Bomb Threat on AA Flight

Old Nov 8, 07, 2:32 pm
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 253
Bomb Threat on AA Flight

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071108/...ne_bomb_threat

Sounds like this one was at least handled correctly. Pax and crew were de-planed, no interference with airport operations, etc.
mmartin4600 is offline  
Old Nov 8, 07, 2:38 pm
  #2  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LAX; AA EXP, MM; HH Gold
Posts: 31,790
I disagree. IMO, responding to bomb threats is a mistake. When you ignore them, they stop. When you respond to them as if they were real, they continue.
FWAAA is offline  
Old Nov 8, 07, 2:43 pm
  #3  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Department of Homeland Sincerity
Programs: WN Platinum
Posts: 12,073
Glad no one was hurt. It's a no-win situation. They have to respond to bomb threats or the relatives of the passengers will be peeved if there were to be a bomb on the plane.

Even though 99.99999% likely it is a hoax, they still have to follow through because current air security is just not reliable enough to chalk it off as a hoax.

Our TSA dollars could be much better spent on inspecting cargo.
UALOneKPlus is offline  
Old Nov 8, 07, 2:55 pm
  #4  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In a little twisty maze of airline seats, all alike...
Programs: CO, NW & UA forum moderator emeritus
Posts: 28,383
Oh please -- this was a total overreaction. The plane was already on the ground at LGA when the threat came in.
Even though 99.99999% likely it is a hoax, they still have to follow through because current air security is just not reliable enough to chalk it off as a hoax.
No -- our security is a joke.
Xyzzy is offline  
Old Nov 8, 07, 2:57 pm
  #5  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Department of Homeland Sincerity
Programs: WN Platinum
Posts: 12,073
Originally Posted by xyzzy View Post
Oh please -- this was a total overreaction. The plane was already on the ground at LGA when the threat came in.No -- our security is a joke.
Agreed, but yea, you're right.

Hey, I tried to be sympathetic to the "official powers that be", but who are we kidding?
UALOneKPlus is offline  
Old Nov 8, 07, 3:01 pm
  #6  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,977
The call came into a general number at the New York Police Department and was transferred to 911. The caller, who spoke slowly, claimed he had seen information on the Internet that there was a bomb on the flight.
His tinfoil hat must have fallen off.

Oh no, wait. It was a "vigilant citizen".
Wally Bird is offline  
Old Nov 8, 07, 3:25 pm
  #7  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 253
Originally Posted by xyzzy View Post
Oh please -- this was a total overreaction.
How did they overreact? They had a threat; they de-planed the passengers and swept it with dogs. Sounds like SOP to me. How should they have reacted?
mmartin4600 is offline  
Old Nov 8, 07, 3:30 pm
  #8  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LAX; AA EXP, MM; HH Gold
Posts: 31,790
Originally Posted by mmartin4600 View Post
How did they overreact? They had a threat; they de-planed the passengers and swept it with dogs. Sounds like SOP to me. How should they have reacted?
How did they overreact? By devising an SOP that called for any response at all to an anonymous caller's fantasy. There was no "threat" to anyone. Just a mentally ill person's phone call.

I can understand your bias toward praising these officials - after all, lotsa paychecks depend on irrational responses by the officials to non-threats.

It's not about actual safety or security - it's about collecting paychecks predicated on irrational fears. Keep everyone thinking there's actual risk, and that money for nothin' keeps on flowing.
FWAAA is offline  
Old Nov 8, 07, 3:31 pm
  #9  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 10,037
A different angle....

It's a lose-lose situation for everyone involved.

Let's assume for a moment that all the bags and persons on the plane were truly searched for explosives prior to departure, and there were none.

The fact that there had to be this search, the evacuation, the interviews with the passengers, etc.

From a liability standpoint, they have to do it. From a true security standpoint, it's shame they have to do it. We're sold a bill of goods of this "layered security" BS, yet the aforementioned procedures still do need to be done.

It comes over to me as more a statement of the untrustworthiness of the TSA screening process than it does believing there was a true bomb on there.

If there was a true belief of a bomb being in those suitcases, the fellow with the bomb-sniffing dog would be wearing one of those "bomb suits" (I don't know what they're officially called) rather than a windbreaker.

Nonetheless, I hope the person responsible for this bomb threat is caught and prosecuted.
LessO2 is offline  
Old Nov 8, 07, 3:33 pm
  #10  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Department of Homeland Sincerity
Programs: WN Platinum
Posts: 12,073
Originally Posted by LessO2 View Post
...
It comes over to me as more a statement of the untrustworthiness of the TSA screening process than it does believing there was a true bomb on there.
....
UALOneKPlus is offline  
Old Nov 8, 07, 3:52 pm
  #11  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 253
Originally Posted by LessO2 View Post
A different angle....

It's a lose-lose situation for everyone involved.

Let's assume for a moment that all the bags and persons on the plane were truly searched for explosives prior to departure, and there were none.

The fact that there had to be this search, the evacuation, the interviews with the passengers, etc.

From a liability standpoint, they have to do it. From a true security standpoint, it's shame they have to do it. We're sold a bill of goods of this "layered security" BS, yet the aforementioned procedures still do need to be done.

It comes over to me as more a statement of the untrustworthiness of the TSA screening process than it does believing there was a true bomb on there.

If there was a true belief of a bomb being in those suitcases, the fellow with the bomb-sniffing dog would be wearing one of those "bomb suits" (I don't know what they're officially called) rather than a windbreaker.

Nonetheless, I hope the person responsible for this bomb threat is caught and prosecuted.
I agree with your comments. However, I believe the greater risk lays in the unscreened cargo that is also on those planes.
mmartin4600 is offline  
Old Nov 8, 07, 3:55 pm
  #12  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 253
Originally Posted by FWAAA View Post
How did they overreact? By devising an SOP that called for any response at all to an anonymous caller's fantasy. There was no "threat" to anyone. Just a mentally ill person's phone call.

I can understand your bias toward praising these officials - after all, lotsa paychecks depend on irrational responses by the officials to non-threats.

It's not about actual safety or security - it's about collecting paychecks predicated on irrational fears. Keep everyone thinking there's actual risk, and that money for nothin' keeps on flowing.
We live in two different worlds.
mmartin4600 is offline  
Old Nov 8, 07, 4:14 pm
  #13  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LAX; AA EXP, MM; HH Gold
Posts: 31,790
When I click on the yahoo! link I see a picture of Don Imus. Maybe he called it in.
FWAAA is offline  
Old Nov 8, 07, 4:16 pm
  #14  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 10,037
Originally Posted by mmartin4600 View Post
I agree with your comments. However, I believe the greater risk lays in the unscreened cargo that is also on those planes.

Yeah, and I should have been more detailed in my thoughts.

Part of the seemingly uneasy feeling about the TSA's screening process includes the cargo. Also the double-standard in employee screening and not to mention the unfettered access to planes that catering trucks have.

You can't have a truly "sterile" area when you have those exceptions.
LessO2 is offline  
Old Nov 8, 07, 5:07 pm
  #15  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,704
Originally Posted by FWAAA View Post
How did they overreact? By devising an SOP that called for any response at all to an anonymous caller's fantasy. There was no "threat" to anyone. Just a mentally ill person's phone call.

I can understand your bias toward praising these officials - after all, lotsa paychecks depend on irrational responses by the officials to non-threats.

It's not about actual safety or security - it's about collecting paychecks predicated on irrational fears. Keep everyone thinking there's actual risk, and that money for nothin' keeps on flowing.
This is one view. I guess the other would be the anonymous threat Ramzi Yousef made prior to the 1993 bombing.
law dawg is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread