
Well, I've put a down payment on a team of oxen and a covered wagon. That is MY choice for mode of travel..so Ron? I'll see you in Michigan in about 18 months..if I start now and it doesn't snow before I get past the mountains!  |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
First, let's agree that a gun is not an implement of self-defense. A bullet-proof vest is defensive, a gun is offensive. At best, a gun is a deterrent, and often a good one. Not everyone accepts the need for police to routinely carry guns, Nan, especially not everyone outside America, where it is far less common. But even setting that aside, there's a weakness in the analogy. Imagine the police carried hand grenades instead of pistols. The grenades would still qualify as a deterrent in the streets, but would be much closer to the possible affect of a stray bullet in a pressurized cabin. We're asking a man to carry a weapon he would be a damn fool to use in too many instances. I'm not suggesting it can't be done, or even that it shouldn't be done. I'm just suggesting it ain't as easy as some make it sound. I think we need to recognize the problems if we are to overcome them. I'm a little surprised no one seems to have yet suggested more tightly regulating learning how to fly. Seems to me that would be one place to do some pretty stringent background checks? Sharon, if you start now, it WILL snow before you get to Michigan. In fact, the weather service is suggesting we might just get our first flakes tomorrow night. Along with a low of 30 degrees. Time to start hunkering, I reckon. |
||
|
Nan
Administrator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-05-20
Posts 21191Cape Cod Massachusetts USA |
Well... um... We can't have hand grenades on planes - that's for sure - A stray grenade might be a lot more harmful than a stray bullet would be... So we'll just have to iron out our plan a little better before we submit it to the Department of Defense or the Interior or that new position, whatever it's called...  |
||
|
Poet deVine
Administrator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-05-26
Posts 22612Hurricane Alley |
Ok....I can solve this right now. Everyone has to fly naked....and have a full body cavity search before getting on the plane.. Imagine the new airline? UFlyNakeD! |
||
|
doreen peri Member Elite
since 1999-05-25
Posts 3812Virginia |
first, i go back and forth with this one. I lean more toward believing it is more dangerous than safe to have armed Sky Marshals because no matter how well trained, if outnumbered, his weapon could be used against the passengers, flight attendants, and pilot. perhaps the use of undercover armed sky marshals riding as passengers would be a good idea??? with signage reading "undercover armed sky marshalls are on board this plane". Or, are all Sky Marshals undercover??? LOL... geez, i don't know much about this, huh?... i do know this is a tough problem.... and i'm not flying anywhere either, unfortunately  until i feel confident that it is safe....at this point, i definitely don't, especially hearing all the stories of people getting by security with various weapons or items which can be used as weapons. i have a question. let's say the US does implement a Sky Marshal program ....and each and every flight from each and every airport in the US has an armed Sky Marshal on board. (whether visible in uniform or undercover, investments in appropriate training made, the public accepting increased costs of tickets, and all the other issues discussed here, resolved) doesn't the US have incoming flights from other countries? what about these international flights? we certainly can't require a US armed Sky Marshal on every incoming flight which originated in a country we have no jurisdiction over, can we? (came back to edit this to reply to walker's original topic question... flights for women and children only actually might be an interesting idea to explore.... is this being considered by officials or is this your idea, walker? this is not to say that i don't think every life is valuable.... i have to think about this... but it's interesting, for sure.. thank you) [This message has been edited by doreen peri (edited 10-05-2001).] |
||
|
Marge Tindal
since 1999-11-06
Posts 42384Florida's Foreverly Shores |
Doreen~ There already is, and has been for quite sometime, a Federal Air Marshal Program. This is just one of the many links to information available on the program on the Internet- Glad to share~ http://cas.faa.gov/fam.html And Ron ... '(Don't get me started on the idea of handing out guns to untrained pilots…)' Surely we could consider - handing out guns to trained pilots and see that they were trained in gun usage too. I emphatically agree that there should be much stricter controls placed on who we allow to be trained to fly our aircraft. ~*The pen of the poet never runs out of ink, as long as we breathe.*~ |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Well, we have now several more weapons in our arsenal than firearms. Sprays are more refined, potent, and precise, delivering a stream rather than the prior mist. Hand held shockers are now the alternative to firearms for personal protection, and are relatively cheaper. And if space permits in the plane, there's always the tazer, glu-net (fires a round that opens up into a very very sticky, inflammable, cut resistant web), and the equivalent of a shotgun loaded with hard rubber balls. Speaking of which, there are rubber rounds and plastic round which tend not to puncture metal...or even flesh, but can definately stun someone into submission...or unconciousness. I don't think pilots should be allowed firearms in the cockpit either. As above, there are many non-lethal alternatives which would cause less risk of depressurization at a high altitude (definately a bad thing). |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Why hasn't anyone mentioned the possibility of the armed marshalls using the weapons to hijack the planes themselves? If we don't do strict background checks on pilots, doesn't it seem like it's just as possible for a marshall to get weapons on the plane to use? Alicat has some good suggestions, but the point remains that those items all could be used in hijacking a plane, too. I eat only sleep and air -Nicole Blackman |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Reading through this, I keep thinking, "I have no idea what to do here." I put it off for a few days. And still, I have no idea, no suggestion, no opinion. I just don't know. Brad PS Am I losing my Bradness? |
||
|
Bec Member
since 2001-02-23
Posts 475Canberra |
As everyone seems to have discovered, there's no easy solution to a problem like this. But my five cents worth on the "women and children" flight... I don't really agree with the idea. I couldn't live with myself if I got on one plane, and my boyfriend got on another, and something happened to him. I just couldn't deal with that. I've never been on an aeroplane, so I haven't had to deal with a situation like this before, but it's a terrifying thought. Bec The past is a foreign country - they do things differently there ~ Unknown |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
