Newsstand - Security aboard U.S. bound planes to be tightened

http://www.aljazeerah.info/News%20archives/2005%20News%20archives/February/26%20n/Security%20on%20US%20Bound%20Planes%20to%20Be%20Ti ghtened.htm

WASHINGTON, 26 February 2005 — The Department of Homeland Security is drafting a law that will require all international airlines to pass on their passenger manifest information as much as an hour before departure, officials told Arab News.

This will make me feel so much safer flying internationally.

:td: :td: :td:

F-you, DHS. :td:

How is the airline supposed to transmit an accurate manifest 60 minutes before the flight when I and other sensible people are in the lounge until about 20 minutes before the flight?

I don't want to sit idly on a plane because some punks in the DHS are paranoid about the likes of Cat Stevens getting on a plane.

How is the airline supposed to transmit an accurate manifest 60 minutes before the flight when I and other sensible people are in the lounge until about 20 minutes before the flight?

Sounds like they're just looking for names (of course, if you're on the damn "No Fly List" in the first place, how the hell are you supposed to get on the manifest? :rolleyes: ) so they can stake out the gate area. If they don't see you, they'll just board the plane and stand by your seat, I guess. :rolleyes: And if you never board, well then the plane is "safe", they close the door, and off it goes.

Yet more stupidity to make the sheep feel safer in their iron pens, but then this one won't delay a flight so I can stomach it a bit more then their usual nonsense like "shoe carnival" and setting the metal detectors so high that the iron in your blood sets them off.

I don't see anything wrong with this improvement. Perhaps it will allow a stop or reduction in the foolishness of forcing an en route diversion because the relevant authorities were unable to check the identities of inbound passengers until after the aircraft was airborne. What harm could this possibly cause?

I don't see anything wrong with this improvement. . . . What harm could this possibly cause?

Possible harms this could cause depending on the requirements by DHS and airline paranoia in implementing it:

1) Airlines make all pax board and close door 1 hour prior to departure, lengthening all inbound flights by an hour and essentially holding pax hostage during this period. Also will raise crew pay, reduce aircraft cycles/day, and increase other costs.

Even if they don't do (1):

2) Remember, a lot of international flights don't have another flight on the same route in an hour or two. Even high-volume routes like FRA-IAD are not like ORD-LAX with a flight every hour. "Sir, sorry we can't let you on this flight. Even though your connection was late and it's not your fault, it's 59 minutes prior to departure and we already released the pax list to DHS. You'll have to wait until the next flight in 24 hours."

3) Sorry sir, we can't [move you to later flight, move you to earlier flight, reroute you to avoid bad weather, upgrade you, change your seat, (insert other typical customer service component here)] because we've already sent the manifest to DHS.

3) International pax now expected to show up 3 hours prior to flight instead of 2. Minimum connection times lengthened. How much longer before we'll have to sit in a quarantine/holding pen for a day before we can fly?

If DHS wants to keep Cat Stevens off the plane (which is stupid anyway), they can have the list when the airline closes the door. If they want to question someone they should meet them at the door at the point of entry. Diversions should be saved for actual threats, not name matches on a list that is mostly errors anyway.

I don't see anything wrong with this improvement. Perhaps it will allow a stop or reduction in the foolishness of forcing an en route diversion because the relevant authorities were unable to check the identities of inbound passengers until after the aircraft was airborne. What harm could this possibly cause?

This is some strange useage of the word "improvement" I wasn't previously aware of.

There should NEVER be an en route diversion unless there is an active hijacking in progress. (Or a medical or similar emergency situation)

Some ...-clown decides Cat Stevens is a "threat" and sends the plane to Bangor? Said ...-clown should be summarily deported to North Korea, possibly suffering considerable bodily harm on the way. :td:

F-you, DHS!