On the other hand, the reps in Congress are anxious to look like they are doing something to make us safe.

Now, we can debate whether or not these things do increase safety til the cows come home. However, your typical joe who flies twice a year thinks they do. So he will be all for that.

Just think about the ads a political opponent could run if someone went against legislation that would make air travel "safer."

Self preservation is the most important thing for most politicians. They are not going to act in a way that will give their opponent's any ammunition.

As for the airlines, I am sure they're up there lobbying for help in decreasing the wait at airports, but I'm also sure that they're running in to resistance from reps that are afraid of being potrayed as anti-safety.

Well, our elected officials don't want to have to bail out the airlines again, either, but that will be necessary if people don't start flying again in larger numbers. I believe -- without evidence -- that people aren't staying away out of fear, but rather because they want to avoid the petty hassles associated with flying today, such as extremely long waits for ineffective screening by nitwits. If we could have consistent policies across the country, with published rules available for all to see, it would make a big difference.

People who fly constantly, as most of us do, shouldn't be at the mercy of these idiots who take advantage of their unique and unprecedented opportunity to push around the generally more successful population of air travelers. Oh, yeah, and they get to grope female passengers, too (see the New York Times of 11/21 on this subject); what a fringe benefit! At some point, people will demand that these abuses end.

Bruce

Right, but decreasing wait time doesn't mean we'd have to stop doing these silly PR-stunt security measures. We've already seen part of the airlines' collective efforts because security will now be paid for by the government, which means airlines are no longer on the hook.

Intense lobbying will probably get us more screeners and lanes, which will decrease wait time even if these silly rules remain in place. That's all I really want/need.

I can deal with the non-sensical rules. I just don't want to wait 2 hours to clear security.

Well said

Believe me, I am on your side here. I heard some moron on the news say, I don't care if it takes three hours to get through here, it's okay by me. I'm like, shut the hell up! How often do you fly?

As for the delays, it appears that our voices are being heard already. Mineta has stated that the goal is for no more than a 10 minute wait to clear security. I think that's reasonable.

I think as you start to see the more highly paid, more competent screeners in place, you will see shorter waits.

mdtony,
It might be true that this is how the game is played right now, but that is no reason for us to not comment on the stupidity of our gov's reaction. We can still be suportive of the gov while being critical of actions. Otherwise we will never get those actions corrected.

plato90s, We should not just accept stupid rules. To do so just needlessly increases costs. (many more than that 28000 will be needed to do what congress has passed and try to decrease wait time, even if the number of flyers doesn't return to previous numbers.) Also it decreases the chance to really focus in and defeat the real threats!

Also mdtony, I still don't see that we will get significantly better screeners. The majority of comments from mineta and gov unions, admit that many of the current employees will be brought over.

I also have a general question. I have still not seen a direct qoute saying that anyone found box cutters taped under seats. Can anyone out there show me a newspaper etc that says it happened on a specific flight. Otherwise it is a rumor that should be repeated. If any weapons had been found, the government would be still tearing through every person that had had any chance to place something on a plane. I have not heard a report that even claims they are still looking for someone or that anyone being held works in that kind of position.

I still don't understand why people think that it was even necessary. The knives that were used did not need to be snuck in. It was possible to walk right through the gate. If any specific terrorist had been detained because he attempted to carry a knife on board, all he would have had to do is stay quite. If security had found a box cutter and actually cared, the terrorist could have apoligized, said he did not know it was not allowed and then been allowed to proceed without it. Obviously the terrorists were smart enough to know that they should not just enter as a pack. That is actually the best explanation I have heard as to why some of the terrorists drove from Boston to then fly back through. It meant that no security personel would have a reason to get suspicious.

While the terrorists flew many of the routes and flew several times to insure they did not stand out, trying to place a person in position to put box cutters on the planes would have been a needless risk. Which is not something that Bin Ladens group is known to do. Actually it would have been an even greater risk since you would actually have needed mulitiple people at different airports etc.

So can anyone actually give me some proof behind the oft made comment.



------------------
Robert

Here you go:

Crux is that two X-Acto knives were found loose in an overhead bin on the 14th of September. On a plane that had been originally bound for New York on the 11th of September.

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/10/15/inv.air.canada/

Crux is that "knife-like" weapons were found on two different Delta Aircraft on September 11th after the grounding.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...5953%2C00.html

Regards,
-Bouncer-

[This message has been edited by Bouncer (edited 11-29-2001).]

Bouncer,
Thanks for the help. I missed the article on time from 9-22-01. Yet the fact is that not one of the people being detained by the FBI is accused of having been an employee in secure areas of an airport. The search alluded to in the article must have by now occured with no result. The CNN report does not state that there is a link and that the exacto knives could have been there from before etc. !!!!!!!!!but the biggest thing is that the article goes on to state that the reports of knives under the seats was completely false!!!!!!! So again I am waiting for anyone to come up with a specific case of something being placed on a plane or even a continuing suspicion that it has happened.

I will agree that this is a greater threat than anyone sneaking a knife on an airplane, as weapons snuck on board or through security by confederates was the main method in hijackings. Mainly because it is the only way to be assured of sneaking firearms and explosives on a plane.

------------------
Robert

There are so many airplanes that if you look hard enough, you can find two examples of just about any common item laying around somewhere in the cabin.

Hey JS, two examples is generous.

Thanks, MT, I appreciate your sympathy. Tell you what--you take my old cigar cutter, and I'll take your choice of: a full wine bottle, a laptop computer, or a heavy, expensive, upper class-type shoe unconfiscated by the demotic guys at security, and we'll go at it in an airline aisle. Let's see how much use you make of the cigar cutter.

Likewise.

I lost some friends, but at least they didn't have to confront your smug piety, and I don't intend to introduce them further into our conversation.
Thanks again. Me, too. I'm particularly sorry that I'm put out to an obviously idiotic point. I'm put out that my government figures that I'm dumb enough to believe that if they're inconveniencing me and making me stand in some long lines, they are also making me safe. If they were inconveniencing me to some point, I could take it. It's the insult that they think I'm stupid enough, or that the person behind me in line is stupid enough to believe that taking away nail clippers, cigar cutters, and other objects that couldn't be made into a weapon more potent than bare hands will actually do diddly to affect some future event. That's what gets me down.


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


[This message has been edited by SFJoe (edited 12-02-2001).]

Sorry to single you out, MT, I've been away from FT for a few days and I'm working in order.

Frankly, I think that flyers themselves will deal with a 9/11-style threat adequately next time. As I mentioned, my laptop, the F bottle of wine, the nasty Chilean merlot, each of those will likely suffice to deal with box cutters, cigar cutters, or the rest. I'm hoping that my government can protect me from things I can't fight, like the bomb in checked luggage. In the meantime, jerking me around with pseudosecurity measures to give me the illusion that they're on the case--that gets me down.


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

Exactly, robvberg. No one trains for a year to die for their beliefs if they figure there is an 80% chance that they will just go to jail for a long time from airport security instead.

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

Careful, Tony. :-)


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