Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
FAA Rules Rule...  
User currently offlineSJCguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 579 posts, RR: 1
Posted (12 years 5 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1210 times:

Stemming from the post about "Stupid FAA Rules", this post is to redeem myself partly, and also to set the record straight.

Thanks to those of you who agreed with me...although my replies to that post may have seemed blunt and cold. I'm actually a nice guy who loves traveling, and people. What does make me angry, however, are the constant complaints coming from passengers about being screened, and the "new rules". It's such a selfish attitude. I know it's a pain in the ass to be screened twice in a 1/2 hr, taking off your shoes, belt and boxer shorts, but you know what? Next time this happens to you, ask yourself why it's being done. I'll go ahead and answer that question for ya...S-A-F-E-T-Y!! Woohoo folks, you are given the right to fly safely now; first time in about 80 years.

All of us airline employees, the FAA, and everybody else who is behind the scenes of your flight are working our asses off to make your flight a safe one. When we know that every person is matched to a bag in the cargo hold, that makes us feel good. When we know that there aren't sick people on board with knives and explosives, that makes us feel good. When I walk around one of my planes as an originating flight and see that everything is secure, and safe, that makes me feel good. Just consider what the airlines are doing to help you "survive" a flight. You just may thank that screener who made you remove your shoes in the end.

SJCguy

7 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBWIrwy4 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 940 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (12 years 5 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1156 times:

I have no problem with the tighter screening. Its some of the other rules that I think are stupid. They closed half of the parking garage at BWI for months after September 11, supposedly to prevent someone with their "Miata bomb" (trucks don't fit into the garage) while keeping the access road open, which runs right in front of the terminal. What is the point of closing the garage when somebody could just drive their U-Haul 10 feet in front of the terminal and set off a bomb. Its inconsistencies like that, which make life difficult and are completely ineffectual to begin with that are my complaints.

User currently offlineBWIrwy4 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 940 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (12 years 5 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1131 times:

You want more stupid rules?

All general aviation airports within 15 miles of Washington DC are shut down. Since when are Cessnas a major threat? Why only Washington DC?

The DCA potty rule. BWI and IAD are both within 30 minutes of DC, and they don't have this rule. Also, there are multiple sky marshalls on all DCA flights, so what's the problem?

No 757s into DCA. Why not?

Armed soldiers patrolling the airports. Is somebody going to commando raid the airport? I don't think so.

Most of this security is a knee-jerk, reactionary move that is a pain to deal with and is ineffectual. By the way, somebody please explain all of the security breaches since the attack. Especially the SFO one where the guy got on a plane and left before the airport was shut down. Who feels safer flying with this new "security"? I sure as hell don't.


User currently offlineTK From Canada, joined Oct 2000, 247 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (12 years 5 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1128 times:

SJCguy,

Nobody from the other thread (that you felt the need to start a new thread on) was complaining about having to be screened, or even have their shoes taken off, which by the way I think is a sensible thing to do. What was being questioned was the 30 minute rule and to that, you demonstrated your support for the authoritarian notion of "sit down and shut up". So much for progress.


User currently offlineN949WP From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2000, 1437 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (12 years 5 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1111 times:

SJCguy,

Being the self-proclaimed airline employee that you are, I'm surprised at your lack of perception of the concept of customer service, and your readiness in shoving the needless and useless harrassments down the throats of fare-paying customers. The sheer stupidity and futility of some of the rules that you trumpeted is what will drive more and more people away from flying. When that happen, I wonder how much longer will you stay an "airliner employee".

'949


User currently offlineSJCguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 579 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (12 years 5 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1091 times:

Harsh, but ya know what? You aren't an airline employee, and you do not have a clue what goes on behind the scenes and what our people have to put up with up stairs. Customer Service? We treat our customers great...but, I'll say it again. In light of all that has happened in air travel, and all the tragedies we have had, I can't fathom anybody bringing up security measures as being stupid. That is just setting yourself up. I love my job, I love talking to passengers when I can, and I love helping out upstairs when I can. When I am up there, I see what our customer service agents put up with, and it's not all bad, don't get me wrong, but there are many idiots out there who are inexperienced air travelers, such as yourself obviously, that throw shit on the fan. My final thought? If ya don't like the new rules, don't fly. We can't afford anything else to happen.

SJCguy


User currently offlineJsuen From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (12 years 5 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1071 times:

SJCGuy, if the FAA made a rule that all passengers had to be in cages, drugged, and tied down, you wouldn't complain? A lot of us are upset that the rules simply are misguided. The rules didn't stop somebody from blowing up a plane with a bomb-- the passengers did. It was only afterwards did people start screening shoes. What happens if the next guy decides to put plastic explosives in his underwear? Or light his shoes in the lav? Would you support cameras in the lav?

User currently offlinePmk From United States of America, joined May 1999, 664 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (12 years 5 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1061 times:

True some of the safety rules makes sense, most don't. Some airline employees give a shit, most don't. Some airlines are going to greater lengths to make certain that their passengers are happy, most aren't. Some airlines will forge new customer relationships, most won't. This being said, I fly on one (1) airline, of which I am part owner. I now refuse to fly ANY major carrier, as I now have my commercial license, and have the resources, I fly myself or charter a plane. I am one frequent flyer that the majors lost. Making me take my shoes off, that's smart; metal detectors not picking up an 8 pound hip implant, that's stupid. I now know how to smuggle explosive devices. There is no way to prevent this, we will lose another airliner, maybe another sky scraper. This will probably get the message booted, if Johan does he will hear from me, the only way for this to be resolved is to destroy the forces responsible for this. Period. That being said, is making a passenger sit for the last 30 minutes worth a good god damn? NO! To the Americans here remember what Benjamin Franklin said, it resonates in my head everytime I'm near an airport. "Those that sacrifice liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety."


Peter
God Bless America


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
FAA Rules Violation In Lexington Tower posted Wed Aug 30 2006 04:40:39 by TVNWZ
Stupid FAA Rules posted Tue Feb 12 2002 02:51:58 by Vafi88
FAA Rules Apply To Flights Outside The US? posted Sun Mar 4 2001 20:47:01 by Tupolev154B2
FAA Reviewing Forced Retirement Rule posted Wed Dec 13 2006 22:53:34 by KarlB737
FAA To Review Age 60 Rule posted Thu Sep 28 2006 01:01:57 by Jpdflymhtmlb
FAA, New Rules For LGA posted Mon Aug 28 2006 23:45:37 by RamerinianAir
FAA Tightens Snowy/Wet Lndg Dist Calculation Rules posted Sat Jun 10 2006 23:13:45 by KFLLCFII
FAA Rule To Benefit Boeing posted Mon Jun 5 2006 17:04:17 by RedFlyer
A380 And 75 Ft Taxiways FAA Rule posted Mon Apr 4 2005 00:22:34 by Brons2
CAA/FAA Rule ~ Interesting posted Fri Jul 9 2004 17:21:59 by Squirrel83