There’s a shortage of pilots that hits regional airlines hard. The large U.S. airlines pay more, and attract pilots out of the regionals. There just aren’t enough pilots to fly regional jets, and American Airlines still has about 100 of those smaller jets parked.
One solution they’ve found to continue serving small airports close to major hubs is bus service. They use Landline buses between Philadelphia and Allentown/Bethlehem, PA (ABE); Atlantic City, NJ (ACY); and Lancaster, PA (LNS).
On the whole these can be more reliable than small planes, which tend to get cancelled first and delayed longer when airports can handle only a limited amount of traffic in bad weather. And they can be more comfortable, too, compared to the smallest jets. These are luxury buses with 3 seats per row (1×2), seat power, and slow wifi.
One policy change that went into effect last week (December 16) is that Landline buses operated for American Airlines now permit passengers to be armed, aligning with American’s existing armed passengers policy for flights.
Landline policies still don’t align with American flights across several other dimensions, however, according to an internal December 16, 2022 American Airlines memo reviewed by View From The Wing,
• Cargo/Freight – No AOG/COMAT/PPS or mail
o Dry ice will only be accepted in checked and valet/carry-on baggage
• Live animals in the cargo compartment
o Landline allows a maximum of four (4) pets in the cabin
• Unaccompanied minors are not allowed
• Checked firearms are not allowed
Credit: American Airlines
Someone clearly spent a lot of time figuring out how to get passenger guns onto buses. As one person commented to me, “At some point we’ll need a good guy on the bus with a gun to ensure we keep the bus over 50 mph or else…”
It occurs to me that it is easier for a passenger to access the hold of a bus than a plane, and that they limit the number of pets on the bus but not the number of guns!
Update: An American spokesperson shares, “The policy document that was sent internally was a clarification of an existing policy. As is the policy on our aircraft, the only passengers permitted to be armed are law enforcement officers and federal air marshals.”
If the Constitution offends you, feel free to leave the country.
@Fred – there’s no constitutional right to carry on a Landline bus operating for American Airlines. Otherwise you think that prior to December 16th they were violating the second amendment? [I happen to be pro-second amendment, or at least pro-respecting it, though I am not myself pro-gun]
It doesn’t matter what AA’s policy says, if you get caught in NJ without the proper permits to transport certain weapons, aka handguns, to quote old shows about the south, “Boy, you in a heap of trouble”.
Why is this noteworthy if they are aligning their policies for their busses with their flights? Should passengers connecting from small destinations not be allowed to be armed while passengers flying from major hubs or smaller cities that still have flights can be armed? Seems like a non-story
Apparently Fred will be organizing a well armed militia on the bus.
maybe I am missing something, Gary, but if these buses operate behind security at any point, I find it hard to believe the public can be armed. An FFDO or law enforcement officer is different.
What am I missing?
Of course there’s a constitutional right to be armed on the buses, and yes, those right were being infringed.
I say we allow all pets to board the bus, give them beverage and snack service, and stow people with their guns in the checked baggage compartments.
Sure, there are good arguments that the poorly written second amendment was passed so that citizens (effectively white males) could organize militias to put down slave revolts, kill natives trying to protect their lands, and fight the British/Spanish/French in lieu of the nonexistent standing army. Of course this was all with muskets and other 18th century weapons. So it makes sense that the courts have seen fit to stretch this “right” for private citizens in ways that its authors never imagined. The New England Journal of Medicine reported that in 2020 over 45,000 people in the U.S. died from firearms. That’s 15 times those who died on 9/11, and those numbers are increasing. Having more guns sounds like a plan to me.
Drtichard – that argument is wholly fallacious. Otherwise you’d have no first amendment rights on the internet.
Come and take them.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Fred, can you define what “Militia” is?
@ Fred
“Come and take them.”
Such threatening remarks amply illustrate why an unfettered pro gun position is problematic.
@Lee
George Washington defined militia as “the people” and said “all should be armed”. Granted, he was talking about White men and the constitution was not written with other peoples in mind. Of course, we shouldn’t constrain ourselves to words written in the past. We shouldn’t care what the constitution says and abide by it but promote freedom no matter what the constitution says. It’s been interpreted into mush. Freedom means individuals having a means of self defense both from common criminals and the government. It is foolish how so many conservatives rally behind the police when the police are the agents of a government not consented to or supported. Instead of saying “we support the blue” it is wise to says “we support the blue who don’t enforce gun control, taxes, or any law we don’t support”.
Violent criminals will always have guns just like people had alcohol during prohibition and drugs despite the war on drugs. Keeping normal people disarmed and only cops and criminals with guns does us no good. We see people are safest when normal citizens carry concealed and home owners are gun owners. Crime statistics prove this. Gun free zones in cities like New York keep us unsafe.
@DrRichard
Those figures include suicide. The majority of gun deaths are suicides. People find other ways to kill themselves in lieu of guns just like they find a way to kill in England with strict gun control. Knives, fists, and trucks exist. Homicide rates haven’t dropped in England in 55 years despite strict gun control.
The government always wants more control which is why they want gun control. It never does anything to make things better, safer, or more free. It’s always about control.
“Come and take them.”
Sure, if the government ever does, because a majority of citizens decide to vote for a law regulating your right, or for a constitutional amendment that permanently restricts or abolishes your right, then I expect the ATF will do so with a Predator drone orbiting overhead, armed with AGM-114 Hellfire missiles. Let us know how your Glock bears up.
Maybe they should extend this to aircraft. 4 Pitbulls and a Glock would stop most terrorists 🙂
@Lee – militia as understood at the time was all able-bodied white men age 18-45.
Militia Act of May 8, 1792, ch. 33, § 1, 1 Stat. 271, 271(repealed 1903 (“each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years”)
hey gary,
forget about the discussions about the second amendment and address whether these buses operate behind security and if they do how anyone other than an FFDO or law enforcement officer can access to a firearm or anything else that is restricted behind security.
thanks
Dr. Westbrook, I don’t like increasing government controls either, and the way they have increased. But what concerns me are the proliferation of guns by untrained people, easy access by children because of irresponsible adults, and the basic fact that it makes no sense to have more guns than people in this country. No other nation is even close to that ratio. Regarding suicide, look at Saunder, KFF foundation, “Do States with Easier Access to Guns have More Suicide Deaths by Firearm?”. Slightly more than half of firearm deaths are due to suicide, but the key finding is that, “More than twice as many suicides by firearm occur in states with the fewest gun laws, relative to states with the most laws.” Correlation is not causation, but it appears that having easy access to a weapon can encourage quick and impulsive action.
Yes, we won’t stop all use of them as there are far too many out there. And you know people can build them from kits or with available tools and templates. Personally I have no problem with hunters and sport shooters, but some basic licensing and insurance requirements would help a lot. As the progressive commentator Thom Hartmann has suggested, treat a firearm like a car with similar paperwork requirements. You want a gun? Great, take a course and then a test to be licensed. If it’s not registered you’re in trouble. If you don’t have coverage for its misuse you can be sued. If you misuse it then you have serious problems. Go further; a background step is the first requirement and a history of violence will disqualify you, now or if it arises later. You want a bigger gun? Your training is harder and your insurance rates are going to be higher, and some semi-automatic weapons cannot be covered at all. Of course none of this will stop real criminals any more than it stops them from stealing cars, but the penalties are known and the controls are stronger.
Hey Fred – we don’t have unrestricted free speech on the internet. Like, Gary could choose to delete all this political debate and ban posters if he choose. Private companies like AA and Landlines could ban your guns on their private busses, no 2nd Amendment issue.
Also funny how everyone forgets the “well regulated” part of the 2nd Amendment…
Gary, under current law, simply eliminate “white.”
If guns are transferred from a flight to the AA bus its by ground personnel and they are locked in the storage underneath the bus
@Bob in context “well regulated” meant well-functioning and well-trained.
Everybody quit getting your panties in a knot. The airlines “armed passenger” policy pertains to very limited circumstances where law enforcement personnel are armed while traveling in the course of their duties,. There are procedures dating back decades for this. It is rare and there are extensive pre-clearance requirements.
It’s usually US government law enforcement people, FBI or Air Marshals.
“Armed passenger” does not mean a regular passenger checking a firearm in a locked container.
I work for a major airline. You’d better think twice about carrying a weapon on a common carrier…bus or otherwise. As one travels across state lines, carry laws change. You may be legal to carry a weapon within your state. However, as you travel across state lines, the laws could change. You MUST comply with that state’s laws (as noted by one comment on New Jersey’s law!). For instance, your state allows concealed carry without a permit/license. You travel to a state that recognizes your state’s allowing the carry of a weapon BUT while in that state, you MUST COMPLY with their laws! My state allows concealed carry without a license. As long as I’m in MY state, that law applies. BUT…if I travel to or through a state that requires a physical license/permit. I MUST comply with that state’s law. Thus, I still have a physical concealed license. Let’s suppose you legally check a weapon on your airline flight. You are flying to a state that has a reciprocal agreement with your home state’s weapon licensing process. The flight gets diverted to a state that does NOT have a reciprocal agreement…when that checked luggage comes to the baggage carousel, IF YOU TAKE THAT LUGGAGE…you could be in violation of that state’s weapons laws. You’re best going to a local police officer in the airport, explain the problem and ask for advice! The best advice…if you plan to carry a weapon to another state, ship it via a common carrier…UPS, FedEx, DHL and the like and follow their rules. It may cost you money but it won’t cost you jail time!
drrichard – GFYS. Weapons are in the constitution, cars aren’t. Shall not be infringed includes whiny liberal cowards like you not getting to put insurance or other requirements on them.
Win – you’re hilarious if you think local plod knows the laws. They generally don’t.
Gary, so the Constitution frames the right to bear arms in the context of a “militia,” the Constitution states the militia is to be “well-regulated” as opposed to “just any self-selected group (mob) of some guys,” and exactly who comprises “militia” is defined by statute. Thank you for clarifying.
I have argued the Second Amendment (on the pro-gun side) before appellate judges and I can safely say that your clarifying statements are correct.
Now, to Tim Dunn’s point, the Second Amendment is not in play after security (which de jure and de facto restricts any person’s rights under the Second Amendment). So, are we talking before security or after security?
Fred, your understanding is a layman’s interpretation of the Second Amendment. Your understanding is based on dogma as opposed to case law interpreting the Constitution. You can certainly express your desires about how you would like it to be. But, your expressions are not how the Constitution has been interpreted thus far. This is offered in the friendliness manner.
@Lee – to be clear, the operative clause of the 2nd amendment is broader than the justification clause [use of a justification clause is unique in the U.S. constitution, but common in state constitutions at the time, and the actual right protected might be broader or narrower than its justification clause]
Win Whitmire gets it.
Gary doesn’t.
Gary has spent page after page arguing about the second amendment without providing documentation for his statement
“One policy change that went into effect last week (December 16) is that Landline buses operated for American Airlines now permit passengers to be armed, aligning with American’s existing armed passengers policy for flights.”
DO NOT ATTEMPT TO CARRY A WEAPON ON AN AMERICAN LANDLINE BUS BASED ON GARY’S STATEMENT.
Given they don’t even allow firearms in checked luggage – verifiable on their website – it is highly doubtful that they are allowing passengers to be armed in the cabin of a bus which operates behind security.
Ah Fred, why are you calling me a Government Fiscal Year? Anyway, cars are definitely lethal weapons when misused by angry or incompetent people. (Okay, so are pencils, but they can do a lot less damage.) I would guess that you’re in favor of some sort of regulation on their use. Anyway, speaking to someone who only answer is to call others childish names, by your argument that’s why any 10 year old can buy a machine gun and take it to school or the local court house. After all, anything else is an infringement on their rights, isn’t it?
Bye-bye.
To clear up confusion (and because some are interpreting me to have said something I did not, perhaps cheeky comments) here is the full memo with only the author’s email redacted
Armed passengers does not equate to people who check firearms in luggage.
People fly armed every day. Almost any federal LEO can do this.
The funny thing is the state of airlines. The fact that they are now in the Greyhound/Peter Alan business is hilarious. Their proposed plan for airside transportation to another airport (airside) by bus is just laughable.
Gary, the real point of my comment was inductive pedagogy for the benefit of one reader who seems to think that the Constitutional right is absolute and without any restriction. The reader focused on the last words of the sentence, which destroyed the context of the entire provision.
No one has an absolute and unrestricted Constitutional right to free speech under the First Amendment. The SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled on this. A person’s right to free speech does not extend to slander or libel. A person’s right to free speech does not extend to the incitement of a crime. A person’s right to free speech does not extend to giving aid and comfort to insurrectionists.
Similarly, no one has an absolute and unrestricted Constitutional right to possess a firearm in most, if not all, government buildings. No one has an absolute and unrestricted Constitutional right to possess a firearm in a bank, air-side at airports, and a whole host of other circumstances designed by statute. Private establishments can and do prohibit possession of firearm (casinos in Las Vegas). Ex-felons have no absolute and unrestricted Constitutional right to possess a firearm at all.
thank you for FINALLY publishing the memo.
AA’s “specific policies and procedures” ONLY allow a very select few passengers to carry and they have to be able to carry inside security; landline makes no difference.
The vast majority of passengers are not authorized under any circumstance to carry inside of security and cannot now on Landline.
All of the endless blab about the 2nd amendment is meaningless in the context of aviation security which clearly is not subject to the other provisions of the 2nd amendment regardless of the state.
Gary is pretty close on the 2nd Amendment.
For those of [most of] you with vocal opinions but no knowledge, i.e., ignorance, if you bothered to read Heller v. D.C. and NYRPC v. Bruen, you won’t come across as so stupid.
No matter what you think, the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means. Those cases will tell you what the 2nd means.
As I was saying . . . from the Heller decision:
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 2816 – 2817.
One paragraph from a case and ignoring the holding.
And what about Bruen, Lee? If the law did not exist at the time of enactment of the 2nd, it will not pass Constitutional muster.
And Heller lists exceptions. It does not provide for new restrictions.
Particularly when Bruen limits controls to “sensitive” areas (which we will soon see defined as schools and places with metal detectors and arms security present).
The text is paragraph two of the holding itself. Written by Scalia.
I’m done. If someone is unaware of even this, the person is arguing dogma and not the law.
Over, off, and clear.
That portion of the decision was written by Scalia to appease Kennedy and was eviscerated by Bruen, which you failed to even mention.
It was dicta in any event, i.e., irrelevant to the facts of the case before them.
This is inaccurate journalism (probably just put up cheap for headline grabbing attention). Only Law Enforcement Officers & Federal Air Marshals are allowed to carry firearms/ammunition on American Airlines flights (or any US airline for that matter).
@John P: Correct