Your point, if any?

I challenge you to name one instance since 9/11.

What facts are those? The only fact I see here are that the air marshals steal seats from the airlines. The marshals' worth is suspect at best - they are useful only in the most unusual of circumstances - circumstances which have already been eliminated through a change in the mindset of dealing with terrorists and the securing of cockpit doors.

I'll not be in coach. I'll be on the next flight in F and the ballast will be outed.

Ask the FAMs. They'll tell you that passengers get up and walk to the lavatory within 30 minutes of Regan all the time, get drunk and interfere, do whatever they want without regard to the flight attendant instructions all the time.

The DCA pee rule is so pathetically stupid, those responsible for enacting it and maintaining its use ought to be in prisons themselves.

I am not talking about seat belt infractions. Name one instance (one) that the safety of the other passengers or the aircraft was in legitimate jeopardy becase an individual was able to act violently, threaten (terrorize) crew members, other passengers, or the aircraft since 9/11. Take your time. Use big words. I'm all ears.

As I read some of these exchanges, I can hear my Dad's voice saying:

I suppose.. the way around this logical conundrum is to say, "most government employees are poorly trained hacks" :D

Wisdom at last. Once you make that "all" statement or just say "group X" are nincompoops then you are making a blanket assertion which includes all people and leaves out none.

Even though, of course, you are wrong...only SOME government employees are poorly trained hacks... ;)

If people used Spiff's logic here to extend to say, racial and ethnic minorities, most people here would be in an uproar and call them racist (Black people eat fried chicken) and rightly so. I have seen some blacks eating fried chicken. Does that mean all of them do? No, that is stereotypical, racist BS and you would not stand for it (and again rightly so).

But do so to government employees and it is fine..... :confused:

Government employees eat fried chicken.

Sorry, couldn't resist :D

:D

mmmmmmmmmmmm....fried chicken. Honey! Get the car!!!! We're going to KFC!!! :)

Nasty. :D

To use your argument - I was there. I personally observed the man lock himself into the lav and smoke his cigarettes. I also watched the flight attendants try to get him out. This went on for 5 minutes. Finally they kicked in the door and made the very drunk man go to his seat. And pulled the smoking cigarette out of the trash bin he threw it in to "hide" it (drunk logic).

Nothing happened to the guy.

And as far as "mindset" goes, it has not changed. Didn't change on that flight, didn't change on this one http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...rested06m.html (would like to see you stop this guy, doubt it would happen). Didn't happen on the Syrian flight (whether or not there was an actual threat is irrelevent - they THOUGHT there was a threat and no one did anything except cower). Didn't help on this one until AFTER the guy got through the door and was hit on the head with an axe by the captain (http://www.sptimes.com/2002/02/08/Wo..._foils_c.shtml). And even after that it took them 10 minutes to subdue him. Wonder how well they would have done if it was a group of terrorists armed with some kind of weapon? 1 hour? Or this one where the FAM prevented a man from entering the flight deck through the lavatory....(http://washingtontimes.com/national/...1403-1508r.htm). Maybe some of the passengers would have stopped it after they woke up....

Passengers do not, as a rule, think about tactics. They do not, as a rule, have the training to be effective. They do not, as a rule, maintain the physical shape to be able to fight. This is not to slam them. Feds do not, as a rule, think about how to run a company. Feds do not, as a rule, need to weigh adverstisement monies vs. adverstising. Feds do not, as a rule, think about how to become a better teacher. There are a number of jobs that feds do not think about how to do because they have little idea/training/experience in how to do it. Passengers on a plane fall into this category when it comes in the use of violence in legally acceptable ways.

That is why you have specializations - because no one can know everything.

Really? All lav doors can be opened with a pen. Why would they need to kick the door in? And, more to the point, what would a marshal have done differently? Shot the door?

Again, I challenge you to name one incident since 9/11. Just one.

Just did, and the guy was holding the door. My point was nothing happened to him even though his ciggy in the wastebasket could have torched the plane pretty quick.

and that comes as news to you?

One could say every time you get on a flight your safety could be in legitimate jeopardy of a passenger acting violently and terrorizing crew and other passengers. The possible presence of a FAM could have deterred the act thus we don't have to name one flight since you could say all of the flights could fit. :cool: