You are all correct. There are numerous ways to get flammable liquids through the checkpoint. However, unless draconian measures are taken, that will never change. You can ridicule all you want, but you do not want "real" security either and you know it. If it ever came to that, then there would be so much wailing and gnashing of teeth. You cannot have it both ways people....

------------------
Don't take life too seriously, afterall, you won't get out alive.

You got me all wrong - I'm in favor of "real" security and not the Keystone Kops variety foisted upon us by Daschle, the Democrats, GWB, Ashcroft, Ridge, Mineta, Magaw and Loy.

"Real" security wouldn't involve stupid rules like the one we're discussing here. It would look for obvious weapons (pistols, rifles, swords, really big knives, bombs, etc. It would not get bogged down in trivial matters like what kind of drink container I may carry thru a WMD.

Stupid F'ing Americans.

This is all the Democrats fault? Thanks for clearing that up. Maybe we can blame it on Rush Limbaugh too. Kobe?

"REAL" security would involve more than you think. NO bottles lest they contain flammable liquids. NO aerosol cans lest they contain something other than what is on the label. NO flame producing articles of ANY kind such as matches, lighters, etc.

Thats just for starters, but "real" security is unobtainable in the US due to our way of life. The USA has and always will be open to terrorist attacks because of the freedoms we enjoy. That is both our strength and our weakness. We cannot prevent all of the attacks, but we are strong enough to survive them. Bickering about it is also one of our strengths.



------------------
Don't take life too seriously, afterall, you won't get out alive.

Hey Mr. Unknown Screener - I love your signature tagline!

Thank you....

------------------
Don't take life too seriously, afterall, you won't get out alive.

--- And it's why I'm in favor of no state-imposed security, or, if the airline feels like covering their hineys, completely privatized security.

Consumers can choose to fly on the plane with no security if they so desire, or if they are okay with giving up some of their freedoms in exchange for making someone else primarily responsible for their safety, they can fly on the planes with security. Customers flying to states with reciprocity could carry on the plane, if they had a permit to do so.

We still have this freedom in the charter market at least. Have there been any terrorism-related accidents on charter flights?


[This message has been edited by swise (edited 10-21-2003).]

On one given flight, say on a 747, with 300+ seats, how many of those seats do you think are filled with FF's?

How about on a 737?

A ticket agent for a airline would be really helpful, if they could answer this question.

Not sure where you're going with the question (and I'm certainly no airline employee), but I'll take a rough stab at the number of elite FFs:

In 2002, UA had 149 billion available seat miles and a load factor of 73.6% for 109 billion occupied seat miles.

Folks over on the UA board argue that there are about 46,000 1Ks, 239,000 1Ps, and 535,000 2Ps. I'll assume each 1K flies 125,000 miles/year, 75,000 for the 1Ps, and 37500 for the 2Ps (i.e. midpoint between the qualifying points for each level, and 25,000 over for the 1Ks).

That comes to 44 billion miles flown by elites, or 41% of occupied seat-miles taken by elites.

It's probably quite a bit less than that for the % of seats on all flights occupied by elites because of elites tending to be on generally longer flights, minimum of 500 qualifying miles per flight, award travel, other things I didn't consider, etc. (on the other hand, many FFs aren't elite because they don't bother to sign up, fly on different airlines, etc.) But it's a decent rough guess and probably a good upper bound.

Sources:

http://www.unitedairlines.co.jp/jsp/...2003/jan01.jsp

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum50/HTML/020998.html

[This message has been edited by studentff (edited 10-21-2003).]

Actually, charter flights are screened in the same manner as non-charter flights. There is no place on any flight for guns, period. Bullets, unlike punches, cannot be pulled back once fired. Neither air marshalls nor pilots should be armed. The states rights argument is fine for intrastate flights, but interstate flights fall under the Federal umbrella as they should. However, since this thread was about plastic cups being taken through the wtmd and that has been answered, maybe we should let this one drop since there are wildly differing opinions on it.



------------------
Don't take life too seriously, afterall, you won't get out alive.

YES, it is.

In the hysteria following 9/11, the Liberal Media was screaming for Congress to "Do something about Airport Security".

During the debate on Airport Security, the Republicans wanted stroger Federal Oversight of Private Screeners. The Democrats saw a GOLDEN opportunity to add 100,000 more people to the government payroll, thus making 100,000 more people reliant on the government for their survival.

Tom Daschle would NOT compromise and threatened to hold up any bill that did not include Federal Screeners. The Republicans, fearing the beating they would take in the Liberal Media, caved in.

But, Tom was not done. He also inserted a provision in the bill creating the TSA that forced the TSA to buy inferior bomb detection equipment from a company that employed his wife as a lobbyist.

I hope that the Republicans look at this JOKE of an agency as proof that giving in to Tom Daschle's idiocy is a recipe for disaster.