Are Airline precautions going too far?

**mrisch**[$] · #1 09-13-2001, 01:00 PM

OK, I don't post here often, but I thought I would on this topic. It is prompted by one of my clients (stranded in Chicago yesterday saying): "Well, if only we had the multi-billion dollar missle defense system.....this would have happened anyway."

My query: Are the airline security precautions going to far? Are they just to make people feel safe flying again?

The list:

1. No curbside checkin- I always thought that the curbside checkin went through the same X-ray machine. Besides, a) skycaps can be trained to look for suspicious cars pulling up - something you can't do inside and b) if you really want to plant a bomb, you'll wait the extra few minutes.

2. Must have a ticket to go to the gate - they have done this on international flights for years. However, so what? Is this really going to keep people off planes? Is it really going to stop the bad guys from putting on a fake badge and going whereever they want?

3. Sky marshalls - this is the one idea I like. Though maybe giving pilots guns and training is better. Many of them are post-military anyway.

My point - as Norm Mineta said, we have always traded freedom with security, but holy cow, are losing these freedoms and making people stand in really long lines to check their bags really increasing security?

erik_kosberg · #2 09-13-2001, 01:19 PM

Of the three points that you mentioned, the addition of sky marshalls would seem to be the only real increase in security. The others are band-aids at best.

Security to control who or what gets on a plane is only as good as the weakest link. The security guards at gates are poorly paid low-skill workers. Turnover rates are high. Changes in check-in and ticketing policies are window dressing. Until highly trained and highly motivated people are manning the checkpoints (federal marshalls?), real security will remain an elusive goal. Even then, there’s always the possibility of an inside job by someone (baggage handlers, janitors, etc.) who has access to parts of the airport that the general public can’t get to.

**drmomentum**[$] · #3 09-13-2001, 01:25 PM

The long lines are more of an inconvenience than a loss of freedom, in my opinion.

I agree with you that an increase in security ought to be a sensible increase, and not cause inconvenience for the sake of just the veneer of security.

1. No curbside checkin - I don't really see the problem with curb-side check in. Again, I'm no security expert. They can treat those bags the same way they treat the other bags, can't they? So I agree here.

2. Must have a ticket to go to the gate - Is this going to keep peope off planes? No, obviously not if they are going to be subject to the same security measures as other passengers passing through the checkpoint. This is obviously a move to curb long lines which will be a result of more scrutiny at the checkpoint. Reducing the number of people allowed through the checkpoint allows for a better job checking the ones who really have to go through.

3. Sky marshalls - I dont know why they don't already do something like this.

-JP

**hadassahchana**[$] · #4 09-13-2001, 01:52 PM

I agree, Michael. There are already so many ways to circumvent those additional 'precautions' that they seem merely foolish and annoying.

A similar thing is happeneing here. US Customs/Immigration have increased border 'security'. That means that it will take at least four hours to cross into the US from here. My children are stuck at home , unable to attend school. My husband is stuck at home, unable to get to the university- and his students are now without a teacher, until further notice. Worst of all, the truck dirvers are being held up even longer. It is currently estimated that a truck arriving in this area will cross the bridge 18 hours from now- 18 hours of standing in line. the Red Cross is handing out food and water to the drivers, and a few businesses have rented Porta-Potties. However, the US gets a lot of stuff from Canada, as we're your biggest trading partner.

This is all ridiculous. Serching every single car isn't going to prevent everyone from getting in who shouldn't be here. However, it is going to disrupt the lives of those who live in Canada but work in the US. It is going to completely disrupt the Big Three automakers, as many suppliers of the parts, usually shipped on a just-in-time schedule, are located on this side of the border. Workers in the US auto plants have alreayd been idled. This is a disaster, with no end in sight.

Cindy

wivabef · #5 09-13-2001, 02:16 PM

Maybe I'm just a martial law freak or something (I hope not), but I think the measures are necessary on at least a temporary basis and here's why...

It slows us down.

Right now, we need to be slowed down. We need to check and double check everything we do. Because as we look at the smouldering buildings that were home to over 50,000 people, we need to be extra careful.

After your child has fallen and broken their arm, do you say, "Go ahead! Run around again and be sure to jump off the couch and onto the coffee table?"

The border crossings are necessary and the fact that some of the suspects (indeed, two of the hijackers) came from Canada. I consider it a minor inconvenience because, quite frankly, I think the terrorists have been emboldened by the magnitude of their act and that they will work to strike quickly again.

If this were any other country, martial law would have taken affect. Our freedom remains intact.

realtraveller · #6 09-13-2001, 02:17 PM

None of the new restrictions on air passengers would have prevented the atrocities that took place on Tuesday, with the exception of armed Federal marshalls on every plane.

I do agree with no longer allowing people to carry knives on planes. But there are many other sharp objects that could be used to slit the throat of a pilot or flight attendant that are not knives, for example, nail files, glass objects that could be broken for their jagged edges, anything heavy that could be used for cracking skulls, the list could go on and on.

There needs to be a secure door between the pilots and the cabin that cannot be breached. The pilots should be instructed that no matter what is going on in the cabin, they are to stay at the controls and in the event of emergency land the plane at the safest location possible.

#7 09-13-2001, 02:35 PM

My landlord (I rent a room in his house) made what I thought might be a really good suggestion. Why don't they just totally seperate the cockpit from the rest of the plane. Not just with a small little door but structurally as well. Have the pilot get into the plane in a seperate door and everything... Yeah the stewardesses couldn't wait on them, yeah they would have to have their own bathroom and small little heater for food but hmmm...

It kinda makes me think about how much having the pilot as 'captain' of the plane is more tradition going way back to captains of ships... I guess yeah they can help calm people in place of accidents, I guess it is nice to have the feeling that the pilot is another passenger in the plane and is basically one of 'us' sort of thing as opposed to the ivory tower sort but...???

What real purpose is served in having the cockpit open for anyone to come into?

I guess someone can come in and take the plane over if the pilot goes psycho? Someone else can take over flying (a la Airplane) if the captain gets sick?

Probably other reasons but geeze, this could have been totally prevented if the terrorists hadn't been able to get control of the plane...

Ander

wivabef · #8 09-13-2001, 02:43 PM

As the daughter of a pilot, and knowing that that same pilot once or twice had to go check on the wings to make sure the engines weren't actually on fire as the instrument panel said, and as rear view mirrors would have to be pretty damned big to serve this purpose, I can say that though it is a neat idea to think upon, it does not seem to me a practical idea to make it impossible for the pilots to get into the aft of their craft.

erik_kosberg · #9 09-13-2001, 02:48 PM

I wouldn’t be surprised if engineers at Boeing and Airbus were already considering design changes of some kind.

But even if commercial jets were redesigned with a seperate door, or perhaps a stronger door in place of the existing ones, it might take many years for the new jets to become available, let alone common. And what about smaller business-size jets? They could do huge damage at 600 mph, but a separate entrance isn’t feasible with aircraft below a certain size. Some of them probably don‘t even have enough space for a door at all between the pilot and the passengers.

**mrisch**[$] · #10 09-13-2001, 02:57 PM

As to the cockpit idea, that is a good one, but it has to be coupled with a military mentality in the cockpit. That is, you don't do what the hijackers say, even if they start killing people.

Of course, after this, no pilot will ever believe a hijacker when they say "step aside, and no one will get hurt" again. This incident has ruined it for all the "legitimate" hijackers out there - that is those who want to go somewhere but don't really want to kill people.

dlbrantley · #11 09-13-2001, 03:06 PM

I'm not liking the Air Marshal idea. I'm sitting here thinking it would only take one stray bullet ripping through the side of the plane to kill hundreds of people. I personally wouldn't want to be on a plane where there was potential for an exchange of bullets.

Okay yes..there would have been an edge on the terrorists since they were sporting knives but in MOST situations there are guns involved.

erik_kosberg · #12 09-13-2001, 03:14 PM

Every El Al flight has an armed guard on board. Anyone know when was the last time that an El Al flight was successfully skyjacked?

jaxmom28 · #13 09-13-2001, 03:17 PM

Regarding the the Air Marshals and their guns / bullets, someone on CNN last night (forgive me, I cannot remember whom) indicated that the idea had been proposed years ago, and even partially implemented before funding ran out. Apparently, the Marshals carried specially designed weapons that could/would not penetrate the hull of the aircraft.

Last night, my husband suggested that we train all pilots in the use of firearms and give them these guns. He said that any unbalanced pilot intent on killing his passengers would more than likely simply crash his plane, so the guns could be used in defense of the passengers and crew without inordinate fear of increasing their general risk. The more I think about it, the less farfetched this seems. I certainly think it a more reasonable and effective solution than banning plastic knives, but continuing to allow forks, glass, and belt buckles - all of which make just as effective, if not more so, weapons as plastic cutlery.

As for only ticketed passengers being allowed past the metal detectors, I understand their reasoning: fewer people to check makes it easier to check them thoroughly. However, these hijackers were ticketed passengers. The measure is meaningless in the face of suicidal maniacs contemplating their imminent martyrdom.

dlbrantley · #14 09-13-2001, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Regarding the the Air Marshals and their guns / bullets, someone on CNN last night (forgive me, I cannot remember whom) indicated that the idea had been proposed years ago, and even partially implemented before funding ran out. Apparently, the Marshals carried specially designed weapons that could/would not penetrate the hull of the aircraft.

Okay so the Marshal's bullets don't go through the side of the plane but what about the bullets that the suicidal terrorists are using?

Who runs El Al flights?

wivabef · #15 09-13-2001, 03:22 PM

Curbside check ins and prohobiting access to non-ticketed passengers helps keep control of people and allows the security personel more time to do a thorough job.

By allowing every tom, dick and harry through the security screening, there are too many people to be screened and security personnel are suddenly rushed to do their job.

Curbside check-ins makes for one point between the outside and the inside to be left open to the general public -- I avoided curbside check ins because all too often my baggage was left unattended and unprotected.

jaxmom28 · #16 09-13-2001, 03:26 PM

Actually, I was thinking that with guns already known to be on board, terrorists wouldn't have to worry so much about how to smuggle more on. All they'd have to do is put together a large enough team to overpower the Marshal/pilot in question.

If they're already suicidal and intent on mass murder, what do they care if a few people (even their own) get shot and killed in the process?

erik_kosberg · #17 09-13-2001, 04:09 PM

The Israeli government.

Quote:

Who runs El Al flights?

Mrsfitts · #18 09-13-2001, 04:42 PM

The flight I took from San Francisco to Las Vegas last month:

1) I had 3 knives in my purse... I routinely carry knives -they are parts of tool kits, I'm an electronic technician. I have the Leatherman, big Swiss Army and the tiny Swiss Army.

2) I couldn't walk -Hubby had to push me around. In light of the new rules, handicapped people will be relying more & more on Airport Personnel to get them through to the gates -SFO is a big airport, DFW is even bigger... I can't imagine what it's going to be like for those in wheelchairs that are traveling alone.

3) E-tickets. You used to be able to get boarding passes at the boarding gates -now everyone's going to have to stand in that long hairy line if they don't have luggage??? I don't think so! This will make the convenience of E-tickets go out the door if you have to have proof before you go through the metal-detectors.

On another note, the FAA admitted that if you're carrying a ceramic or plastic knife and walk through a metal detector, they will not be able to detect it. I don't own, nor plan to own Ceramic knives (unless they become reviewable on Epinions)

I'll follow the rules, I always do... I just might grumble a bit until I'm walking normal again... sigh...

evmori · #19 09-13-2001, 04:57 PM

I like the idea of US Marshalls on the planes. I have a couple other ideas, too.

1. Place cameras in the cabin. This way, the pilots can see what's going on and might not be as easily lured from the cockpit. Naturally, the camera's will need to be well hidden which shouldn't be a problem in this day & age.

2. Coupled with that, why not give the pilot the ability to release a sleeping gas into the cabin if something like this happens again. This would knock everyone out long enough for the US Marshall to gain control. Naturally the US Marshall would have a small gas mask with him.

**hadassahchana**[$] · #20 09-13-2001, 07:31 PM

Quote:

If this were any other country, martial law would have taken affect. Our freedom remains intact.

Mine doesn't. Yours won't if you need a new car, or parts for your old one. My children certainly aren't free - their education is being put on hold, who knows for how long?

I know that two of the hijackers came in through Canada. That makes at least 10 who didn't. So, while it might be convenient to find someone to blame for Tuesday's tragedy, it isn't going to be nearly as easy as just closing the borders. This is , I'm sorry to say, pure American xenophobia at its best. And before you start shouting, don't bother, as I am an American, I just also happen to be Canadian.

I'm afraid that we don't need martial law- as soon as the government wants to curtail many of our rights, we all smile gratefully and step aside and watch. I'm telling you, this is far more upsetting and scary than anything the real terrorists did.

Cindy

nfp · #21 09-13-2001, 07:50 PM

So much of what is going on now is band-aid, knee-jerk response intended to make us feel safer, and the purveyors feel like they're doing something.

What's required is much more than can be implemtned in 72 hours by the FAA and the US DOT.

First of all, airport security even at its lowest levels -- the folks at the metal detectors and at the doors -- has to become a career, not a dumping ground for unemployables paid minimum wage.

Second of all, technology companies need to be incented to present the airline and travel industries, as well as watchdog groups for civil liberties, with tech solutions that allow affordable, non-invasive screening of every person and bag -- digital technology, wireless communications, computer networks all allow for far more than has been deployed, presumably due to cost concerns, civil rights issues, and bureaucratic turf wars.

Third, airlines need to re-think all of their service policies, from stainless steel forks and knives and glass in First Class, to so called "Elite" perks such as rush check-ins in club lounges, or E-tickets. Maybe we must all have our thumbprints entered into a database, and we use them to purchase tickets at kiosks.

Fourth, airline employment from the top executive suites to the guy driving the tow cart must adhere to almost military or classified levels of pre-employment screenings.

This stuff is scary, but it is doable over time, and regulatable to ensure civil liberties. But it's also a long-term look at what needs to be done; I fear the knee jerk stuff is just feel-good mania that will do little but delay us even further.

On the other hand, what else can they do right now?

nick

realtraveller · #22 09-13-2001, 07:53 PM

I saw a program on the Discovery channel showing how the Las Vegas casinos have cameras watching every table. Those cameras are linked to a computerized photo-ID system which can identify people who have cheated in the past. Security then escorts them out.

Why can't the airports have the same system. Everyone going through the airport is scanned. Match-ups are made against the photos of known or suspected terrorists. Those people are simple not permitted to fly, are arrested, detained etc.

If Las Vegas can do this to save a little money at the blackjack tables, why can't the government do it to stop air terror?

realtraveller · #23 09-13-2001, 08:13 PM

There was a very interesting article in the L. A. Times this morning regarding security procedures at El Al. What they do would never fly (pardon the pun) in the U. S. For example, if you are a Jewish Israeli, you are basically passed through security. If you are not Jewish, not Israeli, you are subjected to the third degree. Why did you buy your ticket with cash? Who are you staying with in Israel? Everything in your suitcase, right down to cosmetics is opened and examined.

Can you imagine the uproar in the U. S. if similar measures were instituted here?

frazzledspice · #24 09-13-2001, 08:17 PM

I have often read that El Al is the best airline to fly when traveling to the Middle East.

In European airports, apparently, if bags are left unattended for five minutes security guards come over and "vaporize" them.

I think that perhaps people are permitted to carry far too much hand luggage onto planes (and, having traveled with three kids for many years, I was one of the worst offenders. I remember once having too many things to carry for the five of us, putting my jacket on, and stuffing things into everyone's pockets so that we could meet the quota. A huge Winnie the Pooh was hanging from my side, three feet dangling out of my pocket.)

Aerosol cans aren't supposed to be carried on planes. Why was MACE in the hands of the terrorists.

I think that razor blades, knives, etc. should only be allowed in che