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


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


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-30 next last
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: 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: 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: robert jones
This is not as wacky an idea as it sounds and it might work.

Here's how we can get around the "added fuel cost" problem:

Simply fill the cargo holds with passengers and the passenger cabins with luggage on the luggage-only planes.

If done properly, this would add close to zero extra cost. Though we would probably have situations where we cannot have an exact 1:1 ratio of passengers to luggage, in which case airlines can contract with FedEx and UPS (and other overnight carriers) to completely fill the baggage planes with cargo. This might actually turn this into a money-making endeavor for the cash-flow starved airlines.

Now as for stashing the passengers in cargo holds, this is not as inhumane as it sounds. Cargo holds can be pressurized and lighting can be added at little extra cost. After all, we ship our pets in the cargo holds. Why not passengers at cut-rate fares?

I'm thinking that in order to maximize the number of passengers in the cargo hold, we can be placed in "human cages" similar to those sleeping compartments over in Japan (where you can literally climb into a coin-operated sleeping compartment that is stacked several high). This would allow the compartments to be secured to the aircraft so that they do not slide around during the flight. Passengers could be issued (by the airline) a paper barf bag, a plastic bag (for urination and/or defecation) and a small bag of cheese and crackers along with a bottle of water. Passengers would be allowed to take one book (for reading) but that is it.

We could probably double or triple the passenger capacity of passengers right there (and stash all their luggage on the other plane). Similarly, the overhead carry-on luggage compartments could be converted into low-cost passenger compartments.

So under this system, if you want a regular seat, you pay full fare price. But for less price, you could elect to be stashed in an overhead compartment or you could buy a compartment in the cargo hold. This would have the effect of making flying affordable for just about everybody.

I believe the cruise ships of old used to stash passengers in "steerage" for a cut-rate fee.

Time to bring this concept back.

Speaking for myself, I would probably elect to fly this way going forward should such a system be implemented. Even though I could afford a seat, having my own private compartment in the cargo hold would afford me some privacy and I would not be subjected to inane conversations from my seatmates.

21 posted on 08/13/2006 9:03:55 AM PDT by SamAdams76 (I am a big fan of urban sprawl but I wish there were more sidewalks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: robert jones

Better yet, what if no one was allowed baggage? If you want to take clothes etc. to your destination, ship it via FedEx or UPS. You'd actually stand a better chance of having it there for you when you arrived then you do now. Ticket cost can be cheaper because there will be less weight and the airlines can take more passangers.


22 posted on 08/13/2006 9:05:03 AM PDT by McGavin999 (God watch over the young lions of Israel as they fight Hell's Bullies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: robert jones
There are several types of blast-resistant baggage containers under development (I think some are approved and in limited use). My understanding is that currently they're too heavy, and therefore only a few can be used per flight. It would seem that with the development of stronger lightweight materials (e.g. carbon-based) this type of approach might become much more applicable. I'm not an engineer, but it sounds feasible to me.
23 posted on 08/13/2006 9:05:09 AM PDT by pieceofthepuzzle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: robert jones

Double the cost of flying?? Hardly. Double the number of planes in the air?? The stock holders of the airlines would just love that.


25 posted on 08/13/2006 9:07:14 AM PDT by EagleUSA (T)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: robert jones

OK, others have taken their shot, here's mine.

A second airplane would probably be late - twice the traffic density to a given destination. And as for cutting flights in half - they make you sit on peoples' laps now the aircraft are so full.

And I don't like standing there at the baggage area waiting for my stuff. I sometimes do quick turnarounds, and even when I don't, every minute is one I could be doing something else and getting the trip over with. So I carry on for all trips less than a week. And my damned bag goes UNDER THE SEAT so I'm not one of those morons with blank looks stuffing a too-big roller in the overhead. Smart packing and an iron at the hotel can work miracles...


28 posted on 08/13/2006 9:11:57 AM PDT by Felis_irritable
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: robert jones

That ain't gonna fly.

How about nekkid passengers and crew and a full cavity search? Even that won't stop a mechanic messing with the wires or such.


29 posted on 08/13/2006 9:14:25 AM PDT by mtbopfuyn (I think the border is kind of an artificial barrier - San Antonio councilwoman Patti Radle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: robert jones
Simpler solution: Are you muslim? a non-citizen? Rail against our society?

Get your own airline.

A database of totally vetted citizens, and doing away with the trillion$ burden made necessary entirely on account of muslims is a much more rational answer.

30 posted on 08/13/2006 9:14:54 AM PDT by Publius6961 (MSM: Israelis are killed by rockets; Lebanese are killed by Israelis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: robert jones
Do you happen to know the airline's ratio of passenger to luggage weight?
31 posted on 08/13/2006 9:15:10 AM PDT by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-30 next last

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