And I have no plans of flying any time soon. I am still actively boycotting the airlines and I am vehement about not giving them a single dollar. In case you need to know why, I beleive I made my position clear in the following posts.
Lindy field From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 3073 posts, RR: 15 Reply 1, posted (11 years 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1705 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD DATABASE EDITOR
That's really exciting. I'm thrilled for you. I've actually flown several times since September 11th and had no bad experiences aside from a little hassle in airports which I can accept if it will save lives.
See you next time I take the train or get stuck in traffic.
Matt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 51 Reply 2, posted (11 years 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1692 times:
But WILL it save lives?
That's the 64,000 dollar question.
That's the thing I don't understand. The system worked well for what? 6 decades before? More people died in weather and pilot error related disasters than the 9/11 bandids even dreamed of killing. And they played "by the rules".
So because of one event (albeit an atrocity, yes), all of a sudden, we need to have a "lockdown" to prevent an event that will probably never happen again anyway?
Lindy field From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 3073 posts, RR: 15 Reply 5, posted (11 years 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1646 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD DATABASE EDITOR
Hey, if you tried flying, you might find that the increased security measures don't really constitute a lockdown. I've found them to be an inconvenience, but not any great infringement of my rights.
Will it save lives? I really don't know. I suspect the general public will never really know. But I would guess that for all the flaws of the system, the improved security measures probably act as a deterrant to potential hijackers, terrorists, or copy-cat criminals. Furthermore, the security measures have helped restore the public's confidence in the aviation system, which is vital for the nation's economy.
I think that you (Matt D & L-188) are over-reacting to a situation that is really not so bad. Since a year has passed since you've flown, you might take the time to re-evaluate your decision in light of the fact that the new measures have been widely accepted by the general public. Traveling is good for the soul.
AA61hvy From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 13975 posts, RR: 59 Reply 6, posted (11 years 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1649 times:
man i WANT to fly, i know im flying in August to DAY, i flew to MIA and MBJ in march, im not real scared, if something does happen im willing to kick some ass. as the bumper sticker reads "terrorists beware, rugby player on board"
Airsicknessbag From Germany, joined Aug 2000, 4723 posts, RR: 37 Reply 8, posted (11 years 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1634 times:
>>>The system worked well for what? 6 decades before? More
people died in weather and pilot error related disasters than the 9/11 bandids even dreamed
of killing. And they played "by the rules".
So because of one event (albeit an atrocity, yes), all of a sudden, we need to have a
"lockdown" to prevent an event that will probably never happen again anyway?
Hey, I can´t believe I agree with Matt D for once. The above statement hits the nail exactly on the head.
BTW, here in Europe things are much more relaxed, a) because security was already strict before last September and b) because we´ve had to fight terrorism for the past 50 years. I´ve flown a couple of times since September 11, in Europe, Asia and Africa, and nothing noticeable has changed.
Braniff727 From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 686 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (11 years 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1622 times:
Ok, so you're boycotting the airlines because of the government imposed security restrictions. You further went on to say that the airlines should not have received money from the government, even though there have been disasters in the past that have taken more lives. Since the government shut the industry down for 4 days, shouldn't they have to pay?
Then you mentioned the other associated industries, hotels, rental cars, theme parks and airport concessions. Well having recently been to theme parks, there seems to be no problems. Airport concessions were hurt, but don't have the overhead. Hotels had high occupancy since no one could fly, and car rental companies had no cars available.
I don't see the logic. You're blaming the airline industry for something that was beyond its control.
Now I'm not trying to make a personal attack. If you choose not to fly, that's fine with me, I respect your decision. I don't understand it, but I respect it.
Matt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 51 Reply 10, posted (11 years 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1613 times:
It's not that I don't realize that the 4 day shutdown (precipitated by teh events of 9/11) was out of the airlines control. I don't hold them responsible for that.
What I DO hold them responsible for are the series of failures (and hiring of incompetent screning personnel) that allowed the disasters to happen in the first place.
It's kind of someone that wraps their car around a telephone pole because they were driving drunk.
I feel sorry for them because of the immediate injuries. What I don't feel sorry for is the circumstances that LED to the injuries, which was driving drunk-which had they not been doing, the crash would never have occured. So in essence my attitude would be "I feel for you....but you knew what you were getting yourself into and the gamble you were taking. Now that you're a parapelegic, oh well...sucks to be you".
Turtle From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 206 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (11 years 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1588 times:
Personally, I think you are punishing yourself more than the airline industry. The security restrictions can be an annoying and invasive inconvenience but, it's not going to stop me from taking a vacation over seas or visiting my family across the continent. What if you got a fantastic job offer that required some travel?
Matt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 51 Reply 13, posted (11 years 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1558 times:
Why were boxcutters legal?
What possible need would there be for such items on board?
The Government had these people on a "watched" list. There was the issue of all of them taking flight lessons, and then all being booked for flights on the same day. Why was no action taken?
Why is it that completing high school was not even a requisite for being hired as a screener? Why is it that the screeners hired seem to fit more of a political agenda (women, minorities, cripples, and seniors) than anything else?
Like I said, it's not about the fact that the rules were broken. It's the rules themselves that I am calling into question.
The solution does not lie at the doorr to the cockpit, or the jetway. It does not lie in the concourse, or even who gets let into the concourse. The solution (that no one wants to tackle) is who gets placed at the scurity checkpoints and who is allowed into the country.
Saxman66 From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 518 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (11 years 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1531 times:
OK, i've flown many times and I really don't mind the security. Its not a big hassle for me. And as for people who choose not to fly because of the gov't is just a little odd to me. Can't wait till I sit in that pilots seat!
Braniff727 From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 686 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (11 years 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1525 times:
I don't know why box cutters, or blades of up to 3 inches were legal. Was that the airline's fault?
Some of the terrorists were on the watch list, yes. This is the FBI's responsibility. We have seen how well they were doing their job.
The airlines played by the rules as well. They did what the government asked of them at the time. Hire people to screen luggage for the following prohibited items. That was done.
I agree that having Grandpa Jones try to run a terrorist down is not a good idea, but that is why the police have always been at the airports. Having a high school diploma really means nothing. It means that in some school system, despite how good or bad it is, you did at least the bare minimum to get it. How is that going to protect against terrorism?
Matt, it doesn't matter who we put at the check points. If the rules allow something that can be used as a wepon to be brought past security, then you can have the Marines, or a fleet of blue-haired old women there. People can get it through the checkpoint.
Matt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 51 Reply 19, posted (11 years 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1471 times:
you have to go throught he motions if big brother says so
Wow....ignorance must be bliss. Maybe I'll come visit you when I need a break from reality.
I'm glad that you like Big Brother. I know he likes you, cuz you'll roll over, jump, do whatever he says. Basically your a bitch lemming to The Establishment.
So when the day comes (which because of people like you, it will), that Big Brother says where we work, where we live, when we live, and when we die, you're going to sit there, like a big fat lump on a log and say....."derrr........ok....da-dum-da-dum....whatever you say Big Brother".
Braniff727 From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 686 posts, RR: 1 Reply 20, posted (11 years 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1441 times:
I agree with you Matt, I don't like Big Brother. I want to keep the money I earn and so on, but may I point out some contradictions...
You say that we need to change who we have at the check points, but isn't that Big Brother?
Since the big issue here is Big Brother and the way the government has handled things, why again is it that boycottting the airlines is effective?
The issue of civil liberties and air travel is something that has been on my mind a lot since this Fall. All I can say is that there has to be a medium that can be reached. If we get rid of security planes are going to come out of the sky and kill thousands, but the only way to make it completely safe is to strip search everone that has access of any kind to an aircraft.
Neither of these are practical. What to do then? Well for our safety as a people, for our basic human freedom to live without fear, we need to give up some of those other civil liberties for the time that we are flying. That is not to say that we should give them up in society in general.
Is it going to make us 100% safe? No. Is it going to make us safer? Yes. We can only learn from our mistakes and try not to make them again. That's life.
Ual777contrail From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (11 years 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1402 times:
you have to be the most retarded person on this forum,did you drive the little yellow bus? or were you the window licker in the second row?
who cares if some tree hugger wants to complain, this industry is hurting and the government is so bad,i am not pro government but i am not anti-government like you little matty.when do you hold your flag burning parites.
we as americans may make the same mistakes over and over,news flash monkey boy humanity has made the same mistakes over and over.
i like your stupid comments about me,i hope your 7-11, third shift working ass likes greyhound,coase it's people like you who need to travel amtrak and greyhound so they will contiune to operate.
you cant change the government because some idiot kid wants to boycott airtravel.airlines would go under,and your posts are lame,opinionated and not very well thought out.
some of you may not like my answers to this moron who has a problem with paying for security.do i feel safer? no,but until I can carry a gun onboard i guess i better do what i have to to play my part in airtravel.
Hkg82 From Hong Kong, joined Apr 2002, 1219 posts, RR: 1 Reply 23, posted (11 years 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1418 times:
I think you're over-reacting. The new security measures makes flying safer even though people will have to give up some of their civil liberties, but it's something that they're willing to go through as evidenced by the rebound in passenger traffic. Doesn't that encourage you to travel and be on your first flight since 9/11? And it's not like the US government is changing to a dictatorship form of governance in society, but the change is only at the airports (and saying that it's a dictatorship type of governing at the airports is too an exaggeration!) to ensure that flying is safe & as secure as it can get.
But of course, the security improvements aren't 100% effective (don't think any form of security is) and anything can happen at anytime, but that's how life works. I hope you do plan on resuming air travel soon. Let me make it clear that I respect but don't fully comprehend your feelings.
Matt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 51 Reply 24, posted (11 years 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1386 times:
I think you're over-reacting.
The new security measures makes flying safer even though people will have to give up some of their civil liberties
So in essence what you are saying here is that the old adage "he who surrenders liberty for peace deserves neither liberty nor peace" is basically moot and torpedoed straight to thebottom?
Respectfully, I don't buy yiur statement even for a second.
Doesn't that encourage you to travel and be on your first flight since 9/11?
Not by any stretch of the imagination. The point of no return passed long ago. I will not get on a plane unless it's a dire, inescapable emergency and there are no other options (up to and including hitchhiking and being a boxcar hobo on the BNSF.)
And it's not like the US government is changing to a dictatorship form of governance in society
Oh? And what makes you arrive at that conclusion? You mean that placing National Guards, strip searches, voice recordings, and retinal scans AREN'T something right out of "1984"?
And if the public accepts this, what reason will the government have to NOT implement these practices throughout society? All they have to do is say "it's for our own safety" like they are now, and the American people, being the gullible dumbshits that they are, will swallow the pitch hook, line, and sinker.
But of course, the security improvements aren't 100% effective (don't think any form of security is) and anything can happen at anytime, but that's how life works
Understood. But you don't beef up security by using punitive measures against the very people supposedly bing protected. If there are KNOWN terrorist cells in this country, and the governmnt has probable, provable cause to believe that something is in the pipeline, why wait for them to strike? Why not sweep them up and be done with it? Why not revamp our immigration policies to try and weed out these cretins before they get in?
I hope you do plan on resuming air travel soon
Don't hold your breath.
25 Srbmod: I haven't flown since November of 2000, and that's only because I am not able to non-rev any more, and really don't like spending the money for a tick
26 Matt D: Geez....the sudden silence on this matter is deafening. Especially since my dissection of HKG82's message. I wonder why that is.
27 Auswnfan: Matt D, Carty of AA agrees with you! http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/836071/
28 Lemieux66: "...But you don't beef up security by using punitive measures against the very people supposedly bing protected. If there are KNOWN terrorist cells in
29 Lindy field: Matt D, "And if the public accepts this, what reason will the government have to NOT implement these practices throughout society? All they have to do
30 Matt D: What makes you think that you're superior to most other Americans? When a population can be convinced to surrender their birthrights in the name of 's
31 Ben88: I agree with Matt D. This may put me on some people's disrespected users list, but the truth is most Americans are willing to trade their inalienable
32 CMK10: Oh blow it out your ass you whiney guy. If someone said tommorow "Hey Charles want to fly AirAfganistan?" i'd say window or aisle? If the airlines are
33 Greg: You make a very indulgent presumption that we are interested in your personal decisions. I think I speak for many when I say, we simply do not care if
34 777236ER: but the truth is most Americans are willing to trade their inalienable rights for an increased "feeling" of safety Like racial profiling....?
35 Nonrevman: Since this thread is about opinions, here is mine The concern that privacy and certain rights could be eroded is valid. I can see how the wrong people
36 Lemieux66: Ah, but 777236ER, he says that the govt has "provable and probable cause", which obviously makes it not "racial profiling"... (sarcasm)... All I can t
37 John: Matt, you are entitled to your opinion, however I think you know air travel will NEVER be the same. Security was way too lax pre 9/11, anyway. NOW, of
38 LoneStarMike: It's not that I don't realize that the 4 day shutdown (precipitated by teh events of 9/11) was out of the airlines control. I don't hold them responsi
39 Flymia: How stupid to think the extra security. In MIA and FLL the security is great. Everybody must be checked twice and 1 out of every 7 people probly have
40 XFSUgimpLB41X: Matt D, Would you like a sticker that says "I'm Special?" Look at me! I want attention! Get a life bro.
41 2cn: I've flown with the added security, and I gotta ask this- What really is the big deal with this suposed added security? I didn't have any "added hassl
42 GDB: As has been pointed out, Europe had tougher security before Sept. 11th, now I know some of you may think we are under some kind of authoritarian yoke
43 BDRules: Matt, did you fly before the terrible day of 9/11????? well personally i dont feel anything has changed regarding the security measures that i have no