United Airlines knows that when Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) brought aviation targeting back into its propaganda in December 2023, United was specifically named as one of the airlines its supporters should target. The material included guidance on concealing explosives and where to detonate them aboard an aircraft. @United also knows exactly what one of its own pilots, Ibrahim Mossallam, wrote on October 7th of that same year. As Hamas was murdering and kidnapping civilians, Mossallam described what was happening as “resistance by a brave people” and said the attack was “not unprovoked.” United removed him from service with pay while it investigated. According to a later federal court filing, he was back flying passengers about a month later. United has never publicly explained what that investigation found or why it decided am Islamist should return to the cockpit. That is where I have a problem. This is not about whether a pilot is allowed to have political opinions. It is about judgment, access and risk. A commercial airline pilot is trusted with hundreds of lives and has access to one of the most security-sensitive places in aviation. When that pilot publicly rationalizes a terrorist attack against civilians, that should raise a serious insider-threat concern. And what happened last week aboard Flydubai Flight #1073 is exactly why this matters. We have seen what can happen when the threat comes from inside the cockpit. That is why airlines cannot afford to dismiss warning signs involving Islamists who already have trusted access. If United has information showing that its investigation resolved those concerns, then say so. Explain what was reviewed. Explain the standard. Explain why passengers should be confident in that decision. Because this is not something the public should simply be told to trust. Based on what United has publicly explained so far, I do not trust this decision. Please do NOT wait until after an attack to decide a warning sign matters.