FrmAEattendant

You know, I can make it from Sacramento to the San Fernando valley in 4.5 hours on I-5, which is about the total time allotted just to fly out and get to my destination.

p1cunnin

IIRC, when the Reid incident happened and the liquids bust took place in the UK, things got stupid crazy for a few weeks afterward. Then the extremes relaxed, but elements of the stupidity remained (shoe removal and liquid bans).

So what do we have today? No IFE on some flights, nothing in your lap / no standing / gate checks. This will be a disaster at airports with all the Kettles flying over the holidays, but the media will be filled with interviews with Kettles who say, "anything to prevent what happened in Detroit" -- "I feel a lot more secure". So this will embolden the Congresscritters to impose new rules and new funding for TSA to "prevent this from happening again".

I would suggest that the airlines are helpless here. The very last thing they need is for there to be another exodus of pax (particularly FFers) because of the new rules. UA, for example, is enhancing their IFE and the last thing they need is for that investment to go out the window, along with the ticket revenue. They also really don't want the added checked baggage load, regardless of revenue opportunity because that will be offset by labor expense and the costs of claims for lost / stolen items.

I predict that the madness will continue until the New Year, then the "new rules" will take effect. I think they will implement the old "30 minute rule" for remaining seated. The airlines will be forced to eliminate baggage fees on the first two checked bags and carry-ons will be limited to one strictly enforced standard size bag -- no separate purses or computer bags -- just one bag. You can stuff whatever you want (except liquids and gels) in that bag, but only one bag. Period. Ticket prices will uniformly increase by about $50 for "added security measures". I would also suspect that there will now be a total ban on liquids and gels at the checkpoints. If you have to carry that stuff, check it.

UALOneKPlus

If those rules are put into place, my days as an air traveler are over.

Experts recommend staying well hydrated while traveling (hell, even when not traveling), drinking at least 8 glasses of water per day. I'm not going to give up my health for air travel.

The airlines will be losing my revenue as an air traveler.

VideoPaul

Folks, follow the money.

This will result in an "emergency" appropriation of at least a billion dollars to the TSA to let it hire several thousand more otherwise unemployable people into federal jobs with full benefits. As soon as everyone accepts and embraces the fact that the TSA is a jobs program and northing more, all of this will make a LOT of sense. Just ask yourself: How can this administration further expand government with this incident and you'll arrive at the DHS playbook without delay.

The airlines are NOT going to complain becuase they are salivating over the checked baggage fees.

--PP

VideoPaul

1) I wholeheartedly ordain and support pi$$ing oneself toward th elast few minutes of the flight and letting the airlines deal with the mess. Th eairlines will not complain becuase they are going to be raking in the cash for checked bag fees.

2) You think you'll be able to have any kind of POWDER on your person? HAHAHAHA

--PP

AngryMiller

But the increased baggage fares will in no way make up for lost revenue on FF who purchase tickets at near full fare. You lose ten passengers who would have paid $1500 for a round trip ticket purchased on short notice while attempting to make $50 on 100 passengers for a piece of luggage and you wind up losing $10,000 on the trip. A day late an much more than a dollar short.

hgdf

Of all the new measures the TSA is scrambling to implement, the only one that might have plausibly prevented this guy from doing what he did would have been a thorough pat-down search, which given his background, he should have been a good candidate for anyway.

So far I haven't heard any reports that he was aided by the use of IFE, or that he stood up to get a hold of any stowed items. The only thing he apparently had on his lap was a blanket. Assuming they ban blankets, perhaps the next guy will just wear a poncho.

aamilesslave

What lasting effect do we have from Richard Reid? I cannot recall any. The shoe-removal was relaxed and only put back into effect after the liquid bomb threat, at which time shoe removal became permanently required when the liquid restrictions were introduced.

sfo

It does have something to do with it, it means now the airlines will be able to charge for that carry on that must now go into the hold $$$$$$$$$, also the sitting in your seat one hour prior to landing, if this guy was sitting in his seat when he tried to do this, why now must one sit in his/her seat one hour prior to landing, what does this solve?

Spiff

I disagree.

The airlines should be shaking Congress by the throat and howling for the TSA's hide.

MSY-MSP

why i do see this as an overreaction by the tsa part of it makes sense to me. the failure here occured outside the us. thus tsa is saying for the next few days (30 dec 2009) they arent going to trust the frontline foreign security. that part makes sense. the no potty rule no personal item rule as presented doesnt make sense. simply put nothing short of placing the ban on the entire flight would eliminate the "risk".

i am left with the question what about lap children? are they now banned.

realistically i expect a gradual reduction in these rules over the next couple of months. in the end the only thing i can see remaining is the patdowns. (giving the option to the airport to do it at the gate or the first point) i think the carryon restriction might last but unlikely. even the 1 bag limit went awaty (eventually) in the UK.

Lonely Flyer

Remember this is now Obama's TSA.

UALOneKPlus

What a shock, the change the messiah promised has not materialized!!!

KathrynFlyingAway

But I've personally watched exceptions being made when the passenger claims a medical reason. I've seen crew let a economy passenger use the front lav, because of a line or because a cart made going back impossible.

If, however, crew and passengers are told that it's all for security, with not even a hint of medical necessity mentioned, then the person who must go will be tackled-in-fear before being arrested, because everyone is supposed to use fear as their guide. Reason as a guide would allow exceptions.

Right--they've already been through this before, they should know better. They saw what happened when diabetics couldn't bring their glucose paste, breastfeeding mothers had to throw milk away, cancer patients had their skin medicines confiscated, and babies and toddlers couldn't clear their ears during descent with bottled milk.

There are medicines which must be taken with plenty of water, and there are people who cannot dry-swallow pills at all.

All that well-tested knowledge and hard-gained experience is being thrown away in these new rules, and that's just wrong.

doober

HA! For how long have I been saying that all one has to do is hide stuff in one's crotch and it won't be detected by WBI or anything else. Actually, he should have thought to wear an adult diaper - more room to hide things in one of those.