posted on September 28, 2001 05:23:58 AM new
As though he has lost interest in his war toys, Bush flew to Chicago to talk about airplanes.
During a reassurance speech outlining his 'plan' for increased air travel security he made much of the fact that he'd had one of his fllunkies get to Chicago on United (see, we aren't worried), put out some ideas, but didn't commit much of his new found money to the project.
"Bush authorized $500 million in grants to the airlines to strengthen cockpit doors and study technology that would allow air traffic
controllers to take control of a plane if the pilot was incapacitated."
How fast do you think they can blow the money on "research" for drone airliners? Kinda' like the missile defense plan--lots of broth, no meat.
"The administration said guard troops would receive three or four days of training from the Federal Aviation Administration (news - web sites), and would be stationed at roughly 750 airport checkpoints nationwide. The federal government would absorb the cost, estimated at between $100 million to $150 million. The troops would augment current security but not replace it".
Understand this. He means that the states will supply national guard troops at their expense, but he will give them "three or four days of training". Cheap and not a solution. They'll contract out the training to some nationwide seminar outfit and very little usable information will be gained from it. Maybe a couple of hours on rudimentary self defense measures. There will be, however, a record that training was given and each participant will sign that he was there. That will be the most important thing, and those training people practically chase each person down to make sure that they've signed. Practically meaningless as far as keeping anyone who wants to from taking over your airplane. This is lip service. I've attended a half dozen of these things that were the postal service response to shootings in the post office.
"The president's proposal stopped short of assigning federal workers to perform security duties at airports, as is done in some other
countries.The U.S. Conference of Mayors said Bush hadn't gone far enough, and appointed a task force, led by Los Angeles Mayor Jim Hahn, to come up with further security measures."
Sure. He won't spend money to do it right and thinks that by talking people back onto airplanes the problem will just sort of go away. Where are his priorities? People's lives or corporation's lives?
``We want a federal force that is equal to or even better than the ones
they have in Israel and Germany and France,'' said executive director
Tom Cochran. ``We do not have faith in the airlines to develop a
security system for our airports.''
Rep. James Oberstar (news - bio - voting record) of Minnesota, the
ranking Democrat on the House Transportation Committee, also faulted
the president's plan. ``The most basic responsibility of government is to
protect its citizens in acts of war that threaten safety and security,'' he
said. ``We wouldn't think of contracting out our army to protect us
against an open foreign invasion.''
posted on September 28, 2001 06:32:58 AM new
"Bush's plan envisions stationing 4,000-5,000 troops at the nation's 420 commercial airports for up to six months while the federal government prepares to step in. Also, many more in-flight air marshals would be trained and a federal agency would be set up to oversee the screening of passengers and luggage."
This is not enough for many scared people.
Some people will only be happy if armed guards carrying machine guns actually hand frisks every person as they enter the airports.
I would rather take a chance and not live like that but unfortunately those who demand such desperate measures to feel safe are usually those that scream the loudest.
posted on September 28, 2001 01:11:11 PM new
My husband is both a pilot for G.A. and an armed State Agent. On his job, they have received documents indicating that soon, as a State Agent, he might be permitted to carry his weapon on board an aircraft. So, in addition to the Federal Marshalls on each airplane, many planes might also have as regular passengers, off duty State Agents. The only problem is the bullets they need to use. They will have to change (I don't understand everything he said last night) to one that will stop a terrorist, but not decompress the airplane.
Not my name on ebay.
posted on September 28, 2001 01:36:01 PM new
Bush suggests flight to Disney World!!!
As Bush stood, flanked by two airplanes on the tarmac, one from United, the other American...Two of the hijacked airlines were United, and two were American...he became a cheerleader for travel...to Disney World!!!
"Get on board," Bush said, speaking on a flag-bedecked stage between the noses of two Boeing 737s. "Do your business around the country. Fly and enjoy America's great destination spots. Get down to Disney World in Florida. Take your families and enjoy life, the way we want it to be enjoyed."
"But just hours after Bush's appearance here, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld announced new procedures for dealing with hijacked airliners that seemed to underscore the potential threats still posed by terrorists 16 days after three planes were crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Under the new rules of engagement, regional commanders -- Air Force generals -- may give the order to shoot down a hijacked airliner if time does not permit the president or other senior officials to be contacted."
I think it's time for Bush and Rumsfeld to get their act together.
Yesterday, I heard that before a flight took off, the pilot announced to the passengers that if anyone stood up who appeared to be a terrorist that they should all stand up and fight...He then went on to remind them that 200 passengers should be able to handle 3 terrorists.
Some felt this message encouraging.
It's interesting that people are told to stay home during a severe snow storm but now we are being encouraged to go to disney world. Does that make any sense?
posted on September 28, 2001 02:00:07 PM new
I don't know Helen. I think he's trying to do everything at once.....the "war", the economy, confidence, etc. One of the big mistakes IMO, was him calling this a war to begin with. I think it's really similar to the "war" on drugs and maybe another word should be used. I think that's what has everyone scared. He's trying to get everyone back to doing what they did before Sept. 11th because it seems like everyone is in limbo waiting for something to happen. Right now, I'm sure flying is pretty safe so why not Disney World?
posted on September 28, 2001 02:32:45 PM new
Kraftdinner
War, air strikes aganist an unknown country...smoking bin Ladin out of a hole with an enormous bomb...are all inflamatory words. You are so right. And I like your comparison with the war on drugs. If you kill one drug lord, up pops another one. Same with bin Laden but even worse. Up pops another one and another retaliation from one of his bases located in 60 countries.
About Mickey Mouse...LoL...I just don't have an overwhelming desire to see him, either here or in California, or in Paris or Tokyo. I would like to see the airline situation under better control before flying anywhere . Actually, I'm more concerned about airplane maintenance than terrorists. So many workers have been laid off.
Two air force generals have been authorised to shoot down commercial airliners that appear to be threatening any city in the United States, Pentagon officials said yesterday.
Asked what assurance passengers would have against mistakes, he stressed that the generals would only act without executive authorisation in the most extraordinary circumstances and only if there was not enough time to consult.
posted on September 28, 2001 08:55:07 PM new
I've begun relying on CNBC for electronic news since CNN's Three Ring Circus approach is close to incoherent, and this evening the former security director for Isreal's El Al, who was in the States at the request of Congress to assess the state of airline security, was interviewed. His observations were that security was still too lax. He was also adamant that pilots should not be armed and that the cockpits should be sealed.
Congress may take some action on the question.
I'm not afraid to fly but if it becomes too much of a hassle, I'll fly less often than in the past. A certain segment of the population was already uneasy about flying. I think simply given the seriousness of the situation and the general state of confusion many people would not find a vacation particularly enjoyable at the moment. Also, I have a friend whose job for a large company requires her to fly about six to eight times a month to present seminars. It's already decided to revamp that department so that the presenters are organized into districts and provided cars, eliminating the dependency on air travel. Probably quite a few businesses will re-think their use of air travel, at least, in the short term.
syntactical edit
[ edited by Antiquary on Sep 28, 2001 08:56 PM ]
posted on September 28, 2001 09:28:56 PM new
Helen -
That's a great way to put it Antiquary - ".....CNN's Three Ring Circus approach is close to incoherent..." - LoL!
It's too bad flying has come down to this. These new security measures taking place now should have been done years ago, which only adds to the whole scare thing.
posted on September 29, 2001 04:26:01 AM new"air traffic controllers to take control of a plane if the pilot was incapacitated"
Now am I the only one who thinks this is stupid? Couldn't the would be terrorist then simply "tap into" the control system without having to commit "suicide"?
Since the whole thing would be radio controled some how, it could be done without going thru security check points.
