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 firstname.lastname@example.org
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.
Your cowardice is pathetic.
Not even; we already have too many unconstitutional moronic liars there now, thank-you-very-much.
The safest I ever felt was in Tulsa back in '73; guys all around downtown wearing hardware both concealed and open, and I never saw or heard of anyone getting shot that didn't deserve it -- and that included the 'bars'. (For those that don't know, Tulsa was 'dry', no booze by the drink except at bottle clubs you had to be a member of; then you brought in your own bottle and they charged you for the glass and ice. Strange setup!)
News/Current Events News Keywords: CCW, AIRLINES, BUSH, ASHCROFT, TERRORISTS, TERRORISM, TERRORIST, BIN LADEN Source: Keepandbeararms
Published: September 17.2001 Author: PAUL WILLIAMS Posted on 09/17/2001 19:05:55 PDT by CHICAGOFARMER FIVE THOUSAND LOST THEIR LIVES FOR THE WANT OF TWO THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY DOLLARS.
Ponder for a moment.
We trust a pilot with a 30 million-dollar plane knowledgeable of complex airplane functions, but government policy will not allow them to operate anti terrorist tools.
Israel Airlines bolts the Cockpit door and all Pilots and copilots carry Firearms.
Scanning the websites this week the following thread from Pilots, Law Enforcement, and American Citizens discuss ways to take positive action against airplane terrorism.
We trust a fancy security question (Thanks to Jim Kallstom, former FBI, did you pack your bags?) but not trust millions of active and retired law enforcement officers to Citizen Carry on an airplane. They should be outraged.
ILL FLY AGAIN WHEN PILOTS ARE ARMED.
May I rant for a second! Get these liberal, antigun activists out of our government decision making process. Consider, Israel Airlines policy bolt the door, arms it pilots, and has armed travelers in the cabin.
We allow lowly-paid gate-guards to gate dis-arm us, creating a "killing zone of disarmed citizens", as passingers "do battle" in the sky with terrorists, using passion for weapons because misguided government policy has left us defenseless.
The government can not protect you when the terrorist is eyeball to eyeball with you. Now they have ban my pocketknife used to clean my nails. What next, my shoelaces becasue terrorists can make a rope weapon??
Most all of the former military pilots strapped firearms to their legs when they served their county. Today they are considered not capable, wear the wrong uniform, or untrust worthy.
This BS about putting a 9mm hole in the skin of an airplane will bring it down is more rhetoric and fiction than fact. Just ask the thousand of airmen who returned from flights over Germany in WWII. How about the 747 over Hawaii with a 20-foot hole in the side. Still got a problem with possible decompression? Consider the alternative!
Ill trust anyday my life to any active or retired law enforcement officer to CITIZEN CARRY on any airline.
Ill trust anyday my life to any pilot or copilot active or retired to carry on any airline.
Ill trust any American citizen willing to CITIZEN CARRY after extensive training to carry on any airline. It is a huge responsibility, however, the current "Killing Zones" set up by faulty thinking is killing our husbands, wives, children, and our nation.
I am sure thousands perhaps millions of Americans would trust their life to armed pilots, copilots, air crew members, retired, policemen, FBI, CIA, ATF, or American Citizens willing to train, quality, and stay current with cabin safety issues keeping America airlines safe.
I personally trust all of the above personnel, rather than phony security questions, low-pay air guards, unlocked backdoor food and cleaning functions or gates at airports, or government officials with big titles.
WHO DO YOU TRUST THE GOVERNMENT? OR DO YOU TRUST HONEST AMERICAN CITIZENS WHO LIVE AND BREATH FAMILY SAFETY WHEN TRAVELING?
What do you want in your cockpit, a pilot and copilot with a firearm, or a terrorist?
2,180 dollars (four colt pistols or glock)would have prevented all four terrorist acts and five thousand dead would be having dinner with their families this evening.
Government will spend billions of dollars with highly visible, and very breach-able security that irritates American citizens during check-in when one additional layer can greatly enhanse passenger security. Pilots want want to die without fighting, but not me.
Thousands of American veterans, retired Law Enforcement Officers and American Citzens want to sign up today to fight terrorism. Don't tell them they are unqualified.
If you do tell them they are unqualifed, they may have a word or two for you. Something about pounding sand where the sun does not shine.
Visit keepandbeararms to carry the fight.
------ Let us hear from the active and retired Law enforcement, pilots, and concerned American citizens.
If one of the crew is a terrorist, he's already armed with a hundred-ton MISSLE! If there's a shootout and the plane goes down, that's FAR from the worst that could happen.
yup. glock owners are much less proficient at clearing jams than many
owners of other firearms. we just dont quite get enough practice
clearing those stovepipes and misfeeds.
and when the five meter double taps are less than 2 apart,
were waiting too long between shots.
glock shooters realize that the reduced recoil moment and
lower center of balance gives them an unfair advantage, but
we keep it among ourselves. shhhhh.
shoot straight. shoot safe.
I've shot 'em. I just can't stand how they feel in my hand. too blocky...like holding a gun made out of Lego blocks.
One shooter's opinion.
I'm not saying we have to arm idiots. I'm saying it's unwise and perhaps even cowardly to assume everyone is an idiot. You put your faith in your fellow man every time you drive down a two-lane street, or cross at a crosswalk. If you are afraid to go out of doors because of the risk, don't try to tell those of us who must go out what to do.
i havent heard of glocks referred to as legos before... ah, that got me laughing.
thanks. hey - shoot what works for you, no problem here.
oh, and practice practice practice.
BTW don't make things up and pretend I said them. Don't be abusive, it's offensive. And irrelevant.
If you fear your fellow man when there is overwhelming evidence most people are good and sensible, if you feel you can not trust anyone because some people are bad or worse, you will not be the better for it. Which side are you on, the side of the terrorists? There are now good people who are out on the demonstrably pointy end of life every day, whether they be pilots, flight attendants, or passengers. So far your only argument seems to be the passengers are idiots who can't be trusted. That anyone with a CHL is a potential "clown", and therefore can't be trusted.
"Insipid". Ha. I haven't seen that for a while. If some fool wants to get up and pretend to be a hijacker I expect "insipid" will lead to "evolution in action".
How about a compromise? I will happily support "Sky Marshall" if any CHL can be "deputized" by showing his CHL at the inquest. People from Vermont are automatically deputized by their driver's license....
Brazilian Airlines Story Hoax
Are you sure about this article? I think someone needs to question the validity of Thomas Buyea email@example.com. Only last year, if I remember, Brazil's President pushed through a strict gun-ban like the one that makes Jamaica such a low-crime society (NOT!). A Brazilian judge eventually threw it out, as (a) unconstitutional and (b) unlikely to achieve its ostensible purpose anyway.
It seems highly unlikely they would allow something like this. Did any one at the SierraTimes check this out?
I was scanning through this morning (9-17-01) and briefly saw an article about how some of the Brazilian airlines are allowing passengers to carry .38 and under. I'm trying to go back and read the article but can't find it!
M. in Calif.
The mistake that was made on the Brazilian story is understandable. It is vary easy to forgive those who printed it because we are all desperately looking for intelligent life among our politicians and it is a scarce commodity. Keep looking though because you might get lucky.
To Our Readers: We apologize for publishing the story about the Brazilian Parliament approving the carrying of firearms on airflights by passengers. This story was apparently a hoax. We at Sierra Times have no excuse for believing the story, other than the wishful thinking that some intelligent life might remain on this planet. SierraTimes
On the other hand, taking this to the skies is another matter. Any sort of shootout in the air is very deadly. I don't think letting anyone carry a gun is a good idea.
I think the cockpit should be trained and armed. I think sky marshalls are a good idea. But let's leave the potential "shootout in the skies" to those that will have special training and bullets for this different "OK corral" than the one on the ground.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.