Illustration by Josh Hagler

Thursday September 27, 2001

According to White House sources, President Bush will propose a plan today in an attempt to boost security on U.S. commercial flights. Bush's plan promotes the use of armed federal air marshals on almost all domestic flights, but does not support arming pilots.

After the Sept.11 attacks, anxiety and fear among passengers lowered ticket sales, and many airlines are either cutting jobs, cutting services or filing for bankruptcy. The White House is considering short-term and long-term solutions to the commercial airline crisis.

Bush does not support a complete federal takeover of airport security but does admit "there needs to be a greater federal role." According to an administration official, an armed officer with a badge will become a common sight at security checkpoints.

The administration is also considering stronger, more secure cockpit doors and more strict in-flight policies but does not consider arming pilots-a popular idea among pilots and some lawmakers - a viable option.

As security develops and new policies come to bear, passengers already notice longer lines and waiting periods in airports. Many feel the inconvenience is worth the security, while others feel their personal liberties and privacy are restricted.

Love will have to wait

By Jessica Lee

A man paces back and forth in the airport lobby at gate B-19. He hasn't seen her in 45 days. The anticipation of her arrival beams from him so much that other people waiting know he is in love - and she is on the plane.

His eyes are glued to the window, when, suddenly, he detects the plane cruising in for landing. She seems so close, yet another 15 minutes of taxiing and docking at the gate bar him from his love.

Then, the door opens, and passengers begin piling out. With his arms full of flowers, he waits to see her face - to embrace her, to be together again safely. Of course, the Murphy's Law of Waiting for a Passenger is in full effect - she is the last one off the plane.

I am glad that I got my Hollywood airport scene this summer because it won't happen again.

In the Federal Aviation Administration's mission to heighten security, no longer will boyfriends meet their loves at the gate. Only ticketed-passengers will be allowed past security.

And rightfully so.

The FAA has done an amazing job increasing airport and plane security in such a short amount of time. Employing anonymous air marshals on flights and halting curb baggage check-ins are only some of the extra benefits the FAA is providing for us.

Airline safety should be a priority. Love can wait.

Jessica Lee is an environmental science junior. She can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.

Illustration by Josh Hagler

Beefing-up security is futile

By Shane Dale

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty, nor safety." Ben Franklin said so in 1759, and how relevant it is right now.

So curbside check-ins have been eliminated. So airline security will hand-search our carry-on bags. So passengers must arrive for their flights three hours ahead of time. So federally mandated air marshals will patrol every flight.

So what? You think these terrorists have only one trick up their sleeves?

These guys took over four American commercial airplanes with box-cutters. BOX CUTTERS. No technologically advanced, undetectable weapons were passed through security; all it took was some tiny, dinky little box-cutters to kill thousands of Americans, penetrate our nation's military headquarters and alter the New York City skyline.

If these terrorists want to wreak some more havoc on our great nation, they will. If airplanes are impenetrable, they'll release a toxic gas in Madison Square Garden. If stadium and arena security is airtight, they'll think of something else. This is the problem: We're dealing with people whose methods are too simple to defend against. We're dealing with people who are willing to commit suicide in the name of their cause.

If we want to make our lives more difficult under the pretense of feeling safe, we've forgotten what's important. We're delivering a slap in the face to the countless number of Americans who have given their lives to maintain our civil liberties.

Ben's absolutely right: Those who are willing to give up some personal freedom in order to maintain a false sense of security aren't worthy of either.

Shane Dale is a political science sophomore. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.

Airline corporations must take action

By Nick Zeckets

Hurtling towards three buildings and one random patch of earth came four planes Sept. 11th, hijacked by terrorists armed with box cutters.

Embarrassing as it may be, it is the solemn truth that ills in airport security were a conduit to the massacre. Bush and Congress want more measures to ensure safety, and they should get them.

Cockpit security is a must. Just last year, the Federal Aviation Administration and the airlines debated these measures. Big business won. Now, the corporate elite must learn that while the dollar makes much of the world go 'round, humanity is far more important. If everyone is either too scared to fly, or dead, there won't be any debate left.

Price hikes are a fear of consumers, no doubt. However, given the fault of the airlines not to take their passengers' needs and safety into account when it could have makes them at least semi-liable. The government should only allow normal price increases due to inflation and fare wars, but not to compensate for safety upgrades.

Delta and its compadres do not hold the fault alone. Take a gander at any airport prior to Sept. 11. One could simply walk in, go to any gate without a ticket and meander around doing pretty much anything. Guards with machine guns watch terminals in Mexico. The U.S. has loud, oversized golf carts to move senior citizens and the impaired. Does anyone else see a lack of balance?

FAA bigwigs and the airlines must take action out of concern for their clients, not because of a government mandate. Fares mean nothing without us.

Nick Zeckets is a near-eastern studies senior. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.

Yes, I'm pro-cloning

By Zack Armstrong

Should we have armed guards on U.S. flights?

No way. What the hell would they do? They'd basically just be decoration for tourists so they'll feel safer and comfortable flying around, spreading out the money. If there terrorists planned an attack, terrorists would know that the guy - or woman, because women can be armed guards too - is going to be there and would have no trouble subduing him. Or her. He's just one guy. Or she's just one woman.

And pilots want to carry guns? No guns for pilots! It's just a bad idea and creates more of a risk.

We need to keep the security on the ground. That's where the problems are. Security checks in airports have typically been lackadaisical at best. If we tighten up on the ground, then none of it gets in the air, and everything is as pleasant as a bunch of really stoned people having a tea party and talking about the importance of ice cream while kittens and puppies lick their bare feet. Ooooh, a puppy!

The only way I will support an armed guard on an airplane is if that armed guard is Wesley Snipes. Then I'll feel safe. We need to legalize cloning and get the good old Passenger 57 on each and every U.S. flight. It's just that simple. Do-Re-Mi.

So in answer to this week's issue of the week· yes. I am pro-cloning.

Zack Armstrong is a creative writing senior. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.