absolutely!!!
 

The tipping point! I don't have to deal with much traffic when I drive, just miles and miles of Texas. However, my door to door times for driving vs. flying DFW to Houston or San Antonio with checked bags for the flight comes out close enough that I (to quote another FT person) get out the Lexus experience and go down the road.

Gas prices aren't much of an issue for me as I get paid 'mileage' but my aggravation factor is. When I have to fly, I will. I'm not that taken back by all this, but I'm not booking a vacation that requires flights even through I have plenty of miles.

Speaking only for myself and not for others here: Nope, for me it's not about the toiletries. I already check a bag every week. For me it's about (1) the inevitable electronics ban, and (2) just being at the end of my rope as to the hassles of the commercial flying experience.

Elaborating on (1): All it will take for this to be implemented will be one potential terrorist scare involving one potential use of carry-on electronics. (The 8/10 plot allegedly involved this and I'm frankly STUNNED the USA didn't implement the knee-jerk, er, ban right then and there.) I WILL NOT check my laptop or other personal electronics...I've already had a set of iPod external speakers stolen out of my checked baggage by either NWA or TSA, and of course there's so much other anecdotal evidence of this from so many other FT'ers around here.

Elaborating on (2): Like so many frequent flyers, I'm a Type A Control Freak. This makes flying enough of a torture without the new 8/10 rules. Adding in 8/10, I'm at the "I've had enough, I want control back" phase.

YMMV.

Yes, I believe that's what I said... Is there some point you're trying to make?

Clearly there are some posters on this thread who have a differing opinion regarding the latest changes compelling some people like yourself and me to consider driving instead of flying. That's cool, I have no problem with differing opinions, when offered respectfully. However, like you (I think), I DO have a problem with those whose opinion differs and they present it in a "you're wrong and you're stupid for being wrong" tenor, such as the case with some of these replies.

"Whatever" to them.

I'm against the new "security" restrictions more than most travelers, but flying out of a smaller airport like RIC there aren't any long lines even with the heightened state of alert. Anywhere that's more than 4 hours driving and within a relatively close distance of a commercial airport, it's quicker and (all things considered), still less hassle for me to fly.

This was a tipping point for me too.

Back to the OP. Anyways, I love road trips myself, so enjoy your driving.

Seriously, it's quite reasonable to do the Minneapolis-Chicago-Omaha triangle by car. It's 400 miles or less each leg, so about 6 hours or driving. Those are drives that many people do with or without extra security issues at the airports.

But Chicago to Ft. Worth is 1,000 miles that requires overnighting. Even from Omaha, it's over 700 miles, a full day of driving.

You may consider driving the top part, then fly down to DFW.

Is it not possible for the pro-fly people to realize that not everyone shares their views? :confused:

I think we are all aware that driving from Chicago to Ft. Worth requires an overnight. IMHO, driving half and flying half of a trip makes even less sense than flying the whole trip and checking your laptop and car keys (just a hypothetical there). Please drop the condescending attitudes like "but driving hundreds of miles is so boring". No one said you had to drive hundreds of miles! Some of us choose to do so!

Let's face facts, here -- the only reason airplanes are used at all today (excluding the military, then it's genuinely a need) is for convenience, and to a lesser extent, fun. The level of convenience over other modes of transportation generally increases with distance.

For example, if I wanted to fly commercial from GSP to AVL, I would have to change planes in ATL or CLT. It would be more convenient to drive north on US 25 or I-26 than to fly, even if the fare were $12 roundtrip (the cost of gasoline) and there were no security at all. On the other hand, it would obviously be more convenient to fly to Europe than to take a ship.

For me as well as many others, the hassles of flying have vastly increased the distance point where the convenience of flying exceeds the convenience of driving. Everyone's tipping point is different. This isn't a debate on who's wrong and who's right about driving 200 miles or 500 miles or even 2,000 miles each way rather than flying. It's about convenience, and everyone's tolerance for inconvenience is different.

I had a weekly/bi-weekly commute from BUF to EWR for several years. It was theoretically four hours door-to-door during the days of carry-on bags. The delays at Newark became longer and longer. Couple this with airline hassles and a 6 1/2 hour door-to-door drive I could control.... let's just say the second year of this commute became a driving commute rather than a flight commute.

We flew to Vegas on August 12th and there really must have been extra baggage handlers working because I never got my bag so quickly there - only 45 minutes. I have to fly to ORD this weekend, and that would normally be a carry-on situation. I have to check-baggage because I need my cosmetics for a dinner function Sunday evening. I honestly do not want to spend a few hundred dollars on make-up and shampoo to be able to carry-on. My parents booked Amtrak, and I have to say I wish I had gone the same route. Now here’s hoping they don’t lose my luggage.

My husband had to fit a trip to HOU last week, and Columbia (via Charlotte) this week. He did carry-on, and said that he and a colleague had a tough time locating a drug store in Columbia. When you are only in town for a short while and have a heavy workload time out to locate a drug store and shop for toiletries can be a hardship.

My next two trips will be driving. My driving threshold is currently eight hours, although that may grow if flying becomes any more painful. If there is no movement on these absurd rules before my next long distance flight, I will Fed-ex my make-up and shampoo to my hotel. I truly find the stress of lost luggage coupled with the inconvenience of having to shop as soon as I land the icing on the no-more-flying cake.

Yes, and I hope the reverse is true too.

And then you have one poster mentioning the "inevitable electronics ban". Well, maybe we should wait until it happens before we discuss that.

BTW, I just realize I shouldn't have posted in this thread to start with, as I don't wear makeups and I cannot understand the importance of traveling with it. That's the main issue of this thread and I know nothing about it. I should just shut up, and I will now. ;)

That's me. Let's engage it now.

I think everyone around here knows that if/when the carry-on electronics ban occurs, it will affect business travel, and thus the air travel industry, like no other change to the rules before it. You have people like me who have been vicitimized by theft of contents of checked baggage and thus will NOT EVER check a valuable piece of electronic equipment ever again, others who have checked their electronics who know that if the bag does not come off the conveyor of the same flight they've just flown it will cause great inconvenience (or worse) to the business they've just flown to conduct, and still others who are prohibited by company or gov't agency policy from letting their laptops out of their possession due to concerns about privacy/value of data.

Rkkwan, somehow I suspect that you would fit into one of the above 3 categories, should the ban (which I consider inevitable...YMMV of course) be implemented. My serious, non-sarcastic question, respectfully submitted: What will YOU do in that case?

My serious answer: I will definitely not fly unless I really have to. Just like flying into and out of the UK 2 weeks ago - I wasn't going, but I wouldn't if I couldn't bring my camera, iPod, phone, etc on board.

But that's not happening now, and when that ban comes, we can talk about it. That wasn't the topic in this thread.

I would suspect that if an electronics ban were put into effect, the TSA would allow checked bags to be locked within sight of the passenger at check in after security screening. Also, gov't or corporate policies would have to be updated to reflect the new ban and allow those items to be checked.

Maybe an option is to install flight attendant controlled locks on the overhead bins. The bins would remain locked from takeoff to touchdown. You might not be able to work on the plane, or access your bags in flight, but this way you still have control over your carry on, but you couldn't get at it to 'detonate your laptop', or whatever. An inconvenience? Sure, but maybe a possible compromise.

I actually think an electronics ban is unlikely. After all, if a terrorist can't take a bomb-disguised-as-computer into the cabin, s/he will just put it in checked luggage. And how is a bomb in the cargo hold any safer than a bomb in the cabin? So if you're going to ban electronics from the cabin, you'll have to ban them from checked luggage, which I doubt will happen.

The reason the liquid ban is different is that the terrorists were supposedly going to take innocuous-looking liquids onto a plane and then mix them onboard. Forcing them to check it would prevent them from mixing it.

An electronics ban would also be devastating to the airline industry and to business in general. Business travel will be drastically reduced. I think there would be enormous pressure from the travel industry to find alternative ways to enhance security without banning electronics.

What I think is more likely is something similar to what is happening in the UK: drastic reductions in carry-on allowance. They might limit everyone to one small handbag and stop accepting rollaboards in the cabin. The official reason would be to make security screening easier and facilitate hand searches of all carry-on items.

Well, I will definitely need to plan my trips more carefully to ensure I visit cities in the right order to facilitate driving. So instead of driving ORD to DFW to OMA I would drive ORD to OMA and then maybe OMA to DFW.

I think my limit for driving may be about 10 hours. Anything more than that and I will probably have to fly. :(