We noticed that you're using an unsupported browser. The TripAdvisor website may not display properly.We support the following browsers:
Windows: Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, Google Chrome. Mac: Safari.

A sign of the Times

Level Contributor
554 posts
3 reviews
Save Topic
A sign of the Times

In this instance the flight diversion can probably be blamed on a troubled individual, but what happens when actual organizations who intend to disrupt our way of life start to use this tactic. What can be done (if anything) to guard against this, when a mere threat can disrupt the air travel system. I can't blame US Air for their actions, in this instance what else could they do, but how can we stop this problem before it becomes more wide spread.


Leicester, United...
Level Contributor
1,280 posts
1 review
Save Reply
1. Re: A sign of the Times

I think the threat of a very long stint in jail would deter most people who would do this in sound mind just to make a political point.

Detroit, MI
Destination Expert
for Detroit, Travel Gadgets and Gear
Level Contributor
6,801 posts
Save Reply
2. Re: A sign of the Times

You can't defend against the random crazy person. The terrorists have won by making this country completely paranoid and afraid of their own shadow.

Several instances of people doing stuff like this have resulted in deaths. The guy off his meds who claimed to have a bomb that was shot by air marshals, plus the one that was smothered to death by fellow passengers for trying to open an exit in flight come to mind.

1. Very poor journalism on the part of ABC by putting the video of the Jet Blue pilot that went crazy above this story. Completely different story, but I guess they have to have a video to sensationalize.

2. Time will tell exactly what was said or in the alleged note. Two congresspeople say different things, and I highly doubt they were first on the scene to gather facts.

3. Diverting was the only course of action for the airline, but scrambling fighter jets is stupid. There is nothing they could do if there is a bomb on board, but there is the potential to have a mid-air collision. Also the possibility of taking a shot (if they actually had time to arm) because the pilot made a perfectly normal but unexpected move. Say they were landing in Baltimore and the pilot didn't like the approach, so pulled up at the last minute - do you shoot them down thinking they are heading to DC? This is more security theater to make everyone feel safer while actually making them less safe.

Destination Expert
for Bangkok, Air Travel, Thailand
Level Contributor
15,565 posts
71 reviews
Save Reply
3. Re: A sign of the Times


I agree with #1, and selected parts of #2..

Like many aspects of life, laws are really only reactionary-- they spell out what you can and cannot do, when, where, how, with whom, etc and also outline penalties for non-compliance.

Their ability to really PRO-actively make someone do or don't do something largely is rooted largely in your (as the actionable person) perception as to the risks you're willing to undertake by those actions.

Kind of like "do the crime, do the time" thinking..

To that end, I am a big fan of accountability... and enforcing the existing laws we have in place..

If you choose -- and by that I mean IF it is proven in a court of competent jurisdiction-- that your actions were willful, intentional and/or malicious, then I am all for longer remand sentences *and* economic penalties, in part to address the seriousness of the crime and attempt to make whole, those who have proven economic losses due to what now would be classified as a criminal act(ion).

and the punishment side should also include compensation to not only the airline, but also public resources expended to remedy your crime.. as well as civil exposure to those who also have proven losses due to the criminal actions.

Do I ever think we'll have laws that truly PREvent someone from doing something? No.. Not so long as there is someone who, after weighting the risks (punishments, etc) versus what s/he deems to the the upside to the crime, decides that is a worthwhile tradeoff for them,

I think the best and most likely outcome we can expect is to put into place-- AND consistently enforce the laws we do have, that makes NO mystery or uncertainty that IF you do XYZ actions, and if your are convicted by a court of those actions, this IS what happens-- time and costs..

As far as diverting.. Due to operational and logistical issues, there really is no other alternative.. So largely that was a "done deal" in respect to what would the immediate action be..

As far as the fighter jet issue.. That I leave to the competent military folks to determine what is the best course of action to take in what is largely a fast moving (no pun intended) situation and one with limited verifiable situational information is available.

Travel Safe,

Edited: 22 May 2012, 20:23
Level Contributor
1,746 posts
28 reviews
Save Reply
4. Re: A sign of the Times

I will not fly anymore. Not because of terrorists. Because of TSA.

In this case, some finger is behind someone's back.

We just don't know exactly which finger and where is pointed to.

Bingley, United...
Destination Expert
for Edinburgh
Level Contributor
32,526 posts
Save Reply
5. Re: A sign of the Times

< In this case, some finger is behind someone's back. >

If the finger is behind me I'd be VERY worried where it's pointing, especially if latex is involved

Level Contributor
1,182 posts
Save Reply
6. Re: A sign of the Times

Alanrow Loved your comment! Right on.

7. Re: A sign of the Times

-:- Message from TripAdvisor staff -:-

This topic has been closed to new posts due to inactivity. We hope you'll join the conversation by posting to an open topic or starting a new one.

To review the TripAdvisor Forums Posting Guidelines, please follow this link: http://www.tripadvisor.com/pages/forums_posting_guidelines.html

We remove posts that do not follow our posting guidelines, and we reserve the right to remove any post for any reason.

Removed on: 22 June 2013, 08:41