Flying Soon? Have Fun with That

[furrbear]

Apropos of my earlier entry about TSA doing even more to F**k-up Air travel in the wake of Christmas Day's "incident," this just in from DailyKos:

In the wake of 9/11, Malcolm Gladwell wrote a New Yorker article on the history of hijackings (PDF), concluding:

Can we close the loopholes that led to the September 11th attack? Logistically, an all-encompassing security system is probably impossible. A new safety protocol that adds thirty seconds to the check-in time of every passenger would add more than three hours to the preparation time for a 747, assuming that there are no additional checkpoints. Reforms that further encumber the country's already overstressed air-traffic system are hardly reforms; they are self-inflicted wounds.

The history Gladwell had detailed is one in which, repeatedly, security procedures on air travel had addressed the most recent crime or attempted crime, always looking backward and always being evaded by the next round of hijackers.

And, despite all the improvements in airport security, the percentage of terrorist hijackings foiled by airport security in the years between 1987 and 1996 was at its lowest point in thirty years. Airport-security measures have simply chased out the amateurs and left the clever and the audacious. "A look at the history of attacks on commercial aviation reveals that new terrorist methods of attack have virtually never been foreseen by security authorities," the Israeli terrorism expert Ariel Merari writes, in the recent book "Aviation Terrorism and Security."

In the wake of Christmas Day's failed terrorism attempt, the TSA is self-inflicting a few more wounds. The upshot is that air travel is getting a whole lot more miserable for those who are still willing to endure it.

According to a statement posted Saturday morning on Air Canada’s Web site, the Transportation Security Administration will severely limit the behavior of both passengers and crew during flights in United States airspace — restricting movement in the final hour of flight. Late Saturday morning, the T.S.A. had not yet included this new information on its own Web site.

"Among other things," the statement in Air Canada’s Web site read, "during the final hour of flight customers must remain seated, will not be allowed to access carry-on baggage, or have personal belongings or other items on their laps."

Also, only one carry-on item may be allowed, it's reported.

So, to recap. Improvements in airport security have historically not worked. Yet, in response to a failed terrorism attempt, a struggling industry in a struggling economy, and the poor saps stuck as its customers, will have to deal with more restrictions imposed not because there's any empirical support for their effectiveness, but so the TSA can appear to be Vigilant and Responsive.

If some terrorist organization wanted to change its stated goals to killing the US airline industry, they could probably declare victory relatively soon.

Comments

[bearbarry.livejournal.com]

Let's fly NAKED! We can create a new airline boarding policy called "Air Bare." You just have to submit to a slightly uncomfortable anal probe before boarding, but after that, no worries! Think of the fuel economy too. The lack of garments would greatly decrease the weight of the plane and allow it to use less fuel.

Let's face it, it's just a fu#%#*ng bus with wings anyway. There isn't any dignity or elegance left in American aviation. They should just paint a big gray dog on the fuselage of all planes and be done with it!

[furr-a-bruin.livejournal.com]

With this idiotic "can't get up in the last hour" rule, I can't wait for the first lawsuit against the TSA and the relevant airline for forcing a passenger who needed to use a restroom to soil him/herself. And I hope whoever it is gets a whopping enormous payout for public humiliation.

I don't think the point made in your quotes can be stated strongly enough: the so-called "security" measures are almost entirely REACTIVE, not pro-active. They need to throw ALL this bullshit out, hire some consultants from El Al (and Bruce Schneier) and start from scratch.

[greatbearmd.livejournal.com]

Expect more and more useless security theater. Let 'em all fail.

[jp5040.livejournal.com]

Common sense says there should be only one carry on bag anyway! there are way too many people bringing way too much crap on the plane in order to make their own miserable life more comfortable at the expense of everyone else. No liquid means no liquid. It makes sense in light of this man's actions. The not getting up thing should be in general applied anyway because again - why should everybody endure an ass in the face all the time? It's ridiculous how many dumbass heathens have to get up over and over just to wander about and wait in line for the loo. If you gotta go you gotta go but basic respect for others seems to be lacking. i was raised to think of others before I choose to do something. Basically there would be no need for draconian rules if all people stayed seated most of the time. Perhaps there should be some lea way for washroom visits but I'm sure if you asked a flight attendant for leave to go pee they would say it's ok. Afterall they can pay attention to you if there is not a line of dorks just waiting to squirt a little in the novelty can.

Does it look like I hate flying? LOL.
I took one long flight recently where I sat next to the nicest woman and you wouldn't believe how much better it is than sitting next to a fat computer geek who keeps standing up to get another thing form his bag. yeesh.

Oh and as far as terrorism working to kill flying, yes it worked. But the rules we have now should always have been there. It is because of jerks who like to overload the passenger compartment with all manner of stuff that we end up with this. If people keep it up, we will wind up with no carryon at all - which would suit me fine! Sit the Fu¢k down! Shut up and let me enjoy the ride without your sweaty bum in my face!

[furr-a-bruin.livejournal.com]

The REASON people try to carry on everything they need is the airlines' all too often fucked-up baggage handling that loses or delays bags. I can ship something across the country via UPS or FedEx and follow the damn thing every step of the way on their websites; there is absolutely NO EXCUSE for airlines to have any less capable tracking of passengers' bags!

If they'd make a lost or mis-routed bag a virtual unknown and speed up the offloading at the end of a flight - people might not feel compelled to try and drag everything onboard.

[jp5040.livejournal.com]

for sure! I have a flight attendant for my partner. He said it is safer to check your belongings with certain airlines. Not all do the same job. The other issue is certain airports are set up really crappy - and that is an issue for security too. Fed-Ex doesn't use the airport baggage conveyance. He said he believes in traveling light when possible and put it all in one carry on and BTW he agrees - stay in your god damned seat! There is no need to wander up and down aisles.

The REASON people try to carry on everything

[ursine1.livejournal.com]

Is to avoid baggage charges.

Chuck

[50poundnote.livejournal.com]

there is absolutely NO EXCUSE for airlines to have any less capable tracking of passengers' bags

George, that's bullshit.

I've worked in the airline industry for six years now. You would be stunned by the sheer volume that moves through those baggage systems every single day because people feel the need to take every godamned thing they own on their trip.

Of course the shipping companies can track an item, but how much do you think they'd charge to ship something weighing 50 pounds from LAX to JFK? FedEx says $244. So add 175 pounds for a person, and another 50 for a second bag. Let's round it off and make it an even $1000. Now lock that price in with no discount incentives. Now take away any on-board amenities like food or seats. Now have the person at the service desk trying to check in 300 such packages with no human error.

It's an imperfect system that has a lot of room for improvement, but the people who bitch about it the loudest would be the first to cry foul if they weren't getting everything their way.

Sheesh.

[furr-a-bruin.livejournal.com]

In the days before computers and optical-scan barcodes, I might agree with you, but not now. The airline has my itinerary; every bag should get a unique bar code, and an alert should go off if it's not scanned changing planes or whatever when it's supposed to. Hell - use RFIDs and you could scan a whole container of bags in one zap.

Sure, it's a big job - but the contract between airline and passenger is for me AND MY BAGGAGE, when properly checked in. Packages sent with UPS and FedEx do go awry - no system is perfect - but I maintain there's no reason checked baggage should go awry any more often than shipments with those companies.

[50poundnote.livejournal.com]

With equipment costs, maintenance, and training, your ticket will cost thousands of dollars.

Have a nice flight!

[jkusters]

So, as I understand it, the goal of the terrorists is to make us all fearful and to hamper our standard of living.

The TSA is working hard to make our ability to fly freely about the country a thing of the past, thus severely affecting our standard of living.

Doesn't this mean the terrorists have won?

[gregwoobie.livejournal.com]

I will be on a 12 hour flight in 2 weks, Now I am curious to see how it has changed.