The umbrella of a known program? It is all planned out and orderly?

How nice and how prescient. Still just another form of guesswork sold as a FUD stopper.

If anyone doesn't understand their duty by now they are clearly in the wrong business.

 

It isn't just a matter of understanding duty. It is one thing to know one's job. It is another thing entirely to act under a legally defined umbrella. When faced with defending oneself in court, whether the individual or the collective company, there is a big difference between carrying a personal firearm under no clearly defined standard or program, and carrying or employing an issued weapon within the scope of duty of an established, authorized, and recognized organization.

The former is Cowboy Joe, and the latter is in the line of duty. See which one washes cleanest in court.

 

That is all wonderful, but if the program is defunded you are left with two choices: no defense or a perfectly plausible defense.
I know which one I would choose, the rest is just eyewash and mumbo jumbo.

 

I'm not opposed to pilots in the program carrying their own weapon, if allowed, and I'm not opposed to enabling pilots to simply carry weapons on a company authorization. The regulation already permits it. I've done it with certain operators in the past.

Given the value of the program, which is high, especially for the amount of weapons it puts on aircraft for the cost, there is no valid reason to sack funding from the program. It's dirt-cheap stuff, especially in comparison to the other option of arming the flight.

 

Cheap is a function on ones ability to afford something. If you make 100 million a year a Ferrari is cheap. If you make a 100 thousand ....you get my point. The FFDO program isn't cheap since the United States is beyond broke. Is there other fat that needs trimming, for sure. This does not increase the usefulness of a program that was always a shot in the dark to begin with. Maybe you are safer with the FFDO program maybe not. I don't know the details but logic dictates that maybe is the only answer you can come up with.

 

An option I would be happy with is make all US carries pay for it. They can pay based on how many flights they operate this would defray the costs and save the United States from having to pay. The airlines can charge their own security fee.

 

There is already a federal 9/11 security fee. It is "used to pay the government's cost for providing Federal civil aviation security services. This includes training, salaries, and benefits for the Federal security screeners and law enforcement personnel, as well as the Federal Air Marshal program."

FFDO falls under the FAM program.

So you see, airlines (via their passengers) are ALREADY paying for the FFDO program.

Also, for all the talk of "we're broke", I still haven't seen the OP discuss VALUE. The cost vs. benefits of FFDOs vs. FAM, TSA, or any other security function. Or DETERRENCE.

If one draws a conclusion that "No FFDO has used their gun to defend the flight deck, therefore FFDO is an unnecessary program", one can just as easily draw the conclusion that "There have not been any hijackings since FFDO was implemented, therefore it has been a completely effective deterrent."

 

Passengers have been the deterrent. Every terrorist has been taken down by the passengers post 9-11.

 

I don't think "deterrent" means what you think it means.

 

Well I only know one meaning. Terrorist have to assume the passengers will attack them now. Before 9/11 they would sit quietly looking forward to thier upcoming Havana layover. Passengers are a big unknown and it is impossible to know on any given flight what you will get so that is a great deterrent, since it deters the said action.