• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Editorial on FFDO program

nittany03

Recovering NFO. Herder of Programmers.
pilot
None
Super Moderator
Contributor

exhelodrvr

Well-Known Member
pilot
"This is op-ed from a conservative paper and thus biased."

As opposed to op-eds from the New York Times?
 

nittany03

Recovering NFO. Herder of Programmers.
pilot
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
"This is op-ed from a conservative paper and thus biased."

As opposed to op-eds from the New York Times?
Huh? All op-eds are biased, or they wouldn't be op-eds. The NYT op-eds are op-eds from a liberal paper and are thus biased, just in the other direction. Easy now . . .
 

exhelodrvr

Well-Known Member
pilot
Op-eds are not inherently more biased than a paper's front page articles; it depends on the paper and the editors. In fact, as a whole, an editorial page probably has less bias than the front page.

The headline and placement of a "news article", what is included and left out, specific words that are chosen by the writer have significant impact on whether or not an accurate representation of the story is given.

And "conservative" papers always include "liberal" op-ed columns, and vice versa.

So a statement like "this is an op-ed from a conservative paper and thus biased." has a good likelihood of being wrong.
 

HueyCobra8151

Well-Known Member
pilot
In my unbiased opinion, I think you are both biased.

This argument on whether or not newspapers are biased or unbiased shows a lot of promise, and I think the sure-to-ensure conversation will be rich and compelling with a lot of new insight being provided by all parties involved. I can't wait to see how it plays out!!
 

mmx1

Woof!
pilot
Contributor
Well, the problem with the op-ed is that he infers from the diversion of funds from training to hiring supervisory staff, that Obama is ending the program.

So he's hiring supervisory staff for a program he's supposedly ending. Makes no sense.

I'd like more details, of course, but the hysteria is not helpful.
 

scoolbubba

Brett327 gargles ballsacks
pilot
Contributor
I couldn't find any articles about this via google, but I didn't give it more than a cursory try. I'd like to see something concrete in the way of a news article...that being said, it isn't surprising that the administration would put their faith in more "administrators," "inspectors," and "safety facilitators" before a bunch of radical right wing gun fanatic pilots haphazardly flying millions of innocent bystanders/civilians all over America. Just a matter of time before one of them loses his marbles and shoots a passenger.

Why do they even need guns? No one would ever threaten a flight crew...the TSA is there to keep you safe.
 

wink

War Hoover NFO.
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
The Federal Air Marshal's took over administration of the program for TSA some time ago. Since then the FAMs have complained they could not keep up with the program due to lack of funds. For over a year now there have been rumors the program would be capped because the budget the FAMs inherited was not growing enough to accommodate the increased numbers equals required every 6 moths. That was their story. I think it is a ploy to get more money for their new responsibility. Money has been diverted from the FFDO program for some time now for increased administrative expenses I can not understand. How much can it cost to administer a program the does not pay the participants one penny? FFDOs pay for their own room and board for training and bear the financial burden of missing work to train. They even pay for their own ammo to practice with. The budget for initial training should not have gone up over the years as long as the numbers of new recruits per year did not go up. It would cost more to requal guys since there are more to requal now then the years before. Big deal. They come in for a few hours and shoot holes in paper with contract range masters running the course of fire and recording scores. Incrementally, it can not cost that much more even if the program doubled. It costs the same to pay the contract guys to run the course with 6 guys on the range as 25 guys on the range. And the excuse that the money is needed for supervisory issues is BS You can't find anything on google because FFDOs do not get into trouble. There is hardly anything to supervise. Airline pilots are an incredibly reliable, procedural, and discipline group. FFDOs are not the ones busted for running drugs past security, trafficking in stolen items, and beating wives. All things federal cops have been accused of doing in the last year or so. In the entire history of the FFDO program there has been one N.D. During that time no federal law enforcement agency had a better mishap rate. Does the Obama administration want to kill the program? Their constituentcy hates guns, they don't believe that airliners are at risk any more, they don't even think we are still at war with those shit heads. The DHS Sec can't bring herself to say the word terrorist, and the Justice Department and DOD can no longer use the term enemy combatant. They have an insatiable appetite for money to do things like map the genome of dust bunnies and build parks in small towns. They don't have to want to kill the FFDO program, they will bleed it to death in their search for more and more money to throw at their constituents. Before the end of the Obama administration the FFDO program may look like the Federal Air Marshal Service did just before 9/11. They had been reduced to a force a a couple dozen active agents from hundreds in the 70s and 80s. I fear we will see the same results.
 

A4sForever

BTDT OLD GUY
pilot
Contributor
^ Good history, Wink ...

I was in on the "formation" of the FFDO program from the ground level ... I walked the halls of Congress and lobbied many, many hours for the formation of the program in unison with a lot of other dedicated airline pilots who did much more than I ....

Reality check: neither the government NOR the airlines NOR the Pilot's Union ever wanted -- that's as in NEVER WANTED --armed pilots in the cockpit, even though it was a no-brainer after 9/11. It was a good idea "prior" to 9/11 also, but much of that information is "classified". These interest groups all had their own agendas in their reluctance to arm the last/best defense of the cockpit -- the flight crew -- but rest assured -- NONE of their "concerns" emanated from any considerations for the welfare of or a desire to protect the crews/planes and traveling public from a repeat of that dark day in SEP 2001.


With a virulently anti-gun administration now setting the rules of the "game" ... standby for the FFDO program to disappear.

Believe it ...
 
Top