• What's ticked?
• Accolades
• Contact us

c o l u m n s

• Cheap Charlie
• ChrisCrossings
• Err Travel
• Leocha
• Travel Notes
• Archives

s u b s c r i b e

• Elliott's E-Mail, a free weekly newsletter, is your insider resource for moneysaving ideas.

First name

Last name

E-mail address

Subscribe
Cancel

• Like what you see? Now you can become an underwriter.

a l s o

• Ticked e-mail
• Visit Tripso
• Referring sites
• Home

s e a r c h

• Find a story.



(c) Elliott Publishing.

A-Freight to Fly
Err Travel · December 2, 2002

I’ve had my say about arming pilots, and I had moved on. But then I read a November 14, 2002 news release from the Air Line Pilots Association, and now I’m drawn back into the fray.

I’ve reproduced portions of that release here.

"Yesterday, in an act that defies logic and creates a serious threat to public safety, the air cargo industry managed a back-room deal to get the word ‘passenger’ inserted in the House bill’s provision for arming pilots. A similar change is expected in the Senate version. The effect of this single word change is that it exempts all cargo carriers from the federal mandate to arm pilots in a bill that was intended to enhance the pilot’s ability to protect the airplane," said Capt. Duane Woerth, president of the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA).

"A cargo aircraft is devoid of cabin attendants and air marshals. However, at airlines such as FedEx, employees and vendors are routinely boarded. Political maneuvering by the cargo industry has shielded them from the level of security screening mandated for the passenger terminal. The entire burden for the security of the aircraft rests on the two or three pilots in the cockpit. There is little we can do to defend the aircraft against a terrorist attack. Stripping us of the ability to carry firearms in the post-9/11 environment is an appallingly irresponsible act. And the worst part is that it is our own managements that did this to us, with no discussion, no warning, no justification whatsoever," said [Capt. David] Webb [chairman of ALPA’s FedEx unit].

Let me take some shots at a few of these wacky statements.

A bill that was intended to enhance the pilot’s ability to protect the airplane. Did I miss something? I thought that the idea to arm pilots—as misguided as it is—is to protect pilots and the passengers they transport, not airplanes. What’s next? Armed ramp workers prepared to shoot it out to defend their belt loaders, tugs, and lav trucks?

Employees and vendors are routinely boarded. If FedEx occasionally carries a vendor, why not send an employee escort over to the passenger terminal to run the vendor through security there? How big a deal could that be? On the other hand, if FedEx “routinely” carries passengers then ought it not come under the same passenger screening rules as commercial airlines?

And as far as flying its own employees around, well I can understand how the company might be a little skittish. The only attempted hijacking of a FedEx aircraft I can remember was done by an employee! In 1994, a flight engineer named Auburn Calloway, flying as a passenger from Memphis to San Jose, tried to kill the crew and crash a DC-10. It didn’t work, but it sure as hell got management’s attention.

There is little we can do to defend the aircraft against a terrorist attack. What about putting in reinforced cockpit doors? Or if the presence of strangers on board is the issue, simply keep them off. Let them fly on commercial carriers like the rest of us.

Our own managements that did this to us, with… no justification whatsoever. It seems to me that justification has to be demonstrated for arming pilots, not for keeping guns off cargo carriers. And I don't see it.

Guns in secure cockpits can only add to the danger of flight.

Dr. Terry Riley is a psychologist and travel security authority. He is author of the popular book Travel Can Be Murder. Visit his site at http://www.appliedpsychology.com or e-mail him at terry@ticked.com.