LessO2

Won't happen.

A) Locks would require additional costs from the airlines.
B) Business travel would diminish considerably.

The dam is close to breaking on a full-scale mutiny from business travelers with these things disguised as "security."

justageek

Actually the pre-Iraq-war ties between Judith Miller and her administration sources on Iraq WMD, and the fact that the Times knew the government was doing domestic wiretapping before the November 2004 elections but decided to wait to run the story, are very well established facts. These aren't conspiracy theories.

Now, whether this editorial in particular came on specific request of DHS, that is indeed just a theory. Personally I think it's unlikely, as I think the Times has proven itself more than stupid enough to come up with a position as idiotic as this one on its own!

justageek

You did read the entire editorial, right? They are advocating no laptops or other electronics, period. Do you think people are going to fly if they can't have their laptops, iPods, etc.?

More specifically, they're advocating that everyone's laptops be "locked in overhead bins" during the flight. Do you know how many laptops would break during turbulence?

Valerie

So true.

You want to go where?

I do wish these editorial writers would consult their own traveling staff before they write stuff like this. I think a few reporters who regularly travel for the NYT could have set this writer straight pretty quickly.

Yes, lots of people use carry-on for convenience because they don't want to waste time waiting for checked luggage. However, many more use carry-on because they cannot risk the loss of what they are carrying. Locked overheads are a costly and not particularly effective solution for this.

GadgetFreak

Good points. I didnt even bother responding to the statement about it being a conspiracy theory since as you point out, it is quite well established in fact.

And you are correct about the fact that stupidity rather than DHS could be the guide here.

laf747

With all due respect, your comment is more fitting for The Daily Kos rather than Flyer Talk. THE NYT is not a publicity organ for the Bush Administration. In actuality it is a left wing rag written and edited by anti-Republican anti-Bush liberal/leftwing elitists.

GadgetFreak

Interesting opinion but what about the factual issues I cited to the contrary?

laf747

In re: the factual issue you cited, I think they should be criticized not for holding off on the publication but for the eventual publication since they were advised by the administration that "they would have blood on their hands" if any deaths resulted from the disclosure. Whether one is pro President Bush which I am or anti Bush which I would hazard a guess you are, a "fair and balanced" reading of the NYT will clearly indicate it is far from being a Bush Administration organ.

Fredd

Ahem...

http://www.timeswatch.org/

brentley

Why would they ever leave NYC?

laf747

Amen!!!!!!!!!

GadgetFreak

A number papers published essentially the same story, including a major Houston daily. The administration singled out the Times for publishing it since it beat the drums among the faithful. The blood on their hands argument is nonsense. The adminstration is not above the law. Nor is there any reason to believe the program was effective.

And the many, many stories of false information about WMDs fed to the Times by the administration and duly printed on their front page? What are the faithfuls talking points on those?

Nevsky

In what (at least to me, a traveler who takes frequent, discretionary, long-haul flights) may be one of the worst thought out editorials in the NY Times ever, the NY Times has called for an almost total ban on carry-on bags. ("A Ban on Carry-On Luggage")

The NY Times says "the best approach would be a ban on virtually all carry-on items, or at least a limit of one small personal bag per passenger to tote travel documents, keys, vital medications, reading materials and any other minimal items that are allowed."

That is the most simplistic, defeatist solution to a problem that I have seen (albeit one loved by the Brits). Even El Al does not have such harsh rules.

They obviously have not had their baggage delayed for days at a time (either that or they like wearing the same clothes for three or four days); have not had items stolen from their luggage; do not have to do work (although their freelancers may feel differently) on planes (perhaps explains their recent bad financial results); do not have fragile souvenirs from that great trip; do not carry valuables, valuable musical instruments, or confidential materials; do not care if they can not easily find a new connection because their bags can not be rerouted quickly enough. I (and others here) can go on and on.

The NY Times obviously did not consider this article from CNN stating that "Security experts say restricting the size of hand luggage that passengers are allowed to take on board flights does little or nothing to reduce the risk of a terror attack." (http://edition.cnn.com/2006/TRAVEL/...tions.backlash/)

In their infinite wisdom, they even state that "[s]eparating people from their laptops during flights would be painful, although some people could surely use the time to go over reading material, or even revert to pen and paper." Well, how is one to take all of that paper if one is only allowed a small bag. I assume all they feel that is necessary for a businessperson is a small reporter's notebook.

Instead why do they not use their pulpit to discuss creative solutions, instead of making millions of passengers suffer everyday because of the threat of a few. Perhaps (if one even agrees that there have to be some limits) a trusted traveler program should be instituted on a large scale with trusted travelers having more flexibility. Perhaps letting people pay a reasonable extra fee to pay for the inspection of extra and especially large carry-ons? Perhaps more and higher quality screeners should be hired? There is lots of room for some thought here, but to throw up one's hands and say, just say no to carry-ons would make many suffer unnecessarily when other less drastic measures, might not only work, but would be more effective.

If the NY Times is so concerned about security, why not call for a ban on purses in Times Square and how about inspection of air cargo too?

The most ironic thing is that in the past the largest component of my carry-ons has been a week or two of the NY Times that I take along to read on 12 hour flights. I guess now I just need to stick with the Financial Times (which came out against these silly and ineffective rules).

If you disagree with the NY Times (or even agree, perhaps), you can send a letter to the editor by e-mailing [email protected] or faxing (212)556-3622.

[Moved from Newsstand as the main discussion seems to be here].

Superguy

Not only that, but air travel will be seen as more costly to business due to lost productivity. Just say you have someone paid $50 an hour on a 6 hour transcon. If they can't work, that's up to $300 added to the price of a plane ticket.

It does make videoconferencing look a lot better.