Skip to comments.Dear Airlines: An Oped Letter to All Air Carriers
Posted on 09/17/2001 6:37:54 PM PDT by brityank
Sierra Times Update
The following letter is being sent to every U.S. passenger commercial air carrier. Feel free to foward.
Dear Airline Executives,If you wish to Subscribe or Unsubscribe from this list or have a change of address, please go to our website at:
My wife and I are both "Rapid Reward" customers with Southwest Airlines. We are also both Delta Airline "Skymiles" customers, and have used such Skymiles in the past. This letter is to inform all of you why we will not be using any U.S. domestic passenger air carrier any time in the future.
On September 11, 2001 we witnessed many of our fellow air travelers - our fellow American, while defenseless, turned into helpless onlookers on a Boeing 757 cruise missile - pointed at key American targets. Since then, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has mandated newer, tougher security measures to ensure safer air travel. Then we learned from Vice President Dick Cheney that Reagan National Airport will be closed indefinitely because there is too much risk to important government buildings in Washington D.C. - even after the new FAA regulations. (NBC Meet the Press Sunday 09.16.01)
Meaning to us - airline travel isn't safe yet.
In fact, Airline travel is as 'safe' as it has always been. There are signs in airports that state even 'joking' about such things as bombs and guns could find a person in a lot of trouble. I have even witnessed this policy enforced. In the time it was enforced, it was because of two air travelers mocking the existing security protocol - and for good reason.
After each air disaster, we were told that new security measures were in place to ensure passenger safety. Most of us believed them. Some of us did not, but assumed the risk anyway. But as you can see by your recent ticket sales and cancellation of reservations (threatening to bankrupt many of you), and the known fact that more foreigners were trained for the expressed purposed of one-way joy rides to death and destruction on U.S. commercial aircraft, we simply can't trust our personal safety in the hands of the FAA any longer.
We do trust your pilots. And we enjoyed the services of all the flight attendants, baggage handlers, ticket counter personnel, car rental employees, travel agents, aircraft mechanics, information booth persons, cab drivers, shuttle drivers, hotel employees, food staff, and other miscellaneous personnel - many of whom will soon be out of work, if you insist on following the new FAA guidelines. Not to mention the crippling loss of revenue you are facing now.
It does not have to come to this.
It seems that whenever the airlines and the FAA sit down to discuss security, the potential victims are always omitted from the discussion. Our goal is to change that.
We are not advocating an agenda per-se, nor is this a economic threat. We represent no group, organization or special interest. We are just two of the 1.3 million American air travelers each day. These proposed regulations are being strongly suggested for the sole purpose of personal, airline and national security interests.
Below is a proposed draft of legislation that we are asking all airline executives to take under very serious consideration. I can also add that you have a database of air travelers (frequent flyers, rapid rewards, Skymiles, etc) that you know and trust. Many of these air travelers are gun owners. We know this from talking to many of them during air travel stops, and especially after September 11, 2001. Many of these persons have already gone through rigorous background checks, and yes - do own firearms. I can assure you that many of them (after training supervised by your airline) would gladly volunteer for such an armed passenger program as a last line of defense against such attacks.
After speaking with government officials this morning (09.17.01) I was informed that the FAA would probably not even consider such a proposal. That is why we are not asking them. We are asking you.
The proposals listed below are a good way to ensure that the 55,000 takeoffs a day would have trained, responsible personnel aboard all commercial air traffic. Yes, we want to fly your airlines. We want to be free to roam the county. We want to fly the freindly skies again. We listened to the FAA, and again - we're picking up the pieces.
Hoping to catch a flight with an FBI agent, U.S. Marshall or U.S. Air Marshall is the equivalent of playing a game of Russian Roulette. This is simply unacceptable, and we cannot and will not subject ourselves or our loved ones through this. Until the proposals listed below are put into place, we are asking for a full refund of all tickets previously purchased for future air flight, and a 'refusal to board any commercial aircraft' commitment from all law-abiding gun owners in the United States of America, and others who agree with our position.
Of course, you don't have to take this letter seriously, figuring we're only a small minority. But as you can see, we are voting (and traveling) with our feet right now.
J.J. & Nancy Johnson
Frequent Flyers (and your last line of defense)
we can be reached at email@example.com
Proposed is federal legislation, which may be called the "Airline Safety and Anti-terrorism Act of 2001", that would accomplish the following:
A. Remove all current prohibitions concerning carrying firearms on commercial aircraft for certain persons considered to be "air safety assets" under certain conditions, and to exempt these people from punishment by local and state laws where airplanes upon which they are riding may land, as follows:
1. Persons identified as an "air safety asset" who may be called a "sky guard" include: a. any current, sworn, law enforcement officer for any federal, state or local agency, and b. any person with a permit to carry a concealed weapon issued by any state, or by any local agency under the authority of a state, and c. any person who is a classified handgun competitor under the rules of the United States Practical Shooting Association or the International Defensive Pistol Association.
2. Persons not eligible to be a "sky guard" include: a. persons who are not eligible to possess firearms under federal law, and b. persons who are not yet 18 years of age, and c. persons who are not legal citizens of the United States as a result of birth or naturalization. [ADDMENED: any one the captain of the aircraft deems un-appropriate for such duty]
3. The Federal Aviation Administration must accomplish the following: a. originate and publish within six weeks a brief manual, called a "sky guard briefing" which explains the fragility and weak points of commercial aircraft, which aircraft parts may be susceptible to dangerous disruption from either gunfire or terrorist activity, and which explains several most recommended tactics for defeating terrorists onboard aircraft, and b. publish this manual as a paperback book, which must be available to persons qualified to serve as sky guards at a reasonable cost or at no cost, and c. devise a system of signals whereby any sky guard flying on a particular aircraft may be identified under emergency conditions by other sky guards flying on that particular aircraft.
4. Conditions under which any qualified persons would be allowed to carry firearms on commercial aircraft departing from and arriving at destinations on U.S. soil, and the soil of U.S. allies which accept this arrangement, are: a. when the person is carrying a firearm that is concealed from view and simple detection by casual observers, and b. when the firearm being carried is loaded only with frangible ammunition, such as Glaser Safety Slugs or the equivalent, and c. when the sky guard certifies that he or she has read the sky guard briefing and understands the contents, and d. when the sky guard consumes no alcohol or mind-altering substances at all within 12 hours before travel, or during travel where the person serves as a sky guard.
B. Persons serving as sky guards:
1. Would serve in a voluntary (unpaid) capacity, and
2. Would be exempt from local or state laws restricting their ability to possess firearms along their route of travel, and at any location on the ground along their route of travel for a period of 72 hours between landing and departure, and
3. Both commercial airlines, and sky guards not acting with gross negligence, would be held harmless under law for the acts or omissions of sky guards serving voluntarily and while traveling on commercial aircraft or while in air terminals during travel.
C. The prerogatives and duties of sky guards while serving in that capacity would be limited to defeating any attempt to wrest control of a commercial aircraft from the airline crew, and to interfere with any person aboard a commercial aircraft who presents an immediate threat of loss of life to any crew member or passenger of a commercial aircraft upon which the sky guard is a passenger. The duties and prerogatives of a sky guard specifically would not include the use of a firearm or brandishing of a firearm to subdue an unruly passenger who does not pose a threat of loss of life to any crew member or passenger.
Sierra Times An Internet Publication for Real Americans.
©2001 Sierra Times.com - All Rights Reserved =============================================
When the airlines reduce their scheduled flights to about 20% of their current level, you'll find that air travel will be more expensive, and generally limited to those who have a lot of money and/or need it for business. At that point, security won't be a problem because these people will pay whatever it costs to travel safely.
hmmm. now if i only flew...
Make no mistake: the flight crews and ticketing agents are on edge. One flight attendant she's seen many times on previous flights told her that her husband tries to steel her resolve to continue working, but it's hard. There's got to be a better way.
Here in Philly they have taken all of the knives -- including the little plasic knives -- out of the secure passenger areas. That includes chef knives and anything that has a blade, no matter what size or implement it's attached to. And the blithering sheeple arew all saying they don't mind as it makes things 'safer'! Get a clue; they still let people through with ballpoint pens.
Wake up. The airlines are already implementing every stupid idea that those faceless bureaucrats have recommended.
That has been proven to be a hoax. Unfortunately for the Brazilians.
The list is endless!
Philly International really never impressed me in the security, though. Most of them seemed to rather be somewhere else than scanning luggage.