Bouncer

"The use of the restroom is irrelevant here. The man disobeyed a directive from the Captain, which was relayed twice, and should be pushished severely for it. I highly doubt the first person charged with this crime will get off lightly. The attorney general will make an example of this case."

It is entirely relevant. You will either risk herniation or you WILL vacate your bladder/bowels. There is no third choice. So, you are on an aircraft. You will either urinate/defecate in your seat, or you will get up and go to the bathroom. And risk federal prosecution with the millions of dollars the federal government can throw at you to convict you.

Punishing people for poorly designed regulations IS NOT the right answer. It's plain stupid. Supposedly the marshals decided there was a risk to the aircraft. Yet, at the end of this the person was released on their own recognizance. They just let him walk out of the police station without bail or anything else. At that point it's fairly obvious they didn't really think he was a real risk, they just wanted to make a point because they could.

Next time perhaps he should just unzip and let fly. In order to be in compliance with the FAA directives. Since he wouldn't want to be a security risk.

Regards,
-Bouncer-

FWAAA

Here's an apology from Mr. Bizzaro:

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/020211/110519_1.html

HE thought a hijacking was in progress when the backward ball-cap wearing sky marshall started yelling.

NYC1

It may have become a cliche but Franklin was right. Those who would sacrifice liberty for security are deserving of neither. The American people are being pacified by a bunch of arrogant idiots. Especially those on the field. This whole 9/11 situation is a wet dream for FAs on a power trip.

cigarman

Well... there's like zero chance short of them pointing a gun at me that I would sit with my hans on my head. BUT, if I did... I would be giving them the old middle finger salute. They may have their retarded rules... I have my right to free speech and expression. Just like the other day when the rent a cop wanted my shoes. I told him it was "silly". He said you can't say that! I said, thank God I live in the USA where I have the constitution right to tell him it was... SILLY,SILLY,SILLY...SILLY."

[This message has been edited by cigarman (edited 02-11-2002).]

AS Flyer

Are you for real???? I go to work each day and pray that I won't have to have any type of confrontation. I want trouble as much as you want to respect any of the rules on board an airplane - which apparently is very little.

Air travel today is a reflection on our society as a whole and how far down the toilet it has gone. Each one of us contributes to that in some way. Think back about 30 years ago (those of you that can remember flying then) and what kind of an experience it was. True, it was a much better experience, but one that you paid far more for. It was truly a privelege then and not a right. And people were just nicer to each other. The whole reason that Flight Attendants didn't bark rules back then was because they didn't have to. People respected the rules, there wasn't a general air of entitlement and me, me, me. We smiled at each other, strangers chatted as they traveled, they were just nicer to each other. Flight Attendants were much nicer back then because people were much nicer to them. True it was rare to find a Flight Attendant enforcing rules because most people just respected them to begin with. I realize that I may be living in the past but then so are those of you that wonder why flying isn't fun anymore. It's public transportation, pure and simple - not much more than the city bus. That's what people demanded - that's what we have. Instead of harping on the Flight Attendants why don't you try smiling at them and ask how there day is going instead of throwing your coat at them and barking out your preflight beverage order as you throw your fourth carry on bag into the overhead. You might be surprised when they smile back and treat you with as much respect. People aren't all that friendly to each other these days, times are different and Flight Attendants are just people, but if you are nice to them then you might find they will be really nice back.

Tango

Good thing he did not come out of the Lav with a pair of tweezers or nail clippers, it would have been off to Gitmo for a Miltary Tribunal!!!!

Doppy

For those of you who responded to my comments saying that we have a right and responsibility to challenge authority - you're right.

But challenging authority is contacting your representatives, writing letters, etc. Challenging authority isn't breaking the rules, flying planes into buildings or blowing up bombs. We're supposed to be more civilized and advanced than we were in the past. We shouldn't be resorting to violence or flagrantly breaking the rules. Instead of whining here, contact someone who can make a difference.

Also, for people who claim that the rule is stupid and that it wouldn't stop a terrorist - sure, people who are determined to do something will do it anyway. But, what's good about this rule is that if someone stands up during the no-standing time, everyone on the plane is completely aware of it. Now the terrorists would have to deal with a planeload of pax who know something isn't right, especially if two or more people stand up.

No one has a good argument here about this guy. The pax are notified 60 minutes before the end of the flight that they need to take care of their business in the next 30 min. Unless this guy has a serious medical condition, why at 31 minutes before the end of the flight was he OK, but then at 29 minutes he had to get up, despite several warnings from the crew? If he was able to make it to that 30 minute barrier, he should have waited the final 30 minutes. I also seriously doubt that he's going to be given a sentence of 20 years. The crime he was charged with can be anything from getting up like this guy did to hijacking a plane, hence the huge range is possible sentences. Let's not get too over excited about such an unlikely event.

And I totally agree with AS Flyer. The reason things are so bad is because the pax suck. If pax were respectful and followed the rules, we wouldn't need more and more of them and stricter enforcement. People are jerks, they don't want to put their seats up or turn off their electronics when they're supposed to. That's fine for them, but if the plane crashes on landing we have about 90 seconds before the fire pierces the outside of the aircraft. I don't need to be trapped because you want to be a jerk. Or read "Plane Insanity" where the author describes the mother who doesn't want to wake her sleeping child and have her put on hear seatbelt at landing. She'd rather risk that her child flys through the cabin at 200MPH than disturb her child with the seatbelt nonsense.

d

Soonerman

How about a new airline for all of you patriots who so boldly claim you wouldn't obey these stupid FAA rules.

You're going to love this new airline. No security checklines since that's too much of an inconvenience and might infringe upon your constitutional right to bear fingernail clippers, no aircraft maintenance since that might unnecessarily run up ticket prices, no power hungry air marshalls or flight attendants since there will be no rules on these flights (passengers will simply fight it out for first class seating). And just think how cheap tickets will be without all those highly trained pilots flying the planes (for a few extra bucks or FF miles, we'll let you upgrade to the pilot's seat). Of course, you will receive the highest comped status in the FF program so at least you won't have to whine about that.

Get over it already. One of the things that makes a civilized society work is the willingness of its citizens to abide by its laws. For those that choose to go another direction, well, there's the option of the all inclusive government run bed & breakfast (no upgrades to an executive suite or free breakfast coupons there so I don't think many of you will like this option). If you think your rights have taken a beating because of some silly FAA rule, try spending a little time in a place like Big Mac where you forfeit all your rights, and everyone plays by a different set of rules. It's alright to think the new rules are stupid if you want, because in this country you have the right to freely express your opinion, no matter how ridiculous. But if you choose to follow this idiot's example, don't expect any support from me. I'll be the guy sitting in coach with my hands on my head laughing my ... off saying "Way to go dude, you really showed them a thing or two" as the Air Marshalls lead you off the plane.

BarryO

This really is going too far. The other pax had to keep their hands on their heads? Doesn't it remind you of kindergarten, where the teacher punished the whole class for something one person did?

Some younger people may not believe this, but it is entirely possible that an ocassional 59-yr. old would not know he needed to go to the bathroom, until it was very imminent (can you say "enlarged prostate"). And for an older gentleman to have to ask permission to take a leak, there's a basic human diginity element here -- ever see the film "Driving Miss Daisy"? No wonder he got mad.

I guess I better never fly with my 4-yr. old anymore. I can ask him a dozen times if he needs to go, get a dozen "no" replies, and 30 seconds later he needs to go really bad.

This incident has made up my mind. I think we should just go back to pre-9/11 security procedures. The price we're paying now is just too high. The element of suprise is gone, and pax and crew will never let a plane be used as a guided missile.

We could eliminate all traffic deaths by lowering the highway speed limit to 25 mph. Instead, we set it higher because the increased mobility is worth a few thousand deaths. Similarly, there may be a (very) ocassional incident due to some nutcase, but at least we won't have to put up with this type of humiliating treatment on a daily basus.

AS Flyer

Let's suppose for a second that the next plane to fly into a building has on board your wife and your four year old, would the sacrifice still be acceptable to you?Exactly how much IS it worth to you? Let me guess, as long as you are not affected then sacrifices are ok. I bet if the families of those on board any of the UA or AA flights from 9/11 were asked they would gladly give up such conveniences in order to have their loved ones back.

anrkitec

Your response to the points that BarryO made is curious at best, though you certainly are not the only one here to make similar comments.

Forgive me but asking someone- anyone to make sweeping, wide-ranging decisions for an entire society based solely on their own self-interest is a moronic proposition. If this were the case, absolutely nothing would ever be achieved, as our entire nation would grind to a halt.

In the 1988 presidential debates the moderator asked Dukakis a similarly insipid question. The moderator essentially asked Dukakis if he would change his opinion on the death penalty if his wife and daughter were raped and killed. Dukakis failed this test and hemmed and hawed out an incoherent answer. What he should have said (based on his own beliefs) is that he would want to kill the person responsible by tearing them limb from limb but would ultimately respect the due process of law and then still be personally against the death penalty simply because it is wrong.

The point is that we make decisions about laws, rules, and regulations based on the U.S. Constitution, the degree to which they address the issue at hand, and their potential efficacy balanced against the cost. We do not (or should not) make important decisions based on childish criteria such as you suggest.

Using the events of 9/11 again and again as an excuse to do anything all in the name of security is simplistic, naïve, and wrong. It is equally simplistic to sarcastically suggest that we just "do nothing" as if doing nothing and employing idiocy were our only choices.




[This message has been edited by anrkitec (edited 02-12-2002).]

AS Flyer

I realize the lunacy of the proposition. I was trying to make a point. I realize also that the security procedures in effect right now can be nothing short of ridiculous.

I personally do not agree with the rule requiring everyone remain seated during the last 30 min. of each flight in/out of SLC and DCA. I don't see what purpose it serves. I also don't condone deciding for yourselves which rules you will respect and which ones you will not. If a rule applies to all on board that includes each person, including yourself. If you are not pleased with that then you should make your voice heard to someone that can do something about it. Deciding to be defiant to the flight crew, the security people, the gate agents, whatever, is simply barking up the wrong tree. People are jumping to this person defense, I think he was wrong. If he knew the rule and didn't wish to obey it he should have not taken the flight.

I also don't see the sense behind making each person sit with their hands on their heads for last part of the flight. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't do it. To not do so would be the equivalant of refusing to put your hands in the air when a Police Officer tells you to. Air Marshalls are no different than Police Officers.

Back to my original point. This person claims that he is comfortable with sacrificing lives to avoid the inconvenience of more stringent security. I don't think it's an invalid question to ask what he is willing to sacrifice. Michael Dukakis stood behind his convictions when posed with the question regarding the death penalty. In the end he said he would still not support the death penalty. Would this person be comfortable knowing that, because of the lack of security pre-9/11, his family could be sacrificed?

edited due to accidentally calling Michael Dukakis George http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

[This message has been edited by AS Flyer (edited 02-12-2002).]

Snoopy

This whole discussion is one good reason why I will not fly with a US airline until this hysteria has blown over. I worked in the industry a few years back and I know what quality security screeners are (and I place the blame firmly in the lap of the airlines as they decide what price they are willing to pay and that dicates the calibre of staff security companies can hire), I know that Federal Air Marshalls are a bunch of gung-ho cowboys who couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery. Believe me, I have seen them at work and they are frightening! Also, I don't feel like taking my shoes off before I board a plane in a dirty airport terminal...I mean walking over a "Foot&Mouth" disinfectant is one thing, but going barefoot....forget it!

Last week I flew from Manila to Tokyo. I could have flown NW direct, as it is I flew via TPE with Philippine Air and China Airlines. I had a C-cabin to myself on the first leg, and arrived in one piece on the second. It was a great flight and no hassle. Door to door it took me 2 hours more, but I will do it again.

Flashes1

Am I the only one who finds it ironic that the most frequent of flyers seem to be the most resistent to improved safety measures?

The Olympics have a huge bulls eye on them for Muslim extremists so authorities are taking no chances. I trust these guys' security assessments more than the wanna be's on this board.

When a crew member tells you to sit down, YOU SIT DOWN! When a security screener tells you to take off your shoes, YOU TAKE OFF YOUR SHOES. What's the problem with following these instructions? Are our ego's so fragile that we can't listen to authority figures anymore?

Sky Marshals have police authority. If a cop tells you to raise your arms it's best to raise your arms. I scoff at the whiners on this board. They show no one respect, thus they deserve no respect.

You reap what you sow.

R&R

Amazing how many posts are refusing to cooperate and share wny responsibility to improve security.

Now that is frightening!