![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Air Safety should not go to the lowest bidder. Please contact your
representative and tell them Air Safety is not for sell. For all of you who fly, remember, it is important enough that your luggage be screened by federal employees. But apparently NOT important enough that the people who inspect the pilots, certify the aircraft maintenance and maintain the navigational aids, radars, communications and so forth. This administration is intent on contracting out to the lowest bidder an important function that has been done PROFESSIONALLY (and safely) by "in house" federal employees for over fifty years! I ask you to phone the local office of your congressperson and senators and tell them to reinstate protections (for Airways Facilities and Flight Standards employees of the FAA) from outsourcing their jobs. This is not a joke or a hoax! Legislation is being worked now regarding FAA Reauthorization which will allow low bidder outsourcing. Please help!!! Members of the Professional Airways Systems Specialists See the link below: http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0703/072803p1.htm |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "PlanetJ" wrote in message ... | Air Safety should not go to the lowest bidder. Please contact your | representative and tell them Air Safety is not for sell. | | For all of you who fly, remember, it is important enough that your luggage | be screened by federal employees. You do not speak English well. You do not know the history of luggage screening. You have no idea of what you are talking about. Perhaps you are a terrorist? Using Federal employees for luggage screening is a recent development. No one seriously believes that luggage screening, especially as it is being conducted today, enhances either security or safety. The program should be scrapped and replaced with some method of automatically detecting explosives. All of the security screeners should be fired immediately. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Government employees never get fired.
Mike MU-2 "C J Campbell" wrote in message ... "PlanetJ" wrote in message ... | Air Safety should not go to the lowest bidder. Please contact your | representative and tell them Air Safety is not for sell. | | For all of you who fly, remember, it is important enough that your luggage | be screened by federal employees. You do not speak English well. You do not know the history of luggage screening. You have no idea of what you are talking about. Perhaps you are a terrorist? Using Federal employees for luggage screening is a recent development. No one seriously believes that luggage screening, especially as it is being conducted today, enhances either security or safety. The program should be scrapped and replaced with some method of automatically detecting explosives. All of the security screeners should be fired immediately. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Mike Rapoport" wrote in message ... Government employees never get fired. Contractors are necessary to meeting peak travel demands. Not to mention that the TSA's original bagage regulatory burden was unachievable. "C J Campbell" wrote in message ... "PlanetJ" wrote in message ... | Air Safety should not go to the lowest bidder. Please contact your | representative and tell them Air Safety is not for sell. | | For all of you who fly, remember, it is important enough that your luggage | be screened by federal employees. You do not speak English well. You do not know the history of luggage screening. You have no idea of what you are talking about. Perhaps you are a terrorist? Using Federal employees for luggage screening is a recent development. No one seriously believes that luggage screening, especially as it is being conducted today, enhances either security or safety. The program should be scrapped and replaced with some method of automatically detecting explosives. All of the security screeners should be fired immediately. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Mike Rapoport" wrote in message ... | Government employees never get fired. | | Mike | MU-2 | Which demonstrates the real purpose of the security screening program: to provide make-work jobs for the otherwise unemployable. It is nothing but a form of welfare. It would be one thing if it could be shown that a significant number of hijackings had been prevented by luggage screening. However, it is far more probable that the program actually increases the number of hijackings by guaranteeing that almost all of the potential victims will be completely disarmed. The only reason that hijackings diminished in the last thirty years (not fifty) is that a series of treaties and threats of armed intervention have greatly reduced the number of safe havens for hijackers and terrorists. It is the same methodology that finally defeated piracy on the high seas in the 19th century. There are still pirates, of course, and there will continue to be thugs that try to take control of airplanes. But luggage screening will not prevent these people from doing what they want any more than luggage screening on sailing ships would have prevented mutiny and piracy. The problem of religious fanatics willing to sacrifice themselves for religious or political purposes is not new, either -- but it does require different methods than traditional anti-piracy tactics. This requires systematic destruction of a belief system and the social structures that support it. That means killing clerics who incite people to violence, destroying their places of worship, and controlling their means of communication. The United States has been very successful at wiping out dangerous cults within its borders, but it remains to be seen how effective we can be in other countries. A good model might be the British subjugation of violent cults in India and Africa during the 18th and 19th centuries. A poor model would be the Spanish Inquisition or the Crusades, although the Inquisition, at least, was rather successful in achieving its goals with surprisingly little bloodshed and expenditure of resources. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "C J Campbell" wrote in message ... snip The only reason that hijackings diminished in the last thirty years (not fifty) is that a series of treaties and threats of armed intervention have greatly reduced the number of safe havens for hijackers and terrorists. It is the same methodology that finally defeated piracy on the high seas in the 19th century. There are still pirates, of course, and there will continue to be thugs that try to take control of airplanes. But luggage screening will not prevent these people from doing what they want any more than luggage screening on sailing ships would have prevented mutiny and piracy. Hey now Campbell, your kind of thining might cut into Linda Daschle's advocacy fees. You better watch your ass. ![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Cessna buyers in So. Cal. beware ! | Bill Berle | Home Built | 73 | June 25th 04 04:53 AM |
homebuilt safety | anonymous coward | Home Built | 96 | June 3rd 04 04:34 AM |
Logging instrument approaches | Slav Inger | Instrument Flight Rules | 33 | July 27th 03 11:00 PM |
Stick and Rudder's 'Safety plane' | Barnyard BOb -- | Home Built | 31 | July 12th 03 04:13 PM |