![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
Prior to the use of airplanes as weapons the \"best thing\" for passengers to do in a hijacking was to keep quiet and avoid getting individual attention from the hijackers as there was a +90% chance that everything would be OK eventually.
Now that all the passengers know their lives (and the lives of an unknown number of others) are forfeit, they are no longer going to sit quietly, they are far more likely to attempt to overpower the hijackers at whatever price and prevent the greater tragedy.
At least I know I would be getting all \"Flight 93\" on the hijackers.
@WillG: Heck yeah. When I get on a plane now, I typically look for suspects that might attempt to take the plane, and dudes that will help me take them down.
@WillG: And not only is your seat cushion a floatation device, but the same straps make it a more than adequate shield against BS such as a boxcutter. Anyone who tries to hijack a plane now is likely to get a royal beatdown.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-68720-100x100.png\")
@Sidecutter: Hmmm, this could be a selling point for airline tickets. First class can now have the benefit of watching boxcutter/floatation device gladiatorial fights amongst the slaves cheap seat ticket holders.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-54933-100x100.png\")
@WillG:
Dead on correct. Another hijacking attempt will only result in a can of whoop ass being opened.
The biggest safety improvement to come from the aftermath of 9/11 are the fortified cockpit doors. Air Marshals on every flight is a bit of an improvement but not nearly as big as those doors.
IMO, the TSA (and Dept of HS) only serves to amplify our fears when what we need these days is common sense and courage.
@WillG: I had to fly from STL to SFO in December of '01 and I still remember deciding that I would resist if someone tried to take the plane.
You know that the arm rest comes off easily, and that 'flotation device' cushion would make a dandy shield against a box cutter...
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-159929-100x100.png\")
@WillG:
I think what he was trying to say - or should have said - is not so much that hijackings were routine as that 1)pre-9/11, few steps were made to prevent hijackings and 2)the response plan for a hijacking was generally to do whatever the hijackers said in the short term, with the expected endgame that the plane would land and either negotiate or storm the plane with SWAT.
I don't think it's so much as that hijackings were \"routine\" as that they were looked at as minor issues and not major acts of terrorism.
Even Pre-9/11 hijackings were not happening everyday nor were they as common as to be considered mundane.
I do believe that they authorities were not too concerned about them mostly because of their rarity.
If one flight in 100,000 (* warning! b.s. stat, only for the sake of the discussion) is hijacked and the outcome is generally 99% of passengers survive and the plane needs repair why change everything for a one in 100,000 chance.
Hmm, Why indeed.
@WillG: I'm with you on this one. I don't think passengers will allow another hijacking after 9/11 (if only due to the fact that they think their lives are forfeit if they don't do anything).
I do think, though, that aircraft can be destroyed as acts of terrorism (like the shoe bomber's attempt, and pan-am) but the question how that will happen, which is kind of why the TSA is such a huge pain in the ass. They try to account for every possible scenario (and then some), to ridiculous proportions.
Given that kind of responsibility, I can't see any limit to where they will go in screening that would accomplish their goals, but nobody is saying \"you've done enough\"
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-483565-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-465456-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-390449-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-44505-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1833-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-11194-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-326654-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-665153-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-321187-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-21380-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-68654-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-99271-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-352008-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-435267-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-28736-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1037-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-87239-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-175324-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-219008-100x100.png\")
What about the shoe bomber?
Because it didnt work its not serious?
Or because it was just an excuse to make us take off or shoes its not serious?
@endless: \"Long lines and warning signs
Think of all the lives saved by plastic knives
It's naive, but make-believe
We will never lose if we remove our shoes\"
Barenaked Ladies
@endless: Richard Reid (the shoe bomber) attempted to blow that plane up on a flight FROM Paris, Charles De Gaulle airport iirc, which is also not under TSA oversight. :)
@endless: * our shoes