Guns vs ?

[TWA Dude]

Re: 2nd amendment

Of course it's a seccond amendment issue.

I disagree. Is the fact that passengers aren't allowed to carry guns on board a 2nd Amendment issue?


This isn't about gun rights or liberals or even the NRA. It's about cost and risk.

 

[TWA Dude]

Re: Re: Guns vs ?

It seems that the ATA has been trying to limit Captains authority for years and they saw guns in the cockpit as a step in the opposite direction

I certainly agree about the ATA and captain's authority but guns are a completely unrelated issue. The ATA hates paying for anything like TCAS and EGPWS thus only does so reluctantly. Their goal is profit. Pesky captains can cost an airline money. If guns in the cockpit were a money-maker we'd have them.

 

[enigma]

I certainly agree about the ATA and captain's authority but guns are a completely unrelated issue. The ATA hates paying for anything like TCAS and EGPWS thus only does so reluctantly. Their goal is profit. Pesky captains can cost an airline money. If guns in the cockpit were a money-maker we'd have them.

Almost, but guns equal power, and management is more afraid of pilots having power than they are of another 9/11. I think that this is a case of being more afraid of the devil you know, than the devil you don't. Management knows that an all powerful pilot group can give them fits, while they can only surmise what amount of trouble the terrorists can give them. It seems that they would rather take the chance on giving terrorists a break, than take the certainty of more powerful pilots.

regards

 

[avbug]

Respectfully, I'd suggest that weapons don't equal power. Weapons equal an option, which may be used to sieze power, abuse power, or support power. Firearms are only tools.

The posession of firearms, and the regulation for or against it, is part of the leverage of power.

Risk, money and power aren't issues. It's all about leverage for each party of interest. The only exception to that rule would seem to be those in the cockpit who feel that the issue is one of personal security. I won't disagree, but before this can be broached, the leverage must be balanced.

Political interests must be allowed to save face, corporate management must be assured that their interests are protected, and the public must be educated. It can all be done, but will require a more concerted effort than what is presently under way. The APSA is on the right track, but it's going to take a much broader effort to gain acceptance than what has been felt, so far.

Nothing is set in stone.

 

[enigma]

Respectfully, I'd suggest that weapons don't equal power. Weapons equal an option, which may be used to sieze power, abuse power, or support power. Firearms are only tools.

The posession of firearms, and the regulation for or against it, is part of the leverage of power.

I guess that I was being a little too simplistic. Thanks for the clarification.

regards