Would someone explain to me the reasoning behind sending not one but two multi-million dollar aircraft with great operating expense to babysit passenger jets with unruly passengers? What the heck are they going to do that couldn't be done once and if the jet deviated from flightplan?

Would someone explain to me the reasoning behind sending not one but two multi-million dollar aircraft with great operating expense to babysit passenger jets with unruly passengers? Hello S:

I don't know. For show?

excon

It is a discretionary decision by the commander at the Continental North American Aerospace Defense Command .

Lt. Col. Susan Romano, public affairs director for Continental NORAD commented on the incident.

"I would much rather err on the side of caution than not take it seriously and an event happens," ...."I would much rather inconvenience the 200-some-odd passengers on the aircraft for a short period of time than have our commanders write condolence letters to their families."

I agree .Criticism of the action sounds like Monday morning quarterbacking . I can easily envision a similar event where people would question why the fighters were not present.

Scrambling a single jet costs about $10,000 an hour... which could and probably should be picked up by the passenger who caused the incident .Or ;it could be treated like a training flight ;or something similar like sending rescuers when hikers gets stranded at a location common sense tells them they should not venture .

Hello tom:

In other words - for show.

excon

In other words - for show.

I have to agree. I'm seriously trying to understand what it is the two fighters are expected to accomplish. Romano's quoted comment seems to indicate that the jets would somehow be able to prevent the passenger jet from blowing up or some such if the unruly passenger was indeed a terrorist. If the intent is merely observation, certainly cheaper aircraft are available.

I have to agree. I'm seriously trying to understand what it is the two fighters are expected to accomplish. Hello again, S:

Well, there was this Steven Segal movie where the good guys had this jet that could secretly dock with a 747 in flight. The good guys went in and killed the bad guys, and everybody lived happily everafter.

Maybe they got something like that... Nahhh.

excon

Yeah it's all for show until they are needed... then...

yeah it's all for show until they are needed ...then....................Hello tom:

Needed to do specifically WHAT? That's the question.

excon

Hello S:

I dunno. For show?

excon

Come on ex, every unruly passenger is a potential hijacker who wants to crash the plane into the White House. So two fighters can make sure it is shot down with full loss of life. The public is reassured that someone is not sitting on their hands but is ready to sacrifice the passengers to ensure the President is not endangered. It's all about the greater good or some such rubbish that the state is more important than the individual

Hello clete:

That's all we wanted to know...

excon