Charter Flight Websites / Services?

X86Daddy asks: "TSA's latest announcement banning all fluids (toothpaste even) from carry-on luggage is the icing on a very sour cake. Many passengers are growing tired of the invasive security screenings, the increasing prices, lost and stolen luggage, and the decreasing quality of service with commercial flights in the United States. However, given the geographical size of this country and the lack of rail options, flight remains the only practical method of travel for most destinations. Can anyone suggest alternative flight services? Are there websites that connect Cessna or other small scale air charter services with interested passengers? I've found CharterX and CharterHub but they seem more geared toward executives looking for jets. Does anyone have experience traveling this way? Is the price point a lot higher, making this a dumb idea (just resign myself to buying toiletries at every destination and prepare for the mandatory anal probes in '07)?"

Or...

[jfclavette]

... you could just, you know, not put your toiletries in your carry-on and not buy them at each destinations. Am I the only one who doesn't typically have toothpaste in his carry-on ? The only case I could see is when you're gone for only two days and want to avoid waiting for the other luggage but even then...

Toothpaste? How about water?

[quadong]

I really don't understand why everyone is jumping on toothpaste as their example of how this rule bothers them. How about water? You can't bring a water bottle onto a plane. This means that you are completely at the mercy of the very slow cart that brings the tiny cups of soda once or twice during the flight. And airplanes are very dry places. When you're terribly thirsty and you realize that you were barred from doing anything about it by the TSA, you're going to be much more pissed than when you realized you would have to check your toothpaste.

Re:Or...

[Stinking Pig]

Ask around: frequent travellers do not check luggage, unless there is a truly dire need. For any trip of a week or shorter, all you need is your laptop bag and one rollie full of clothes and toiletries. If the trip is longer, there's always hotel laundry service...

We don't check luggage because checking luggage adds at least an hour to the flying experience, making day trips in the same time zone less feasible, greatly increasing the chance of loss or damage, and generally ruining one's day.

One other thing to consider... what's going to happen to the checked-luggage system when these new TSA rules cause its load to be increased by 50 or 75 percent? Currently, it's only used by the infrequent travellers or the people with truly dire needs (musicians, sports, and others with large equipment). Add in the rollies of all those business travelers and the plane hold fills up faster, and then what's the chance that your bag with clothes and toiletries makes it to the same place you're going at the same time? Some people are expected to show up the next morning in clean clothes, and for those just planning to get some more toothpaste when you land, you're obviously not used to landing late at night after everything is closed. It's not an unusual occurence.

The looming end of Travel As We Know It

[tverbeek]

You might as well get used to staying around home. The security and safety problems with air transportation are just part of the problem with long-distance travel. There's also the problem of decreasing fuel supplies/increasing costs, and the ecosuicidal problem of pollution and climate change. Has anyone else noticed that air carriers keep going out of business? Maybe it simply isn't a viable business anymore.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if, within the current generation's lifetime, long-distance travel again became fairly uncommon, and the late-20th-century jet-set boom turned out to be an historical blip. Fortunately we now have global communication, so people wouldn't exactly be cut off from the rest of the world like in the 19th century and before... but physical travel may become a luxury. And the global manufacturing economy? Could be strictly a short-term phenomenon, with it eventually becoming cheaper and safer to make things in Toledo rather than ship them in from Thailand. P.S. Be nice to your local farmer; you may end up depending on him to produce food for you.

Re:Or...

[punkass]

Wow, what do you do when they say they're going to take a shit, Semantics Man?

Re:Or...

[jfmiller]

I carry one large backpack with a change of cloth, my toiletries and my laptop because my record for receiving my checked luggage at the other end is currently 61.5%. (also because it used to be the recommendation of the FAA) If the airlines/ g'ment would like me to use the checked baggage system then they will need to institute something like the following: Any passenger not receiving a checked piece of luggage within 3 hours of parking breaks having been set is entitled to $500 in cash (activated atm card is fine) immediately and overnight shipping of the lost item(s) to an address of passengers choosing. In the event the luggage is never recovered (currently 7.7% of my flights) $7500 will be paid to the passenger within 120 days.

This would both assure me that I would be duly compensated for loss and inconvenience and provide a much stronger incentive for the airlines to get it right the first time. Until then I will continue to drive to anyplace west of the Mississippi and carry on as much as I can when I need to fly cross country. If this rule lasts much longer there will be a boom in sales of dehydrated toothpaste, deodorant and shampoo all of which are currently available in specialty camping supply houses.

JFMILLER

Re:Or...

[oldave]

Sometimes I wonder how FedEx and UPS manage to get millions of packages per day correctly to their destination, yet airlines can't handle a few suitcases with their destination clearly tagged.

It seems more likely that the airline baggage handlers just plain don't care, and the airlines don't have to pay, so they don't care that the handlers don't care.

Re:Or...

[walt-sjc]

doesn't have to wait 10-15 minutes to collect his checked bag

The last 5 times I've flown with checked luggage, it has taked nearly a full hour to get my bags once I'm waiting in the baggage area. With carryon baggage, I've already gotten a rental car, checked into the hotel, and am sitting in the jacuzzi before I would have gotten checked luggage. Couple that with the extra 15 - 30 mins on the front end of the flight in a long line waiting for a counter agent to tag my bag.

Couple that with the damage to luggage itself and the contents, and you understand VERY WELL why people don't check their bags unless they HAVE to.

My personal favorite is the smaller regional jets where the carryon's are tagged plane side, and you pick them up plane side at the far end. There is still a slight risk of dammage, but since they are loaded last you don't end up with someone's monster 200lb rolling trunk on top of your soft-sided bag (why is it that 4' tall petite asian women have the largest suitcases on the planet???)

I don't know where you fly, but it's sure not Boston, LA, SFO, Dulles, O'Hare, Atlanta, or most other major airports if you only have to wait 10-15. Even a lot of the smaller airports where your gate is no more than 100 feet from the baggage area it can take 30 mins or more. I always joke that the delay is because the handlers need time to steal all the good stuff. Unfortunately, there is truth to that joke.

Don't expect charter flights for long.

[Jerk City Troll]

If you've been paying attention the past few years, the FAA and the major airlines seem hellbent on removing general aviation from the US altogether (closing non-airline airports, insisting on implementing per request fees for ATC, trying to ground all aircraft built before the last few decades. And don't get me started on the stupidity of every major city wanting a Washington D.C. style Air Defense Identificaton Zone). I suspect having nothing flying anywhere near the ground except governemnt controled drones would suit them just fine.

Maybe we'll finally get trains

[tentimestwenty]

I agree with you on the negative trend with air travel, but ultimately we have to remember that air travel is a very expensive, cumbersome and fragile way to travel. When you introduce terrorists trying to screw it up it just makes it tougher from a practical and economic stand point. To me, it is obvious that we have to be looking at alternative infrastructure in the way of trains, not just as a backup for terrorist disruptions but if oil prices keep rising. Over the last 100 years we have dismantled trains and poured money into highways and air and neither of these are as robust or cost effective, especially if mass transit is a priority. There's a reason why all other nations have kept or expanded their rail service: it's reliability and long term cost efficiency.

Actually, commuter aircraft worked well...

[JetScootr]

In SE houston, we had a small start up airline called "Metro Air". They flew twin and 3-engine craft, seated about 20-40 passengers, went Houston-San Antonio, Austion, DFW, New Orleans, a few other closeby destinations, cheaper than you could drive a car, and about half the time. They flew out of small airports, the kind that can't take jets. Their planes were always full, and they were expanding flights, etc. They were seriously cutting into the big jet/big airline's market space because of simple efficiency: prop planes use less fuel, less ground support, require less technology, etc.

Continental bought them out and shut them down.

I heard (but can't verify myself) that these "puddle jumper" airlines were popping up all over the country because of this, and the big airlines were buying them like Continental did.

Re:Actually, commuter aircraft worked well...

[Starker_Kull]

Actually, while turboprops make economic sense for short flights, and were thus extensively used to feed hubs for majors, passenger surveys indicated that passengers HATED them. Something about a prop on a airplane scares the crap out of them (despite the fact that you add a bunch more blades and shroud it in a teflon shell and *presto!* you have a modern high-bypass turbofan). So, the majors bought out feeder carriers in the late 90's for control, and then replaced the turboprop planes with RJ's (Embraer 145's and Canadairs), since that what people wanted to see associated with the major airline logo. Now, with fuel becoming the number one expense for airlines nowadays, turboprops make more sense despite passenger "nervousness". They will be reintroduced in time...

Counterfactual

[alienmole]

ultimately we have to remember that air travel is a very expensive, cumbersome and fragile way to travel.

Compared to what, and how do you justify that claim? Certainly not in terms of actual passenger injuries per mile, since air travel is close to rail travel in that respect, and much better than road travel. For longer trips in particular, alternative forms of transportation can't compete with air travel in terms of speed, and it's not as easy as you might think to compete in terms of cost. Rail isn't

Re:Maybe we'll finally get trains

[btempleton]

There are various figures, but most studies conclude that trains get no better than twice the energy efficiency (BTUs per passenger mile) of air travel or cars. A DoE study in 2003 rated planes, trains and automobiles as almost all exactly the same in BTU/passenger mile.

But rail requires a huge expenditure in dedicated land. Land that is has a train roll over it often quite infrequently in the USA, and requires expensive crossings. Trains can only go where rails go.

Planes require just the airport, and

Why you need to join AOPA if you're a pilot

[SuperBanana]

If you've been paying attention the past few years, the FAA and the major airlines seem hellbent on removing general aviation from the US altogether (closing non-airline airports, insisting on implementing per request fees for ATC, trying to ground all aircraft built before the last few decades. And don't get me started on the stupidity of every major city wanting a Washington D.C. style Air Defense Identificaton Zone). I suspect having nothing flying anywhere near the ground except governemnt controled drones would suit them just fine.

You clearly aren't aware of AOPA's extensive, successful lobbying efforts. They've been a constant voice against GA (General Aviation) paranoia (ie "someone's going to steal a Cessna and smash it into a Nu-cle-ar power plant!") in the Federal and local government. When the FAA abritrarily revoked the license of the widely loved Bob Hoover because he hit the maximum age, AOPA fought his case. They made a HUGE ruckus when Mayor Daley bulldozed Meigs Field illegally for a park (Daley literally had bulldozers come in during the middle of the night and start tearing up asphalt, when several groups challenged the plans in court.) They've been a powerful, strong voice to Congress (and the press) regarding the incredibly frightening "standard operating procedures" for when pilots stray into restricted airspace.

Most of the time, controllers don't actually TELL pilots they've done so- or the pilot has switched over to the next control jurisdiction (and when you do so, you tell the controller you were with that you're leaving the frequency- so they SHOULD be able to 'know' 'where' you are.) Most of the time, either nobody notices or cares, or the pilot gets an "interview" with a friendly local FAA or Homeland InSecurity rep when he lands.

However, all too often, the first sign a pilot has strayed into restricted airspace is when a blackhawk helicopter pops down next to them, or they get buzzed by a fighter jet. Radio problems are a recurring theme in the encounters- military aircraft with semi-working civilian-band radios, or military pilots not knowing what frequencies the pilot is on/should be on.) You can't really lean out the window and say "hey, officer, what's the problem?", and GA pilots are faced with a terrible conundrum- clearly someone is pissed, but what to do? Change flightpath, possibly becoming more of a threat? Keep going straight, inadvertently continuing towards whatever everyone is hot and bothered about, and get shot down once they cross some 'line in the sand'? Nevermind that when you've got a guy with a very big machinegun trained on you, flying the plane suddenly becomes the least of your worries, and that's VERY dangerous...

Then there's the media frenzy and news helicopters covering you getting taken down on the tarmac by a SWAT team, getting "interviewed" by half a dozen government agencies over a simple human error, possible criminal charges, your pilot's license suspended, your plane (or someone else's plane- many times they are rentals) getting impounded, etc.

If you're sitting there saying "stupid pilots should know not to fly into restricted airspace", keep in mind that the number of restricted spaces EXPLODED in the last few years because of You Know When...and these spaces are frequently around insignificant things like, say, a major grain processing plant that Homeland Insecurity classified as "critical infrastructure". Things that are NOT marked on charts. They're also frequently date/time specific (ie, some big concert is going on somewhere, and DoHiS issues a restriction just for the event. There are a half dozen KINDS of restricted airspaces, with all sorts of varying altitude limits and such.

Re:Why you need to join AOPA if you're a pilot

[letxa2000]

However, all too often, the first sign a pilot has strayed into restricted airspace is when a blackhawk helicopter pops down next to them, or they get buzzed by a fighter jet. Radio problems are a recurring theme in the encounters- military aircraft with semi-working civilian-band radios, or military pilots not knowing what frequencies the pilot is on/should be on.) You can't really lean out the window and say "hey, officer, what's the problem?", and GA pilots are faced with a terrible conundrum- clearly someone is pissed, but what to do? Change flightpath, possibly becoming more of a threat? Keep going straight, inadvertently continuing towards whatever everyone is hot and bothered about, and get shot down once they cross some 'line in the sand'? Nevermind that when you've got a guy with a very big machinegun trained on you, flying the plane suddenly becomes the least of your worries, and that's VERY dangerous...

I'm a private pilot. Haven't run into any Blackhawks or fighter jets, but haven't busted any restricted airspace, either. If you're flying, you damn well better know where you are. And before you fly, you should sit down and figure out where you're going to fly and be aware of anything of interest in your proximity. If that's too much to ask of you, please don't take off.

Re:Why you need to join AOPA if you're a pilot

[Eric Smith]

They've been a constant voice against GA (General Aviation) paranoia (ie "someone's going to steal a Cessna and smash it into a Nu-cle-ar power plant!")

You spelled that wrong. They say it "nuc-you-lar". (I'm not making this up.)

Re:Why you need to join AOPA if you're a pilot

[NormalVisual]

They made a HUGE ruckus when Mayor Daley bulldozed Meigs Field illegally for a park

And that's all that came of it - a lot of noise, a trivial fine levied on the city by the FAA, and a later court ruling that Daley's actions were in fact legal. Don't get me wrong - I'm not agreeing with what he did, and I think that Richard Daley and Rod Blagojevich are probably two of the biggest wastes of oxygen within US territory. For those of you thinking I'm picking on the Democrats, I'd also include our fearless

Re:Don't expect charter flights for long.

[b0s0z0ku]

trying to ground all aircraft built before the last few decades.

That, if anything, is due to lobbying by Cessna, which has once again entered the small GA plane market. (After their liability was limited to 18 years after date of manufacture by statute.) Since their products aren't cheap, and 40-yr old planes are still flying fine, they want to be able make some money. As another poster has said, the AOPA has been largely successful in lobbying against such restrictions.

No homeland security issue th

Somewhere somehow...

[clear_thought_05]

... I know that B.A. Baracus is happy.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Tired of the invasive security screenings ...

[Anonymous Coward]

...the "not being blown to chunks at 30,000 feet"...

Inconceivable that you would rather "take your chances" than leave your toothpaste behind.

Re:Tired of the invasive security screenings ...

[rabel]

You're more likely to die by overdosing on non-perscription pain relievers like Advil or Motrin than in a terror attack by a factor of 24 to 1. (We had 7,600 deaths due to "Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Such As Aspirin" in 2000.)

I suggest someone like yourself, who's all scaredy paranoid about the evil terrorists, to stop taking Advil as well.

Re:Tired of the invasive security screenings ...

[vokyvsd]

That comparison makes no sense. Just because something is unlikely to happen doesn't mean you shouldn't be careful of it. Seatbelts only saved 10,000 lives in 2000. Compared to the number of miles driven by all people in the country, that's statistically insignificant. Should I not wear my seatbelt, just because the chances that it will help are small? We may as well take every precaution we can. And remember, this is only carry-on luggage. How often do you feel the need to brush your teeth mid-flight?

Does TSA even believe it?

[drooling-dog]

Apparently not, because they're emptying all of these containers of potential explosive and dangerous chemicals into big trashcans right in the middle of airport crowds:

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/08/10/if_the_liquid _could_.html [boingboing.net]

Is there any way they would endanger the public this way if they really thought there was any chance the "liquids" could be dangerous? And if they don't think there's such a chance, why are they confiscating them in the first place?

I call bullshit.

Re:Does TSA even believe it?

[Detritus]

I think they're worried about binary explosives, which aren't dangerous until you mix the two components. Even then, you need a blasting cap to trigger an explosion.

Re:Does TSA even believe it?

[glesga_kiss]

I call bullshit.

Hear hear. This is yet another large terrorism "bust" in the UK. Each one was originally sold to us as a massive success in the Fight For Freedom(TM). The first was a Brazilian guy who was running away from the police with an explosive vest on. About a week after he was shot in the face NINE times we hear that, no, he wasn't running. No, he didn't have a jacket no. And no, he had zero terrorist links. This happened a week or two after the london bombings and for some reason none of the surveilence systems were functional in the subway station. Righhttt...

The next case was two brothers arrested in possibly the biggest police operation in UK history. Over 200 officers present at the arrest. During the arrest, one of the brothers attempted to shoot the police as they entered. Or so we were told. Appently they went with a similar line to the Chewbacka defence; you see the officer had gloves on that made his weapon discharge when he shot the guy in cold blood. No charges were filed and the police are now paying to rebuild their house after it was torn appart. Again, righhttt...

Another set of guys, who we were told were on the same level as the 9/11 hijackers. Big court case, all that. Well, you see it turns out was ALL they had done was chat about what things could be blown up. They, being young men, were talking about nightclubs etc. They had no terrorist links, no access to explosives and frankly they were a bunch of muppets that would never have done anything. How many of you have joked with friends about robbing a bank and the perfect crime? How would you feel if you were now in jail for those hypothetical musings?

So, here we are once again. The whole nation is terrified of flying. Planes have some downright serious restrictions on what you can and cannot take in luggage. Yet as the parent poster points out, if things were really as they said, they wouldn't be mixing hazzardous binary explosives in large bins, would they? The risk to flying is zero. This plot was nowhere near being carried out. Now, they could just be playing safe and taking every precaution. But if liquid explosives were really an issue today (coke/mentos?), they were an issue yesterday and the day before. They will be tomorrow. Are we going to keep up this ban indefinately?

We are being buttered up for the next concquest in the PNACs publicly stated plan to essentially take over the Middle East. My money is on Iran or Syria. Possibly the latter, the pattern fits with the Syran/Hizbolla links we've been constantly informed about over the past few weeks. It's similar to how the Iraq conquest was sold via a snowballing fear/hate campaign. Many of us observed this propaganda build up at the time. Here we are once again.

Remember people, WE'RE AT WAR(TM)!!

Ummmm

[guisar]

Doesn't the Government work for us? (Rhetorical question). It was interesting to hear our Attorney General at the press conference- the ernest docent, trying to convince us they were doing their very best to keep us informed and that all of this was for our safety. It's ridiculous.

I wonder if who's going to test suckling womens brests?

ObHeinlein

[Amazing Quantum Man]

In a mature society, "civil servant" is semantically equal to "civil master." --Lazarus Long

Re:Ummmm

[flooey]

It's not our job to convince you of anything. It's our job to protect you from you and other assholes who would seek to do you and the rest of us harm. It's by rule of majority - that means we keep everybody safe, and disregard the snippy rantings of part-time quarterbacks. In interests such as these, the safety of all outweighs the convenience of the one. Just as you think we're too dumb to protect you, we think you're too dumb to protect yourself.

As a fellow civil servant, let me say that this paragraph is an excellent example of a widespread opinion within the government that I think is completely ridiculous: that the average American is somehow below the average civil servant. I can't stand it, whether it's the lady at the DMV who can't understand why people are annoyed at having to stand in line for hours or the serviceman who thinks that because you're not carrying a gun you're not serving the United States.

The business of the United States isn't government. It's agriculture and manufacturing and research and information. By and large, the people who actually make the United States great aren't the people working for the government. That's why we're called civil servants; we're here to help those people so they can spend their time doing what's actually important without having to worry about things like being robbed or having their radio interfered with or getting fleeced by a cheating business.

When we get in the way of that, they're perfectly right to call us on it. Sure, the intrusion may be necessary, and they may not have any idea what's actually going on, but to claim that we don't have to convince them of anything because this is our job is missing the whole point of our job in the first place. They're not our bosses, but they are our customers.

Impressive FAA stupidity.

[radiotyler]

I was on a flight to Kuwait deploying with my unit. We were waiting to fly out of Ft. Campbell and these guys are running around telling us we have to pack our Gerbers, Folding knives, and lighters in our stow bags and that they cannot be on your person or in your carry on.

All of our guns though - no problem. We didn't even take out the bolts.

I understand that a military flight vs a civilian flight is totally different, but c'mon. You let me bring my GUN on the plane?

Re:Impressive FAA stupidity.

[pete6677]

It makes about as much sense as that time when I saw a PILOT going through airport security shortly after 9/11 and the screener morons were taking his nail scissors. If a pilot wants the plane to go down, its going down.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

[Atario]

Airline security is a joke. And it's on us.

Next attack attempt: weapons/substances smuggled in via anally-inserted container
Response: All passengers must submit to anal probe prior to takeoff. You may request a same-sex examiner, but it may delay you further.

Next attack attempt: weapons/substances swallowed, produced in-flight either by regurgitation or timed bowel movement
Response: All passengers must submit to a 24-hour fasting/emetic/diuretic/laxative regimen before takeoff. Water will be provided; outside drinks not allowed. You must use the provided toilet facilities to ensure proper testing/inspection of waste.

Next attack attempt: a team of guys trained to bite effectively
Response: All passengers must have all teeth removed prior to takeoff. There will be two dentists on duty per airport to process the unprepared, but lines will be long, so plan ahead.

Next attack attempt: regular old martial arts
Response: Seats eliminated; all passengers shall be assigned a sealed 3' x 3' x 8' pen and will be locked in for duration of flight.

Next attack attempt: guys wait near airports with surface-to-air rockets
Response: All buildings/cities/people removed from all airports to a distance of five miles, and land paved (and landfill created, if near water); round-the-clock patrols and spotters emplaced, with orders to shoot on sight anyone straying from the single barbed-wire/barrier-encrusted access road.

Next attack attempt: bomb detonated and/or machine guns deployed in by-now immense crowd waiting to get through initial security checkpoint
Response: ????

How far does this idiocy go before we decide there must be a better way, folks? Hm?

Re:Impressive FAA stupidity.

[Digital_Quartz]

It's a little known fact that 4 out of 5 people killed with nail scissors in the U.S. are killed not by someone else's nail scissors, but by their own [google.ca].

The problem is, of course, that people are not properly trained in nail scissor use. People think that carrying nail scissors is a way to protect their nails, but they don't understand that those same nail scissors can be turned against them, if they are not prepared to use them when a dreaded hang-nail rears its ugly head.

Pilot yourself

[samkass]

Getting your own pilot's license is a bit of work but easily do-able on your average geek's salary. Then go in on a Cessna with a few friends or join a flying rental club and you've got something that can do the shorter hops easily. It won't be cheaper, but it's not as insanely expensive as most think, and no one will search you or even ask you where you're going (unless you fly through class B or C airspace, and then only in general terms).

Alternately, in a couple years the Very Light Jet (VLJ) [wikipedia.org] market is supposed to take off and offer the kind of services you suggest on a level that an upper-middle-class American can afford, but not yet. Watch Eclipse [eclipseaviation.com], Honda [honda.com], and the others roll out their aircraft and look for the small carriers to use'em.

Re:Pilot yourself

[thogard]

I used to fly a piper turbo arrow out of St Louis. I had to move a server from NYC to St Louis. My coworker and I both left at the same time. He flew commercial and I flew the arrow. He arrived at the NYC air port, picked up a rental car and got to the small airport to pick me up just about the time I was on final approach. Not bad for a flight close to 1/2 way across the country. I didn't have any security problem, I had plenty of leg room and no one was worried about what was in my bag. My flight cost less than his too.

A pilots license isn't that hard to get if you fly every week.

Re:Pilot yourself

[samkass]

Searching on "air taxi" may turn up more palatable rates than "charter". Air taxis generally charge per seat-mile, while charter tend to charge for the pilot and planes hours and fuel consumed. For a lot of "semi-scheduled" service, the taxi construct works better for the flier, and depending on the airport's setup can sometimes still offer less security hassles.

Get your Pilot's License

[CohibaVancouver]

If you do enough flying to seriously consider a solution like this (a chartered Cessna) then go ahead and learn to fly. You can buy a safe, serviceable used plane for about what you'd pay for an average new loaded SUV (~$50,000). You can learn to fly it for $5K-$6K. Park it at your local general aviation field and just fly it where you want to go.

My brother-in-law and his family live up here in Vancouver. When his father-in-law comes up to visit from the Bay Area he just flies his own plane. No security, no lines, and he can even smoke a cigar.

Source:

eBay Motors> Other Vehicles & Trailers> Aircraft> Airplanes - Single-Engine

Let's get this straight.

[Dekortage]

So the article says they will make an exception for "prescription medicine with a name that matches the passenger's ticket". Because we know that no terrorist would be able to forge those labels, right?

On the flip side, the U.S. Department of Transportation is completely ignoring the railway [narprail.org] as an answer to our nation's transportation problems.

More to the point...

[MadDog Bob-2]

Who do we complain to about this? And how quickly will such a complaint turn into a spot on the no fly lists?

I mean, honestly, this is just insane.

I'm trying to put together a coherent thought or two about this, but I just can't wrap my brain around the scale of the disconnect between what they claim they're trying to achieve and the means they're employing. Either they're lying to us about their goals, or they have absolutely no sense of perspective, or they're viciously incompetent. Or some combination of the three. I just can't come up with any other explanations.

This article is stupid

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

Anyone who has been flying very often for very long knows:

- Flights have gotten dramatically cheaper in the past few years. With the discount carriers (Southwest) and competition from the big carriers, round-trips under $150 are not uncommon.
- Flying is easier than ever. Security has gotten more annoying, but everything else is better.
- Gone are the days when you had to go to the counter (or tip a skycap) to check in (even if you don't have checked baggage). - - Gone are the days when you had to wait for your tickets in the mail (or go to the airport or a travel agent).
- Gone are the days when you had to spend countless minutes (sometimes hours) in line or on the phone just to book a flight. Today, you can book online easily and get your boarding pass from an easy-check-in kiosk.
- There are more flights to more places from more places at more times. Non-stop is the norm if you are in a decently large city.

So, I guess the only real complaints are:
- Services have been reduced. No more free meals, for one - often no hot meals at all. But, hey, airplane food was never good, and at least you don't have to pay for headphones anymore. And, if it lowers my fares more, I'm all for cutting the frils.
- Security takes longer. It's always been a joke, it still is, and I suspect that it always will be. Guess what, though? It's standardized now, so you know what to expect, and the inspectors are paid better, so they usually aren't asleep on the job. In a well-managed airport (e.g. Denver), the lines are short or nonexistant during off hours, reasonable during normal times, and acceptable during peak hours.

So, air travel is available to more people than ever before, and it's easier than ever in most regards. I think that you can put your toothpaste in your checked luggage.

Re:This article is stupid

[Shag]

Anyone who has been flying very often for very long knows...

How often, and for how long, are we talking about, here?

I've been flying since the 1980s. That means I remember the days when you could say your hello's and farewells at the gate, because the security checkpoint wasn't right next to the counter, and you didn't have to have a boarding pass to go through it. It means I remember when the husband of a friend 2000 miles flew out for a job interview 40 miles from me, got the job, and gave me the return half of his ticket so I could fly out and help his family pack and move - and nobody checked. It means I remember the days when I could take pictures of airliners without security threatening to confiscate my camera.

I used to work in travel, and was working in travel on 9/11/2001. I've flown somewhere around a quarter-million miles in the last 5 years. I've been through security dozens of times, in countries throughout four different continents. I've been places where I wasn't even allowed into the terminal building without a passport and proof of ticketing, and went through three metal detectors on the way to the plane.

The problem with your argument is that most of the benefits (lower prices, online ticketing and check-in, etc.) were already in place before 2001. I did about 25,000-35,000 miles each year in 1999 and 2000 - things were good back then! The things people are complaining about, on the other hand, have happened since 2001, and there really haven't been any improvements in other areas to offset them.

And a lot of intensely stupid things have been done, too. Like the TSA spending taxpayer money to include "Transformer Robot Toys" on its list of things that are allowed in carry-on luggage. WTF?

I still fly a lot - 70,000+ miles last year, and around 50,000 in the first half of this year alone - so I've gotten good enough at knowing the rules, and can breeze through security... except that there are some people out there who aren't used to post-9/11 travel after almost 5 years of it, and those people seem to wind up in line in front of me! :)

Standard TSA question

[eclectro]

Are you glad to see me or is that a tube of toothpaste in your pocket that you're gonna use to blow the plane??

Lets get on the right track

[strangedays]

I am often amazed by the real blind spot America has to the advantages of rail.

I put it down to the unbelievably negative effect of any Amtrak travel experience, I can understand anyone having a negative opinion if Amtrak is all you have had opportunity to experience. They are a freight network. Please do not judge modern commuter rail travel by their miserable example.

The second barrier of course is the political influence of the airlines and car/road makers.

The fact is there are three, not two, integrated forms of transport. High speed rail is a major utility between cities and towns in most modern nations, except the US.

The lack of rail in the USA, is in fact a big opportunity to do it right. For example, if we used Maglev, we could run fast (300 mph plus trains) between cities, bridging the transit gap between (gasoline dependent) short haul cars (good up to a few hundred miles) and security infested terror target aircraft (good for long haul). Fast trains neatly fill the 50 mile to 1000, mile middle range. Imagine new york to washington in 40 minutes. Downtown to major airports in 10 minutes. Less traffic and city congestion. Less car pollution. Fast, smooth, safe, cheap. Whats not to like? Trains themselves are also a low pollution option (Initially building a rail network, however, is not so green , a necessary trade off).

Electric surface level trains are an inherently poor terrorist target, if anyone hijacks one, just turn off the power and call SWAT. They have no-where to go. If we want to talk about strategic security, I imagine that a high speed transcontinental alternative to air travel just might be a national asset in a real war. Are the people who calmly veto this, really the patriots they claim to be?

The lack of a decent network of high speed rail in the US is, IMHO, a clear example of the negative effect of corrupt political lobbying preventing any form of purely public benefits in long term planning. It seems to me that if it doesn't benefit an existing power-bloc, it simply can't happen anymore. This defeats real progress and innovation. Not a good thing.

Train networks are certainly not perfect, they tend to break even at best and in most countries seem to oscillate between inneficient government operation and efficient but overpriced and fragmented private operation.

High political maintenance not-withstanding, I submit that having a good inter and intra city commuter rail network, is a major public benefit, its simply a huge advantage to have a third travel option.

Rail romance vs. reality

[alienmole]

High speed rail is a major utility between cities and towns in most modern nations, except the US.

Could you tell me which of those modern nations have train networks that allow you to travel, say, the 1300km between NYC and Chicago, or the 4500km between NYC and LA, in a timely fashion that's even remotely competitive with air travel? Or are you suggesting that the U.S. create a new rail system the likes of which the world has never seen? (Be interesting to watch *that* being done on time, and under budget...) European countries with good rail systems, as well as Japan, are *tiny* compared to the U.S. It's true that there are some short-haul trips, like NY to DC or Boston, which could benefit from faster and more reliable train service. But the air network would still be needed for anything longer distance, and the reality is that the train service isn't likely to be able to compete other than in exceptional cases, short of major technological advances which haven't happened yet.

Re:Lets get on the right track

[Stinking Pig]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2 0 06/08/08/MNGGTKD03A1.DTL [sfgate.com]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0375725806/002-89 62410-6073658?v=glance&n=283155 [amazon.com]

but that out of the way, the scale of the US makes it a bit less than feasible. For instance, here in California we've been arguing on and off for several years about a high-speed rail between SF and LA. It's only 500 miles, and it could follow the course of the old El Camino Real (now Highway 101)... only that's through mountainous territory all th

Charter rates

[Starker_Kull]

It is pretty unlikely that charter companies will be able to compete with major airlines for the low cost end of things, more due to physics than business. Turbofan engines tend to be more efficent the larger they are, and the LARGEST aircraft tend to be the most efficent per seat mile, with an execption being for ultra-hi bypass jets (otherwise known as turboprops) in the 50 seat (give or take 20) category. For illustration, the cost per seat-mile for various aircraft is about (on average) $0.06/seat-mile in 777's (about 350 seats), $0.09/seat-mile in 737's (about 130 seats), and about $0.14/seat-mile in EMB-145's (50 seats). Of this, usually 30 - 50 % is fuel costs. When you get to charter size aircraft, the numbers get even worse. Look at a typical charter outfit: http://www.wisconsinaviation.com/charter/intro.htm l [wisconsinaviation.com] - let's do some basic math on the numbers listed there to get an idea of seat mile costs - I'll neglect anything less than a turboprop, because of their far slower speed and ability to handle weather. Based on their numbers, here are the costs per seat-mile, only taking into account aircraft rental and fuel - i.e. ignoring fees, repo flights, and pilot expenses.

Cessna 340: 0.66
Piper Navajo 0.41
Cessna 414 0.51
King Air 0.40
Cessna Conquest II 0.36
Cessna Citation 500 0.59
Cessna Citation I 0.72
Cessna Citation S/II 0.53

All these, even the cheapest, is more than TRIPLE the airliners. And I also made the calculation assuming that every seat was taken, an unlikely assumption given than the person was interested in charter (i.e. non regularly scheduled) ops. It's just not a viable idea. Sadly, from a long-term cost and energy consumption standpoint, rail beats air hands down for most overland travel. Oceans still give planes somewhere worthwhile to fly over.... :)

Yes, there is - RSVPair.com does that.

[Queuetue]

I run it, so this could be spam, but http://www.rsvpair.com/ [rsvpair.com] is exactly what you requested - a free directory that lets people who want to fly charter find operators, give feedback and see prices, both for large executive jets, turboprops, and smaller props like you were requesting here.

NO!

[The Man]

...just resign myself to buying toiletries at every destination and prepare for the mandatory anal probes in '07

How about DON'T resign yourself to anything? Have you forgotten that this is supposed to be government of, by, and for the people? They work for us, not the other way around; does a boss resign himself to the fact that his employees will show up 5 hours late every day? Hell, no; he tells them to show up on time or he fires them and finds others who will. It's time to take a stand against bad government, the kind that has allowed our rail infrastructure to degrade to pre-1900 performance levels and the kind that scares and/or bullies people into waiting in line 2 hours to get searched for incredibly dangerous items like nail clippers and shaving cream while as everyone knows there are dozens of ways to destroy an airplane if you're determined enough. Instead of kowtowing to the government's plans for you, how about sending the government a message by proxy?

Stop traveling. Just stay home.

I understand this may be a slight annoyance for you, but it's vastly more effective than writing your Congressman. Why? It puts the economic multiplier effect into play. When you don't travel, and make it clear to potential hosts, such as family and friends, as well as the hotel you would have stayed at, the theme park you would have visited, the owner of the boat you would have rented, and the guide you would have employed, you give other people reason to fight for your cause. And when these people turn around and tell their local chamber of commerce about these calls, an entire city's worth of business leaders will be on your side, even those who don't care about tourism or hospitality: they know that the hoteliers, theme park operators, boat shops, and guides are their customers, who now have less money to spend. Just a few thousand people making a point not to travel, and to let others know why they're not traveling, are enough of an economic force to enlist millions of powerful allies. Start an organised travel boycott in a few cities and it's all but over. Direct pressure on the government doesn't work; a few thousand people can't influence an elected official, especially if they're not wealthy. But the interconnectedness of the economy, and business owners' fresh memories of a nation that doesn't travel, allow us to harness the multiplier effect and force change.

What kind of change? Nationwide high-speed rail, for one. An end to ineffective, inconvenient, undignified, and unconstitutional searches and demands for identification for all domestic travel modes. Better training for all transportation and emergency personnel to ensure that everyone knows that transit vehicles, whether on land or water or in the air, have priority at all times. Changes in the law to prohibit police (whether federal, state, or local) from interfering with safe and timely transportation operations - be it traffic on a freeway or a train crossing a bridge - for any reason. In short, the only reason any transit vehicle should ever arrive late is unavoidable mechanical failure. And no one should ever be searched without a warrant. Simple as that.

Join the travel boycott. Enforce change.

Re:Reactionary much?

[failure-man]

Who, the G-men or the poster?

Re:Reactionary much?

[WilliamSChips]

You never actually get to see the G-man for more than a few seconds except at the end of the game.

Which side are you on?

[tentimestwenty]

I don't know which side you're on with the reactionary comment but to me this is a clear trend towards reducing personal freedoms through bureaucratic hoops. Personally, I don't want to fly as much as I used to because I don't want to wait in line for 2 hours or give them my fingerprints to get in the quick line. I want to bring my own freakin toothpaste when I travel. Freedom to move around the country is a pretty basic right which is being eroded by stealth.

Re:Which side are you on?

[Skater]

Right now, even though gas prices are high, I'm loving my motorhome. If my upcoming vacation (the week after next) was based on air travel, I'd be pretty bummed right now, but with the motorhome, the only security check I have to worry about is to make sure the doors are locked when I stop for breaks. :) It's freedom!

Unfortunately, next week I have a business trip which will require air travel. I'm hoping the delays at security checkpoints reported today are resolved by Tuesday (yeah, I know, not much ho

Re:Which side are you on?

[rk]

" the only security check I have to worry about is to make sure the doors are locked when I stop for breaks. :) It's freedom!"

As long as you're not traveling through California, where you'll have to stop for an agricultural inspection, or if you're on I-10 coming out of El Paso, then we'll have to check to make sure you're not smuggling illegals, or the various random sobriety checkpoints scattered throughout, or...

Re:Which side are you on?

[vought]

Right on target, good citizen. Predictably, after almost 6 years of Bush, al Qaeda is larger than ever (some say it has grown by over 1,000%), and Osama is living the high life, occasionally giving public testimonies on the Osama Broadcasting Network (OBN).

And yet just over 1/3 of American citizens approve of how Bush the younger is handling the war on terra.

Bush the younger, who thinks that Al-Quada are "Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation," -

Re:Which side are you on?

[Mouse42]

Oh. well... Bush just doesn't want Islamic Facism. Christian Facism is just fine.

Re:Which side are you on?

[pipingguy]

Someone save us. Please. 2/3ds of American citizens need your help.

We have like 28 tanks and 431 snowmobiles ready to rush across the border at various points. Please pull the power plugs from your military bases and all will go OK, eh. Can you wait until there is a good snow pack before we proceed?

Taliban regime

[Anonymous Coward]

Presumably, "fascism" could describe one sort of (hypothetical?) Islamic state, perhaps theoretically the one envisioned by these terrorists.

Not only was it hypothetical, it existed: The Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

Thanks to the Taliban, the Buddhas of Bamiyan, statues that were 1,500 years old and stood 120 feet tall, were blasted out of the mountain cliff from which they were carved because they were "un-Islamic". From the Wikipedia article, "On March 6, the London Times quoted Mullah Mohammed Omar as

Re:Not so dumb after all...

[chriso11]

I would say that The Prez has pretty much got it nailed.

Which is why we are in Iraq...

Re:Not so dumb after all...

[shmlco]

There are extremists on BOTH sides of the fence. I know we have people here who think a little nuke or three dropped in the right spots would "show 'em who's boss."

However, MOST people, Christians and Islamists alike, would just like to have a decent job, a roof over their heads, enough food to eat, and the desire to send healthy kids off to school in the morning with a reasonable expectation that they'll stay that way.

Bin Laden has a distorted view of his religion, and an agenda to push. GWB also has a distorted view of his religion, and also has an agenda to push.

Personally, I think the planet would be better off with both of them locked away somewhere. Let them fight it out, and the rest of us can get on with living our lives...

Re:Which side are you on?

[Herby Sagues]

I don't like Bush a bit, but I find your argument absurd. Al Quaeda might be as large as they want, but they are failing. This news is about a STOPPED attack. IIRC in 9/11 the airplanes actually hit their targets. This attack, and the few previous ones (along with a few we probably don't know about) have all been foiled by the guys you are criticizing. I don't know if it is the right strategy, as leaving those guys alone might be a better solution. Maybe the war on terror is out of proportion, maybe it is

Re:Which side are you on?

[shmlco]

"This news is about a STOPPED attack."

Well... just to be contrary... and putting on my tinfoil hat, the news is that, as far as we've been told, some 24 as yet unnamed people in London and Pakistan have been detained under anti-terror laws and can be held incommunicado for a month while investigation continues. The British government has said that an attack on trans-atlantic flights was imminent, but I've yet to hear about any actual bombs, materials, or detonators found.

Though if the ingredients are indeed "common" household chemicals, I've no doubt that some ex-girlfriend's bottle of peroxide in their medicine cabinet is now proof enough to get them sent away. Heck, I'VE got peroxide at home, AND I have a camera with a flash.

The point being that at this point in time there's a whole lot of pontification, and very few facts. Everyone, even Wired, is running the same damned AP article. And for some reason I'm strongly reminded of the other highly ballyhooed and recently foiled "plot", by individuals with no money, training, materials, plan, or even shoes...

Re:Which side are you on?

[harlows_monkeys]

I don't like Bush a bit, but I find your argument absurd. Al Quaeda might be as large as they want, but they are failing. This news is about a STOPPED attack

Maybe...maybe not. Al Quaeda is now in a position where they can cause serious disruption, whether or not their attacks succeed. All they need to do now is recruit people who are willing to come to Europe or the US, plot an attack, and get caught, and each time this happens, we'll have days or weeks of disruption in travel and shipping.

They can

Re:Which side are you on?

[operagost]

These attacks could likley have been caused BY the war on terror though.

Yes, because there certainly never was a terrorist attack or attempt on U.S. citizens before 2001.

No one ever bombed the USS Cole in Yemen, no one bombed the WTC in 1993, the American embassy in Iran was never seized by Islamic fundamentalists, the American Embassy and marine barracks in Beirut were never bombed, William Buckley was never murdered by radicals in Beirut, the Achille Lauro was never hijacked and a handicapped man t

Re:Which side are you on?

[rtb61]

Get a grip. In the seventies and eighties there were terrorists from all over the place, Germans, Italians, Japanese, Irish, Spanish, Arabic, Amercian (from both continents), Arabic, Indian, Pakistani, Israeli as well as Palestinian. There was none of drive to instill the public with a ever pervasive sence of fear.

What will you do if they say the terrorists will swallow the explosives prior to boarding flights like drug mules (If you think they can't because they won't be available in time, they can swallow them the day before).

This while the upper echolons of the US administration have come up with a new name for waterboarding, 'Cuban Surfing', the old euphamism had just become too recognisable as torture.

Re:Which side are you on?

[new500]

In fact if anything, governments once upon a time played down the impact of terrorist activity. I mean it's logic, isn't it - if you keep crying wolf, ultimately the government's authority is undermined? Bush & Blair ought to be forced to sit in a locked room screening the finale scene of "Carry on Up the Khyber", looped, for about a week. (For those of you not familiar with that film, after a plot of disastrous relations with an Indian insurgent group, the local British establishment proceed to have formal dinner whilst shells progressively demolish their dining room, cracking jokes and nonchalantly ignoring the mayhem. One of the best "Carry on Films", IMO). In the early 1990s i lived in a apartment block favored by MPs in Westminster. We had a fair few bomb scares, and one actual explosion that nearly ripped my windows, from half a block away. What did everyone do? Er, go down the pub for a pint. Was an interesting drinking crowd! No panic, fast police response, all very orderly (no-one hurt or hurt badly as i recall, which was probably very lucky). Hate to think what would have happened with today's so called security attitudes, there would surely have been a lot more fuss for no greater benefit. Every time i read the quivering lips of our Home Office guys, something in me is screaming "You are taking away my fundamental Britishness! Get a grip Man!"

Re:Which side are you on?

[IAmTheDave]

No, that's not an important difference. The important difference is the exploitation of those actions. Terrorism is in definition the destruction of innocent life - not military. Any attack on any military is considered a military action and not terrorism.

What we're talking about is full-scale exploitation of fear to control the masses. It wasn't even this bad during the cold war.

You've got to love how the Brits and Americans had information about using liquids to blow up planes, but it's not until AFTER this information is made public, AFTER the arrests had been made, that liquids are suddenly banned from planes - that people have to dispose of toothpaste and lipstick before boarding a flight. This is simply a tactic to make flying a scarier experience, which keeps terrorism "real" as a threat on the forefront of people's minds. By doing so, it becomes exponentially easier to exploit that fear to remove civil liberties.

If 10 planes DID blow up over the ocean, less people would have died that day in airplane incidents than on the roads of the United States. You take more of a risk driving one day than flying 20 or 30 times.

But fear supresses the masses, allows for the removal of liberties, and the introduction of full-scale tracking of citizens.

And it works. How many times on the news have I heard people say "whatever, as long as I'm safe." Fucking sheep.

Re:The future of air travel in the US

[rubycodez]

I've seen a guy like that getting on Air Force One, maybe they better check him out

Problem is with the entire system.

[Kadin2048]

I agree with your position -- I fly on business all the time, and I want (hell, I expect) my government, if it doesn't do anything else for me that day, to at least make traveling reasonably safe.

On the other hand, the security that they do implement seems like a total waste of time. People have already pointed out the problems with the "no liquids" rule: what about liquid medications? Do you not let people with liquid medications on? If you don't, you might kill them or make it much harder for them to travel; if you don't, the whole "no liquids" exercise was pointless, since all you need to do is get an Rx medicine bottle, fill it up with your liquid explosive, and take it on board. (It's even better than putting it in a water bottle, because nobody can reasonably demand that you take a big swig to prove it's not poison -- many medications are poison, or close to it.)

Plus, all the additional restrictions apply only to hand luggage. If you're not putting the same level of scrutiny on every single checked bag (which they don't, because they don't have the resources to do so; it improved slightly after 9/11 but they still do more to hand luggage -- because that's where people will see the security, so that's where it gets put -- than to checked stuff) then someone could put the liquid-bomb there, and remote detonate it from the cabin with a transmitter like every other person in this country already carries on their keychain.

Planes are big, fragile machines; it doesn't take very much to knock one out of the sky. Eventually, I think a few things are going to happen, because the current way we're approaching security just isn't working, and isn't going to work. It's designed to create the appearance of security, not security itself. Probably the biggest step we're going to have to take is to eliminate jumbo and super-jumbo jets: when you have people hell-bent on blowing themselves up, it's not practical to assume that you're going to catch all of them. Thus you can't put so many "eggs" in one basket, either in terms of just the lives lost if one of them is crashed, or by giving the attackers such a large weapon (both literally and in terms of public relations). Smaller, lighter, more fuel-efficient jets, going to more localized airports (further removing some of the terrible centralization our system suffers from now), are probably the best way of limiting the consequences of an attack.

There is just no way to prevent someone who is so absorbed with the task of killing others that they're willing to destroy themselves, from accomplishing their task. Any screening procedure will have holes. Any background check will have places where information can be injected, manipulated, omitted, or forged.

The problem we have, and which our government (and the airline industry generally) isn't willing to tackle, is not something that's going to be solved by issuing a few new procedures to the TSA screeners. It's something that can only be mitigated, and even then will require a huge systemic overhaul of our transportation infrastructure, removing the centralized points of failure that we've built up as ready targets for terrorism, and replacing them with a more robust, fault-tolerant, and survivable one.

Re:Problem is with the entire system.

[nolife]

Smaller, lighter, more fuel-efficient jets, going to more localized airports (further removing some of the terrible centralization our system suffers from now), are probably the best way of limiting the consequences of an attack.

I agree to some point but what about "overall" safety. I do not have statistics in front of me right now but I know there are many times more general aviation accidents then commercial planes accidents. I would assume that if the percentages stayed the same, many more people would

Granted; but is this a bad thing?

[Kadin2048]

This is of course quite true; however, people seem willing to trade security against dying accidentally, for security against dying at the hands of terrorists. For whatever reason, we seem to care more about getting killed by someone else intentionally than we do about dying in a perceived accident. My suggestion more or less took this as a premise: that the increased risk inherent in having more planes in the air would be a good tradeoff for having smaller targets for terror.

Given the political destabiliza

Re:Problem is with the entire system.

[shmlco]

"Planes are big, fragile machines; it doesn't take very much to knock one out of the sky. "

Planes are like people. Sometimes it doesn't take much to kill one (single spark in a fuel tank), and at other times they're amazingly tough. A small hole isn't going to do a lot of damage, and even a large one is problematic. Take a look at, say, the Aloha Air flight that still flew with a major hunk missing from the fuselage.

Checked luggage is also not as big a risk as you might think. Many planes these days use lug

Re:Problem is with the entire system.

[Starker_Kull]

Smaller, lighter, more fuel-efficient jets - sorry, but smaller, lighter jets are more INEFFICENT on a cost per pax-mile basis. See my post: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=193740&cid=15 8 86935 [slashdot.org] If smaller jets were more efficent, the airlines would be buying them in droves. But the general jist of your argument is quite valid. The term you were getting near is "Security Theatre" - the appearance of security vs. the actual thing. Bruce Schnier popularized the phrase. http://www.schneier.com/ [schneier.com]

Re:Problem is with the entire system.

[Kadin2048]

I figured as much; obviously if the economies of scale weren't there, then the airlines wouldn't invest in such huge jets.

What my suggestion assumes is that the airlines would have to be forced to abandon those cost savings, and switch to smaller jets, and try to recoup the losses through higher rates and by hopefully making more efficient planes in the future.

The cost per passenger-mile would certainly increase; however, with more flights, you might be able to reduce the number of miles flown. Right now to

Re:Problem is with the entire system.

[Xyrus]

"Planes are big, fragile machines; it doesn't take very much to knock one out of the sky."

I beg to differ. Jet liners are exceedingly tough and are designed to fly under very bad conditions. Basically, as long as the wings are still attached you have one semi-functioning engine you stand a good chance of landing the plane safely.

Don't belive the Hollywood depictions. Jets have flown and landed safely after having the whole top of the plane torn. The planes and the pilots go through very rigorous testing, and put through situations that you'd never expect (for example, a 747 can survive a barrel roll).

The planes are tough, but not indestructable. A strong enough bomb will knock them out of the air but the bomb would have to do some decent damage to do so (more than just blow a hole in the fuselage).

~X~

Two insightful quotes

[linguae]

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

Or, even better for this topic:

Our history has shown us that insecurity threatens liberty. Yet, if our liberties are curtailed, we lose the values that we are struggling to defend." ~ The 9/11 Commission Report by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

Re:Two insightful quotes

[shystershep]

Better read your quotes again.

If you think banning toothpaste in carry-ons == giving up liberty, you've got some issues. It's no wonder that real liberties can be eroded (e.g., wiretaps) when a minor inconvenience like this provokes as big (if not bigger) storm of whining and crying than does something serious. I don't seem to recall a "right to convenient airline flight" in the Bill of Rights, but maybe I overlooked that. I find it incredibly sad that petty annoyances that directly effect people makes them more irate than would something happening to truly infringe on an important right, like freedom of religion or the press.

Flying itself is a convenience, as opposed to slower methods of transportation. If you find it too inconvenient, take another mode of transit. There are posts in this thread whining about the lack of high-speed rail in the U.S. (which would be ridiculously inefficent for 99% of our country; as an aside, it works in Europe and other places because of smaller geographic space and higher population densities), but the fact is that there is bus service (Grayhound) to nearly everywhere you could possibly want to go. There are very few situations I can think of where anyone would actually "need" to fly: the speed of travel makes it far more convenient, so it is the logical option most of the time. In spite of all the bitching and moaning going on here, I bet most if not all of the bitchers and moaners are still going to get on the plane next time, just because it is the more convenient option.

If your rights are being trampled on, stand up and fight. If you insist on confusing 'convenience' with 'right,' though, sit down and shut the hell up.

Re:Look in the grand scheme of things

[linguae]

I'm not quite sure how banning items that may be disguised explosives is irrational, but whatever.

Any explosive can be disguised as anything. All a potential terrorist has to do now is to disguise a explosive in something that isn't currently banned. Let's say that a terrorist is able to place a hard drive-sized bomb in a laptop. Do we ban laptops now? Any explosive can be disguised, and any object can be made a weapon if you throw it in the right angle. Banning everything we see just because of so

Re:Look in the grand scheme of things

[linguae]

name one way in which the 'war on terror' has affected you, personally

Let's begin:

1. You are now carded for state/federal ID to buy bus or train tickets on Amtrak or Greyhound. I don't know long the policy has existed, nor do I have too much of an issue with this, but back in my parents days, they weren't carded for going a few hundred miles.
2. A local dam road (that was very popular with commuters) was closed forever (since immediately after the 9/11 attacks) because the Feds feared that somebody may come over there and explode it. Nothing has happened. The road hasn't been reopened since, and even though the city requests that the road should be reopened, the Feds continue to refuse. Traffic has gotten much worse in that area (they now must find another bridge across, which is a mile away and is now stressed), and has affected the entire community as a whole.
3. The War on Iraq has raised gas prices. Prices were about $30 per barrel before the war started. Now they are approaching $75. Gas is $3.15 per gallon where I live, and rising. If we have a war with Iran, it's going to approach $4 or more. Gas prices affect the entire economy, and hits everybody's pocketbooks.
4. I am worried about the government's increased surveillance. I don't want my searches, web sites, message board postings, and other online stuff all indexed and mined by the federal government. I don't want my chats monitored, or my cell phone calls wiretapped. I just wish to be left alone.

Those are the issues that are affecting me the most. The first one might not be so serious (although it still reminds me of the "papers, please" policy of the Soviets), and the second one may only be a local issue, but the latter two are big pressing issues that are a direct consequence of our War on Terror policies.

The best way to fight terror isn't to make our government bigger and to impose countless amounts of restrictions on our citizens, as well as curb civil liberties, listen in on our conversations, and log our data. The best way to fight terror is for the government to get out of Middle Eastern (or any other foreign) conflict. The sooner we exit, the sooner the Middle Easterners won't hate us anymore (hence, no terror attacks from them or any other foreign country), and the sooner we can return to some sense of sanity again. We'll have no terrorism if there is no reason for terrorists to terrorize us in the first place.

Re:Two insightful quotes

[hendersj]

I guess we shouldn't be whining about the "convenience" we should be whining about our fucking right to set our shoes on fire.

I agree with the earlier sentiment in your post, but the above quote caught my eye.

Yeah, because one fucking incompetent asshole tried it once, we should change the list of allowed items.

Let me say that again for the grandparent post. ONE...FUCKING...INCOMPETENT...ASSHOLE...

Yeah, that makes a lot of rational sense. One person in six billion+ on this planet tried to ignite his shoes on an airplane, so we (a) ban matches on planes, and (b) require everyone take their shoes off (well, at some airports - this isn't standardized procedure at different airports) and run them through an X-Ray machine.

That's rational? What must it be like to be so frightened all the time?

Before you jump all over me - I *have* been delayed at an airport (Dulles) because TSA couldn't identify items in my suitcase as being non-dangerous. I carried an electric razor out to DC with me and it was dead when I got there; I purchased another one, and left the old one in my bag. I carried the bag on on both flights (the flight out and my return flight) with the same contents, except the return flight had one extra electric razor in it. Other contents were clothes, toothpaste/toothbrush, and a couple cases of CDs of software I was going to use.

Apparently, two electric razors and two packs of CDs are identifiable as an explosive device when viewed on the X-Ray machine. You heard me right - they identified two electric razors and two packs of CDs as an explosive device. I was delayed - at the checkpoint - for 45 minutes, most of that time the bag was in the X-Ray machine. The TSA personnel were very professional and even apologetic for the delay - even the head guy, who asked me directly "is there anything in your bag that might look like a bomb?", which took me aback a little bit. (The correct answer, BTW, is "I wouldn't know what a bomb looks like, sir.") After I recited a complete list of the contents of my bags from memory to them, they decided it was safe to open it, found out what the objects really were, and I was on my way.

I didn't mind the delay at the time - told them I had plenty of time before the flight, but they offered to have the flight held for me rather than for me to miss the flight if it was close to departure. To this day, I still don't mind that particular delay, because they were professional about the situation and it didn't get out of hand. I also returned that courtesy, recognizing that they're doing a job that at the best of times can be difficult.

But changing the procedures/list of banned items because one incompetent asshole does something that's never been done before? That's completely irrational. That puts the power in the hands of the terrorists - they don't even have to pull off a successful attack to instill terror (why do you think they call it "terrorism"? I'll give you a clue: it's not because of the big fireballs in the sky; it's because of the fear that the idea instills in their targets.) - all they have to do is come up with an idea nobody's ever thought of before, and we'll dance for them. We'll change our way of living just so no Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorist will ever have the chance of bringing a tube of toothpaste into an airplane lavatory in order to mix it with water because who knows, it might just explode!

Next it'll be a ban on any Diet Coke and Mentos in the hold, because of the potential of blowing out the cargo door on the plane from the combination of those two deadly ingredients. Or, better yet, a ban on vinegar because it's mildly corrosive and might eat through the airframe. Or, no, wait, I've got it - anyone with hands. You can kill a person with your hands in a number of ways - so only persons who have had both arms amputated can board planes now. No, wait, you can still kick someone to death if you know what you're doing. OK, only people with no arms and no legs

Flight envelope coffin corner

[Latent Heat]

The coffin corner of the flight envelope is where you fly so high that V_DNE approaches V_stall, and well, you just fall out of the sky and crash and burn.

Forget about toothpaste. What about, like, packing a lunch -- bottled water, yogurt, some energy bars? Its not like you get anything to eat on the plane anymore, and if you load up on fluids so you don't dehydrate (an issue in the dry, thin cabin air), well, they don't let you go potty on the approach to Washington National.

So I guess the flight experience will be like the Ramadan fast -- no fluids, no food -- for X hours, only X may be unpredictable and open ended given flight delays. A multi-hour no-fluid no-food fast is doable for multi-hours, but we are talking about in an environment where you don't want to be dehydrated because 1) dry-thin air, 2) the cramped seats where you are vulnerable to deep-vein thrombosis, 3) you are packed in with strangers sharing their nasal viruses. So it will be like Ramadan combined with the Hadj.

So the coffin corner is you can't pack lunch, and they won't serve you lunch, so you can sit there and be hungry and thirsty.

Re:Our government's response to the terrorism prob

[babbling]

You said one thing right:
In order to be fair, this ultimatum should be only *after* we have stopped our meddling in the Middle East. All troops should first be unilaterally withdrawn and all aid to Israel should cease.

I think you'd find that if the US did that, all of the attacks would stop.

Re:Our government's response to the terrorism prob

[babbling]

I can't agree with that because you'd probably end up killing hundreds of innocent people for every terrorist that you manage to kill. I think the worldwide opinion would drastically change if the US was attacked even after having pulled out of foreign countries, although we still couldn't be sure about whether any attack was a false flag attack [wikipedia.org].

Re:Our government's response to the terrorism prob

[samkass]

...Because if there's one thing better than folks whose government dislikes us but whose population is ambivalent, it's a country with a desperate, starving population with nothing to lose and whose brothers, sisters, parents and babies we've killed.

Seriously, the only way to stop this stuff in the long term is cooperation and a sharing of cultures. The amount of energy at the disposal of each person on Earth is becoming more massive each year, and we're never going to catch everyone. We need to begin the process of stopping them from wanting to attack us. That means marginalizing the radical elements of both their culture and ours (people such as yourself), and eliminating those people's support among their peers (that's us, modding you down).

Re:Our government's response to the terrorism prob

[samkass]

Great idea, the only problem is that both sides (ie the Anglo-American Axis and the Pan-Islamic fundamentalists) want everyone else in the world to adopt their respective cultural values and to cooperate, unilateraly in a very one-sided, one-way, master-slave arrangement.

While perhaps true on a national level, I have not found this to be true of most individuals not directly affected by the national actions (ie. having been bombed in retaliation for something they had no control over). And the more individ

Re:Our government's response to the terrorism prob

[weston]

There should be an ultimatum: if there is another terrorist attack or attacks causing major loss of life, any country found to be harboring and/or funding Islamic terrorists will be attacked. Not invaded. Attacked. Their cities will be summarily carpet-bombed...

It's a reasonably good strategic response to a rational state-like entity whose strength is in their infrastructure, especially in a situation like, say, Afghanistan, where there's close cooperation between the state and the terroists. It loses a considerable amount of its strategic value against non-state actors whose life depends on in the appeal of their ideology, and where the state and the terrorists may have at best an uneasy state of coexistence.

In many cases, what we want from states which are in the uneasy-coexistence state (or better) is greater cooperation in pursuing and apprehending terrorists, and in suppressing radical Islamist elements. That greater cooperation has to come both from the authorities and population. Carpet-bombing a city is unlikely to produce the cooperation. Nor is it particularly improbable it could create sympathy for radical Islamist claims.

Mod Parent Up

[quanticle]

You've hit the nail on the head. The OP's strategy would work great against Iran, or Syria or some other active sponsor of terror. But in many cases, like with Pakistan, or Columbia, or the Phillippines, such a strategy would backfire badly. The collective punishment of the entire populace would simply make the terrorists there more popular, as they'd be the only ones seen doing anything against "American aggression."

Re:Our government's response to the terrorism prob

[shystershep]

If they kill 100 or 1,000 our innocent civilians, you think we should respond by killing thousands or tens of thousands of innocent their civilians? That's about the only thing I can think of that will swell the terrorist ranks more quickly than our current meddling in the region. You're not exactly dealing with rational, cost-benefit type people here: they place zero value on human life, including (maybe especially) their own. The nuclear standoff of the Cold War worked because the USSR didn't want war anymore than we did. To a radical Islamist, mutually-assured destructions just looks like the express line to heaven.

Re:Our government's response to the terrorism prob

[b0s0z0ku]

To a radical Islamist, mutually-assured destructions just looks like the express line to heaven.

The point is that, while many people in certain countries may somewhat support the radical Islamists, a relatively small fraction of the population is actually willing to take the express train to heaven. If they realized that the actions of the radical Islamists had dire consequences, they might well take it upon themselves to eliminate the radical Islamists.

-b,

Re:..and the lack of rail options...

[pete6677]

True. I wish high speed rail would become a reality in the United States. The first step would be removing the broken-beyond-repair disaster known as Amtrak so that a competent agency can take their place. Currently, politics prevents passenger rail in the U.S. from being anything but a miserable failure.

Re:..and the lack of rail options...

[serenarae]

The reason we have a lack of rail options is mostly due to the fact that our government, or better yet our president is simply not interested in providing tax dollars to fund such a project. Every other rail system in the world (well, a majority of the great ones) are subsidized by the countrie's governments in which they reside. I recall not to long ago, Dubya (congress stopped him) was trying to eliminate ALL government funding to Amtrak. Amtrak NEEDS that funding to survive, even if that money they get i

They won (was:Had they succeeded?)

[Lead Butthead]

I am sure they're all just laughing their heads off at this very moment.

Thousands of people DID die today!

[babbling]

Had they (terrorists/freedom fighters) succeeded would this article be here complaining about we cant bring on toothpaste, or would we be talking about the 10-20 planes and thousands of people who died today?

Thousands of people did die today... Due to car accidents, cancer, and poverty. If we're just trying to stop deaths, we should focus on making safer cars, researching cancer, and helping those less fortunate than ourselves.

I suspect, however, that all of this terrorism hype isn't about stopping deaths. We don't even know for sure that there was going to be a terrorist attack. The US and UK governments are far from being trustworthy. The US government has contemplated "simulated" terrorist attacks to change public opinion. [wikipedia.org]

Re:I guess what I never understood...

[Manchot]

I guess what I never understood is where air travel is protected in the Constituion.

Might I suggest that you read the Ninth Amendment?

Re:Give me a fucking break

[dreamer-of-rules]

Is this a troll? I just can't tell anymore..

Those US soldiers in Iraq are not protecting MY freedoms. If that's their goal, they're doing a piss-poor job of it, because MY freedoms have been getting reduced and eliminated left and right since the infamous 9/11 tragedy.

Maybe they are over there to "bring freedom and democracy to Iraq" instead? That wasn't the given reason at the beginning. The Bush administration was telling everyone that Saddam had "ties" with Al Quaeda and Saddam was actively developing chemical and nuclear WMDs, and Rumsfeld said they knew exactly where. Fast forward several years.. We are $450 BILLION dollars deeper in debt because of this war (here you are, son), even while pork spending has increased, freedoms and rights have decreased, our volunteer forces have been stretched beyond their sustainable limits, and over 100 THOUSAND people have died as a result of this incompetently planned war. And we are no safer from terrorism in 2006 than in 1996.

Truth is, the soldiers over there are obeying orders, and generally obeying them well. The orders are what's fucked up, and the reason we're over there in the first place, and it's a fucking crime that we're at WAR in Iraq at all.

Back to the shampoo bottles.. do you think it matters to a suicide bomber whether the explosives are in the carry-ons or the checked luggage? Or whether the utensils are plastic? Forget whether you feel safer? Are you safer?

Re:How about this:

[ScentCone]

Be very willing to talk to any nations and groups who want to open dialogue -- as long as they renounce terrorism. Truly work with them to address their concerns. (Reducing our dependence on military action to keep the oil flowing would help here.) On the other hand, be very forceful when dealing with terrorism. Determine the responsible parties, and make them and their supporters pay. No theatrics -- just quick, effective measures with an absolute minimum of so-called "collateral damage".

OK, so Saddam w

Re:Huh?

[AlphaOne]

Asking people to remove their shoes and preventing them from bringing liquids on board is that invasive? There are the rare extreme cases of people being unfairly searched, but that's a handful of people out of hundreds of thousands that fly each day.

Well, yes and no.

Our current commercial airline security system sucks and it is no better now than it was before 9-11. They continue to look for "stuff" instead of doing threat analysis. They continue to treat the passengers as the weakest link. They continu

Re:Huh?

[Russ Nelson]

The simple truth is nearly anything can be a weapon when in a skilled hand,

Yup. I can't carry my wooden practice sword into the cabin, but I can bring my wooden cane. I know the cane form a lot better than the sword form right now, so if you're really looking to disarm me, take my cane away. Oh, you think I need that to walk with, so you won't do that. Oops.

Re:Racial Profiling....

[radish]

Wow. Are you really that ignorant?

Let's review what we know: Terrorists are 1) usually middle eastern

Wrong [wikipedia.org]

2) always Muslim

Wrong [wikipedia.org]

3) aged 15-35.

Wrong again [wikipedia.org]

That's strike three, you're out. Thanks for playing!

We should give every adult who boards a plane a gun, that way the first terrorist to stand up and yell "allah ackbar" would get his brains splattered on the cabin ceiling and that would be the end of that.

Your "idea" (it's not even your idea, I've heard other morons spouting it before) is absurd. 400 cramped people, too much heat, screaming kids, travel stress & alcohol does not equal a sensible environment in which to introduce firearms.

(and despite what Penn and Teller's BullS*$T says, there is actually less crime in texas and that's why)

And yet again, Wrong [disastercenter.com]. From the linked:

In the year 2000 Texas had an estimated population of 20,851,820 which ranked the state 2nd in population. For that year the State of Texas had a total Crime Index of 4,955.5 reported incidents per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 8th highest total Crime Index. For Violent Crime Texas had a reported incident rate of 545.1 per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 13th highest occurrence for Violent Crime among the states. For crimes against Property, the state had a reported incident rate of 4,410.4 per 100,000 people, which ranked as the state 10th highest.

Texas is, statistically, one of the more dangerous states. It seems they are also lacking an education system.

Re:Racial Profiling....

[badasscat]

Let's review what we know: Terrorists are 1) usually middle eastern 2) always Muslim

You mean except when they're named Timothy McVeigh or Terry Nichols?

Or how about Thomas G. Doty, who bombed a Continental Airlines 707 in 1962, killing all on board?

Or, internationally, what about Kim Hyun Hee, who bombed a Korean Airlines 707 as an agent for North Korea in 1987? (No, I'm not talking about flight 007, which was shot down by the USSR.)

Or what about Inderjit Singh Reyat, who constructed the bomb that brought down Air India flight 182 in 1985? Oh, but he's of Indian descent, and I guess to you "they all look the same" over there. (Even though he was Canadian...)

Or how about John Graham, who bombed United Airlines flight 629 in 1955?

That's just scratching the surface; I haven't included bombings where non-muslim extremists from Latin America, the Balkans, or Asia are suspected but not named.

Still going to cling to your theory that terrorists are "always Muslim" or even "usually middle-eastern"? The vast majority of airliner bombings have been perpetrated by non-muslim, non-middle easterners. They're not always political (at least two of the above were life insurance scams), but that hardly matters to the passengers, who are just as dead.

Re:I thought the tinfoil brigade had migrated to d

[Fantastic Lad]

I'm sorry to hear your oft-exercised right to in-cabin oral hygiene is being trampled upon. Put your bathroom items in the bags you check in; you may continue to luxuriate in your hypochondria after the plane lands.

It's not that people can't adapt to small shifts. They can and usually do. The problem people have here is that they realize that adapting to each shift is an acceptance of the extra quarter degree of heat. --The eventual result of which, when all those quarter degree increases are added together, is that the water will boil and the frog will die. Why doesn't the frog jump out before the water boils? Because it's easier to pretend that small shifts don't matter than it is to do something to remedy the situation.

-FL