Outraged by lack of security for checked baggage
 

I no longer feel safe flying. I don't worry about terrorists trying to control a plane but by the lack of security regarding checked bags.

Only 5% of checked bags are run through bomb detecting machines. The government says it will be 2-3 years before enough equipment is in place to check all bags.

A complete lack of security in this are for so long is completely unacceptable in the wake of Sep. 11.

The airlines will not even" bag match" passengers to the bags to make sure those with checked bags actually get on the plane. Unbelievable.

Everything regarding security is "too expensive" or would "cause delays" according to the airlines. The FAA or the U.S. gov't must step in to avoid a potential disaster. Security still is awful.

Here is my solution which is simple and highly effective. Have local uniformed police quickly open and inspect ALL checked bags for explosives. This would not take long and the deterrent would work. Add a $1 or so surcharge to each ticket to pay the salaries of the police-checkers.

I believe regular people are much more concerned about security than the airlines. If suppost is there this type of needed security could be forced on them. We need it badly.

The only downside is that most if not all people would not like their bags searched and rumaged through publicly. Well, me too. But I would far prefer this and the knowledge I can board a plane free of bombs.

I will be interested to see what others think.

fletch4,

I agree that all checked baggage needs to be scanned, searched, sniffed or otherwise determined to be "bomb-free". However, this still doesn't solve the entire safety issue. As long as people can walk thru security with a gun undetected or the ramp agent can plant something on an aircraft that doesn't get searched, there is still vulnerability.

I do agree that your suggestion would make air travel safer, but not completely safe. I also agree that the expense or perceived inconvenience is negligible. Having my wife or one of my children die is certainly more "expensive" and more "inconvenient" than having my bags hand searched.

It does not solve the whole issue, I agree. But its a part and a part that is being almost completely ignored. At least some attempt at security to keep wapons off the plane is in place.

I agree that needs to get a lot better too.

I think this would be nice, but it sure does not slow me down from traveling. Why is that we think airlines are the only place in the world that might see a bomb. Why not the local mall, freeway, movie, terminal itself, subway, train, etc. etc. I do not feel guilty mentioning these and any bad guys thinking for about 1 minute would come up with these, and many, many more.

For some reason, we seem to be FIXATED on airplanes. 60-70 million people flew last month. Though I feel for those on the TWA flight, it was one flight.

Going through the luggage of 60-70 million passengers per month is quite a job. And I don't know about you, but once my suitcase is packed, I don't need someone going through it. Can you imagine those guys "repacking"?

I think we should definitely have PPBM, and bags should be x-rayed.

I'm with NoStressHere on the personal bag search though. It takes a few minutes to inspect one piece of luggage. It will then take a few minutes to repack that luggage. The way I pack, there is no extra space, i.e. repacking would be a good 20 minute operation. That would be way too much of a delay.

I wouldn't mind paying an extra couple bucks per ticket if the money would were to be spent on buying machines to scan checked baggage.

See also:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum1/HTML/005570.html

d

All bags in the UK are passenger matched, and all but the very small regional airports scan every bag before it is loaded. I am shocked and surpised that this doesn't happen in the US ?? That has to be one of the most basic security measures.

I hate to be Mr. Cost/Benefit Analysis, but someone needs to mention it.

Most articles I've read mention a definite false positive problem with the CTX/Invision scanners for luggage, usually rumored to be about 23% of all bags scanned.

Over one billion suitcases were checked last year in the US. Imagine how difficult positive bag matching would be to achieve if we scanned all suitcases: upwards of 230 million bags would need to be hand-searched because they set off the alarm (but contain no explosive).

At the often-mentioned capacity of 150 bags an hour, that's 35 bags an hour (per machine) that need intense searches. My checked bags are full, not empty, and would require at least 10 minutes to search and repack. Ever see the Lucy episode where she can't keep up with the machine?

If those numbers are valid, every hour of scanning would produce maybe six hours worth of hand-screening. Yikes!!

Next, let's see how many of these "Wolf, Wolf, Everywhere a Wolf" machines we would need. At max capacity, each machine could look at about 1,314,000 bags annually.

Problem is, the bulk of departures take place during the daytime 12 hours, not all 24.

A conservative estimate would require about 3000 of these scanners to handle peak traffic times. At stated prices, about $5 billion just for the machines. Not counting the labor to route the bags through, run the scanner and do the hand-searching. All of whom, I presume, have to be expensive federal employees, just like customs agents, most people say.

Is it all worth it?

If exploding airplanes were common, most certainly, YES.

But what if there aren't any bombs? For 20 or 30 years? Is all this effort still worth it?

It's not that I relish a mid-air explosion and the certain death accompanying same; I'm just not afraid of the possibility as are some people. And no, I'm not sure I'd be willing to charge every passenger $10 each forever to look for the non-existent (or really rare) bogeyman.

A better answer? Selective screening of bags belonging to those people most likely to be a threat, starting with:

One-way tickets bought for cash by illegal aliens.

Effective security will mean concentrating the efforts on the most likely terrorists, not the chairman of Intel and not me.

Bring on the "I'm proud to be an American" frequent flier expedited security screening pass; I'll take one, leaving the security people more time to look for Atta's friends.

Every minute spent looking through my kid's backpack looking for legal items (but recently banned by FAA) is time not available to prevent another 9/11. As Ann Coulter pointed out that week in her column, how many hijackers were stopped by all of our security efforts that day? Any?

How many more hijackings would we have if we simply let people get on planes without all of the silliness?

I feel for all the people gripped with fear who think the answer is any more than the four in September. There isn't a hijacker behind every pair of cuticle scissors.

I wholeheartedly agree with scanning all checked luggage, but as to cost (let's face it, the cost will be passed on through higher ticket prices) vs the number of actual bombs, I'll let others argue the point.
However, as to bag matching, I think the idea has too many loopholes (if these could somehow be circumvented I would be in favor of the idea).
-What about the terrorist that buys a ticket from A to B but gets off at an earlier stop?
His/her baggage is still on board- OOPS!
-What about the suicide terrorist that is willing to identify his/her bag with explosives? OOPS!


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

"Why is that we think airlines are the only place in the world that might see a bomb. Why not the local mall, freeway, movie, terminal itself, subway, train, etc. etc."

NoStresshere - I am not just concerned about airplanes. I do have concerns about malls, sports stadiums, etc, but they don't seem appropriate topics for this forum. Airplanes are.

Unfortunately, current airline screening policies are "reactive instead of proactive". Changes were made as the result of 9-11. Proactive changes might have prevented the carnage of 9-11. Remember the airlines are a business worrying about their bottom line.

Folks, it comes down to this: we simply do not have the resources to check every single bag that comes through, period.

They're starting to use the computers to flag sketchy passengers now, and their bags get scrutinized. That is about all we can do at this time.

Now, maybe someday we'll have such good technology that we can run all the checked baggage through scanners and it will flag all suspicious bags accurately, but that doesn't exist now.

* if focussing on what could be loaded on airlines that doesn't belong to any of the passengers, don't forget (checked/unchecked) cargo
* I am not aware that the 9/11 tragedy had anything to do with screaning/not screening checked baggage
* I feel a lot more uncomfortable than on planes when driving in long tunnels (not knowing at all what the lorries before/behind me have loaded) like the St. Gotthard (Switzerland), the tunnels to/from Manhattan or the Eisenhower Tunnel on the (Colorado) Interstate when driving Denver - Vail.
* the 9/11 tragedy resulted in many more casualties on the ground than on planes




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

As a follow up comment, If the USA cutback by 50% all the foriegn aid that the taxpayers provide to nations throughout the world, with this money the government can buy the baddly needed x-ray scanners for the airports so that ALL checked bags are screened. Not only that but with all those BILLIONS of extra dollars we could....don't get me started.

[SARCASM]Yes, those ungrateful *******s in the least developed countries who receive the equivalent of .09 per cent of US GDP (1997 figures) should just get in line like everyone else. [/SARCASM]

From 1946 to 1993 the US spent an average of 9 billion/year on foreign aid, but 35% of this was military assistance, aka government subsidies to the defense industry. Recent spending has been around 13 billion/year.

Get a life! The events of Sep 11 had absolutely nothing to do with checked baggage! The great American chicken is alive and well. The only thing matching baggage and customers and xraying all baggage will do is slow down system even more. It will be 4-5 hr checkins for flight. I am not willing to put up with that. I've flown 60,000 miles since sep 11. If you are afraid. Don't fly. Just don't expect the frequent flyers to share your fears or put up with your "the sky is falling mentality."
Life is full of risks. Getting up in the morning is a risk. I assume you do get up.

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.

Which leads to another question... If they do it in Europe, which is a larger continent with more airlines and airports and THEY achieve PPBM...

What are they doing, and how? And what do we need to do to copy them? I have yet to see a large delay on an aircraft in europe because of psitive baggage matching.

Am I lucky? or do they have a system worth copying?

Regards,
-Bouncer-

I doubt that people deciding to go home is responsible for most PPBM events. The most likely scenario is that the customer simply loses track of time (they're in the restroom, in the bar having "one for the road" or are involved in watching a ball game on TV, working on their laptop, reading, etc.). Or, their watch is slow. Or, they mistake the departure time with the boarding time. Or, they catch an earlier flight. Or, they get lost in the airport. And so on.

We do, however, have the technological capability in most airports to check and double-check, every single bag that is checked or carried-on by a profiled suspect.

Whether or not we have the political will is another question.

While I don't know enough about European airport operations to give you a definitive answer, I'm going to guess that the incredibly high tariff/taxes we pay whenever flying out of a busy airport like London Heathrow [LHR] has something to do with how the Europeans manage security.

Besides, how many "domestic" flights are there for European nations? Even American airports require more stringent security on international flights, and pretty much every flight out of an European airport is an international flight.

Last time there was a terrorist activity, the US airspace was closed for a few days. Now that's what I call a real delay. If a plane blows up over the US, it's likely that we'll have the same situation again.

Since, based on 9/11, we'd have to assume that one plane blowing up could be part of another terrorist plot to blow up several planes simultaneously, the FAA would probably ground all air traffic.

That would be a much larger total delay (thousands of flights delayed for hours or days) than a couple minute average delay to scan bags for bombs and implement PPBM.

JetBlue manages to do PPBM, and their airplane turnaround times are faster than most of the industry. Everyone in Europe manages to do it with little delay. So, why can't we? And, it makes no difference that most of the flights in Europe may be international, the bottom line is that they do it.

And the bottom bottom line is that it will be much cheaper and easier for it to proactively implement a checked baggage scanning system and PPBM now, before something happens. Once terrorists load a bomb onto a plane and it blows up, it's going to be 9/11 again. Everyone is going to be afraid to fly, the FAA will start implementing more ridiculous rules, PPBM will become mandatory on all flights, regardless of whether we've developed the capability to handle it efficiently, and there are going to be huge delays at the time of the incident, and for a couple days or weeks after. Meanwhile, passenger volumes will be down, a higher surcharge will likely be imposed on tickets to cover the cost of quickly implementing a baggage screening system (rather than planning it before implementing), airlines will be in more trouble (maybe another government bailout), the economy will get worse...

I'm not scared to fly, for the record, but it will be cheaper and easier for us proactively implement a system now, rather than let more terrorist activities occur first. Baggage scanning and PPBM were in the long-term plans anyway, so one way or another it will happen. I just think we should speed it up to prevent another instance of terrorism.

d

Actually I was not referring to the "least developed countries". Instead I was referring to more "developed" countries like Russia, Isreal, France, Japan, Egypt as well as others... According to your quote USA's current foreign aid is $13,000,000,000. A 50% reduction ($6.5 Billion) would more than pay for the needed equipment and security that is being discussed here. My question to you is what is more important, propping up or subsidizing some foreign government or have state of the art safety and security here in the USA?

It's really not that simple. The foreign aid we give is used as a tool to advance our foreign policy objectives (whether this is itself morally problematic is another issue altogether). There is no question that we should "prop up" a friendly foreign government if the alternative is to have them replaced with Talibanesque regimes. Unfortunately, certain short-sighted US Administrations (not to name names) have been using our foreign aid to prop up Talibanesque regimes to the detriment of more democratic governments, but again, that's another issue.

And in any case, out of all 22 OECD industrialized nations in the world, we provide the least amount of foreign aid as a percentage of GDP. Even Greece and Portugal spend more than we do.

We have plenty of money spent on far less worthy causes. How about the latest $100 billion corporate welfare dole-out passed by the House that even Paul O'Neill called a "show business" pander to campaign contributors?

[This message has been edited by robinhood (edited 11-10-2001).]

After Lockerbee, there was a big bruhaha over checking checked baggage as well as carry-on. FAA said too expensive for our Flag Carriers and look what didn't happen.

Now nothing happens for a while and FAA says "I was right"

9-11 occurs and everyone is scrambling to protect their collective asses. FAA blames CIA..CIA blames FBI..no one's computers talk to each other so everyone blames Uncle Sam.

We, the flying public, pay dearly for each ticket. The airlines hire the least common denometer security idiots and we still pay.

45 days after 9-11 with every TV Talking Head focused on airport safety, with ever PAX still nervous, some IDIOT at OHARE screws up...it isnt like no one was watching. Thank God, United was doing random searches...it could have been worse... He could have been a terrorist instead of just rooming with one http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/frown.gif

It is now time to wake up and smell the smoke over NYC. Something IS going to happen again..whether Domestic or Foreign or some idiot with a hard-on for someone or some thing. It could be OBL or Tim McVey or joe schmuck who wants to commit suiside in a big way.

I, for one, will be happy to put up with increased security and delays if they were in fact real and not window dressing. What is happening now is just ginger bread to make non flyers comfortable.

Remember that the FAA is not on our side. We will only feel safe if SOMEONE SHOUTS for US.

Doppy & Mikey1003, Well said.

More on the subject:

http://www.davidmrowell.com/travel/current.htm

The Weakest Link