Were These Really Used To Take Over 4 Plane's ?

Well, what it all boils down to is that we will never really know what happened on those planes. There is only a certain amount of information that survived but beyond that, everyone who could have possibly told a different story than the one we know died (apparently). All we can do is speculate. People have only their gut feelings and loyalties to go on. If you want to believe TOS, there is definitely enough confusion and uncertainty (not to mention the fact that the government would undoubtedly want to keep certain things quiet regardless). If you don't trust TPTB, the same thing applies.

Lots of unknowns. Lots of motive for the government and media to bury information (even if they weren't up to no good).

a reply to: BrianFlanders

I've flown on early morning flights from Seattle to Honolulu during the height of winter vacation, and there have been occasions that first class was empty, and tourist nearly so. Made for a pleasantly peaceful flight.

So I can see it happening even out of those airports that are significantly busier than Seattle is.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: BrianFlanders

I've flown on early morning flights from Seattle to Honolulu during the height of winter vacation, and there have been occasions that first class was empty, and tourist nearly so. Made for a pleasantly peaceful flight.

So I can see it happening even out of those airports that are significantly busier than Seattle is.

Well, again, I don't fly and have never flown but I would have thought if they couldn't fill a 747 (or whatever it was) up they would use smaller planes or something. That much fuel cannot be cheap. Might not make a huge impact on their bottom line once or twice every now and then but if they're doing it every day that's got to add up to some serious money.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
So the other day at work I was looking at a "box cutter", it is the smallest knife with very little blade.
Something seems off that 4 planes were hijacked and taken over with this tiny cutting tool.

"Box Cutter"

Welcome to the Party!

a reply to: BrianFlanders

Those planes don't just fly that route and park for the day. Once they got to California, they would have either gone back to the east coast, with a higher load, or on to other destinations. They were needed in California, so they were flown.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: BrianFlanders

Those planes don't just fly that route and park for the day. Once they got to California, they would have either gone back to the east coast, with a higher load, or on to other destinations. They were needed in California, so they were flown.

Well, like I said. How much fuel do you reckon one of those things burns just going across the country once? How much do you figure that much aviation fuel costs? Especially since the airlines have undoubtedly been under constant pressure from environmentalists for decades over the impact of so many planes pumping so much exhaust into the environment. You have to wonder how they could sit there and watch a plane with that kind of capacity routinely flying with 40 people onboard.

I mean, honestly. Have you seen how companies operate? We're talking about people who pinch pennies. Think about a condo HOA, for example. I'm going to guess an airline management would be significantly tighter than a small company. If they're burning that much fuel every day flying planes that are not filled to capacity, they've got to be making it back somehow. These are not city buses. These are jumbo jets.

a reply to: BrianFlanders

737's, I think.

That's what I've mostly flown on in the past. ...and remember they're not just flying people, there's cargo, too. I've no clue of the economics involved, but if they weren't making money, they wouldn't fly so many planes.

a reply to: BrianFlanders

They DON'T operate every flight at that capacity, which is what I've been saying. They go to California, with a light load, out of the East Coast. By the time they get to California, it's peak travel time. They then either continue on to another destination, with more passengers on board, or they reload more passengers, and fly back to the east coast with a bigger load.

Prior to 9/11 Flight 11 averaged 39% capacity. On 9/11 it was running at almost 59% capacity. Flight 77 was running at 33%, which was consistent with a Tuesday in the previous three months. Tuesday was always a light travel day for that flight. Flight 175 was at 33%, which was below its average of 49%. Flight 93 was at 20%, below the average of 52%. So two flights were below average, but one was actually above average, and one was at the average of previous flights.

They have to fly at some point with a light load on them, because they have to get to where the airline needs them. If they didn't fly them they'd lose even more money, having to pay parking fees while they were parked. It's better to operate one flight at a loss, than to lose even more by not flying them. They have the schedule down pat, and this works.

It allows them to preposition aircraft to where they're going to be needed, and not fly a smaller plane that can't carry as much, or a larger plane that is unnecessarily large on a route. The last thing you want to do is put a 737 on a route that suddenly fills up at the last minute, and needs 160 seats, or fly a 777 on a route that only sells 68 seats. That would cost them even more money.

a reply to: seagull

American 11 and United 175 were 767-200s, and United 93 and American 77 were 757-100s. When they run low passenger loads like that, they add more cargo and don't have to worry about MTOW, and make up some of the revenue lost by the light passenger load. They won't break even, but it doesn't lose as much money by adding freight.

a reply to: Zaphod58

So I was right about the cargo, but not the plane... Cool. Batting .500 is much better than I usually do.

That's what I get for playing in a field I know next to nothing about...

a reply to: seagull

There are some flights that break even because they carry so much mail and freight. It's a fun balance, especially in Africa and other hot nations. The hotter the air, the less lift, so the lighter load they can take off with. That's when it becomes a real balancing act.

Have Any of you listened to any of former flight attendant Rebekah Roth interviews ?
I think some of you will be surprised at what she has to say.

She explains what the flight attendants really WOULD have done had there been hijackers with box cutters but as I say .....box cutters weren't used.....because there was no hijackers !

a reply to: lambros56

I worked with the FAA and many flight attendants. I know how the crews were trained. There were flight attendants that were fired for advocating fighting hijackers. Their training wasn't to fight, even against box cutters, it was to keep passengers calm and get on the ground. It didn't matter if they were armed with knives, box cutters, guns, or whatever else. You got on the ground in one piece and kept your passengers alive as best you could.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: lambros56

I worked with the FAA and many flight attendants. I know how the crews were trained. There were flight attendants that were fired for advocating fighting hijackers. Their training wasn't to fight, even against box cutters, it was to keep passengers calm and get on the ground. It didn't matter if they were armed with knives, box cutters, guns, or whatever else. You got on the ground in one piece and kept your passengers alive as best you could.

Well I agree that they were to get the plane on the ground but i don't believe the flight attendants would do nothing if the hijackers were to try and gain entry to the cabin.
Have you watched any of her videos or listened to any of her interviews ?
I'd like to hear your view on what she has to say.
She told me the FAA hijack protocol was called the common strategy. DELAY delay the hijacker from getting into the cockpit.
You see, to me, this was all just too easy for FOUR planes to be hijacked within minutes of each other and to perfection.
I'm with her on the drill and the switch. She also has some interesting views on the phone calls made by the flight attendants.

Anyway, listen to one of her interviews and give me your opinion.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Here in sunny Glasgow we would have a laugh at anybody producing such a feeble chib.

Tell you this, and im nothing special, but should i find myself mid-flight with an idiot or even a group of idiots that decided to attempt to hijack the airplane with these things i would take off my belt and have at the fools rather go into the ground like a lawn dart. My moneys on me!

edged weapons can be more persuasive than people think when they are confronted with the reality of one.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

It hurts more being stabbed than slashed or rather being stabbed has more of an effect on one's moxy.

End of the day the reality of the situation is that if you do not react those halfwits with what amounts to nothing more than a Stanley blade are going to make you crash and burn.

a reply to: lambros56

You delay, but if the hijacker has a hostage and is threatening to kill them, you give them what they want. You don't do anything that puts people at risk while you're delaying.

I'll listen to one of them as soon as I get my high speed data back and can play videos again. Should be tomorrow.

Just had a thought after seeing this thread pop up again. After 9/11, did the box cutter become classified as a weapons of mass destruction?

Just had a thought after seeing this thread pop up again. After 9/11, did the box cutter become classified as a weapons of mass destruction?