The end of carry on??
Dec 7, 2014, 3:27 pm
#46
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: HaMerkaz/Exit 145
Programs: UA, LY, BA, AA
Posts: 13,167
DHS chief: No carry-on bag ban 'at this time' - CNN.com
So this is something they may institute?
I wonder if this is simply to get people to stop flying and start...taking Amtrak, a government owned company! It's all a ploy to increase revenue at Amtrak, who will start charging security fees so that the TSA can move personnel from airports to trains.
It all finally makes sense!
Otherwise, DHS/TSA is even stupider than I thought, and I thought they were pretty stupid to begin with.
So this is something they may institute?
I wonder if this is simply to get people to stop flying and start...taking Amtrak, a government owned company! It's all a ploy to increase revenue at Amtrak, who will start charging security fees so that the TSA can move personnel from airports to trains.
It all finally makes sense!
Otherwise, DHS/TSA is even stupider than I thought, and I thought they were pretty stupid to begin with.
Dec 7, 2014, 5:41 pm
#47
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: BOS
Posts: 15,027
DHS chief: No carry-on bag ban 'at this time' - CNN.com
So this is something they may institute?
I wonder if this is simply to get people to stop flying and start...taking Amtrak, a government owned company! It's all a ploy to increase revenue at Amtrak, who will start charging security fees so that the TSA can move personnel from airports to trains.
It all finally makes sense!
Otherwise, DHS/TSA is even stupider than I thought, and I thought they were pretty stupid to begin with.
So this is something they may institute?
I wonder if this is simply to get people to stop flying and start...taking Amtrak, a government owned company! It's all a ploy to increase revenue at Amtrak, who will start charging security fees so that the TSA can move personnel from airports to trains.
It all finally makes sense!
Otherwise, DHS/TSA is even stupider than I thought, and I thought they were pretty stupid to begin with.
Dec 7, 2014, 6:45 pm
#48
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SYD (perenially), GVA (not in a long time)
Programs: QF PS, EK-Gold, Security Theatre Critic
Posts: 6,796
Note the original (unsubstantiated) threat was "cell phones and other electronic devices" so it would have to be not just "carry-ons" but anything in pockets as well.
They tried it for a few days after the liquids (non-)threat of 2006. The exceptions, the drop in air travel and the confusion of lost baggage - due to an excess of carry-on sized bags being checked - quickly brought it to an end (to be replaced by the not-as-draconian but equally-stupid restriction on large liquids). And even then they allowed cell phones, key and a book in a clear plastic bag.
Business travelers are not going to fly without laptops, cell phones and critical papers such as contracts or confidential designs, and they won't (if they're smart) risk them in checked bags.
People on long-haul (or short flights connecting to LH) are not going to fly without personal care products, entertainment and other items needed in-flight.
Parents of infants or young children are not going to fly without spare diapers, bottles, food, extra clothes, and all the other things that parents carry around.
People with various medical conditions are not going to travel without insulin, specialist foods, CPAP, or other medical requirements. Or risk them in checked bags.
"No carry-on" and "nothing in pockets" would destroy air travel completely.
However, this is true. DHS/TSA is indeed stupider than it is possible for anyone to imagine. There is no scale low enough to describe the stupidity of TSA/DHS. But with something like a ban on carry-ons, the airlines and airports will put a lower limit on the stupidity of TSA policies.
Dec 7, 2014, 11:24 pm
#49
Moderator, Hilton Honors
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: on a short leash
Programs: some
Posts: 71,422
Yes, but if an electronics ban is instituted mid-trip there may not be feasible/practical alternative. If you have to get back to the office from halfway around the world taking a boat back is not realistic.
Dec 8, 2014, 11:26 am
#50
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Finally back in Boston after escaping from New York
Posts: 13,644
Mike
Dec 8, 2014, 12:26 pm
#52
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: SEA
Programs: Million Miles achieved | 2017 Delta Platinum, United NADA, Global Entry, PreCheck, NEXUS
Posts: 1,295
[QUOTE=Doc Savage;23925510]So why wouldn't this result in no luggage, period?
Awnd naked flights. What fun![/QUOTE]
Stop and think about that for a minute.
...
Are you still thinking it'd be fun?
...
👀
Awnd naked flights. What fun![/QUOTE]
Stop and think about that for a minute.
...
Are you still thinking it'd be fun?
...
👀
Dec 9, 2014, 12:20 am
#53
Moderator, Hilton Honors
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: on a short leash
Programs: some
Posts: 71,422
Dec 9, 2014, 12:24 pm
#54
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Dulles, VA
Programs: UA Life Gold, Marriott Life Titanium
Posts: 2,757
Why bomb a flight when governments accomplish the same thing for you on a massive scale? Terrorists want their enemies to live in fear and change their lifestyles. With air travel, they've had total victory for 13 years and almost 3 months.
Dec 9, 2014, 4:05 pm
#55
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Except since 9/11/2001, terrorists don't actually have to know how to pick the lock. All you need are a couple of guys "chatting" about some hair-brained scheme, and the intelligence apparatus will run with it.
Why bomb a flight when governments accomplish the same thing for you on a massive scale? Terrorists want their enemies to live in fear and change their lifestyles. With air travel, they've had total victory for 13 years and almost 3 months.
Why bomb a flight when governments accomplish the same thing for you on a massive scale? Terrorists want their enemies to live in fear and change their lifestyles. With air travel, they've had total victory for 13 years and almost 3 months.
Dec 9, 2014, 4:28 pm
#56
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,537
What I wonder is why the world didn't spend its money on THESE http://www.morpho.com/detection/see-...can-r/?lang=en
Instead of backscatter (now, rightly, illegal) and millimetre wave scanners with questionable security benefits.
Instead of backscatter (now, rightly, illegal) and millimetre wave scanners with questionable security benefits.
Dec 9, 2014, 4:51 pm
#57
Join Date: May 2008
Location: BOS
Programs: TSA TSO
Posts: 455
What I wonder is why the world didn't spend its money on THESE http://www.morpho.com/detection/see-...can-r/?lang=en
Instead of backscatter (now, rightly, illegal) and millimetre wave scanners with questionable security benefits.
Instead of backscatter (now, rightly, illegal) and millimetre wave scanners with questionable security benefits.
Dec 9, 2014, 8:54 pm
#58
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,537
So the dust keeps them from sensing accurately? Good to know. In theory it looks like a great solution. Looks for the actual explosives with no privacy concerns (unless incidentally detecting drugs is one, but the profiles for drugs could be removed). Is this possibly something maintenance could fix?
Dec 10, 2014, 4:19 am
#59
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,332
If you buy a car and drive it for 60,000 miles without ever changing the oil, and the engine seizes up, is that a design flaw?
Dec 11, 2014, 5:54 am
#60
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,537
The buzz on FT was that those portals would have worked fine, but they were improperly maintained - the intake filters were not cleaned regularly, per manufacturer's recommendations.
If you buy a car and drive it for 60,000 miles without ever changing the oil, and the engine seizes up, is that a design flaw?
If you buy a car and drive it for 60,000 miles without ever changing the oil, and the engine seizes up, is that a design flaw?