Was safety compromised for money?

[mnehr]

Of course, with most whistleblowers you don't always know about how accurate the information they give is, but this story is quite interesting and raises some serious questions regarding how safety was overlooked for political contributions.

Why airline security failed.

[magenta321]

It's horrible, but I cannot say I am surprised.

[vemartin]

I don’t know why you find it so hard to believe, it’s the nature of American politics, a cynical and saddening catch 22. We elect them the do the peoples’ business, but in order to get elected to do the peoples’ business, they have to get in bed with the special interest who have not the peoples interest at heart. Therefore, the peoples’ business never seem to surface. And heres a newsflash, Big Business has always and will always value profit over human life, it is the nature of capitalism.

[poseidon]

Strange as this may seem, I have to agree with Vincent, until of course his last statement. But I agree with 99% of what he's said.

[erik_kosberg]

It looks like it’s now time to start pointing fingers; I suppose that it’s just a matter of time until World Net Daily dredges up the Bush/bin Laden/BCCI/James Bath/Arbusto story.

[drmomentum[$]]

According to opensecrets a lot of money flows into politicians' pockets from the airline industry. Look at that spike last year. But proving a connection to 9/11 is a different story.

-JP

[queenofallevil]

Hmmm....interesting debate.

My take?

Was safety comprimised for money? Yes.
Is it due to political ties? Nope.

Simple fact, airlines are more than just transportation...it's a business. A BIG multi-billion dollar business.

Corners have been seriously cut in air travel for the last decade or so to simply increase profit. There was once a time when seats were spacey and comfortable, meals were delicious, and passengers were treated like movie stars. Yep...the "Jet Set" was more than just a catch phrase...it was really the TOP way to travel.

In the last decade or so, the airline industry has been trying to find new ways to cut costs and line it's pockets. The elegance of air travel quickly became the "Greyhound Bus of the Skies". Seats became smaller, and more seats were added to the interior per row to seat more passengers per flight (The 747 is a perfect case here...) More passengers=more money. Meals have become of less quality than on-sale TV dinners, and passenger hospitality has pretty much been tossed out the window. Rude service, bad food, and a cramped seat is just about all you can really expect these days. The frills keep getting cut, but ticket prices keep getting higher.........

So....why not cut security costs? Did they? You bet they did.

By replacing higher security officials with minimum wage, under-trained workers, they saved a TON of cash. Also, fewer check-ins mean fewer paid personnel. (Even though it means longer lines to us passengers).

This is no secret, friends. It's just been a dark side that's been swept under the rug and hasn't gotten any attention until, sadly....something happened to make people start to raise an eyebrow.

Very very sad.....but very very true.

Val

[conradd]

Of course, with most whistleblowers you don't always know about how accurate the information they give is . . .

Amen.

In looking at not only this story but a number of other WorldNetDaily stories, it's fairly obvious that WND is a rightwing conservative Christian watchdog paper. Based on the style of reporting that I've observed, it's probable that this story is slanted to draw a specific reaction. I'd say they succeeded.

Deb
suspicious of any paper that runs an commentary by the Editor and CEO titled "Rush Limbaugh: We all love you!"

[mnehr]

what can I say.. as long as people post articles from things as slated the other direction as salon.com then I figure a few 'vast right wing conspiricy' publications are fair to throw out there...

However I did check and this is a legitmate suit brought against Gore (legitmate in the fact that it was actually filed, not a statement of conclusion on the actual content..)

[frazzledspice]

As consumers, we have put lots of pressure on the airline industry to reduce prices, too.

And I am as much to blame as everyone. I have a certain mindset that the lowest price is the "regular price." On flights to New York (my most frequent flight since I have family there) the regular price is probably about $1200. The price I usually pay is perhaps $220.

The only time I ever paid more than $220 was when my Mom died. We flew Southwest on a day's notice and paid $350 each.

I can't even conceive of paying $1200 to go on a domestic flight. If, as a family, we had to pay more than $1200 to fly we'd drive.

Airlines are treading a fine line between maximizing profits and driving away flyers. I would imagine that most leisure flyers are like me.

That's why when EA carried a thread about custodial parents chaperoning kids on flights to visit non-custodial parents, I was stunned at the overwhelming support for mandating such a rule.

In actuality, if such a rule were in existence, about half the children would wind up being driven. Of the other half, a good number would probably never see the non-custodial parent.

I am going to Arizona for a conference a week from Friday. We're going as a family. We're driving. I'm not afraid to fly (I've felt all along that Southwest would be the safest airline, because hijackers are going to want to know exactly what seats they have, etc., and because Southwest usually flies fuller than other airlines.) Part of the reason why we're driving is that we'll have a chance to see something of New Mexico along the way. Another reason is my husband's Ebay book selling. There are some bookstores and flea markets along the route that are, supposedly, treasure troves. If we can pick up a few good saleable items cheap it will finance the trip. And, of course, if he finds some gems for his collection it will make his week.

[erik_kosberg]

ABCnews.com also ran a story about the 1997 White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security.

[CeeJay62]

Originally posted by vemartin
I don’t know why you find it so hard to believe, it’s the nature of American politics, a cynical and saddening catch 22. We elect them the do the peoples’ business, but in order to get elected to do the peoples’ business, they have to get in bed with the special interest who have not the peoples interest at heart. Therefore, the peoples’ business never seem to surface. And heres a newsflash, Big Business has always and will always value profit over human life, it is the nature of capitalism.

Yep. People like to say the Republican party gets money from big business, but in actuality, businesses tend to give money equally to both parties, so their bases are covered either way.
Ralph Nadar made a big point about this during his campaign last fall, but he only got 3% of the vote. I think the fact he was running on the far left Green party ticket overshadowed some of what he had to say.

Just wait until the next attacks some... some other profit-mongering industry hellbent on lining their own pockets with billions while polluting our natural resources, comprimising our nation's safety, and bribing politicians and government agencies will get the finger of blame focused firmly on them.

... and the airline industry will sneak off the stool in the corner, leave the Dunce cap on the floor, and go back to exposing us to even further dangers and mishaps by the planeload.

At Enron Field today, I didn't exactly enjoy the fact that Southwest's flight path into Hobby goes over the field. What if... what if... what if...

What if the four planes got hijacked had been chosen based on their paint jobs? It's bad enough killing over 5,000 people, but having Shamoo the Killer Whale and the Cornival Fun Plane whallop into our landmarks would have sucked only that much more. How do you explain it to the kids?

"Well, Timmy, he is a *killer* whale after all..."

Sheesh.