[Kristin85]

Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey

There are plenty of places like Africa and Half of Asia where the Planes are unregulated and look what happens....crashes once a week or every few weeks , over crowding , sub par Airports or just landing strips...

People in Africa & Asia don't have the money Americans have to be discerning about the airlines they choose and the level of attentiveness each airline gives to their planes. Even Americans at the very bottom end of the middle class have enough money to choose betweens airlines and put the bad providers out of service. Africans and Asians don't have that luxury. Developing nations also don't have the personal standards necessary to know they shouldn't fork over cash to providers who could kill them; they never had good treatment to know they deserve it. Regulation in developing nations would just mean that prices are regulated and all planes are equally shoddy. In America, deregulation doesn't mean we turn into an undeveloped nation.

How did this turn into a discussion of airlines anyway? Back to Linda and Chris!

[DarkWolf]

Originally Posted by Kristin85

People in Africa & Asia don't have the money Americans have to be discerning about the airlines they choose and the level of attentiveness each airline gives to their planes. Even Americans at the very bottom end of the middle class have enough money to choose betweens airlines and put the bad providers out of service. Africans and Asians don't have that luxury. Developing nations also don't have the personal standards necessary to know they shouldn't fork over cash to providers who could kill them; they never had good treatment to know they deserve it. Regulation in developing nations would just mean that prices are regulated and all planes are equally shoddy. In America, deregulation doesn't mean we turn into an undeveloped nation.

How did this turn into a discussion of airlines anyway? Back to Linda and Chris!

Actually Air Travel is popular in Asia and Africa with India leading the way. Its the only mode of Travel in some parts of Africa.... Its not a luxury , its a basic Transport right in certain areas.... The Very Bottom of the Middle Class and most of the Middle Class at least in this region is dropping the Airlines for the Train. Amtrak ridership accounts for 71% of the Travel share for the Northeast. Airlines only account for 5% of Northeastern Travel....the rest is made up by cars and buses.... Flying today is becoming a hassel , between the ridiculous TSA and fees ..its just not worth it for short hops of regional Flights.. Deregulation seems to push us farther and farther into 3rd world status....

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by Kristin85

Not kidding. In the great scheme of things bad things happen for us to learn from them. Every war, every calamity, every catastrophe has taught us what to do or what not to do in the future. Every cloud has its silver lining. However, we have learned from numerous airline catastrophes so I think there would be a very slim chance that we'd make the same mistakes in the future without regulations. You can't think so literally and black-and-white about things like this.

I don't know. I've heard some nutty things on this board, but your comment about allow air disasters so that we can "learn" from them--*just* so we don't have to be regulated-- nearly takes the cake.

Nexis is right. Look at the non-regulated airlines in the middle east. There are *always* crashes. You think they'll learn? Heck no. They'll just try to maximize profits. Come on - you know how hedge funds work. I do too. They'll make a profit, and it doesn't matter who they have to screw over to get it. Unregulated airlines will be no different. They will hold the same attitude you do - a few deaths here and there? Meh - sucks, but we're still profitable.

Anyway - it's not going to happen, so you'll have to get over the FAA regulations and/or don't fly. Drive safe!

[JViello]

Originally Posted by Mike 75

What does "defend the Consitution" mean? Because when I hear "defend the Consititution," I immediately think "defend my interpretation of the Constitution."

Core rights such as the 1st, 2nd, 4th etc. Nothing interpreted. NDAA is a direct violation...unless you think it's okay for someone to be detained indefinitely just for being "suspected" of something and not charged. That's just crazy town.

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

Since when is flying a "right"?

If you feel that TSA agents violate your "rights", then drive safe.

4th amendment. unlawful search and seizure.



Israeli air does none of this, deals with terror threats at level 20 and is one of the safest around. We could take a lesson.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by JViello

4th amendment. unlawful search and seizure.

And there are many places that are exempt from that, such as airports since 1973.

http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flying...rth-amendment/

Imagine a world where we didn't have to be screened before entering an aircraft? How many airlines do you think would go bankrupt?

That would undoubtedly be the end of commercial air travel.

[Mike 75]

Originally Posted by JViello

Core rights such as the 1st, 2nd, 4th etc. Nothing interpreted.

If there is no interpretaion, what are the courts to do when the Constitution is slient on an issue, or is not directly on point (say, campaign finance limits)? Since the First Amendment is silent on campaign contributions, restrictions on campaign contribution are constitutional, correct?

[JViello]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

And there are many places that are exempt from that, such as airports since 1973.

How The TSA Legally Circumvents The Fourth Amendment - Flying With Fish

Imagine a world where we didn't have to be screened before entering an aircraft? How many airlines do you think would go bankrupt?

That would undoubtedly be the end of commercial air travel.

That doesn't mean it's not a violation. R v Wade was unconstitutional as well. Lots of "laws" are passed that are unconstitutional. That's kind of the point. Screening and search and seizure are two different things. I wasn't kidding when I said you should check out how Israel screens passengers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airport_security#Israel

Originally Posted by Mike 75

If there is no interpretaion, what are the courts to do when the Constitution is slient on an issue, or is not directly on point (say, campaign finance limits)? Since the First Amendment is silent on campaign contributions, restrictions on campaign contribution are constitutional, correct?

You asked me what I meant by "supporting the constitution", and I answered it. Straight forward black and white issues. Now you are asking me another question about ambiguity.

But to answer your second question Article I, section 4, and Article II, section 1, the Constitution authorizes Congress to regulate federal elections. But, just as plainly, that regulation must conform to restraints imposed by the First Amendment to the Constitution. And here, the Supreme Court has said repeatedly that, under the First Amendment, campaign contributions and expenditures are protected speech.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by JViello

That doesn't mean it's not a violation. R v Wade was unconstitutional as well. Lots of "laws" are passed that are unconstitutional. That's kind of the point. Screening and search and seizure are two different things. I wasn't kidding when I said you should check out how Israel screens passengers.

I just read up on it, and it's MORE intrusive than what Kristin84 is referring to.

LETTER: Experiencing how Israel screens airline passengers - morningjournal.com

I actually like it, but Israel is small. Imagine if they had to do this with all US airline passengers at every airport? You'd get to Los Angeles faster if you rode a bike.

[JViello]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

I just read up on it, and it's MORE intrusive than what Kristin84 is referring to.

LETTER: Experiencing how Israel screens airline passengers - morningjournal.com

I actually like it, but Israel is small. Imagine if they had to do this with all US airline passengers at every airport? You'd get to Los Angeles faster if you rode a bike.

Right, it's more intense and it's screening using psychological tactics etc...but they don't do this:



Or strip down 3 year olds and handicapped 90 year olds in wheelchairs.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by JViello

Right, it's more intense and it's screening using psychological tactics etc...but they don't do this:



Or strip down 3 year olds and handicapped 90 year olds in wheelchairs.

But you do understand how the airline industry would suffer in America if we adopted this method, right? People waiting for hours upon hours to board a flight --> frustration --> people stop flying --> airlines lose $$ --> bankrupt.

I'll keep the TSA, thanks.