Soon only terrorists will fly American Airlines

The executives at American Airlines must be crazy. I heard a rumor — and I believe it is true — that they have made the decision to replace plastic knives with honest-to-God metal table knives in the first class cabin.

Are they crazy? Metal table knives were banned after 9-11 for good reason! Those things are dangerous. They could poke an eye out. There is no way the government, or whoever got rid of metal table knives after 9-11, would have banned them unless it was absolutely necessary to fight terrorism. This horrible decision to allow metal on the plane is simply an invitation to terrorists that they can come right on the plane unarmed, gather up these knives, and poke people at will. No honest citizen in his or her right mind would take the risk of flying on American in this new regime.

The next thing you know, TSA is going to allow me to fly with my 4.1 oz deodorant instead of throwing it in the garbage and rightly demanding that next time I limit myself to 3 oz. From what I hear, that extra 1.1 oz of deodorant is just the extra amount that terrorists need to turn deodorant into nuclear weapons from scratch on the plane. Apparently, though we have completely lost our will to fight terrorism in the sky.

(As an aside, I’m happy to say that my iPod listening during takeoff and landing continues not to cause the plane to crash.


It's actually a very clever strategy--first class seats on American are being used as bait, or entrapment (the good kind). Now we can arrest any and all American first class passengers as suspected terrorists, with impunity: if you fly American Airlines first class, you are a terrorist.


Continental switched back to metal knives in first class around six months ago. I think if there had been any incidents, it would have made the news by now.


There was a great article in the Economist a few months ago, in which they said that if safety would really be important for the airlines, we would be flying facing backwards ..... it is the best position in case of an accident ....


Tedesco's point that airline crashes are always fatal is actually off-base. There have been many instances where some or all passengers were able to escape using the safety equipment carried on board. A Garuda Air 737 burned just two days ago, and 117 of the 140 passengers and crew were able to exit the plane and live. In August, 2005, an Air France A340 crash landed in Toronto and all 309 passengers and crew exited safely - but the plane itself caught fire and was totally destroyed. There are many other examples.

Patrick Smith writes a great article on Salon called "Ask The Pilot" and talks about this at length in his articles.

Jim Driscoll

Or how about mandatory vaccinations for an STD?

Actually, mandatory vaccinations for a disease with 1000's of fatalities a year is a great idea. Or will you also object to the whooping cough vaccine? The fact that this disease is also an STD is only relevant if you're a prude.

Mandating that vaccine before widespread use has conclusively proven it's effectiveness and safety, on the other hand, that's just dumb.


> Meanwhile #27 has difficulty adhering to copyrighted material. ::Sigh::

He should try Superglue. Either that, or you should try learning English.

Oh Really

feuer, I tend to agree with you. An exception would be the loutish response immediately prior to yours. Maybe greg444 should troll-out from under the bridge and learn English.

Adhere/adhering definitions:


At a loss of whether this blog entry is that of sarcasm or not.

Anyone want to offer interpretations?


I always thought the iPod ban was to make sure you could hear instructions if the plane got into trouble or there was some other problem on landing. Am I incorrect?


At first I though you were serious (you are an American, after all), but then I realized it was pure sarcasm.

Thank god ...... :)

your t.a.

Yes, it is sarcasm. Steve just gave a lecture yesterday about the uselessness of the rituals that TSA makes us go through in the name of terrorism prevention. On a side note: darn, all my miles are on American; I may have to switch to JetBlue (also sarcasm).


I always thought the iPod ban was to make sure you could hear instructions if the plane got into trouble or there was some other problem on landing. Am I incorrect?

No, I believe you are correct.

As for not allowing passengers to fly with potential weapons, well, weapons can be improvised out of practically anything, as generations of prison inmates have learned. A large bunch of coins, or even a bar of soap, stuffed into a sock makes a dandy blackjack. A tightly rolled magazine - hey, the airlines give them out to you - is an effective truncheon. Converting a toothbrush into a sharp knife isn't hard. The list goes on, and on.


Nice sarcastic rant. Where did you learn that?


I suspected this was sarcasm halfway through the second paragraph, and confirmed my hypothesis in the third paragraph. Thank God. For a moment I thought Levitt'd gone insane. :p


Wow... Great sarcasm :D


p/s: Why doesnt this entry appear in my RSS reader?


It's security theater.

We don't want *actual* security, but the people in charge need to appear to be doing *something* so that when something bad happens they can point to their useless restrictions as proof that they were doing their jobs.

Josh the Hippie Kilr

I agree with your rant on the ridiculousness of the knife-ban and the 3 oz. limit. Yet the ban on personal electronic device listening is (slightly) less ridiculous.

A few years ago I sat next to an off-duty commercial pilot on a flight from Ft. Lauderdale to St. Louis. Throughout the flight, I bombarded him with many questions about airplane safety and regulations. He was very friendly and gave me many great answers.

When I asked him about not being able to listen to my iPod on takeoff and landing, this was his response: The airlines tell the passengers that they can't listen to their iPods/CD players on takeoff and landing because the electronic frequencies interfere with the plane's instruments. This is BS. In actuality, the airlines don't want you listening to your iPod at these times in the flight because these are the points where the plane is most likely to run into a problem where the pilot might have to make an important announcement over the loudspeaker.

The airlines simply want everyone's ears uncovered for the passenger's own safety, should a potential problem occur.



This is a little off-topic, but it is airline safety related, so I'll put it up anyway.

It is notorious that in most cases, when an aircraft crashes the passengers don't have a chance to use any of the emergency equipment (rafts, vests, slides). Buying, maintaining and mainly burning fuel to fly all of it around must represent a significant cost to the airlines.

If a budget airline could obtain permission to get rid of some of the emergency equipment and reduce the ticket prices accordingly, informing the customers of this procedure, people would still be willing to fly on it? How much cheaper the tickets would have to be? Of course this is completely hypothetical, this kind of permission would never be granted, but I find myself thinking about it every time I fly.

Doug Nelson

They can't make us safe.
They can't make us feel safe.
So they deliberately do questionable yet highly-visible things so that we'll at least feel they're trying to make us safe.