What is the point of this? Why do people care? Do you expect these people to fly commercial like you and me? Hoping for that fateful day when you're sandwiched between Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos on a Ryanair flight, so you can give them your elevator speech with all three of your knees pressed up against your nostrils?
Taylor Swift would be mobbed everywhere in the airport.
Donald was a former president. The Secret Service doesn't let you drive a car after that, let alone fly commercial. Even if they wanted to; they can't. Many former presidents were car fanatics; Bush Jr. lamented to Jay Leno about not being able to drive his truck off private property anymore. 45 was known for sneaking past security detail in his pre-POTUS days to drive his Rolls around NYC. Not to mention Biden and his Corvettes, in his pre-dementia days anyway.
This article is implying wrongdoing for situations can logically cannot exist.
I personally have no vested interest in this as I'm personally quite afraid of flying and because of that I don't fly that often, I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of it all.
And this was not about politicians, I get it that at some point a politician has to get from point A to point B as fast as possible in the interest of us, the public that he/she is supposed to serve, this was about the rich people who apparently have more pressing concerns than middle-class people. They don't, we should be all treated the same.
I remember the legal precedent set during the trial of US President Bill Clinton. He claimed the law he was being sued under (sexual harassment) was unconstitutional, which it was. The problem was that he signed it into law, and not even The President can not be that big of a hypocrite in an American court room. So he lost. If someone is blatantly hypocritical, I have a great desire to hoist them with their own petard (to use their argument against them.)
Since the people who fly the largest private planes openly demand I stop driving my old pickup, I make the much more moderate demand that their airplanes meet each and every single emissions and fuel economy requirement that my old pickup has had to meet to stay on the road all these years.
I 100% support grounding all civilian air travel, world wide. I would give them the same time I would have if my old pickup failed an inspection to come up to standards, or their planes would be scrapped. Good luck to them getting catalytic converters on jet engines.
I generally agree that there is way too much corporate control of the American government, but this is a pretty great example of how laws sometimes do nothing but hurt corporations.
Because I don't want to put up with this bullshit, I will take the (less profitable) bus or drive when I'm travelling fairly short distances. The airlines lose out, the oil companies lose out, and the airplane manufacturers lose out. I save a little money that I otherwise wouldn't have spent.
If the airlines were a powerful lobbying force, they would try to streamline the process of flying to attract get more people through in less time. The government decided that making people feel like they were safe from terrorists was more important than satisfying the airline lobbyists, so they chose to create security theater.
The kind of stand I and many others I'm sure would like to take but I, like most people I imagine, fly to do important things in the limited time I have, for which air travel is one hell of a luxury that makes it possible at all. Family, friends, personally significant trips. I don't fly for business but I figure that's a very important reason for many.
They have most of us bent over a barrel. No free market to be seen here.
Unless you count fuckhead rent seekers like Clear exploiting that the line to queue for security is technically in the airport's purview. Clear and the airports that participate are offensive.
This could help raise the popularity of private jets. And don't truly important decisionmakers travel with an entourage specifically to prevent these sorts of things?
Some countries are starting to ban short haul flights. Seems a bit hypocritical to ban flights that would benefit your average citizens but then utilize the type of flight that’s convenient for politicians.
Commenters are failing to mention that the article is about why you shouldn't fly a plane into Regan, not why you shouldn't be on a plane that is flying into Regan.
All of the issues is about piloting, not about traveling.
> Flight restrictions of this kind are standard security protocol for a major party’s nominee for president. A sitting President typically gets a 30-mile ring of roving restricted airspace for any travel away from the nation’s capital.
I have more of a problem with idling the engines while your hair is cut than of the closed runways. Today the complaint would be ecological not economical.
However if idling of the engines is required by security protocols then you can't complain nearly as much.
I do expect to put a ridiculous time value of money on the Presidents time and even higher on security. But it should be done to minimize inconvenience to others.
So, commercial travel was banned. Instead of being able to fly normally, he had to take a private jet -- because the islands said commercial flights from the US weren't okay. How else would you describe this, if not circumventing restrictions? That's like saying people who fly on private jets aren't circumventing TSA security, because TSA isn't required for private jets.
This also doesn't justify his behavior once in the Bahamas, which included no social distancing or masking.
After some quick googling, I found more references to this claim, but only in comments on articles:
http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/37608:
"The use of a corporate jet is often required by corporate policy intended to protect the executive from the threat of violence or abduction. "
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/auto...:
"Most corporate CEOs in companies with corporate jets are REQUIRED to use those jets as their ONLY mode of travel, as per the insurance requirements of being the Chief Executive Office and Chairman of a Publicly Traded Company.".
There's a lot of problems with this statement and the "freedom vs. security" thing is not even the main one.
Why stop at flights, why not expect this in every facet of your daily life if deterring even one would-be hijacker or finding one mentally disturbed individual that wishes to do us harm is so valuable?
Why not be required to drive or walk naked? A car is simply a missile with wheels and no wings, and cars are also not mentioned in the Constitution.
Why are people who ride trains or drive cars deserving of less protection?
Taylor Swift would be mobbed everywhere in the airport.
Donald was a former president. The Secret Service doesn't let you drive a car after that, let alone fly commercial. Even if they wanted to; they can't. Many former presidents were car fanatics; Bush Jr. lamented to Jay Leno about not being able to drive his truck off private property anymore. 45 was known for sneaking past security detail in his pre-POTUS days to drive his Rolls around NYC. Not to mention Biden and his Corvettes, in his pre-dementia days anyway.
This article is implying wrongdoing for situations can logically cannot exist.
reply