NY Times Editorial Advocates Carry-On Ban
Sep 11, 2006, 2:16 pm
#76
Moderator, Omni, Omni/PR, Omni/Games, FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Between DCA and IAD
Programs: UA 1K MM; Hilton Diamond
Posts: 67,129
Originally Posted by TierFlyer
I can be productive without a laptop on an airplane - they're a fairly recent innovation, you know? I have documents (printed) to read, magazines to catch up on (I usually hit the RDU/LGW flight with 15+ magazines), and can always spend a productive few hours with a legal pad thinking about my groups task horizon.
I'm not saying that I'd like this fully globally enforced, but it woudn't be the end of the world.
I'm not saying that I'd like this fully globally enforced, but it woudn't be the end of the world.
Sep 11, 2006, 7:12 pm
#77
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Northwest Georgia
Programs: Delta, Hilton, ICH, Hertz
Posts: 302
Originally Posted by TierFlyer
If you can do your business with 60% fewer travel days then you are a lucky lucky man, and must be wondering why you squandered all that time and money when you could have been home.
- Alan
Sep 12, 2006, 5:24 am
#78
Suspended
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,953
No letters printed in response to editorial
The NY Times has not printed one letter, that I can find, either in support of or opposition to the editorial which is the subject of this thread.
Makes me believe even more that it was a piece written at the request of DHS.
---
Could this have been a trial balloon to attempt to determine how the flying public would view such a ban with the Times sharing the letters with DHS? I'm getting so cynical that I would not be surprised if this were the case.
Makes me believe even more that it was a piece written at the request of DHS.
---
Could this have been a trial balloon to attempt to determine how the flying public would view such a ban with the Times sharing the letters with DHS? I'm getting so cynical that I would not be surprised if this were the case.
Last edited by doober; Sep 12, 2006 at 6:48 am Reason: additional thought
Sep 12, 2006, 7:27 am
#79
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: LAX/TPE
Programs: United 1K, JAL Sapphire, SPG Lifetime Platinum, National Executive Elite, Hertz PC, Avis PC
Posts: 42,199
Originally Posted by doober
The NY Times has not printed one letter, that I can find, either in support of or opposition to the editorial which is the subject of this thread.
Makes me believe even more that it was a piece written at the request of DHS.
---
Could this have been a trial balloon to attempt to determine how the flying public would view such a ban with the Times sharing the letters with DHS? I'm getting so cynical that I would not be surprised if this were the case.
Makes me believe even more that it was a piece written at the request of DHS.
---
Could this have been a trial balloon to attempt to determine how the flying public would view such a ban with the Times sharing the letters with DHS? I'm getting so cynical that I would not be surprised if this were the case.
Sep 12, 2006, 7:41 am
#80
Suspended
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,953
Originally Posted by bocastephen
Isn't there a journalistic tradition - nare I say a requirement - that a newspaper accept and publish supporting and opposing viewpoints to an editorial piece?
I looked at op eds and found one entitled "Carry On". Thinking it was about the Time's proposal re: carry-ons, I opened it and read it. The piece focused on life after terrorists attacks and how we carry on with such.
Sep 12, 2006, 9:21 am
#81
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 4,531
Originally Posted by doober
The NY Times has not printed one letter, that I can find, either in support of or opposition to the editorial which is the subject of this thread.
Makes me believe even more that it was a piece written at the request of DHS.
---
Makes me believe even more that it was a piece written at the request of DHS.
---
Sep 12, 2006, 7:18 pm
#82
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: SAN
Posts: 2,426
I just read this editorial today when it was printed in the Herald Tribune. My immediate reaction was: Why should reading materials be allowed as carry-ons? I would imagine that the pages of a newspaper can be saturated with an explosive material.
Idiots. (And I have a subscription.)
Idiots. (And I have a subscription.)
Sep 12, 2006, 11:03 pm
#83
Join Date: May 2005
Programs: UA MM, AS MVP Gold, Marriott Titanium
Posts: 2,110
Originally Posted by PD
Why? I don't get it. I'm asking myself why I would want to continue to pay good money for this kind of nonsense.
Sep 13, 2006, 5:19 am
#84
Suspended
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,953
Originally Posted by PHLbuddy
The Times usually has a lag time of a few days for letters to accrue, editors to trim and decide which ones to print. Often, letters responding to a piece on a Sunday will be published the following Sunday.
Sep 13, 2006, 5:01 pm
#85
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: SEA/YVR/BLI
Programs: UA "Lifetime" Gold, AS MVPG100K, OW Emerald, HH Lifetime Diamond, IC Plat, Marriott Gold, Hertz Gold
Posts: 9,489
Sep 18, 2006, 11:07 am
#86
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA
Posts: 3
Originally Posted by doober
There have been several replies to articles from Sept. 11 and Sept. 12, but so far nothing on the editorial that is the subject of this thread.
I was heartened to see that with the exception of one guy who went off on a tangential rant
about cell phone users, all of the letters opposed the carry-on ban. Maybe good sense will
prevail in the end?
-Dan
Sep 18, 2006, 2:28 pm
#88
Suspended
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,953
Originally Posted by dkelsey
The NYT finally published responses to the editorial yesterday (Sept 17): (link)
I was heartened to see that with the exception of one guy who went off on a tangential rant
about cell phone users, all of the letters opposed the carry-on ban. Maybe good sense will
prevail in the end?
-Dan
I was heartened to see that with the exception of one guy who went off on a tangential rant
about cell phone users, all of the letters opposed the carry-on ban. Maybe good sense will
prevail in the end?
-Dan
Superguy:
The last letter certainly had a Spiff ring to it.