Heightened security to worsen travel woes

al-Reuters ^ | Thu Aug 10, 2006 5:54pm ET | Kyle abu Petersonallah and Chris abu Hamza al-Reiter

[jjm2111]

CHICAGO/NEW YORK (Reuters) - Tighter restrictions on carry-on luggage, including bans on liquids, will disrupt air travel for at least several days and make it even more of a headache for passengers already sick of crowded planes and long lines, experts said.

U.S. security officials banned passengers from carrying any liquids onto planes after British officials said they foiled a plot to bomb flights to the United States on Thursday.

The new restrictions were sure to cause major disruptions for at least two or three days at airport security checkpoints as screeners scour carry-on bags for drinks, hair gels and lotions, experts said.

"They've got to search everything extremely carefully right now," said Joe Schwieterman, transportation expert at DePaul University. "Any time you impose a new rule there's instant chaos, but things settle down in a few weeks."

He said the increased security will be especially taxing for passengers already fed up with long lines and crowded planes during the peak summer travel season.

The heightened concern about travel safety triggered renewed calls for improved security, which can be laxly enforced by airlines and airports loathe to inconvenience passengers.

[NavyCanDo]

I'm flying September 5th (taking the family to Disneyland) and I can tell you I feel much safer with these new restrictions. There is nothing on the new banned list of items I really need to take on carry-on. It may take a couple of days for the airports to adjust and the lines to get back to normal, but I think this is a good move on TSA's part.

BUT how long will it be before some jerk sneaks one of the banned items on board just so they can have their names in the news or try to show how lacking security is (for political purposes)? Remember that happening after the sharp object ban after 9/11? I can see it now, " Jane Doe from Seattle from was able to sneak past TSA security a 3.5 ounce tube of hand lotion, is our airport security working?."

It's going to happen, trust me. The Drive-By Media is salivating over this kind of a story.

[untrained skeptic]

The new and temporary rules will make it a pain for those short trips where I can get by with just a carry-on bag.

However, from the sounds of things the only other real effect is I won't be able to carry a bottle of water on the plane with me to drink during my layover on flights with multiple legs. My basic toiletries will also have to go in checked baggage instead of my carry-on, so in the rare event that my luggage gets lost, I'll have to spend a few dollars to buy a disposable toothbrush and toothpaste, and some deodorant to get me by for a day until my luggage catches up with me.

This is a minor inconvenience, especially considering the threat.

We're at war! People need to wake up and quit whining about inconveniences that except for in very rare cases are going to take up less than an hour of their time on a bad day, and usually a few minutes.

I'm not meaning to address this to you specifically jjm2111, but more at the media that appears to be trying to be trying to rile up airline passengers to the detriment of our economic stability.

However, it does piss me off that most of the posts I've seen on these threads here on the Free Republic are from people whining about minor inconveniences, and making rather pretentious claims about how these are unreasonable restrictions.

We (myself included) as a nation, need to do a bit less grumbling about the relatively minor inconveniences, and pull together in a more unified show of support for taking the necessary steps to keep our country safe.

These may seem like little things, but how do you expect the President to build support for taking strong and necessary steps to combat terrorism, when a simple thing like a temporary ban on liquid and gels on planes in response to a verified threat causes this much grumbling among Americans.

Such an undertone of grumbling has a tendency to grow and spread and undermine the solidarity we need to face the very real threat to our nation that these terrorist represent.

While we should not sacrifice our right and freedom to try and buy peace, we also need to not complain about inconveniences.

[af_vet_rr]

This is the War on Terror, and as citizens of this country, we have to fight it here whether we like it or not.

The problem is, this "war" has no end. I don't think the solution is to keep stepping up security to the extremes.

Besides, I have a hard time dealing with a government that talks about having to take extreme measures at airports, while people are able to walk across the border.

[durasell]

Nobody should ever be inconvenienced. Ever! In the words of Jello Biafra of the Dead Kennedys: Give Me Convenience or Give Me Death

[jjm2111]

But complete randomness in searches makes no sense at all. One of the guys from my reserve unit works as an air marshall and he told me that TSA deliberately 'profiles' people who do not appear to be terrorists in order to avoid the appearance of profiling. It's crazy.

Our gov't is so p.c. that they won't do their primary job, which is to protect their citizens from external attack.

[jjm2111]

I don't think people are complaining about the inconvenience so much as the non-sensical way it is applied. If we want security in our airports we should copy El Al. Period.

Instead of mindlessly scanning everyone and saying 'no water' to everyone, try to find the people who would want to blow up airplanes.

[jjm2111]

The "War on Terror" is like the war on blitzkrieg. You can not win a war if you will not identify the enemy.

[TheCipher]

I would like a 'no carry-on' rule just because it would make boarding and departing so much faster...

I agree with you, however the main reason people bring on caryy-ons is to protect valuable items from theft. Congress should pass a law stating that if anyone ( TSA, baggage handlers ) is caught stealing from a passengers luggage, it should be considered a felony with a mandatory 20 year prison term. That should cut down on theft from luggage.

[Rutles4Ever]

I understand where you're coming from. It seems like we're left to fend for ourselves.

I don't want security stepped up to the extremes, either. I'm well aware that if we turn airplanes into Fort Knox, they'll go after trains and schools and soft targets. But from the standpoint of the airline industry, if security measures become so burdensome that it begins to erode their balance sheets, they'll have to come up with something to draw people back to flying. And I'm not referring to here and now. I'm referring to D-Day plus one. After something occurs, what then? Who's going to fly if it's that easy to assemble a bomb on a plane and they're profiling Norwegian grandmothers instead?

[Atlas Sneezed]

We're at war!

---

Which is why I can't carry an empty vessel past security, then fill it at a drinking fountain?!

If we remain hydrated, the terrorists win!

This is effective only at teaching people to be sheep for a police state.

Of my $10 security fee, I'd like 25 cents to go toward a bottle of water waiting for me in a pile by the gate.

[Atlas Sneezed]

I don't think you can carry an empty and fill it at the gate.

---

Watch me try.

[Atlas Sneezed]

I can snif abuse of power from 1000 meters. US airports REEK of it these last few years.

---

Amen to that.

The shirts may not be brown, but the principle that tyrants can always find willing minions by giving thema little authority is proven every day at every airport.

Every culture is filled with people who would gladly herd their neighbors into the boxcars for $15/hr plus retirement benefits.

[Atlas Sneezed]

The airlines can make this work. You get NO CARRY ON LUGGAGE, NO LIQUIDS, NOTHING ELECTRONIC. The airlines can provide entertainment, in-flight phone service, Internet, drinks, food, etc. You bring what you're wearing, and your wallet/identification. What's the cost?

---

The cost is denying people the RIGHT to communicate, or do you let them carry cell phones and Blackberry devices?

What business traveler can afford to be out of touch between check-in and picking up the luggage?

[Atlas Sneezed]

There will be new business opportunities, as well. The entrepreneurs among us will find them.

---

Schindler made his money under the Nazis, after all.

[af_vet_rr]

I don't want security stepped up to the extremes, either. I'm well aware that if we turn airplanes into Fort Knox, they'll go after trains and schools and soft targets. But from the standpoint of the airline industry, if security measures become so burdensome that it begins to erode their balance sheets, they'll have to come up with something to draw people back to flying.

They'll do two things - they'll get the government to bail them out (some of the airlines were having financial problems well before 9/11, and used 9/11 as an excuse to receive handouts from the feds, which was just sickening).

They will also cut down on general aviation.

At times, the feds really seem to have it in for GA, and I can't help but wonder if they have some lobbyists from the airline industry whispering in their ears. I've seen GA looked at with what is practically contempt, by the feds.

Either way, I see this "war" leading to making it harder and harder for the average citizen to travel freely around the country, and if that becomse the norm, then it's a huge battle that the terrorists have won.

[Paved Paradise]

Your're right - it is hard to profile some of them. However, the vast majority DO look very middle-eastern. I think we can target certain traits - middle-eastern looks, where they got their passport - and face it, the UK will have to be a red flag for sure - and their accents, etc. We can't be perfect but we can sure rule out a host of them. If they need 2 or 3 of them on a plane to carry out their scheme, they better all look like Mr. Preppie. If I were the security person, I bet I could do a very good job. I'm very observant and detail oriented. We have a lot of them here and their blue eyes don't fool me.

[MikeGranby]

> I agree with you, however the main
> reason people bring on caryy-ons is
> to protect valuable items from theft.

I disagree. The majority of people with carry-ons that I see are trying to avoid having to wait for their bags when they get to the other end. That's why you see people trying to cram huge wheel-ons into overheads, and why people like me who just take a laptop on board have to lose the legroom under the seat ahead of me just so other can save a few mins at arrival. Of course, if certain airports (BWI -- I'm looking at you!) could get organized so it didn't take 30 mins or more to move bags from a gate about 100 yds from the carousel, people might be a little more keen to check their belongings...

[af_vet_rr]

The "War on Terror" is like the war on blitzkrieg. You can not win a war if you will not identify the enemy.

You also cannot win it if you only partially fight it. Leaving the borders wide open for going on almost five years since 9/11 tells me that either the government isn't really serious about the war, and the airport stuff is just a dog and pony show (and considering some of the lapses since 9/11, I'm thinking more and more that it is). It could also be that the government thinks that they are fighting it overseas. This could very well be the case - most Islamic radicals are more inclined to want to fight in the Middle East rather than the US, since it's a huge afront to them that the US is smack dab in the middle of the region, not to mention with things with Israel heating up. If we manage to make democracies out of Afghanistan and Iraq, that is a huge threat to radical Islam. A huge threat - one most Americans don't seem to realize, because if your typical Islamic sees that the standard of living is better in the democratic countries next door, they will start wondering why they shouldn't have the same (think East Germany/West Germany).

What also has me worried - a lot of politicians at all levels are very interested in having a huge travel corridor running from Central America up through Canada, while making it fairly easy to travel between the various countries. I would have no problem with this, if I felt that other countries had good security measures and control over who comes into their countries.

Take Canada for instance - they have been with us in Afghanistan since we went in, they face some of the same risks as we do, and as a result, their security is much more reliable than say a Mexico - I'm not worried about terrorists making their way into Canada and walking into North Dakota or Montana, but Mexico on the other hand..

[af_vet_rr]

This is effective only at teaching people to be sheep for a police state.

It's not helping that the media jumps in and tries to scare people either.

[Sarajevo]

Negative! I will not risk my laptop or other valuables in an unsecured checked bag. Baggage handlers have been known to steal from passengers in the past.