US Air Marshal Left Loaded Gun in Airplane Bathroom on TATL DL Flight
Apr 21, 2017, 12:12 pm
#31
Join Date: Sep 2013
Programs: DL PM, 1MM, DL SC, Kimpton Inner Circle
Posts: 2,416
Apr 21, 2017, 12:24 pm
#33
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 17,455
At 39000 feet I'm pretty sure the last person I want discharging a weapon is the one who can't remember leaving it in the lav. Actually at 39000 feet I didn't really want anyone discharging a weapon.
Btw, what if the next person in WAS a terrorist?
Wouldn't even have to leave the lav to make some really bad things happen to that plane.
Btw, what if the next person in WAS a terrorist?
Wouldn't even have to leave the lav to make some really bad things happen to that plane.
Apr 21, 2017, 12:27 pm
#34
Join Date: Apr 2017
Programs: Rapid Rewards, Sky Miles
Posts: 40
This is like a surgeon leaving a scalpel in the patient's body.
Some mistakes unfortunately cannot be ignored.
Not saying that the air marshal should go to prison or anything but it should have prevent the air marshal from continuing with this career path.
Apparently, this incident is fine and the staff is cleared to carry on with normal duties (aka fly with loaded weapon) just days after the incident?
Some mistakes unfortunately cannot be ignored.
Not saying that the air marshal should go to prison or anything but it should have prevent the air marshal from continuing with this career path.
Apparently, this incident is fine and the staff is cleared to carry on with normal duties (aka fly with loaded weapon) just days after the incident?
Apr 21, 2017, 12:48 pm
#35
Join Date: Mar 2010
Programs: DL PM, Bonvoy Gold
Posts: 8,414
Before 2001, the expectation among passengers was that hijackers just wanted to go to cuba or collect their ransom or whatever, if you just sat down you would eventually be OK.
After 9/11, that expectation evaporated. Hijackers will not face a group of compliant passengers ever again.
After 9/11, that expectation evaporated. Hijackers will not face a group of compliant passengers ever again.
Apr 21, 2017, 1:04 pm
#37
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: MEM
Programs: Starbucks Green Card
Posts: 5,431
So your opinion is that we don't need FAMs because pax will protect themselves? This argument falls completely flat for me. If someone had been armed on the flights on 9/11, there is a real possibility that box cutters would not have lead to the largest attack on the American homeland since Pearl Harbor.
Apr 21, 2017, 1:24 pm
#39
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Bye Delta
Programs: AA EXP, HH Diamond, IHG Plat, Hyatt Plat, Marriott Plat, Nat'l Exec Elite, Avis Presidents Club
Posts: 16,273
Apr 21, 2017, 1:53 pm
#40
Join Date: Oct 2006
Programs: star alliance
Posts: 26
So your opinion is that we don't need FAMs because pax will protect themselves? This argument falls completely flat for me. If someone had been armed on the flights on 9/11, there is a real possibility that box cutters would not have lead to the largest attack on the American homeland since Pearl Harbor.
After 9/11, people are keenly aware that a highjacking could be much worse than a detour to Havana and it is not far-fetched to say that passenger have a huge incentive to "handle the problem." There have already been cases (Richard Reid comes to mind) and one could argue passengers on flight 93 were the first to realize the new paradigm and made an attempt to stop the terrorists.
So yes, maybe if there had been a marshal, they could have prevented one or more of the attacks. However, you have to acknowledge that, armed with the knowledge that there is a real possibility of a suicide mission, the passengers could have also changed the outcome.
I am not suggesting that multiple unarmed passengers would be more or less effective than a single armed marshal, I do not know. However, I think it's disingenuous to point to 9/11 and suggest that the outcome would have been different, without considering the mindset of the passengers.
I would love to see decisions based on the concrete numbers. How many times marshals have engaged in a threat situation? How many times passengers have? How often a weapon had to be drawn etc. instead of knee-jerk reactions to anecdotal evidence.
Apr 21, 2017, 2:20 pm
#41
Join Date: Mar 2010
Programs: DL PM, Bonvoy Gold
Posts: 8,414
Until 9/11, the notion that highjackers would engage in suicide missions was relatively unthinkable. The general mentality was to sit tight and in all likelihood, you would survive.
After 9/11, people are keenly aware that a highjacking could be much worse than a detour to Havana and it is not far-fetched to say that passenger have a huge incentive to "handle the problem." There have already been cases (Richard Reid comes to mind) and one could argue passengers on flight 93 were the first to realize the new paradigm and made an attempt to stop the terrorists.
So yes, maybe if there had been a marshal, they could have prevented one or more of the attacks. However, you have to acknowledge that, armed with the knowledge that there is a real possibility of a suicide mission, the passengers could have also changed the outcome.
I am not suggesting that multiple unarmed passengers would be more or less effective than a single armed marshal, I do not know. However, I think it's disingenuous to point to 9/11 and suggest that the outcome would have been different, without considering the mindset of the passengers.
I would love to see decisions based on the concrete numbers. How many times marshals have engaged in a threat situation? How many times passengers have? How often a weapon had to be drawn etc. instead of knee-jerk reactions to anecdotal evidence.
After 9/11, people are keenly aware that a highjacking could be much worse than a detour to Havana and it is not far-fetched to say that passenger have a huge incentive to "handle the problem." There have already been cases (Richard Reid comes to mind) and one could argue passengers on flight 93 were the first to realize the new paradigm and made an attempt to stop the terrorists.
So yes, maybe if there had been a marshal, they could have prevented one or more of the attacks. However, you have to acknowledge that, armed with the knowledge that there is a real possibility of a suicide mission, the passengers could have also changed the outcome.
I am not suggesting that multiple unarmed passengers would be more or less effective than a single armed marshal, I do not know. However, I think it's disingenuous to point to 9/11 and suggest that the outcome would have been different, without considering the mindset of the passengers.
I would love to see decisions based on the concrete numbers. How many times marshals have engaged in a threat situation? How many times passengers have? How often a weapon had to be drawn etc. instead of knee-jerk reactions to anecdotal evidence.
Apr 21, 2017, 9:59 pm
#42
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: MEM
Programs: Starbucks Green Card
Posts: 5,431
Shouldn't we see evidence that it actually has an effect before authorizing the money be spent on it in the first place?
Apr 21, 2017, 10:08 pm
#43
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 17,455
Apr 21, 2017, 10:28 pm
#44
Moderator: Hyatt; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: WAS
Programs: :rolleyes:, DL DM, Mlife Plat, Caesars Diam, Marriott Tit, UA Gold, Hyatt Glob, invol FT beta tester
Posts: 18,928
Apr 21, 2017, 11:48 pm
#45
Join Date: Mar 2010
Programs: DL PM, Bonvoy Gold
Posts: 8,414
We do know that, in other situations (not an airplane), armed authorities are able to make a difference when they show up.
I remain wholly unconvinced by these counter arguments, and if given the choice, I'd prefer to fly on a flight with a FAM.