I find myself thinking most like NoStressHere. A car on a high speed chase could barrel through my house and kill me in my bed. I could run into someone with heavy road rage on my commute to work. I could have some wacko go through town killing indiscriminately (happened in Pittsburgh twice recently). A disgruntled worker from work could come in and kill me. The mall may have a bomb in the trashcan as I walked right by it.

This national paranoia about airplanes has got to stop. We can die anytime, anywhere -- there are 'good ole-fashioned' criminals everywhere and anywhere -- including what we now called terrorists.

I am fully aware on my next transcon flight I could die.. but I could die in bed, on my way to work, anywhere. This was the same before 9/11 and the same afterwards. I'm sure I would be safer if the government hired three people with assault rifles to accompany me everywhere, but I'll take my chances!

I'm outraged we don't have a policeman at every daycare center to prevent abuse and possible kidnappings. Who cares if it'll make daycare so expensive that people can't afford to put their kids there.

In fact, if we had a fully equiped riot squad in every school, the Columbine murders wouldn't have taken place. Let's do that too.

Oh, and don't forget that fully equiped medical station along every mile of every highway to help in case of auto accidents.

And I hear that the presidential limo can survive punctured tires, machine gun bullets through the gas tank, crashes at up to 90mph, not to mention a grenade. In the interests of safety, let's require all automobiles to share that safety standard. If you can't afford it, then don't drive.

---------------------------

The downside to positive match plus hand search for every single bag is not embarassment, it's the fact it'd paralyze air travel by making it slow and expensive, just like all those *safety* suggestions above.

Aren't you guys being a little short-sighted here?

The events of Sept. 11th had nothing to do with checked baggage - that's true.

But, before 9/11, hijackings had nothing to do with crashing planes into buildings. We used to be like "Hey, anyone can take over this plane, and we won't do anything to stop it. We'll just fly with them to Cuba for a couple days." Who ever thought that someone would crash a plane into a building instead of taking us on a Havana joyride?

Now, we've more or less closed up that loophole that would allow people to hijack planes. Better cockpit doors and pissed off passengers will probably neutralize that threat.

But, there is a huge open door in the system whereby anyone can walk up with a bomb, check it and walk away. Since boarding passes and baggage tickets clearly say whether a bag will be matched with the passenger or not, a terrorist would know immediately whether his bomb would make it. If it wouldn't he could get it back and try again. If it does (which is more likely) boom - there goes another plane.

We have always seen that each time you plug one hole, another one opens up. This bags not being screened hole is huge, well publicized and easy to exploit. Meanwhile, we have people who have declared war on all Americans. And, while no one ever imagined that terrorist would crash planes into buildings, people have put bombs on planes before. That Lockerbie thing is still going on.

On the cost/benefit analysis - in the link I posted in the forum I linked to above - it mentioned that the system at JFK's terminal 1 has a capacity of 12 bags per minute per scanner, or 720 per hour. That's 4.8 times more capacity than what FWAAA said (150 bags/hr) the system would have. Assuming his estimate of $5B is 4.8 times too high, that means it would cost (ultra-conservatively) about $2B for the equipment. About 70 million people traveled last month. A $5 surcharge for 6 months would more than pay for the system.

That's the cost side. On the benefit side, this could prevent bombs from blowing up planes. What are the costs of that? Huge - the cost of the aircraft, the cost of the cargo, the cost of the passengers (both in terms of being alive and the monetary cost of lost productivity, insurance, etc.) and their luggage, the cost of damage to whatever is on the ground where the plane crashes, the cost of the investigation, the cost of a trial, the cost of lost ticket sales from people who are even more afraid to fly... I can't put a figure on it, but I'm sure every American would chip in a few dollars to avoid this. Over $1B was collected after 9/11 to give to the victim's families.

d

(edited to add http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif One final note - the Gore commission found that delays from implementing PPBM would average to be about 1 minute per flight. That's right, one whole minute. Don't forget that study was conducted several years ago, before airline schedules were cut by 20+%.

[This message has been edited by Doppy (edited 11-09-2001).]

First of all, PPBM doesn't do anything to stop a suicide bomber, right? If the terrorist is willing to kill himself by driving an airplane into a building, what's to stop him from just getting on the plane with his bomb package?

Secondly, you should go back to the first post by fletch4, in which he advocated the local uniform police open and inspect ALL chcked bags. Besides the fact that I think a local police officer is not qualified (unless he's bomb squad) to recognize a bomb, it's slow and expensive. That's the kind of over-reaction that we're opposed to.

It's not "we" who are fixated on airplanes. it's the TERRORISTS who are fixated on airplanes which is why "WE" have to become more security conscious.

We all know the statistics about it being more likely to be killed driving to the airport, etc, etc. But since terrorists have shown their proclivity to use airplanes for their acts, the probability numbers change from the statistical numbers.

Many airports throughout the world scan and/or search every bag that goes into checked baggage. They are spending the money and making sure that the passengers who use their facilities are safe. We should be doing the same, no matter what it costs.

To paraphrase Bush who said about education that we don't want to leave one child behind, let's not leave one passenger behind.

After September 11, I think that all airline passsengers would be willing to pay a little more for their tickets to cover the cost of the machines and the personnel needed.

Umm.. a gentle note to some that using hyperbole is a logical fallacy. Let's not attack the idea by using off the chart comparisons to riot squads in day care. (personally anyone who can handle eight 6year olds has to be a Ninja master IMHO). http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Anywhoo, I am surprised about passenger baggage matching. I have had different flights delayed because of this since well before the 11th of this year. Ever since the Lockerbie bombing as a matter of fact.

I can vividly recall one time a few years ago I flew out of Portland ore. We sat and sat and sat and the pilot came on and told us the person had checked bagge but then left the airport and as a precaution blah blah blah. lots of grumbling and stuff until Al of a sudden all the police and firetrucks in the world started surrounding our plane and we were told in no uncertain terms to get up, walk off the plane and leave everything in the overheads etc.

There are times in your life.. when in ONE second your perception changes utterly. From that day, I have NEVER quibbled about a delay for any mechanical or security reason. Fact is, being delayed is better than the other option. It's that simple.

Thing is, I have to wonder if it's up to the pilot (because of the delayed flights). In any case I doubt many are going to take the chance now.

Regards,
-Bouncer-

and that is what I think about a lot...it's not just US who are obsessed with airplanes, it's the terrorists who use them as very real symbols for all they don't like about our systempolitics/country..and so I AM more afraid about flying to JFK in a couple of weeks than I would be flying to Boise...altho I do believe from all I have seen that sfo-jfk flights would be scrutinized more carefully....

and I know I could die in the car ont he way to the airport, or in my bed etc - but the truth is I just don;t want to die in an airplane...esp if my last few minutes are spent in terror ...

and what if we did have to have less flights so that more bag checking procedures would be in place..I don't think that would necessarily be a bad thing...

Raven1 - what do you mean by "get a life"? What we are talking about here is how to best preserve the one we have.What data (beyond your own speculation and a great talent for hyperbole)do you have to document your assertation that screening every bag would result in 4-5 hr check in times at airports? Finally, most of us commenting here are also FF and I don't understand what you mean when you say "just don't expect the FF to share your fears or put up with your 'the sky is falling mentality' ".Most of the concerns here are posted by FF. You seem to insinuate that anyone who is concerned is a)irrational and b)not a "real" traveller and therefore not entitled to have their voice heard.

I am happy that you are not even remotely concerned for your safety and hope and pray that you never have to be.However, I think to ridicule others who have legitimate concerns is inappropriate.Comments like " I assume you do get up" don't add anything to this forum.

Measure would mandate airline 'bag matching'

http://www.cnn.com/2001/TRAVEL/NEWS/...ing/index.html

As somebody who does this kind of thing (load and pull bags) every week, I find that Gore commission analysis very suspect. If a plane is packed full (and I'm talking stuff along the lines of a regional jet) of bags, and we have to pull a bag, expect at least 20 minute delay while we off load eighty bags, rummage through them, find the bag we need, and repack it. We can't do that "on average" in one minute, no matter what any politician tells us.

Now, if we had to implement PPBM, we'd change procedures. We'd have to wait until everybody is on board, verify we have the bags, and *then* load the plane. Expect a twenty minute delay for a full plane. Expect longer MCT (minimum connection times) earlier boarding, more sitting and waiting... People talk about security, but what they really want is to get there *now*.

Second, what happens if there is an error while handling your bag, you are ready for a flight, but we don't have your bag? Do you really want us not to let you on the flight while we look or wait for it? The other passengers would have something to say if we waited an hour and made them miss connections.

Third, what is 100% bag matching going to do anyway, at least from a security perspective? If you're willing to walk on board and crash a plane, you'd be willing to walk on board and blow it up too.

Prior to Sept 11, most domestic US flights did not have PBM. But, a small number of them did. Some were selected at random, and others may have been selected for other reasons (they never really said). But, there was a small chance that any domestic flight prior to Sept 11 would have PBM.

Under PPMB, you need one suicide terrorist to blow up one plane.

Without PPMB, any terrorist (no need to be suicide) can check-in many flights and blow up say 10 different planes.

1. Look at someone like Timothy McVeigh. He didn't want to die, and if he hadn't been caught, I wouldn't be surprised if he would check a bag and then skip out on the flight. Big, organized, brainwashed terrorist networks have plenty of young boys to take over when their fathers die in suicide misssions. But, small grassroots terrorists can't all go kill themselves, or they won't have anyone to further their agenda.

2. Average one minute delay per flight assumes that not every flight has no shows. How many people really check in for a flight, check baggage and then decide to leave the airport and go home, without their checked luggage? Obviously flights that have no shows are going to have to wait more than one minute so someone can rummage through the cargo hold and find the bag in question. The average of one minute means that if it takes 20 minutes to find a bag - for every 20 flights there is only one flight with a no show.

3. PPBM and scanning checked luggage are great ways of preventing problems if you ask me, for one major reason - they don't take away any of my freedom. I'd rather have them run my bags through an x-ray machine than have to get grilled under hot lights every time I want to fly. I'd rather have the bags scanned then have to have my car searched at random checkpoints around the airport. Bag scanning is better than having my phone tapped to find out if I'm planning on blowing up a plane. And so on.

4. Look how organized the 9/11 attacks were. Multiple people on multiple flights at multiple cities, all happening at the same time. Is it completely crazy to think that maybe the terrorists would think about blowing up 10 airplanes at the same time, considering how easy it would be?

d

I'm not the easily scared type. I just find the current "security" level regarding checked baggage to be completely unacceptable.

I refuse to believe that with all the technology and intelligent people in this country we cannot come up with a feasible way in the short term and long term to check checked bags for explosives.

I never said the Sep. 11 attacks had anything to do with checked bags. Why are so many harping on that? What I am saying is that any terrorist with a third grade education can see trying to take over planes and crash them is now futile. It won't happen. Terrorists look for weak spots to attack. Security for checked bags is so weak its virtually non-existant. Maybe some people find the current security level for checked bags sufficient. I don't and thats the simple point of my post.

Terrorists may well be a mall, stadium, or pizza shop, but I am talking about airline security precautions. Checking 100% of bags & cargo put on a plane for explosives
( Regardless of whether 9-11 ever happened)is just common sense. I don't even consider it security its so basically neccesary.

I fail to see how a system that does not cause massive delays cannot be implemented. I am suggesting in the near-term that SOMETHING be done.

Allowing anyone who wants to to check bags onto planes and then walk away does not strike me as smart, given the current circumstances which are not about to go away.

All it takes is one auto accident in the wrong spot of the road, and you can create a traffic congestion of a few hundred cars.

A 20 minute delay of 1 flight out of is not the same as 1 minute delay for all 20 flights. When a flight is delayed, the gate remains occupied and the ground crew can't move on to the next plane. The passengers on that plane may have connecting flights which then may be delayed. The takeoff order has to be re-ordered. So that single delayed flight can end up scrambling the system for many other flights.

Also, if you treat all non-matched bags as potential bomb threats, you have to call out the police/bomb squad every time you find an unmatched bag.

An if you do find an unmatched bag which is potentially a bomb, don't you have to evacuate the immediate surroundings? How many flights and gates does that affect?

I think it's safe to say that we've all seen how 1-2 cars can stall traffic for miles. Take that practical experience and apply it to airline schedules, and it's obvious why airline hate the idea of positive matching.