Originally Posted by 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].

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by us2

Best post yet on this thread. ^ Please send this as a letter to the editor of the Times.

Originally Posted by Nevsky

$50? The average person flying business class, especially on 7 hour transatlantic flights is probably getting paid (or billing) $250 - $1,000 or more per hour.

Originally Posted by us2

general aviation starts to make sense economically.

Originally Posted by exerda

Their proposal to put electronics in "locked overhead bins" is stupid. If they are afraid of explosives (which clearly they are), then putting them in locked overheads isn't going to stop them from being triggered, by timers, remote, etc.

Originally Posted by GadgetFreak

Teleconferencing will get cheaper and better.

Originally Posted by GadgetFreak

The more unpleasant and difficult it becomes to fly the fewer people will.

Originally Posted by GadgetFreak

As these things combine they drive down flyers and drive up per flyer cost, creating a vicious circle. And it isnt like the airlines are wallowing in profits.

Originally Posted by 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?

Originally Posted by brentley

Why would they ever leave NYC?

Originally Posted by TierFlyer

It's as close to free as a curse from a loading dock and it still doesn't remove the need for face-to-face meetings.
For a while after 911 I drove any trip that was <8 hours as it was net easier. I was very glad to get back on a plane starting that Jan/Feb.
Have airlines ever made profits? :-) Load levels are up, new airlines are entering niche markets. I think we'll see a lot of flying over the next several years as the business cycle stays strong.

Originally Posted by KSinNYC

Maybe all the free space in the overhead bins could be filled with bottles of water, since we can't take that on the plane either.