Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

End Airplane Terrorism (Separate baggage) (Retread trolls to be towed 500 yards aft)
Robert Jones | 8/13/06 | Robert Jones

Posted on 08/13/2006 8:39:23 AM PDT by robert jones

One way to end terrorism on airplanes would be to have separate planes for baggage. With a minimal crew and no one else on board, an inexpensive baggage plane would not be a very attractive terrorist target. Without baggage the passenger plane would be as safe from internal attack as possible. Terrorists could only sneak on board with nonmetallic objects that they have swallowed or that they can, um, stuff up their rectums.

A simple-minded implementation of such a scheme would be to halve the number of passenger flights, an inconvenience that many would put up with for the sake of eliminating the inconvenience currently attending the flying experience. Our free enterprise system, however, would surely find improvements.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: airlinesecurity; airplane; attractivezottarget; baggage; endvanitiesinnews; oversimplification; panacea; retreadtroll; sneakonboard; stupididea; terrorism; zot; zuluoscartango
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-71 next last

1 posted on 08/13/2006 8:39:24 AM PDT by robert jones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: robert jones

With the air traffic as heavy as it is already.. and with the price of fuel.. I can't see that being a solution.


2 posted on 08/13/2006 8:42:01 AM PDT by divine_moment_of_facts ("Liberals see what they believe... Conservatives believe what they see")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robert jones
Good idea.

People on one flight, luggage on another.
3 posted on 08/13/2006 8:42:40 AM PDT by fanfan (The MSM has no clothes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robert jones

That sounds great, but with the cost of fuel no one would be willing to spend the extra costs.


4 posted on 08/13/2006 8:42:45 AM PDT by sasha123 (Pray for the peace of Jerusalem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robert jones

It would also double the cost of a trip. A better and cheaper solution would be to register all Muslims, and strip search every one of them before they board. Then, place a limit of 4 adult Muslims per plane.


5 posted on 08/13/2006 8:43:19 AM PDT by aimhigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sasha123
"That sounds great, but with the cost of fuel no one would be willing to spend the extra costs."

No passengers no bombs. Brilliant!

6 posted on 08/13/2006 8:44:04 AM PDT by avg_freeper (Gunga galunga. Gunga, gunga galunga)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: robert jones

I think you underestimate where the main costs of running an airliner come from - I don't think it's stewardesses!

A much simpler solution would be for everyone to pack their luggage and take it to the airport as usual and check it in. Instead of being loaded onto the plane, the luggage then remains at the airport and arriving passengers are randomly allocated a suitcase. The people leaving, of course, will be allocated a suitcase that has been checked in at their destination airport.

Actually, that happens quite a lot of the time now...


7 posted on 08/13/2006 8:45:28 AM PDT by Canard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robert jones

And the cost of an airline ticket would be ...


8 posted on 08/13/2006 8:45:40 AM PDT by NonValueAdded (Tom Gallagher - the anti-Crist [FL Governor, 2006 primary])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robert jones
A simple-minded implementation of such a scheme would be to halve the number of passenger flights,

Simple-minded is right.

How did you just eliminate half of the passengers?

9 posted on 08/13/2006 8:46:18 AM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robert jones
If you thought about the logistics of that for a moment, you would realize how silly that is...

The other reality is that airlines have been layoff ground personnel for some time. They simply can not move the bags like they used to. I always carry aboard on the outbound leg of my trips and check on the way home. I did 120K air miles last year, some international. Getting out on time is important to me. This latest approach is going to be deadly on laptops and a blessing for thieves.
10 posted on 08/13/2006 8:46:29 AM PDT by Starwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robert jones

(A) A terrorism expert figured out how much plastic explosive a man or woman could smuggle in body cavities.

(B) This assumes that the people who service the plane have not been infiltrated by terrorist cells. We KNOW that there are theives in among the people who hand inspect luggage, I have no illusion of total security among the staffing. And whether it is a bomb or sabotage, the result would be the same.

(C) These are precautions that are unnecessary if the root problem is eradicated. We have no more threat from Nazism. Too much of the world accepts militant Islam for there to be peace.


11 posted on 08/13/2006 8:46:40 AM PDT by weegee (Remember "Remember the Maine"? Well in the current war "Remember the Baby Milk Factory")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh

A better and cheaper solution would be to keep all muslim-islamist-arabs off of all planes. No muslims. No terriorism. No exploding planes.


12 posted on 08/13/2006 8:47:28 AM PDT by butternut_squash_bisque (The recipe's at my FR HomePage. Try it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: robert jones

The introduction of internet reservations has made it so that just about every plane is filled to the max as it is. Cutting that in half to accomodate a 2nd plane following with baggage would not satisfy America's necessity to fly. The cost of fuel on a plane is offset by the passengers. Sending planes empty would more than double the cost of to passengers. I just don't see how it could work. It would be a good idea from a safety standpoint but, the cost would make it impossible. JMHO


13 posted on 08/13/2006 8:47:44 AM PDT by kempster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robert jones

We could also fly naked, sedated, and stuffed into containers while connected to an IV drip.

I bet we could quadruple the number of passengers this way... If not more.


14 posted on 08/13/2006 8:49:44 AM PDT by coconutt2000 (NO MORE PEACE FOR OIL!!! DOWN WITH TYRANTS, TERRORISTS, AND TIMIDCRATS!!!! (3-T's For World Peace))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robert jones
The only thing that is going to work is a Certified Passenger Program. You submit to a full background check, have an interview with DHS, and get a smartcard that you use to gain access through security gates, using an electronic scan of your thumbprint. The card has to be renewed every four years, like a driver's license. People who are not DHS Certified Passengers do not fly. Period.

This system isn't foolproof - someone can convert to Islam after getting Certified, for example - but it will be much more effective than other current suggestions.

15 posted on 08/13/2006 8:50:26 AM PDT by Mr. Jeeves ("When the government is invasive, the people are wanting." -- Tao Te Ching)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh
t would also double the cost of a trip. A better and cheaper solution would be to register all Muslims, and strip search every one of them before they board. Then, place a limit of 4 adult Muslims per plane.

Good idea, punish the perps not the innocents. I would go a step further and forbid any muslims(registered) from flying. Let them take a boat or drive to their destination. We are going about this all wrong. If they want to fly again let them clean up their death cult or disavow it altogether.

16 posted on 08/13/2006 8:51:50 AM PDT by calex59 (The '86 amnesty put us in the toilet, now the senate wants to flush it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh

In the long run, the cost of the trip would be less because you're moving the same load but in a manner that allows you to take advantage of the different cargo types.

It's unfortunate that our present passenger planes are designed to carry baggage AND passengers.




17 posted on 08/13/2006 8:54:42 AM PDT by robert jones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: calex59

How do you propose to identify a person's religion? And then how do you plan to constitutionally discriminate against members of that religion?


18 posted on 08/13/2006 8:56:33 AM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: robert jones
In the long run, the cost of the trip would be less because you're moving the same load but in a manner that allows you to take advantage of the different cargo types.

Yeah, that makes sense. Flying two planes to the same destination HAS to be cheaper than flying just one.

19 posted on 08/13/2006 8:58:39 AM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone

The idea is this: Instead of flying twice a day between city X and city Y requiring two planes, you fly once a day also requiring two planes, but with all the passengers on one and all the baggage on the other. This actually saves money, but at the inconvenience of half as many flight times.


20 posted on 08/13/2006 9:01:33 AM PDT by robert jones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-71 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson