- Joined
- Feb 26, 2012
- Messages
- 56,981
- Reaction score
- 27,029
- Location
- Chicago Illinois
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Private
The skies are supposed to be friendly, but I guess we're going to have to fight for it - the old fighting for peace thing.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Flight attendants, pilots, federal air marshals and even insurance companies are part of a growing backlash to the Transportation Security Administration's new policy allowing passengers to carry small knives and sports equipment like souvenir baseball bats and golf clubs onto planes.
The new policy, which goes into effect on April 25, permits folding knives with blades that are 2.36 inches or less in length and are less than 1/2-inch wide. The policy is aimed at allowing passengers to carry pen knives, corkscrews with small blades and other small knives.
Passengers also will be allowed to include in their carry-on luggage novelty-sized baseball bats less than 24 inches long, toy plastic bats, billiard cues, ski poles, hockey sticks, lacrosse sticks and two golf clubs. Items like box cutters and razor blades are still prohibited.
Not all flights, however, have federal air marshals or armed pilots onboard.
Rather, "acts of aberrant, abusive and abnormal passenger behavior known as air rage remain the most persistent threat to aviation security," he said.
The International Air Transport Association recently reported that the incidence of air rage cases was way up, with an estimated 10,000-plus such events annually, Thomas said.
Adler, representing the air marshals, said aviation security is neither "terrorist proof nor psycho proof," and both should be protected against.....snip~
Backlash grows to allowing knives, clubs on planes - Yahoo! News
Yet box cutters and razor blades are still prohibited :roll: .....It appears they will ask Congress to block the policy change by the TSA. Here we are being told these weapons cannot bring down a plane, yet they admit all planes don't have air marshals nor pilots with guns. Those little baseball bats could do some damage. So I don't think they can say a plane couldn't be taken over for sure.
Which then again it is okay to bring knives that can still do damage and way more than a boxcutter can. Airline Rage is up and do they think it will decrease with more flights?
But then it is okay to drink on planes. Should we allow Airlines to pass out Alcohol anymore? So now we can have weapons, while getting intoxicated over 10,000 feet, yet peoples public safety isn't compromised? We know we will end up having some Nuts attack someone. Some stewardess, or co pliot, and more than likely another passenger. Already we hear of planes being diverted and landing due to some unruly passenger. Or due to something they said even. But again.....I don't see how this still isn't forcing a plane down.
So the Question I have is.....Should we be Allowed to Drink Alcohol on Airlines.
1. Yes....at least a 2 drink minimum to calm nerves so I don't punch that lib/con in the back of the head this whole flight.
2. No.....Safety first, take anything that looks dangerous.
3. Don't know.....Don't care just let me have a cigarette.
4. What about the pilots.....if we cant drink then they shouldn't.
5. Can I still get Rum Cake?
Yeah. I flew Pan Am quite a few times. They lived up to their image.
The Good Ole Days!
You would also need an oxygen supply at that altitude. TSA might not be as receptive to that. :twocents:
Yeah. I flew Pan Am quite a few times. They lived up to their image.
But what about those lil Souvenir bats? Somebody could get killed getting hit in the head with that.
I'd go with that. Never flew 'em, but I sure wouldn't mind.Ever see the Commercial for Korean Air Lines?
Talk about a Plane.....although is that a Pepsi Logo? :mrgreen:
I luv the part where they say.....Pledging! :lamo
In my experience, we have to require before we can expect. Once that's settled, we can all breathe a little easier. Dealing with the outliers is easy. The problems occur when every jerk believes he or she has a right to be one.I'm in favor of allowing adults to have adult items, and expecting and requiring them to act responsibly with them but not to deprive them of said objects until they do.
In my experience, we have to require before we can expect. Once that's settled, we can all breathe a little easier. Dealing with the outliers is easy. The problems occur when every jerk believes he or she has a right to be one.
I like your version better than mine.Hmm. I'd put it a little differently: I believe rights are rights.... but every right comes with an iron-clad RESPONSIBILITY welded to it.
I have a right to carry a gun... but I'm responsible for every bullet that comes out of the barrel.
I think where we screwed up is when we let people think they had a RIGHT to be a Jackass... and to do so without reaping the consequences of their Jackassery.
If we started early with "Don't be needlessly rude to people who might bust you in the mouth for it," and made sure that it was understood that "If you go to a hole-in-the-wall bar ALONE and get staggering drunk at 3AM and do a strip-tease in front of the four scruffy-looking drunks who are still there, don't be shocked if something BAD happens to you," ......
... then we probably wouldn't have to explain to people "if you SCARE the other passengers on a plane while it is in the air, they will probably beat the snot out of you and have you arrested."
Hmm. I'd put it a little differently: I believe rights are rights.... but every right comes with an iron-clad RESPONSIBILITY welded to it.
I have a right to carry a gun... but I'm responsible for every bullet that comes out of the barrel.
I think where we screwed up is when we let people think they had a RIGHT to be a Jackass... and to do so without reaping the consequences of their Jackassery.
If we started early with "Don't be needlessly rude to people who might bust you in the mouth for it," and made sure that it was understood that "If you go to a hole-in-the-wall bar ALONE and get staggering drunk at 3AM and do a strip-tease in front of the four scruffy-looking drunks who are still there, don't be shocked if something BAD happens to you," ......
... then we probably wouldn't have to explain to people "if you SCARE the other passengers on a plane while it is in the air, they will probably beat the snot out of you and have you arrested."
Hmm. I'd put it a little differently: I believe rights are rights.... but every right comes with an iron-clad RESPONSIBILITY welded to it.
I have a right to carry a gun... but I'm responsible for every bullet that comes out of the barrel.
I think where we screwed up is when we let people think they had a RIGHT to be a Jackass... and to do so without reaping the consequences of their Jackassery.
If we started early with "Don't be needlessly rude to people who might bust you in the mouth for it," and made sure that it was understood that "If you go to a hole-in-the-wall bar ALONE and get staggering drunk at 3AM and do a strip-tease in front of the four scruffy-looking drunks who are still there, don't be shocked if something BAD happens to you," ......
I agree right up to there....
Absolutely not. Getting the crap beaten out of you for direct actions is one thing. This sounds suspiciously like you are saying 'you wore a short skirt, so you deserved to be raped'. So if a guy gets falling down drunk, but does nothing to directing confront in a bilergerent mannerother people, he should be anally raped perhaps?
If a guy was bragging about his high paying job, flashing his Rolex and iPhone around, and paying in 100s as he gets **** faced, and then tries to stumble alone to his car or public transportation at 3 in the morning I'd say he shouldn't be shocked if he gets mugged and robbed. Doesn't deserve it, doesn't "have it coming" but it's not shocking based on the combination of decisions he made and the realities of the situation around him.
I think goshins point, and I'm sure hell correct me if I'm wrong, is that we've gone so far over the edge in trying to be sure we don't "blame victims" that we've reached a point of ignoring the reality that the culmination of ones actions can help facilitate a bad situation occurring and that just because you CAN act a certain way doesn't mean you should with o regard for potential consequences.
I had a feeling someone would demur on that example.
Let me put it to you like this.
If I go to a biker bar at 3AM, stand up on a stool and yell at the top of my lungs, "HARLEY DAVIDSON SUCKS!"....
... what do you think is going to happen to me?
I'll be lucky if I get out alive. If I merely get beaten to a pulp, I should count myself fortunate.
Did I deserve such violence in response to a mere verbal statement? Legally, no of course not. Morally, no of course not.
However, common sense OUGHT to have told me that this was a very bad idea for which there might be serious and detrimental consequences. Regardless of whether the consequences I encounter due to my jackass move are legal or moral, in the real world they are predictably likely, and I should have known better.
That was also the point of the previous example. If you do stupid ****, don't be shocked if something bad happens to you as a result.
No argument on doing stupid **** having consequences, but to what level do you think the 'consequences' should be?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?