>>>>>>>Hi Jim.
>>>>>>>Isn't it the airline's ultimate discretion to serve who they want? Flying is not a constitutional right... I don't think. So, if you make the majority of the passengers uncomfortable, then I would think it is the right of any company to not serve you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Like many restaurants have a sign in the front that states "Notice: We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I believe so. But you have an incorrect condition in your statement - "majority" (of passengers). I, for example, am "uncomfortable" with anyone praying 'in public' outside of a church/mosque/temple/etc but would not be uncomfortable to have them on the same flight as I am on.
>>>>>>And, still, why, as the airline, wouldn't I ask the fearful passenger to leave rather than the innocent party?
>>>>>
>>>>>How do you know they're innocent though!? Too late once you're up there and they pull their obsidian or ceramic weapons out of their underpants!
>>>>
>>>>Then we absolutely do not need all the security checking that goes on, do we?
>>>
>>>Yeh-huh! otherwise they wouldn't need to hide ceramic weapons - just bring on kalashnikovs in their carry-on luggage.
>>>
>>>>And as I already wrote, pulling any stunt while in flight will, I'm sure (as can be) be met with heavy passenger involvement.
>>>>This sounds stupid, but I never put my jacket in the overhead since 9/11, wanting it handy if someone should pull a knife.
>>>
>>>Again, I ask why they didn't do that in the 1st 2 planes of 9/11
>
>I've only just discovered this reply
>
>>Again??? Whatever.
>
>Yeah, I think it was mentioned somewhere else of in another related thread.
>
>>You know why they didn't do that with the first 2 planes. If you don't you're real dense.
>
>That was unnecessarily rude of you, uncalled-for, and beneath you. I don't know when on the UT I've exhibited lack of intelligance. And it's you lacking if you don't know that lack of knowledge does not equate to lack of intelligance.
>
>>The Pennsylnavia plane passengers had heard what happened with the other flights and took the chance that trying something was a better option over doing nothing. They were right, but it just didn't work out well because control had been taken by then. That will never happen again, and you can take that to the bank.
>
>And the passengers on the 1st 2 planes first just sat by idly while the plane was taken over by men with wee knives?

Let me lay it out plainly for you (something I believe you already know, thus the "dense" earlier)...

Until 9/11 hijackings of airplanes had been basically re-destinations under duress. That is, a crew member or passenger was threatened and the threat-makers demand to go somewhere was met. The standard for all hijackings until then (ICAO-approved, I believe) was to remain passive and comply with the hijackers' wishes.
The people on the first 2 9/11 planes (3, actually) were simply complying with that standard.
The fourth plane was in process of doing so too when passengers' cellphones started going off and informing the callees that planes had been hijacked AND FLOWN INTO BUILDINGS. It is this prospect that made those passengers act. But unfortunately, by then, the hijackers were already in the cabin and had already killed the pilot.

Since then the "rules" of hijackings have changed considerably, officially or not. Cockpit doors are now hardened steel, opening the door in-flight is strictly controlled, and passengers - as proved by the "shoe-bomber" incident - are ready and willing to "address" any untoward behaviour on a flight.

Tell me you didn't already know that.

>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>...