|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: Analysis from a JHU CS Prof
|> From: Jim Dixon [mailto:[email protected]] |> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 2:01 AM |> |> On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote: |> |> > |> Or they could just fly plainclothes armed marshals on |> US flights. |> > |> |> > |> Apparently they tried this years ago, but stopped because it was |> > |> "uneconomical". I guess the airlines have figured out how to |> > |> put a dollar |> > |> amount on human lives. |> > |> > excuse me, but I don't think that the airlines were paying |> for those |> > marshals. Please look towards uncle sugar, for that gaff. |> |> The US government paid for the marshals' airplane tickets? To my understanding, the airline didn't charge the marshals and the marshals didn't charge the airline, quid pro quo. I remember some senator raising a big stink about airlines getting preferential treatment, at the time. An aircraft is considered private property. They only did it on domestic flights, as I recall, due to international jurisdictional issues. There was also the issue of firearms and aircraft pressure hulls. There was a big push to find a round that was effective, yet wouldn't create problems there. That was about the time that the Tazer was invented (a real problem with multiple assailants, per man). I recall this from another life and the memory is not clear (as well as being more than 20 years old).
|