Like a failing comedian who reaches for the airline food jokes, the left-wing nutjob Cohen tries to distract from his defense of terrorists by fronting an idiotic position.

Gee, Andrew do you think your stirring defenses o Hamdi, Padilla and Moussaoui made the skies safer?

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/opinion/courtwatch/main15515.shtml

Maybe you can distract the crying baby on your next flight who toys, teddy and bottle are in the cargo hold by reading to him from the Little Red Book of Mao that you slipped into your pocket.

well done, Mr. Cohen, as i'm not sure why all the gels and liquids can't go into checked bags, was it more dramatic to throw them away? Seems odd airlines aren't offering refunds, even on UK flights.

last poster: your an idiot

I have wondered the same thing for a while now. In light of the fact "they" knew this was possible in 1995 what excuse is there today to be so "shocked" that this might happen. Stow the junk in the hold or don't bring it with you.

I agree, ban carry ons, and tranqulize the babies. No more damn crying and screaming. A peaceful, uneventful flight to be had by all.

So I shouldn't take my camera equipment on my vacation of a lifetime? I can't take my laptop computer with me on a business trip? No way I am checking thousands of dollars worth of electronics to be stolen, broken, or lost in the baggage system.

I agree that many people carry on things they don't really need to and that carry on bags keep getting bigger and bigger with no apparent enforcement from the airlines. But you're never going to be able to ban all carry-ons.

When one states a fellow poster is an idiot one should take care not to provide evidence that they are one.

It's you're an idiot.
Not your an idiot.

Also, ban the crying babies.

Problem solved.

The UK idea of limited carry-ons in plastic bags is the best. banning all electronics would make flights more boring but not terrible. the clear bags make it much easier to check quickly. and not allowing electronic devices make detonation and communication impossible.

Purses and small briefcases require just as much time to check, so Cohen's idea doesn't really make sense. I don't think this is a very serious article.

I'd also like to ask who is screening the checked luggage? Last I heard we hadn't implemented thorough checks everywhere yet.

I agree that suitcases should be banned as carry ons. However, I travel on business and have to take a laptop computer. There is no way I would check that with any airline. Between lost luggage and stolen valuables, the airlines can not be trusted with computers... or cameras for that matter.

Obviously Al Queda and its allies are winning the GWOT. As a frequent business traveler I guess it will be faster drive to boston then to fly.

Perhaps a democratic congress will be more effective at winning the GWOT since the republicans have failed so miserably

I travel on business and I think people can survive without their precious laptops for a few additional hours.

When the U.S. airline system puts into place a tracking system as reliable as that offered by UPS, I shall be *delighted* to check my baggage. I hate shlepping my carryon everywhere I go -- but if the alternative is spending 3 days of a 5-day trip without spare clothes, carry-ons it is.

And, as others have pointed out, check your electronics only if you want them broken or stolen. And carryon electronics are the real security risk.

Remember back when human beings would just deal with minor annoyances, without resorting to semi-serious suggestions to tranquilize babies? I guess we lost that around the time people lost the ability to distinguish between "your" and "you're".

"minor annoyances" ?

Parents are desensitized to how much they're cute baby irritates others around them with their incessent screaming and crying, especially in a confined aircraft cabin. I hate those little screamming monsters. If we could just stick them in the overhead baggage compartments it would at least deaden the din. But we can't do that can we? So stick 'em in the neck with a needle and let them sleep through the flight. And give your fellow man a break from what you squirted out from between your legs.

It's not realistic to ban ALL carry-ons. I flew to Michigan last week for a job interview (and a few days with family) and the airline lost my luggage -- it took three days to get it back. Thank goodness I put my interview clothes and medications in a carry-on bag. Yes, carry-on bags are getting too big, but maybe fewer people would carry-on if the baggage handling system worked better.

To the Lying Leftist:

The majority of travelers do not have infants.

But given an infant is a fairly OBVIOUS thing to be carrying, airlines could easily make the neccessary adjustments and accomodations.

Your prior opinion of Mr. Cohen is what it is. It does not mean all ideas are awful, or that all ideas are Communistic ideals.

For the majority of travelers, not having a plethora of personal materials on hand for distraction and/or comfort offsets the delays/expense of cracking down on carry-on luggage.

Unfortunately, I think you may be right. There's just something really nice about being able to walk right out of the airport and not worry about finding baggage claim (in a large or unfamiliar airport) and retrieving your luggage.

But if you can't bring toiletries onboard, then what good does a carry on bag do anymore?

I absolutely agree with the ban on carry-ons. For obvious security reasons and for the sake of getting real in America about the sophisticated level of the threat to our lives.

This is a Clear and Present Danger folks!!!

Overlooked in the whole "they're banning liquids" craze was the fact that the UK has banned reading materials from carryon luggage.

I was planning on going to London for vacation, but an eleven hour flight with no music, no books, no magazines, no newspapers and no writing implements sounds like some form of sensory deprivation torture. I'm getting a refund and going somewhere else.

once again the government has the wrong focus. why prevent everyone from bringing these items onboard? what happened to profiling? it didn't appear that the arrests involved anyone other than people from the middle east. why are we tiptoeing around on this issue? you don't see any scandinavians, irish, mexicans, bolivians or greeks involved in any of these plots, do you? the idea that checking the baggage eliminates danger is ludicrous. they are not doing a good job of screening checked baggage. and the idea of putting valuable items in checked baggage when the airlines tell you never to do so is dumbfounding. only an idiot would do that. have you forgotten all the arrests at various airports in the country involving airline employees rifling through passengers' bags and stealing things? years ago someone stole all of my husband's suits from his checked baggage. life has risk. there is no way to eliminate it. it can be reduced. start screening people rather than items.

We are a society. Societies include children. And children cry. People who are not tolerant of this basic fact of humanity need to decide if they want to be part of the human race or not. ANd I think some of these comments should be deleted for vulgarity and cruelty.

To the Author:

Are you, some kind of mental defective?! If I'm going on a trip where all I need is a week's worth of clothes and some personal hygine items, I'm going to do the same thing anyone else with a shred of common sense would; I'm packing a carry-on and I'm using the self-check-in kiosk. Not just because of the time it saves, but because of the convenience and the lack of human interaction that lets me zip past the families of five, with half a dozen pieces of baggage to check, arguing with the person behind the counter for seats that are closer together.

But the reason passengers pack carry-ons isn't just because of the obnoxiously long wait at the baggage carousel (which usually seems to be on the exact opposite side of the terminal from your gate). It's because of the baggage handlers, or "throwers" as they are colloquially known.

Saying, "airlines will try harder," is laughable. Consider being a thrower. Working all day tossing bags from a conveyor belt onto a truck, then from the truck onto another conveyor into the hold. Pretty mindless work that probably doesn't pay great. Do you think those people will act any differently, or treat your baggage any more gingerly because of the terror level? If I am traveling for business I'm not going to want to check my $400 iPod just so some guy can toss it around, damaging the hard drive and voiding my Apple-Care. I don't want to store my $1500 Mac Book so the LCD display can crack, especially if I have work to do.

You sound like one of those Right-Wing nutjobs who thinks the free market will fix EVERYTHING. But if it was up to the free market, every airline in America (or at least the majority of them) would've gone bankrupt years ago.

The problem is not that screening everyone is causing delays. The problem is that we're screening everyone. Why don't we just profile the passengers a little better and stop harassing the Breck Girl about her bottle of conditioner?

For all of those that complain about babies . . . . I guess they were born with body hair and skipped being one ... or maybe they are still one

Have you seen your checked in bags come out on the crousel looking like they've been through a meetgrinder? Have your checked bags with your medicine or valuable documents ever been lost if even for a few days?

I have plenty of times and I don't fly a lot. After one such absolutely nightmarish trip without my pills I swore to never ever EVER put them in the checked in bag. This is an oath I intend to keep and I don't care how high the terrorist threat is. One has to make some choices and the absolute security on planes is impossible to achieve unless you want to strip-search everyone.

And oh yeeh, I won't even consider
checking in things like my laptop. I'm not rich enough to buy a new one after every plane ride.

Give every passenger a clear plastic bag, about the same size as a bag that holds a loaf of bread. That's the carry-on bag. Passengers can carry whatever can fit in the bag. (Liquids, etc., would still be banned.) Everything else can be put into checked baggage.

Don't like that? Take the train.

Two ideas that circumvent a total ban:

One: They strictly limit the SIZE of the carry ons, and insist they go into (and stay) in overhead storage. All the lost/stolen arguments go out the window, as valuables are no more then 4 feet away from you at any given time.

Second: Why not have multiple lanes? An express lane (no bags, but allowing a book or mag., for instance), an electronics lane (laptops, cameras, etc.), and a lane for everyone else.

As for the issue of infants, any parent who flys with an infant is not only being inconsiderate of their fellow passengers but also irresponsible.

If you need to go out of town on business: find a relative or babysitter to watch the child.

If you are going on vacation with your baby: humans can't remember anything before the age of 3 or 4 (if you think you do, you've formed what psychologists call "false memories," where you were told a story so many times, you formed a memory based around the story) so save yourself some time and effort and get a babysitter.

If you are moving or traveling one way: I guess you DO have to take your baby if you are moving far enough away to merit air travel. But at least make sure your baby has taken a nap, eaten, and pooped before you get on the plane.

This thread really shows that it's not carry-ons that are dangerous -- it's some of the walk-ons.

The best way is to ban travelers in plane.
how ridiculous it is!!

"airlines and airports will try harder" to not lose or damage luggage? Do you live in Bizzaro World? They already claim that they're "not responsible" for the luggage in their possession. I got a suitcase back without a handle, but the airline was "not responsible" for that.

Yes, people ofter carry-on too much, but the airlines are to blame, since no one wants their luggage lost or damaged. Baggage handlers routinely root through suitcases, looking for anything valuable.

So I just shouldn't take my camera, iPod, jewelery with me? I should put my prescription medication in a checked bag?

You say that buisness travelers do't need to sork in the airport or on the plane. You've either never traveled for business or have a very leisurly work schedule. I have deadlines--what should I do? I can't stay in town longer, so if I can't work while traveling, I'll have to stay up half the night to get it done.

I have a friend who regularly flies somewhere (to see clients) for the day. If she couldn't work during her travel time, she'd lose 4-8 hours of work time that day. Guess we'll both pull an all-nighter.

For several years now, I haven't checked any baggage when I fly, and I won't be checking any when I fly next week.

What has happened to this country that we've lost our healthy skepticism of the government? The reason I don't check bags is because I don't want anyone, especially government officials, going through my stuff when I'm not around. And that's precisely what they are empowered to do under the regulations that have been promulgated since 9/11. Watch your stuff slide into that hole in the wall behind the desk and somewhere back there your stuff could be opened and examined without your consent or knowledge.

I personally find that offensive in several ways.

Beyond that, though, the suggestion that carry-ons should be banned is just patently stupid. Do you really want to keep people from bringing their books and iPods on the plane? Do you really prevent people from bringing medications on the plane? Do you really want to keep parents from bringing little distracting toys for their children on the plane?

Your vision of air travel is one in which a couple hundred extremely bored people listen to the shrill cries of small children for hours while stuffed into the cramped cabin.

No thanks.

Until we're naked at check-in, how do I know the guy next to me doesn't have a camelbak bladder full of who knows what taped to his back under his sweatshirt?

I can't wait until "Ben" has kids and his sister who has moved to Italy gets married 6 months later. Ben seems to have all the answers. He can't possibly be a parent.

Wow. Ban babies. I have two babies, and I believe they have a right to travel to see their grandparents, no? Parents do their best to keep the kids happy and quiet. Deal with it.

By the way, a plane is a flying bus, not a spa. If you want a quiet, zen experience, then drive or walk.

Ban the carry ons. Let the airline supply us with the wipes, diapers, soap and snacks. Maybe then we can all get back to letting the airline "take care" of its passengers a bit more and provide more security while doing so. Valuables? Mail them. You can even insure them for loss or damage.

Ah, Andrew, Andrew.

Nothing like a little mid-summer fun to save your terrorist-lovin, private property-hatin' commie skin.

Tomorrow it will be back to hating America for Cohen. For one day, Cohen just hates babies.

If airlines could be trusted to provide adequate staffing, I would agree that carry-ons could/should be banned with the exception of camera equipment and film, laptops, and supplies for babies.
But passengers would lose a lot more time than just that spent waiting for baggage post-flight. Electronic ticketing currently allows passengers without checked baggage to skip the check-in line and proceed directly to security. In recent years, I've never seen more than 2 to 3 staff at the coach-class baggage check counter, while at least 3 (usually more) counter staff positions sit empty. Meanwhile, the first class baggage check often has just as many staff as the coach counter, for about 1/20th of the number of people. (Are the airlines punishing us for not being rich? Sure feels that way.) As a result, it can take an hour or more just to check your bags, unless you're lucky enough to get curb-side check in. Imagine if everyone had to check everything! I don't see the airlines providing enough staff to make this work.

For everyone who says they refuse to check expensive or fragile items for fear of them getting broken or stolen, I would suggest buying better luggage and a lock. Problem solved!

You've obviously never traveled with several hundred or thousand dollars worth of camera equipment which could be damaged or destroyed by the checked baggage handling system, or a lot of undeveloped film of any speed which WILL get fogged (ruined) by the high-dose X-ray machines used to scan checked baggage.

If carry-ons are banned, then many of us who rely on cameras and laptops for our jobs may have to find alternate means of travel.

From united.com:
"United is not liable for damage to fragile items, spoilage of perishables, loss/damage/delay of money, jewelry, cameras, electronic/video/photographic equipment, computer equipment, heirlooms, antiques, artwork, silverware, precious metals, negotiable papers/securities, commercial effects, valuable papers, or other irreplaceable items and/or any item where a liability release was signed by the passenger."

Yup, check your computer and camera. When it's stolen, broken, or otherwise damaged, we don't care.

Sometimes, I think we in the affluent West have lost perspective on this. To the person who thought that eleven hours without music, magazines, etc. was torture, is it torture to be with your own thoughts for eleven hours? Take a sleeping pill.

People in Africa walk days to see their relatives or conduct business. We have the luxury, and I do mean luxury, of fast airplane flights.

I am guilty of taking my electronic toys on an airplane. But they are not a NECESSITY. They are an option. If you can't afford to buy a new laptop (so you don't want to check it), don't bring it at all. Do you think there are no computers in your destination city? Your company won't allow you access to a computer in their branch office?

Myself, I'm not fond of crying babies. But I also think that family ties are very precious. Let's be tolerant folks. Tolerant.

Why in this country do we always leap to the most restrictive and least advised solution in every crisis? This country is already leading the world in attempts to bubble wrap its citizens rather than let them face any risk, real or imagined, and, frankly, we aren't safer in anyway except on paper than our friends in Europe and Asia. In my opinion- there is a balance that has to be maintained between turning air travel into a police state and recognizing that certain risks will always exist. The percentage of successful flights with no problems throughout the history of flying, compared to the few instances (albiet tragic) where these sort of things have happened, really ought to be considered. Security is necessary but to take it to the extreme that it becomes a deterrent and you end up capsizing an entire industry. This may be exactly what the terrorists hope to do. If we let our terror of things control every aspect of our lives- they have already won. Let's work on a better technology for detection and not put undue burdens on the innocent traveller. Otherwise, I fully expect our air industry will fail and that those "taking the train" will be next on the list for the then precedented over-restrictions designed to for their perception of safety.

"The time passengers would save in security lines waiting to board planes is a lot longer than the time they currently save by avoiding the baggage carousel post-flight"

Thats a laughable comment. I fly from DCA often, I've never waited more the 10 minutes in security. I often wait 45 minutes plus at bag claim. With carry on luggage only I can be on Metro and halfway home by the time bags come up at the claim belt.

Also can you imagine a 15-hour transpacific flight without so much as a book? Or evena transcon flight? Or how about being stuck at ORD or MSP overnight due to weather delays without so much as toothpaste, deorderant and a change of clothes?

This talk of banning carry-ons is such an overreaction!

When I used to travel through Soviet Bloc countries, I kept a detailed inventory of everything in my luggage so that I'd have a starting place for recording the things that were stolen from me by underpaid security guards so they could eke out a living selling stolen travelers' goods on the black market.

An eerie sense of deja vu clings to me whenever I pack for a domestic flight these days. I've had a digital camera, computer equipment, and jewelry stolen from my checked luggage on various domestic trips, so I tend to pack anything I can't replace in my carry-on.

And because I live in an area with a small airport, my luggage frequently arrives a day after I do because the airlines don't seem to have enough space for cargo and passenger luggage. This happens quite often -- as often as 50% of the time during peak travel periods and happened to me and 25-30 fellow passengers traveling from ORD to RDU as recently as two days ago. So that means packing a day's worth of clothing and supplies in my carry-on as well. And because I'm a marathoner, it means always packing my marathon gear into carry-on bags in case my misplaced luggage doesn't arrive in a timely manner.

The carry-on luggage situation is complicated. 1) We can't trust the airlines to get our luggage on the plane much less to the designated destination; 2) for a variety of reasons, human beings (including TSA personnel) sometimes have trouble avoiding the temptation to take an item from luggage here and there because they like it or they need to sell it to make a decent living; 3) we're shoved like cattle onto planes and the items in our carry-on make us feel a little more comfortable and in control of our travel.

Solution: document the goods you travel with and adjust to the fact that we operate in a system that doesn't give a crap about us. Or talk with airlines and the TSA about the importance of creating trust relationships with travelers.

Less drastic solution: lock the overhead bins during flight (the liquid explosives scenario isn't carried out by remote). Limit what can be kept under the seat. Beverages for in-flight consumption must be brought on the plane in their original, sealed, condition.

Except for a flight I took 1 month after 9/11 (and 2 days after another plane crashed on Long Island), I've never waited in a security line longer than I've waited for my checked luggage to arrive. Of course, I do avoid flying at the peak times of day...

Ban babies? Tranquilize them? That's nonsense. And WJT, parents of "cute babies" are well aware of how awful their screaming is, they deal with it 24 hours a day. But sometimes they have to fly and the government making any law banning or limiting their flying because babies scream is a violation of their rights. And if an airline were to make a similar rule the revenue loss would hurt them (until another government bail-out). No, I guess we will simply have to exercise tolerance for our fellow human beings behaving naturally.

To the original point: airline security is nonsense. It's all smoke and mirrors to make those in charge look good. You want to stop terrorist attacks on airlines? Ban policies that incite people with nothing left to lose.

"For everyone who says they refuse to check expensive or fragile items for fear of them getting broken or stolen, I would suggest buying better luggage and a lock. Problem solved!"

When did you last fly? You can't put a lock on checked luggage since 9/11/01. Inspectors need access to your luggage and they will remove your lock by force if necessary. And have you ever sat at a window seat looking out at the handlers loading baggage? They THROW the bags! There ain't a hardshell suitcase hard enough, and enough packing cushy enough, to protect that blown-glass vase you're bringing back for your mom's christmas present (I know, you could have that one-of-a-kind vase shipped - - and it MIGHT arrive OK.) Not to mention that bottle of special something you're bringing back from overseas, that can't be shipped, and that you can't get in the U.S....
*sigh* - the terrorists are winning...

Remember, we're not allowed to lock our luggage anymore, either. So that's not a valid suggestion for protecting valuables.

To ingbermr:

I agree with your suggestion that we should like Africans stop flying and walk everywhere.

We can walk from the malaria swamp, to the deforested plain to the AIDS clinic with no medicine than back to teeming urban slums and then to the military prison.

Walking to the daily coup with our cholera baby on our back is a good solution.

You are right, we are spoiled in the West.

Everyone must travel naked.

You can kill someone with a pencil alot quicker than you can with toothpaste....

You sound like someone that does not travel by plane much, or your flights are all less than one hour? What about medicines needed during the flight? What about medicines you can't risk the airline delaying if they don't get your luggage there with you? What about the powerpoint presentation that you are going to spend a 14 hour flight working on? What about diapers? What about baby powder to put in the diapers? As usual, things are not black and white.

Yes, actually, I CAN imagine being stranded (in Atlanta) overnight and more without so much as a toothbrush.

What horror!!!

Get perspective folks. Soldiers are killed in Iraq, and perhaps they are raping and killing because of a month in 110 degress without showers. Hello. This complaining by affluent business travelers who have "deadlines".

Hello, and if you miss your "deadline" yes?What then? They are firing you? You are getting 1000 less sq ft in your super mansion in Fairfax?

Please, please, let's get perspective on this. 1.5 million people in China are evacuees from the hurrincane there. Children from Katrina are still not home yet. they are living with relatives in Houston and Atlanta.

STOP COMPLAINING about your laptops and perfume. Please, your quote-unquote suffering.... ya-da ya-da

I think we should just ban all Muslims from travelling. They are clearly all terrorists anyway. It will just save time and money if they are all sterilized.

Then God's Chosen People will rule the world... after we wipe out the Hindus, Buddhists, etc...

Too many rules. Too much wasted time. Airline travel is risky enough, even without terrorists. Spend the money tracking them down and take a chance on flying. Everyone's number is up someday, so why worry about it?

It would be better not to have to deal with all that stuff people carry on broad, I have witnessed bags falling out of the overhead and landing on someone's head, not fun at all let me tell you and all those bamboozles with laptops don't you get sick of that!

I'm shocked that after Richard Reed was nabbed, we weren't forced to fly barefoot.

Perhaps there should be a rule that we all fly naked, too. That should take care of the problem. Oh, except for all of that unscreened cargo in the hold.

Regarding the ban on carry-on luggage...

The airlines dont want to alienate their business travelers for whom the convenience is a big issue.

If carry-on luggage is banned, then there should be increased capability to timely deliver checked baggage. The penalties for failure should increase in both amount and scope. Of course, that should happen even if carry-ons are not banned. The penalties for not delivering check baggage has been eroded over time by both inflation and the continued drop in service from deregulation. The limits should be significantly increased.

If carry-ons are banned then the airlines and the government should take the risk of taking care of passengers when they are separated from their luggage.

If carry-ons are banned then the airlines will need to be liable for checked valuables that they now explicitly deny any responsibility.

I am prepared to survive for 24 hours without any assistance at all with my carry-on, though I would be somewhat dehydrated.

How about the following scenario? My first leg is cancelled due to maintenance problems. The flight I eventually take is delayed by weather and I am at the hub without a flight until the next morning. The airlines claim that since it is a weather delay (I disagree.... the maintenance issue was the causal delay but to no avail) and are under no obligation to do anything for me at all.

Three bins of both commuter aircraft covering six rows of 2 seats each are labelled "For Crew Use Only" on an aircraft with three crew. Not following the placard is a violation of the federal Aviation Regulations, despite the fact that it has nothing to do with the reasons the industry is regulated. The power of the law is put behind a stick-on label created for the convenience of the crew, with no regulatory or safety issue backing it.

Each airplane should be required to accomodate a set standard amount of carry-on luggage per passenger, no matter their frequent flyer status. The size of that allowance should accomodate the possible needs of the traveler and the industry and the regulators should pick up the risk of anything else.

I do believe the airlines should do more for the crew, just not use the regulations for it to be at the expense of the passengers.

The crew gets their luggage and their needs taken care of under their union contract.

Luggage can be locked with a TSA lock, available at most stores. However, they will and do steal things out of luggage.

Anyone who packs a cellphone, camera, laptop or IPod is asking to have it stolen.

The TSA is not your friend nor do they work for the passenger. We are simply "suppliers" of merchandise they are running low on.

None of this pouring out liquids makes us safer and we probably shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking it does.

You cannot ban carryons and how do books become a security risk? If airlines would handle baggage more securely people would have confidence their things would arrive.

WJY and Ben:
I can only assume that you're the overly self-important business traveler. You're the jerk that demands things of airline staff when you have no place or status to do so. It's probably your general bitterness and overall black and barren personalities that have left you with nothing in your life but pornography and your job.

Last time I checked, when I paid for my ticket, I also paid for the ability to bring an infant with me. In fact, the next time I fly, I'm going to borrow someone else's infant in addition to my own just to irritate you. I'll make sure that when you lean your seat all the way back into my lap (because you ARE the guy that always does that) I'll have my infant cry in your ear and leak a dribble of poo diretly on your balding head. You can huff and glare at me all you want, but I don't care. I don't know you, and don't care to.

If it were up to me, we would tranquilize jerks like you who put their carry-on in the bulkhead overhead when your seat is in row 28 (if you didn't do it with scotch already).

If you can't be bothered with the commoners in coach, then pay up for first class, or don't you rate that? If not then shut up, sit down, and enjoy the flight with the unwashed masses like the rest of us.

what does it take to separate fools from their laptops, or their infinite sense of entitlement ( it's too hard to find the baggage claim?). You know, there are these things called charters. If you can't tolerate a baby or leave your (endlessly fascinating) PowerPoints alone for a few hours, rent your own plane. Otherwise, deal with the rules like everyone else.

Instead of banning all carry ons, why not just ban electronics and liquids? any electronic device could be used as a trigger, even for things in the hold.

To: Analyst

Thank you. The voice of reason. Thank you.

No, I didn't mean by my posts that we should return to the Stone Age, nor that commerce should halt, nor that we should walk from Washington to Boston with water buckets on our shoulders.

What I meant is that we should have some gratitude that we have the resources to fly, to FLY at all, from city to city.

If lost luggage or crushed business suits are the price of flying, please remember, you are FLYING!! Think what that means. Think of people can't fly, think of the past, think of the poor, just, think.

Thank you for this opportunity, yes, thank you for this technology, this FREEDOM, to prsent my point of view.

I have various clear bags that I use for toiletries, makeup and the like when traveling with them. Saves a lot of time if I'm only bringing a carry-on. Why not develop something like that for carry-on bags? Yes, you wouldn't be able to put enough stuff for a five-day trip in an all-clear carry-on bag (I think), but I bet that bags for computers, cameras and other electronic equipment could be produced...along with bags providing enough room for books and the like.

For people who want to pack a rolling-suitcase carry-on? Maybe throw on a nominal extra fee ($10) and have a separate security line where someone goes through those bags by hand.

I'm sure there are tons of problems with these ideas. I'm just throwing them out because I think that trying to ban all carry-ons is 1) only going to lead to significantly more air rage; 2) is unrealistic in this era of frequent business travel, which, more and more, is what keeps airlines going; 3) is unrealistic in the case of parents traveling with small children; and 4) is a very uncreative solution. There are better tactics.

In addition to all that...call me cynical, but I think if we ban carry-ons, groups that want to blow up planes will find other ways of doing so. Eventually, someone will be able to design a bomb that can slip past checked luggage detectors. Modern-day hijackers seem plenty ready to die to further their causes. Banning carry-ons, at the end of the day, won't make us significantly safer. Thwarting these plots before they happen - as was the case here - will.

Sounds like an unintelligent knee-jerk reaction type advice.
Why don't we ban all bags for all public transportation or perhaps even in all public places so we can all be safe?

If we let those fanatics run our lives, they won and we lost.

Osama and his buddies must be laughing their assess off because the infidels are afraid of toothpaste and hair gel.

Give us a break will you!

No carry on equals business people (the bread and butter of the airlines) fly less, airlines lose money, and terrorists win. What a lame suggestion. They let this guy publish???

Strange as it might seem, I agree with the poster "Texas". It's true, those who want to blow up airplanes WILL devise a way to trigger explosives that are in checked baggage. If you can unlock your car door 20 feet away, why not detonate a bomb in the baggage section?

I'm surprised they have not done so already, and TSA/Homeland Security needs to be on this.

So checking stuff is not a total solution vs. carry-ons.

That said, I return to my original point, that flying is a privelege (and carries risk) not a RIGHT.

YOU try flying with children without a carryon. Even kids who aren't screaming babies need stuff on a plane. Good grief.

Touched a nerve with this one. Lots of anger out there. But consider this: aren't infants mostly liquid? They are already banned!!!!

I never had kids, but think that anyone who bellyaches about babies is an idiot.

When you fly, you obviously have a destination so why not give up your cameras and laptops for a couple of hours or more and send them ahead via FedEx or UPS, odds are they will arrive ahead of you anyway.

THis is ridiculous. There should be specific profiling for Middle Eastern Men under 35 and Muslim men/women. These are the people who will doing suicide bombings, not white or black business men/women, soccer moms, or little old ladys.

Oh, the duty-free shops are going to be collapsing -- you can't get into them before you check your bags, and at least 50% of the stuff they sell (liquor, cosmetics) is now banned from the cabin. I personally think this is an Islamic plot to stop us from using products of which they disapprove!

I've been waiting for this sentiment to come out...yeah, let's just completely violate the rights of anyone who happens to be Muslim or from a Middle Eastern country, or just happens to LOOK like they do. All that will do is A) mean they recruit "black/white businessmen/women or soccer moms" to start carrying out terrorist attacks. The case of the 'American Taliban' proves there are people willing to do it. There is a happy medium between screening every single man, woman and child who sets foot in an airport and harassing every person of a specific religious or ethnic group simply because of who they were born as. If we resort to that, the cliche is true, the terrorists will have won, and we WON'T be any safer. If you think there aren't 'good old fashioned Americans' who can be brainwashed/convinced/forced against their will to carry out terrorist attacks, you're just terribly naive.

To everyone who thinks all security problems would be miraculously solved by racial profiling, can you please wake up and remember what country we're living in? Not only have legal barriers been created to prevent racial profiling for a reason (civil liberties anyone?), but contrary to popular belief, it's NOT realistic to think that paying attention to and directing suspicion solely against those of Middle Eastern descent would solve all our problems. Being Middle Eastern is not a requirement of being a Jihadist. Caucasion Islamic extremists do exist and if your suggestions of profiling were adopted, guess what would happen? The terrorists, who do have some modicum of intelligence, would start directing their Caucasion members to carry out their plans, since Big Brother would no longer be paying any attention them, which leaves us right back at square one.

I am in agreement that some sort of change needs to made regarding carry-ons. Security issues aside, I am tired of waiting while passengers attempt to stuff overly large bags into the overhead compartment or being hit in the head as someone walks by with an enormous shopping bag. I don't think anyone will stop travelling for business if they have to check their bag. They really don't have any other alternative. Laptops and elctronics are another issue. Perhaps a seperate line for those carrying electronics and an "express line" for those who have minimal possesions? Toys and books remain a necessity for children, but let's not abandon the discussion because of that. Myself, I just hope they figure out a way for us to carry water.
Alma Lones
A Berkeley "leftest"

Create three lines for security, one for those with families and carry-on items, put them in first class to isolate the wonderful noise their cheerful children make; one line for singles who can't find partners and don't need carry-on luggage; and a third line for terrorists, and just lock them up once they go through the line.

Except for sensitive electronics (e.g. laptops and cameras) and true necessities (e.g. baby supplies and medical needs), I think this is a good idea.

That was my exact thought this morning. Why does anyone need to carry on anything besides ones purse, wallet and maybe a book. Beverages and entertainment can be provided on the planes. Same security screening of having to go through the detecters but without having to wait while so much baggage is rummaged through.

Have the people complaining about babies ever tried earplugs? I wear them on most flights ever without crying babies on them. (The ambient noise level in an airplane cabin is pretty high -- I wouldn't be surprised if flight attendants develop hearing loss over time.)

If we took one poster's suggestion to transquilize EVERYBODY they could fit a lot more of us on, stack us like cord wood! Actually it probably wouldn't be that different from how it already feels in coach...

Finally, to those suggesting driving or taking the train instead of flying, perhaps they could tell me when the next Amtrak leaves Union Station for Paddington or Victoria Stations?

Has anyone considered that, for government travelers, it may be ILLEGAL to check or ship a laptop? If it contains sensitive or classified information, it's supposed to be under your control at all times. No checking, no shipping. The people who say carry-ons are a "privilege" and want us all to travel shoeless in paper gowns and bored out of our skulls would probably be the first to scream about the ineffeciency and taxpayer cost when government employees have to charter planes everywhere, or pay for the longer trips required by driving.

Bad idea, for the most part. But I would love to see anything the size of a roll-on banned. Hate seeing people stupidly trying to stuff them into overheads because they don't want to wait a few minutes for a baggage carousel. Gee, who died and left them so damned important that the rest of us must have our stuff crushed by their bagful of dirty drawers.

I have a piece of medical gear, a CPAP machine, which I can't sleep without. It NEVER leaves my sight, no matter what. If I can't carry it on, along with all my Rx meds, then I'll drive, even coast to coast.

Wish I could get big-city newspaper pay to write foolish things like this Cohen guy. He needs to take a shave too.

Humm, land of the free and home of the brave..........seems like to me we have become neither.

Let's also face an unpleasant fact. When was the last time someone other than a Muslim male between the ages of 20 and 40 hijacked anything and tried to blow it up? OK, maybe now some Muslim females maybe.

You could only laugh (to keep from crying) when the TSA made my 90 year old mother in a wheelchair take off her shoes.

Looks like I'll be putting even more mileage on my gas guzzling SUV.

Just ban pilots and airline attendants - make flights remote controlled. Have all passengers sign a waiver form - "we are not responsible for what happens to you, fly at your own risk."

The comment about multiple security lines for different types of passangers makes sense. Those who wish to eschew carry on's should be rewarded for doing so. Those who insist on carry ons should be allowed to have them, but should not cause inconvenience to anyone but themselves. People with infants get special treatment in the boarding process anyway, why not in security lines? If those standing in line with carry on's see others breezing through security without them, it will be food for thought. Just how important is this item I'm carrying on?
For those with valuable cameras and laptops, the airlines could create a space aboard the aircraft specifically designated for such carry ons, not accessable to baggage handlers or to passangers. They could be turned in upon boarding, like First Class passangers' hats and coats. Of course, those passangers would have to wait until the other unincumbered passangers had deplaned to recover their valuables.
The airline limit on suitcase size carry on's, duffle bags, and other items should have been enforced long ago, along with the rule prohibiting the two suitcase sized carry on's brought on by those passangers who can't resist abusing the system.

I am jumping for joy that they are banning carryons. Why because i am tired of people packing everything and trying to carry it on the plane with them. If you are afraid of losing your bag dont fly. I would like to also say goodbye to all those unimportant people who think that talking on your phone before and after the flight makes you some type of big wig. For once i can enjoy my flight without mindless chatter on a phone. And be seated and ready to go ahead of time.

I like the idea of banning carry-ons because of the extent to which people abuse the practice. The airlines are complicit in this, as they permit travelers to stow bulging carry-on suitcases in the overheads.

The problem, though, is a matter of degree. People keep saying that they need their laptops, cameras, books, magazines, iPods, baby diapers and toys, etc., and it makes sense that these items should qualify as carry-ons. The problems arise when travelers are bringing a week's worth of clothing, reading matter, bed linens, etc., and stowing them in overhead compartments so that they don't have to go to baggage claim.

There is a happy medium, folks; it's not all or nothing. If you think about it, you can get a lot of electronic gear into a standard-sized expandable brief case. Baby accouterments generally fit into tote bags or diaper-bag-type carriers. Reading material and medications can be packed efficiently into large handbags or canvas totes.

None of these items needs to be left behind or checked. They just need to be carried in modest-sized baggage. That way, there is room for everyone's carry-on stuff, and nobody is hogging the overhead bins.

Also, I like the idea posted earlier about having different security lanes for people with different kinds of carry-on items. If there were an express line for people bringing only a book or magazine, think of how many people might be inspired to travel light just in order to breeze through security. And if people with electronics had their own lines, they wouldn't have to worry about film getting ruined but they also wouldn't be clogging up the lines in front of people carrying little or nothing.

To Richard:

You ask: "When was the last time someone other than a Muslim male between the ages of 20 and 40 hijacked anything and tried to blow it up"

Remember Tim McVeigh?
Profiling is not the answer.

No wonder we are losing the war in Iraq and the war on terror. During WWII, hundreds of thousand soldiers gave their lives for their country. Millions of others were willing (or were called upon) to risk theirs.

Even those at home made sacrifices. Goods were rationed, taxes tripled to help pay for the war, new cars and tires were nonexistent, etc.. And we aren't willing to give up carry-on bags. Fortunately few of you here were around in 1942 or we would be posting in German or Japanese.

Who started all this beating up on people with babies? I think they are really pretty cute most of the time and rarely cry the whole trip - OK, less commonly the whole trip.

You want a long trip? Sit next to some slob who left his deodorant at home - last month! Or maybe sardined in seat B between two fat chicks.

There are worse things than being blown up.

I travel frequently and can sympathize with some of the comments expressed here. That said, my issue is not with whether or not I should be allowed to bring toothpaste, eyedrops and some lipstick when I travel. Instead, my concern is that, in casting such a wide net and with no discernable increase in resources, the gov't isn't focusing on more likely threats to me and my fellow travelers. I can always buy more lipstick.

wtwiii, I like your suggestions, they make a lot of sense.

Just_me, I'm willing to make sacrifices if I can see that my sacrifice is doing some good (as was easy to see for those material sacrifices during WWII). I think the problem here is that we continue to lose freedoms and not many of us necessarily feel any safer for doing so.

"When was the last time someone other than a Muslim male between the ages of 20 and 40 hijacked anything and tried to blow it up."

Um, anyone remember Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols? Anyone ever heard of the IRA? Do you think these individuals wouldn't blow up planes in addition to buildings? Racial profiling is NEVER the answer. As soon as you try, the equation will change.

I wonder how often Andrew Cohen, wealthy lawyer that he is, travels in first or business class ... thus getting priority treatment when it comes to checked baggage, not to mention all the little extras they give to passengers who aren't confined to steerage. I wear contact lenses and I must take solution with me on an airplane or I can't wear my lenses. If a flight is more than a couple hours, I also consider a bottle of water a necessity, not a luxury. ... Instead of cracking down on the 99 percent of law-abiding passengers, it's time to be sensible. We know the profile of the would-be terrorist. Look at the people who were arrested yesterday in London. What did they have in common? Anyone fitting a terrorist profile should be screened from top to bottom. The rest of us should face sensible restrictions and random full screenings. Eliminating all carryons is nonsense. Why not just hit us all over the heads before we board and then just dump our unconscious bodies on the plane? They can give us smelling salts when we land. Would save lots of money on peanuts.

Wow...

*checking the phases of the moon chart*

Yep, we just had a full moon. Sure explains some of the behavior here...

:-)

As a musician with an expensive instrument; I don't know what I what do if they didn't allow me to carry it on with me.

Locking luggage used to be the answer, now that tsa cuts nearly every lock, then things are going to walk right out of your checked luggage, ipods, laptops, cameras, all things that we keep with us now. and of course no federal employee would ever steal.

In WWII we killed 10 % of the German population and burned every city in japan to the ground, and followed up with nuclear weapons for good measure. The only way we will be safe period, is the physical annhilation of the muslim terror states and the expullsion of all muslims from europe and north america. We are in a war to the knife. Scum like Cohen should be spat on in public

I like the suggestions made by wtwiii.
They make a lot of sense and I would be very happy to go along if they are implemented.

these are very common-sense solutions that don't require the all-or-nothing approach advocated by many others here.

Unfortunately, I'm willing to bet that going for common-sense solutions is not what will end-up happening in practice.

Creating different types of security lines, and separate onboard storage for valuable items checked at the gate will likely be rejected by TSA and airlines as too expensive.

Apart from the baby rant (anybody here who has not been a baby?) and the completely ignorant post of Mr. Ben, we are still left with the problem of the risks posed by having to scan a great number of huge carry-ons.

To reduce the risk posed by the carry-ons, we need to address the valid, legitimate reasons people bring these carry-ons, i.e. we can not entrust their valuables (laptop, cameras, jewelry, etc.) to the airlines for the reasons competently stated above. (waiting for the baggage at the end of a flight is a minor annoyance which I am happy to impose on myself and my fellow travelers :-P )

If we are in agreement that certain items (especially electronic) carry great risks to the safety of flight, there are a few solutions, I can see.

Short term solution: I applaud wtwii suggestions of a separate bin for valuables to be locked during flight. Also institute preferred-traveler-security lines which can move faster and reduce number of travelers in the regular security lines. These could be used for low risk travelers, such as for example: travelers with security clearances (certain government employees/contractors/military), frequent business travelers who have gone through a federal security check or travelers with no carry-on. Other low security risk travelers could also be identified (moms with babies? naked folks ;-).

Mid term solutions: Regulations requiring airlines to reimburse passengers for lost, stolen, damaged or delayed valuables. If the comments in this section are any indication, a significant number of people wouldn't object to checking their laptops and cameras if they can be assured that these items will arrive undamaged and on time.

Long term solution: To cut down on domestic (intra continental) airtravel, invest in high speed trains criss crossing the continent, make train travel economical (maybe even support with federal funds in the interest of national safety?)

In airports install explosives checking scanners at all security lanes, invest in research to improve the speed of scanning and to lower the number of false negatives.

this is just what the airlines will want forever, no liquids, and no using electronica onboard. So I have to buy a $2 soda and a $4 beer for safety sake, anything to increase the margins. Also books and magazines, they'll rent them to, and here comes the headphone charge for the in flight entertainment again. Sheesh, they really hated it when every laptop came with a dvd player, rather than watch their horible, edited, b grade hollywood movies and tv shows. I'll just keep taking my flask with a little makers mark on board, and see if they stoop me.

Because flying sucks so much I need my book, my water, my pillow, my scarf, my noise reducing headphones, my ipod and my digital video player ALL OF WHICH FIT IN A SMALL BACKPACK small enough to even give me room to spread out my feet when stored under the seat in front of me. I don't want to hear crying babies or the conversations of people around me while I try to rest on a 18+ hour flight to Australia. Not everyone wants to watch "Failure to Launch" 4 times on one trip. Some of us want silence while we are on the plane. This is hard to find and must be brought with you.

Travelling dehydrates you. I now am supposed to bother my neighbour ever few minutes while I get up to have water?

What about my jewellery? I would have to check that too, leaving the risk that it would be stolen. I don't have the crown jewels but they are special to me.

People's car keys now have electronic devices on them too. Are they supposed to check those as well and risk being locked-out of their ride if their luggage is lost?

OK, my Momma told me not to get into the racial profiling argument.

Racial profiling is unamerican, and "un" a lot of other things for sure.

Some things racial profiling also are: reasonable, practical, cost effective, and, in many ways, rather more "fair" than the alternative.

Convenience store clerk reports that two white guys stuck up the Jiffy. What are the cops supposed to do, round up three black guys and an Asian to throw into the lineup to avoid racial profiling?

There needs to be some reasonability to all of this.

The average business traveler carries a laptop worth over $1500 in hardware alone (and the airlines will not assume liability for more that what, 500.00?). In addition to that, they usually also carry cell phones.

Ipods and laptops owned by private individuals are a luxury, for certain, but unless airlines are willing to assume more liability for lost/stolen/broken laptops (and the potentially sensitive information contained therein), or unless other companies are willing to shoulder the financial risk (and the loss of reputation, should a laptop containing information that shouldn't be lost, be, well, lost in transit), there's going to remain a strong reluctance towards checking these items.

And rightfully so.

To Dan:

Timothy McVeigh did not hijack anything. All the 9/11 hijackers were Islamic fascists. All the people arrested in the London bombings were Islamic fascists. All the people arrested yesterday in England were Islamic fascists. Richard ("the shoe bomber") Reid was an Islamic fascist.

I'm sick of this liberal whining about profiling. It is common sense to subject Muslims (particularly men) to greater screenings at airports than 10-year-children, 80-year-old women and 45-year-old soccer moms. Yes, terrorists "could" recruit people who don't fit the profile to do their dirty work. But I doubt there are enough blonde-haired blue-eyed Islamofascists out there to form a group big enough to bring down an airplane. And nobody's saying that non-Muslims shouldn't be screened. Just that Muslims should be subjected to extra screening.

As long as extremists are using Islam to wage war against western values, we have no choice but to treat all Muslims as potential terrorists. It's sad but true. Better a little profiling than to tell grandma not to bring her eye drops on to the plane or to force business people to check $2,000 laptops in luggage or to ask someone to sit on an 10-hour flight without even a bottle of water. The Islamic fascists started this war, not us.

While we are banning babies could we also ban fat people? Especially people who think they should be able to put the arm rests up and have their thighs spill over into my seat. I think that would be the greatest thing America could do to solve the worlds problems.

Profiling won't help as one poster suggested (did you not actually see Timothy McVeigh and his friend Terry Nichols?). And we should limit what we carry on, for sure. But I, like others, am leery of the airline handling vauluables which I need on particular trips. How about creating lockdown mechanisms on the overhead bins? Everything but the clear plastic bag approved items get zip tie locked (or similar sealing mechanism)in the bag, which goes into the overhead bins, which get locked from the flight deck. No cellphones, pagers, or laptops can then be accessed to blow anything up. Sure it will be a pain to enforce, but so is every other idea that's been floated.

What's with banning books on some flights though? Afraid someone will bludgeon us to death with Tolstoy?

It took a threat to one's God-given right to carry on's and overhead space to begin a realistic assessment of the threat of terrorism to aviation.

The current carry on and liquid debate, notwithstanding, there has never been any real effort to address all of the relatively easy methods of destroying a plane in flight.

Much of the discussion has centered on carry on's versus checked bags. What about cargo? What about the airport employees walking around planes?

The security to date has more to do with convincing you that you are safe and avoiding economic damage from planes crashing into buildings.

Wake up and smell the coffee folks!

Personally, I would prefer getting somewhere alive with no laptop than dead with a laptop. But, there are other options and there may be technical solutions that can be address concerns.

Let's discuss without name calling and get our government to do what we elected them to do - protect us first.

Just imagine how many more babies we'll have all OVER, much less on flights, when we all start flying naked....Oy

Profiling won't solve the problem but anyone who says it won't help is just delusional. There is not a massive network of Timothy McVeighs in the world trying to hijack planes and fly them into buildings or blow them out of the sky. There is a group called al Quida. And, while they may have a handful of members who look like Beaver Cleaver, most look like Richard Reid. Political correctness has no place in our national security.

Increase the price to fly. Really - make it expensive. It would cut down on bargian/low margin/money losing air travelers, airlines might start making some money again due to the higher prices, and they might actually start competeing with each other on value added services rather than price.

Price wars are alwaysw losing propositions. Period.

Oh, BTW, I almost forgot....

If I were a truck rental operation I would be very cautious about white guys named Timothy.

Given the, ahem, "customer service" that airlines produce these days and their amazing ability to find a way to charge you for anything, does anyone know:

- Did the people who ended up checking their carry-on bags get charged for checking an extra bag?

- Did the airlines give more than a small cup of water to the people who had to wait extra-long in security and now didn't have their own water/drinks with them?

- Did the airlines out of the UK that banned books, etc, in the cabin stock up on any extra magazines or eliminate the charge for in-flight entertainment?

I don't know the answers to these questions - does anyone?

Racial profiling doesn't work I hate to tell you. Have you seen your islamic fascist Reed or any muslims not on TV? If they are going to blow themselves up shaving their beards and putting on some jeans isn't a large burden. They will look just as white as you and then where will we be having harrassed tens of thousands of people looking for one? Racial profiling always sounds like a good idea as long as you don't fit the profile.

Brilliant, econ! Let's make air travel more unbearable AND more expensive! So when the Islamic fascists blow up planes they'll only be a quarter full! You're a genius!

I think Ben's parents must have always left him home with a babysitter for weeks on end, or he wouldn't be such a bitter old grump. Newflash, Ben, some of us actually like our babies. Anyway, it's apparent to nearly all of us that you are the one with the excess baggage. Can't we save everyone a lot of grief and just ban joyless, solipsistic misanthropes from airplanes, as well as all other public places?

Pick a different user-name if you're going to attack my position. Typical liberal, not even clever enough to choose his/her own name.

Nobody said to target only Muslims with beards. If they have Muslim names or come from a Muslim country, they should be subjected to additional screening. Period.

How do we know that racial profiling "doesn't work," fake Boston? We haven't tried it at airports. And it seems that profiling worked pretty well in stopping the planned Aug. 16 attack. Do you think the British authorities just randomnly happened upon all those Muslim crazies? Something tells me they targeted Mosques and other places where these people hang out. They engaged in perfectly legitimate profiling. And that should take place at all airports.

Nudity isn't the answer as people can ingest/hide things on their person - unless we all are properly x-rayed and have a chemical analysis screening. Never fear, though, I am sure for a small fee the airlines will sell everything a traveler would need right on the plane.

Terror suspects arrested, questioned or sought by British police:

Abdul Waheed, fka Don Stewart-Whyte, 21
Umar Islam, fka Brian Young, 28
Shazad Khuram Ali, 27
Waseem Kayani, 29
Assad Sarwar, 26
Ibrahim Savant, fka Oliver Savant, 25
Amin Asmin Tariq, 23
Waheed Zaman, 22
Muhammed Usman Saddique, 24
Abdul Muneem Patel, 17
Tayib Rauf, 22
Maroof Rauf, 19
Abulda Ahmed Ali, 25
Cossor Ali, 23
Nabeel Hussain, 22
Tanvir Hussain, 25
Umair Hussain, 24
Assan Abdullah Khan, 21
Arafat Waheed Khan, 25
Adam Osman Khatib, 19
Mohammed Shamin Uddin, 35

Number of suspects named "Mohammed": 2
Number of suspects named "Abdul," "Abdulla" or "Abdula": 4
Number of suspects named "Hussain": 3
Number of suspects named "Ali": 3
Number of suspects named "John": 0
Number of susepcts named "Michael": 0
Number of suspects named "Steve," "Stephen" or "Steven": 0
Number of suspects who practice Islam: 21
Number of suspects who practice Christianity: 0
Number of suspects who practice Judaism: 0

Gee, I guess there's no rational profile of the potential terrorist, is there?

Banning carry ons isn't really a plausible solution. Lets be realistic. Carry ons are already searched. Individuals are already profiled and pulled aside at airports. What more can we do? Stop all people of Middle Eastern decent from travelling? Thats absurd. But, unfortunately, its what many right wingers are striving for. NEWS FLASH: NOT ALL ARABS ARE TERRORISTS. We can't feed into right wind propaganda that leads you astray from this principle. If you take a run of the mill WASP and subject them to the discrimination that many minorities in this country, including Arabs, are subjected to, then I guarantee that they would be singing a different tune. Its called lack of perspective - living in a bubble.

Lets focus more attention on detecting and educating screeners, TSA agents and the like on the newest terrorist methods for destroying aircraft. Lets place more emphasis on isolating and indentifying known terrorists and educating ourselves on the pipeline creating new ones. We can search and even discriminate (the legality of which is questionable), but without that knowledge, how can we possibly know what we're looking for? Better yet, how can we even think we will stop it?

Strangely, everyone was safe with their carry on liquids for months before the governments did their roundup of the potential terrorists... That even though they wern't sure of all the details at the time.

This is no more than government sponsored fear mongering as usual. And to have the ban in place for domestic flights inside the US is just plain stupid, and at best an indictment of poor a job DHS does where the rubber hits the road.

I cringe at the thought of what travelers will have to go through once the first plot comes to light of swallowed explosives. I can see the TSA telling everyone that we're supposed to 'bend over and spread em' in some idiotic notion that this will somehow make us safer.

The fact is the terrorists don't even need to complete an attack, all they need to do is provide reason for the morons at TSA to throw up yet more impediments to travel in the name of "security" to win. So far, they seem to be doing a good job of it.

None of this makes me feel any safer, nor should it in reality. What it does do is make me feel like I have a governement that can't do it's job that would rather dupe and scare the public it's supposed to be "serving".

You may laugh at the "butt bomb" but the next thing you know you're going to be lucky if all they want to do is xray you 6 times before you get on a flight.

-G

Banning all carryons would destroy the airline industry. They rely on business travellers, who must have their laptops with them, both for work reasons and to prevent damage to thousands of dollars of equipment.

I for one would not travel if this rule was in effect - there would be no reason to go on a trip if I couldn't work when I got to my destination.

TA,

Nobody says that people of Middle Eastern descent should be prohibited from flying. Just that they should be (particularly if they are males between certain ages) subjected to extensive searches. I am not a right-winger by any stretch. I am pro choice, pro gay rights and pro common sense. And profiling airline passengers is just plain common sense.

At some point restricting carry-on baggage will be the death knell of the airline industry.

Don' tell me that people will be willing to put up with this type of restrictions over the long haul:

-cameras for vacationers
-laptops and briefcases for business travelers
-medications
-basic human comforts-food, fluids, baby needs, pillows

It's ridiculous to expect people to take long-haul flights without basic necessities. and the airlines have time and time again proved unwilling to provide these for passengers.

the consequence will at some point be mayhem-"Snakes on a Plane" will have nothing on the reality-or people will choose local destinations and ANY alternative to air travel.

Somehow I do not think that the mighty "business lobby" that runs things in this country will allow Blackberries, cell phones or laptops to be banned.

Airlines will be required to provide toothpaste, mouthwash, contact lens solution, shaving cream, etc. and bottled water for free. Sick or defective people should not fly so no take along medicine.

Airlines can also provide entertainment in the form of singing and dancing stewards and stewardesses (now called "flight attendants") or a karyoke machine or conduct sing-alongs. (The number of bottles of beer on the wall will be based on average flying time point-to-point. Wouldn't it be cool to reach zero just you pull into the gate!)

You don't need a purse or briefcase, all you need are your papers and a credit card and photo id. (No clear plastic bags lest the terrorist try to suffocate the entire plane.)

Babies will either be stowed in lockable, soundproof overhead compartments or the plane will gently rock from side to side to ease them to sleep at the airline's discretion.

Any other stupid ideas Andrew? At least you got some comments for a change, I thought you had lost all of your readers.

I think a lot of these posts show what's wrong. Everyone has a bloated sense of entitlement these days. No one is willing to understand special circumstances.

Yes, business travellers need to carry laptops. Yes, babies do need to fly. Yes, I would like to bring some music and a book for my trip. Why can't people understand that in the same flight there is going to be Joe Businessman who has a deadline and hasn't seen his family in 2 weeks sitting next to Suzie Singlemother who is flying with her child to go on her first vacation in 4 years, and spend some quality time with said child so he/she doesn't end up being a drug dealer? It is ridiculous to think that your needs are the only needs that matter.

Also, in that same flight there are going to be people of various financial levels. There are people who saved for a year to buy that plane ticket, and who cannot necessarily buy a $4 bottle of water to wash down their $2 bag of pretzels.

I'm not sure how I feel about the multiple security lines. Most of the people carrying laptops are going to be business people who perhaps are trying to get a connecting flight? I have a feeling that the "express" lane will be about as effective as HOV lanes - the same ol' people who do it now are going to do it then. People would rather do it their way and complain than have to do without things that they feel are necessary.

As for those that complain about overstuffed overhead compartments. I have gone on long-weekend trips before where I've taken my rolling carryon with me. It is smaller than the regulated size. However, I thought at the time I was doing the rest of you a favor, by carrying on my one piece of luggage, that is less time the handlers have to spend emptying the plane and carting bags, so that the larger suitcases can be brought to the carousel faster.

I'm still lol at Ben who suggests we make sure babies "take a nap, eat, and poop before boarding the plane." Does he think that parents are forgetful and don't tell/make/encourage their infants to nap, eat and poop?

"Darn it, I forgot to feed the baby! and not only that, I forgot to make him poop!"

"C'mon, Jr...if you don't go now, it's going to be enema time"

Agree fully with a total an on carry-on baggage. Laptops and fancy camera equipment can be packed. If it's the rule with no exceptions, everyone will get used to it.

As the seats get more cramped and they cram more people into coach; and as they take away inflight meals, and reduce the entertainment, and now as they talk of banning hand luggage, why don't they just go all the way and set airplanes up like cattle cars. That seems to be where this trend is going... just have a perforated floor for excreta, standing room only to maximise the space available. "C'mon- be reasonable: if you could move your arms, you might be able to detonate a bomb; now stand still so you don't disturb the people AROUND you." Why fly at all?

Why not require people to store their carry-ons in the overhead bins and LOCK them during the flight. Allow nothing personal outside the bins except reading material. You wouldn't lose valuables, but no one could assemble a bomb on board either (or have other weapons accessible that might have slipped through).

No comment about where to out the babies (just kidding...)

Ah yes, ban carry-ons so I can't carry on my "luxurious" medications that keep me alive. They have to be kept in a climate-controlled area or else they lose their effectiveness, so checking them is out because cargo holds are not climate-controlled. And if they were, the fact that the meds were checked means they will be lost, or more likely stolen. So I can spend my whole business trip in the emergency room. Great idea!

Sorry, addendum: my meds are quite bulky. They take up much more room than a purse or small briefcase.

Banning carryons is not a solution to anything. There are certain items with value that people need when they travel for business or on vacation. And these items cannot put in checked luggage because it is simply not safe - especially now that you're not supposed to lock your luggage. If we ban carryons, the terrorists are the only winners because they have forced us to change our way of life. We can better protect our way of life if we intercept the terrorists' phone calls, etc. and subject passengers fitting a terrorist profile to extensive pre-flight screening. If we want something that's 100 percent effective, let's just ground all airplanes for all time. Just what the Islamic crazies want.

Boston,

I would offer that profiling is human nature, not common sense. EVERYONE profiles, whether we like it or not. Even you. The legality of the GOVERNMENT profiling U.S. citizens is the issue. I would also offer that profiling and discriminating, while similar, are two different evils. If you read my post, I already conceded that profiling happens at airports. But what I have issue with is the weakening of civil liberties afforded us by the Constitution. That is what "extensively searching" a person who fits a profile does.

Why stop at banning carryons? What else would the terrorists like us to do to make them less likely to blow us up? Maybe we should all convert to Islam, force women to wear veils and revoke all our constitutional rights? Will that make them happy? Perhaps we should help them destroy Israel? I mean, all this terrorism really is our own fault. Isn't that what Andrew Cohen and friends are always telling us? If only we could find ways to make the crazies love us we could travel safely. (Oh wait, they'd just find some other excuse to hate us. Never mind.)

I am a frequent business traveler, and I always check my luggage and carry on only my shoulder bag that has my computer, novel, hand helds, and work papers. (By the way, in 20 years of business travel, I've never had anything stolen, but them I'm not an idiot who flies with valuables.) I think people can live without their lotions, etc., for a few hours. Goodness, put them in your checked bags. Furthermore, I suggest that people be limited to one personal carry-on that can be searched quickly, which will speed up the security check (which has never been that bad for me except in one instance when I lost my mind and scheduled business travel the Friday before Memorial Day.) You know, if a few people are inconvenienced, so what? We could stand a few less morons flying around. They can take Greyhound or drive their car.

This discussion is very confusing. Here's a quick summary.

Babies on airplanes are a threat to national security. Carrying a laptop is a major threat to aviation, and anyone with a laptop is a terrorist. If you want to travel with personal items, you shouldn't be travelling. You could use TSA luggage locks, but it doesn't matter because your luggage will be lost, stolen, or destroyed anyway. All people who look like Muslims are terrorists, and so is everyone else. As you travel with no real purpose other than quiet meditation for a few hours, you should feel grateful because of Hurricane Katrina, World War II, and people walking in Africa.

Did I miss anything?

TA,

There is NOTHING illegal about profiling at airports. The U.S. Supreme Court has definitely ruled that the safety concerns at airports justify considerable government conduct that would never be permitted outside of the airport context. All the government would need to subject Muslim travelers to additional screening is a rational basis ... and any rational person knows that most of the potential terrorists out there are Muslims. And even if a heightened level of scrutiny was required by the courts, security concerns would surely justify airport profiling of potential terrorists. Don't hide behind the law. Just because it's hurts the ACLU's delicate feelings doesn't mean it's illegal.

I can't believe how ridiculous most people are -

This goes for some of the people here - anyone who had anything bad to say about flying with babies - who do you think you are? If we were all more tolerant, these 'Islamic fascists' (not my term) would not have the need to blow up planes.

This also goes for some of the things we now have to deal with - at least in the short -term- while flying. Is not silly to not be able to have a newspaper or a book? Sometimes the only time people have to read a book - for fun- is the time they spend on a plane. How unique - reading - if people did it more, they learn something - might be more tolerant of others. There has been a gross overreaction - hopefully with time, whoever decides what can go in the cabin and what cannot go in the cabin will become rational.

And people - whether you fly drive walk take the train or levitate there is an inherent risk in just getting up every day. That being said, none of the above forms of travel will guarantee a safe and live arrival at your destination. You are still much more likely to die driving to a destination than taking a plane to one - even if we are allowed to take drinks on a plane.

I am guilty of trying to bring more on as carryon luggage than I should - maybe I should have shipped all of the pottery and other valuable stuff I bought on my trip overseas - to tell the truth - a couple pieces still broke. For a long time, I have tried to minimize my carryons, though. It is not fair to say what it is right for everyone. I do think the separate lines at security would be a good thing - I bet they would find that it was time-efficient, as well.

I hope we all get past this in a few weeks and get back to some kind of normalcy. Overall, I find most of it all to be completely irrational.

I posted earlier and I hope it was read as logic since I haven't seen any backlash. However, I have to comment again on the behavior on this list. Have we lost the ability to disagree using logic instead of name calling? Are our arguments really so weak that lashing out is the only answer? I also would like to address the various profiling ideas. I have an Iranian last name in the way many of you I'm sure have European last names. I'm blonde, blue eyed, pale and Catholic... how do you profile that? My relatives are similar- you really can't judge based on looks- nor should you. As for Holy Warrior's comments- I sincerly hope that was sarcasm. I can't believe it was allowed to idly float by! That attitude is the very one that those who carry out these schemes use to justify their behavior. I mean if its valid logic for us to wipe out an entire region and people because of their religion and affiliations- then I guess its perfectly logical for them to decide that they can do the same thing to us. In that case- how can we possibly claim that they are wrong? You've just agreed and vaildated their actions! I'm so disturbed by that thought process...

Shocked says: "If we were all more tolerant, these 'Islamic fascists' (not my term) would not have the need to blow up planes."

Let's just give them all a big hug and all this terrorism will go away! Come on everyone! Group hug! (Gee and I was almost ready to vote Democratic this year. It's people like you, Shocked, who keep me voting for Republicans.)

Gee, Boston, I'm not Muslim but I do have brown hair and eyes. Come to think of it, my skin is sort of olive too. Since I don't have "blond hair and blue eyes," would you like to see me targeted for profiling too? Why are we even calling this profiling? It's euphemism for racism, plain and simple. Justify it all you want, but it is what it is.

Hmm, if you have brown hair, brown eyes, are traveling on a Saudi Arabian passport and are carrying the Koran with you, yes you should be subjected to greater screening. If you have brown hair, brown eyes, live in Salt Lake City, have a U.S. passport and are reading Entertainment Weekly, then, no, you probably shouldn't be singled out for special treatment. It's called common sense -- something that you apparently don't possess.

airlines and airports will try harder? Less luggage will get lost?

Oh, teriffic satire, really funny. And you believe in the tooth fairy, too, right?

Your suggestion will turn the luggage rooms into even more of a shopping bazarre for baggage handlers than they already are. But, hey, you want to send your camera through that? Your first, sir.

Right On Dude!

To Connecticut:

You put your finger right on the issue "I for one would not travel if..."

I for one would not travel if.

Why are we traveling? We can communicate by video conferencing and many other methods. In this age of global warming, again, I queston ALL, ALL of these whiners about their laptops, cameras, perfume, etc. You are NOT thinking creatively.

To the musician with an expensive instrument, BOY, do I have sympathy with you!!! I once took a keyboard to Canada. But, again, whatever your instrument, wasn't there one in your destination city? You couldn't rent or borrow, i.e., arrange in advance?!! Think ahead, think creatively?

What I see is a lot of people on this list who value their time and convenience more than the environment, safety, or other people's needs.

The idea of different lines for different requirements (electronics, etc) is a good one, although challenging to implement. And in a crisis, as yesterday, it would be
"whooosh" anyway. Bottom line is, people need to stop and think about their priorities, and an 11-hour flight with no books, magazines or movies might contribute to that (sorry, couldn't resist!!)

While the suggestion seems sencible, non all travelers use carry one for the things you say.

There are lots of professionals who travel. What about photographic equipment, that I for one travel with? I would modifiy your suggestion and make it so that anyone with carry on has a terrible wait and has to have it inspected very very carefully. I for one sometimes need to carry things on either because of their extreem value or fragility.

no, i have blue eyes, short cropped blond hair, very white skin that burns in the sun easily, read the Bible daily, and I just blew up a building in Oklahoma with a bomb I made out of diesel fuel and fertilizer. it was easy -- the guards were all looking for brown people carrying around the Koran.

Are you people really serious about the babies?!?! I totally agree that people nowadays have this bloated sense of entitlement. I mean honestly, don't fly with your children, leave them with a sitter?!? C'mon!

If I had children and wanted to take them on a plane, we would have just as much right to be there as a passenger without children. Stop being so darn self centered for just a few hours. If a kid is crying I'm sure it's for a reason -- not just to annoy you. Wow, think about it for a second for you to think that you're the only affected by a crying baby... don't you think that the parents would want it to stop too? AND just think in a few hours you'll never have to see or hear that baby ever again.

Here's 5 bucks - go buy some ear plugs.

As a start, how about the following:

1. No liquids (airline provides water for free)

2. Airline provides in flight movie for free (not as good as something chosen oneself, but flights don't truly last forever; perhaps non-pickiness in such temporary distractions is in order.

3. Creation of electronics safes, the security of which are fully guaranteed by the airline. After the electronics are examined, passengers would store them in small locked compartments of a portable chest. The chest (absolutely) goes on the same plane as the passenger.

In addition to being possessed of individual locked compartments, the chest is an 'electromagnetic coffin' - it is constructed so that no electromagnetic communication can occur between the outside world and the coffin or, indeed, between compartments within the chest. Such a chest with compartments of about 21.5 cm x 43 cm x 43 cm (8" x 17" x 17") for each of 500 passengers, and wall thicknesses of about 2.5cm (1"), would measure about 25 cubic meters (32 cubic yards). If the chest is two sided (compartments back to back) it could measure 1 yard thick x 2 yards tall by 16 yards long (would probaly have to break the length up, making 3 or 4 chests). (For this last measurement, let meters equal yards, if you want the measurement in meters.)

If my arithmetic is correct, that doesn't seem like too much space for airlines to relinquish in plane holds. IF my arithmetic is correct...

Concerned for US writes: "I have an Iranian last name in the way many of you I'm sure have European last names. I'm blonde, blue eyed, pale and Catholic... how do you profile that?"

The answer is that your Iranian last name is just one factor to consider in deciding whether you should be subjected to greater scrutiny. If you are a U.S. citizen, are travelling with three small children and don't fit any of the other characteristics of a potential terrorist, your last name alone shouldn't raise red flags.

But most of the terrorist suspects that have been arrested since 9/11 (not to mention the 9/11 hijackers themselves) did not fit in any grey areas. Profiling would have caught them. It's crazy to suggest otherwise. I'm sorry that some innocent people will be subjected to more scrutiny by profiling passengers. But in order to spare their feelings we should inconvenience and make air travel miserable of impossible for everyone?

Interesting how many respond so negatively to ideas different than theirs. Also interesting how people try to make those who disagree with them look to be extremists (lock babies up, outlaw all muslims from flying, ban all carry ons, etc).

How about developing some scaled down version of this proposal such as strictly enforcing the carry on limitation? Limit all passangers to one small (and I mean SMALL!) carry on - purse, computer bag, etc.

Or how about allowing those with no carry ons to be able to go to the front of the line at the security gate. Those who really want to bring carry ons with them - make them pay by having to wait in line.

Regarding Racial profiling. Yes, of course it makes sense, but lets be realistic - America is just too big on being politically correct to publically (at least) make it official policy. There would be too many irrational people who would respond irrationally. And we all know there are LOTS of irrational people out there!

Actually, I live in DC, Boston, not Salt Lake, so I guess that opens me up for profiling. And I think Entertainment Weekly is a piece of trash. Shocker - I have even been known to read things like the Koran, the Bible, and other woroks because I believe in being culturally educated, something YOU obviously aren't. You can't argue against something you know nothing about. Personally, I think uneducated, intolerant, prejudiced people should be profiled and sterilized. But please, go back to enjoying your Entertainment Weekly.

The one thing that this thread demonstrates without any doubt is that banning carry-ons will lead to more air rage...

OK, so if I'm reading these posts correctly, all the following should be banned from planes:

- Babies
- Arabic-looking people
- People with Arabic names
- Fat people

Why don't you folks just start Thin WASP Adult airlines? The TWA name is available again...

Possible solutions to:

No electronics: Read or write a book.

The crying child conumdrum: Read my "A Modest Proposal."

Utah, nobody is saying that people who aren't obviously Muslim can't do damage too, just as Timothy McVeigh did. But the reality is that MOST terrorists do not look like Timothy McVeigh and only idiots want to pretend otherwise. Most Muslims may not be terrorists but the sad reality is that most terrorists ARE Muslims.

If police are looking for a serial killer, they know that odds are the person will be a man. That doesn't mean that there aren't some female serial killers - just that there aren't as many.

If we want to catch terrorists, we need to focus more attention to people who fit the profile of terrorists. Pay attention to everyone, but pay extra attention to the Muslims.

Stop your liberal whining and show some common sense!

This is a difficult issue, the photographic equipment, musical instuments, etc. Even more dramatic, what about medical professionals traveling with a kidney or heart??

Surely there must be some way to travel with this equipment and ensure that it arrives safely. Again, plan in advance, you know you are traveling with expensive professional, and UNIQUE gear. I can be shipped ahead, or as suggested, a call to the airline might ensure it's stowed carefully.

But Joe-business traveler with a laptop who doesn't want to wait 30 minutes at the luggage carousel, that's NOT the same thing, and I'm not exactly sure where to draw the distinction.

Similarly, a family traveling with small children to a funeral is not the same as a family who has brought their entire entertainment center on vacation with them. Maybe the latter should go on a cruise ship or gas-eating RV.

What I'm getting at is Bush's statement that we can't cut back on oil consumption because it would interfere with the "American life style". What is that life style??? Expect to travel to faraway cities on an impulse or a phone call with utmost convenience and work at one's laptop on the airplace. Step back folks, step back.

Thanks.

Questioner, nobody has suggested banning all Arab people from airplanes. And the jerks who wrote about babies and fat people are just that, jerks.

Babies and fat people are not a threat to our national security. Terrorists are. And they happen to be predominantly Muslim. As a result, a sane society would scrutinize Muslim air travelers more than other passengers. Nobody wants to ban "Arabs" or other Muslims from flying. But we want to ban those "Arabs" and other Muslims from flying who want the plane to take off, but would prefer that it not land.

You can't ban carry-ons until you make the cargo delivery system fullproof. What is one to do if every single one of their belongings is lost or stolen by the cargo employees? Carry-ons are still neccessary, escpecially for those travelling with children.

Hmm, if you're so "culturally educated" you would make intelligent arguments, which you seem incapable of doing. Plenty of educated people read Entertainment Weekly and other mainstream magazines. And plenty of educated people don't feel the need to read the Koran to stimulate their minds. Judging by your rantings, you are someone who should be profiled. Maybe that's why you're against profiling. You don't want to be caught.

PJ, I can see what you're saying and I agree that its valid to use common sense when evaluating people. I'll even agree that, recently, it could be logical to assume threats are likely from the middle east. It's just not always from a middle easterner... I just can't believe this will work. Look at what just happened. I'm blonde so I'm ok, even if I'm a terrorist- I get to pass because I don't look like one. The problem is when procedures and rules of security are written and disseminated to a large group, they really can't leave room for much interpretation. People need clear guidelines. What happens in 20 years when a new threat pops up? Who do we profile then. Yes, after the fact, we'll know but we should have a strategy that doesn't require another tragedy before we switch gears and begin to look at someone else. Today, you can't assume that every one who looks like what you think a middle easterner looks like is a terrorist and that's just addressing inconvenience. You also can't assume that people who don't look that way are safe- that is the true danger because then we haven't just inconvenienced an innocent- we've ignored a threat. Terrorists don't look just one way. Anyone who doesn't believe that- just look at where the Aryan mountains are located.

Thank you, THANK YOU, to all of you for providing my lunchtime entertainment for the day. I have been laughing so hard that I have attracted the attention of my fellow cubicle drones in my office. God bless America.

You're right, Boston. You're the epitomy of intelligent, rational arguments. How dare people read the Koran - that must make them a terrorist!

Gosh, it must be hard going through life being so hysterically afraid of people that aren't just like you. I'm sorry.

I agree. It is time to ban all Muslims, their Muslim and non-Muslim spouses and their children from using ANY type of transportation to enter the US for ANY reason. Don't bother with trying to weed the good from the bad. The safety of my country and my non-Muslim countrymen comes first!

And can anyone tell me why the FBI put out an alert for the 11 missing Muslim Egyptian students but did not post one photo of any of them?

Concerned for US writes: "Today, you can't assume that every one who looks like what you think a middle easterner looks like is a terrorist and that's just addressing inconvenience. You also can't assume that people who don't look that way are safe- that is the true danger because then we haven't just inconvenienced an innocent- we've ignored a threat. Terrorists don't look just one way."

Nobody is assuming that EVERY middle easterner is a terrorist or that people who don't look middle eastern can't be terrorist. But the FACT -- and it is a fact at present -- is that most terrorists today are middle eastern and do "look" middle eastern. If and when that changes, we obviously would have to alter our profile of the potential terrorist. And, in the meantime, we cannot just assume because someone doesn't "look" like a terrorist, he/she is not one.

Nobody has suggested that there be no security procedures for people who don't "look" like terrorists or that we assume that the current profile of the terrorist will remain constant through time. But we're not talking about hypotheticals here. The reality is that most terrorists today are Muslim, and most have similar characteristics (in terms of race, age, gender etc.)

I wish the world were different. I wish we could look at all Muslims and give them the benefit of the doubt. But if the western world wants to survive, we have to bite the bullet and accept the hard fact that there are millions of fanatics out there who hate us. Most of them are Muslim. And we have to keep them off our airplanes at any cost.

Anyone who would advocate the banning of carry-ons obviously doesn't do much traveling.

Want to ban carry-ons? Ignore the obvious arguments in regard to essential medicines, breakable items, or electronic equipment. Nah - let's focus on what you can expect to see change...

Get there early! Be ready to add at least an hour or two to your airport arrival times as the lines get longer for check-in.

Get out your checkbook! Look for ticket prices to go up as the airlines hire more staff to do check-in and baggage handling.

Get ready for baggage claim waits, longer lost luggage lines, and longer lines at rental car check-in counters.

Why longer lines? Because with everyone going through the same system, they'll pick up their bags and hit the rental car/parking garage/Metro station all together rather than staggered out.

Banning carry-ons would be a totally boneheaded move. It would hurt the travel industry, and it would hurt the public.

Andrew, when you were a child, was it your practice to throw rocks at hornet nests?

If I could be assured of the security of my electronics and my CPAP machine, I would gladly check them. However, given the current lack of security with checked baggage, and the time lag for shipping electronics ahead, I'll check or ship ahead my electronics and meds when parents do the same with their infants and toddlers.

A good approach would be for large airlines to emulate the approach of commuter airlines, and have a plane-side drop-off and pick-up of carry-ons. That way, passengers could see their electronics, meds, and other valuables safely to and from the plane. The storage compartment on the plane could/should be separate from storage for checked baggage. Further, a crew member should be stationed at the door to the carry-on baggage compartment whenever it is open.

Such an approach would provide the necessary security for electronics and othter valuables, while reducing clutter in the main cabin.

1. Our bankrupt airlines will need to get their act together long before there's a ban on all carry-ons.
2. How about a common sense regulation that states no Muslim males are allowed to sit together or otherwise congregate past the security checkpoints. I'm Muslim and am willing to live with this rule if it means safer travel.

V, who here has suggested that we "ban all Muslims, their Muslim and non-Muslim spouses and their children from using ANY type of transportation to enter the US for ANY reason"?

Nobody has suggested that. NOBODY. The only suggestion is that Muslims, particularly males of a certain age and those coming from particular countries, be subjected to greater scrutiny when they pass through security. Why is that so unreasonable or crazy?

Your attempt to distort that rational position shows that your are less interested in stopping terrorism than in enforcing your silly principles of political correctness.

I applaud Ahkmar for his willingness live with certain restrictions in order to further safety. I've known and worked with many Muslims and they are fine, upstanding people. Most, I'm sure, would never condone the bombing of a plane or other terrorist act. But many Muslims in today's world have been corrupted by fanatacism. They are willing to blow themselves to smithereens for reasons that seem preposterous to most people. Nobody wants to make all Muslims feel like terrorists. No sane person supports violence or other forms of discrimination against the millions of law-abiding Muslim men, women and children in our society. But we have a problem here that can't be solved by ignoring the obvious.

If those arrested in the latest roundup were of Pakistani descent, they most likely didn't look "like middle easterners", they looked like the native people of the Indian sub-continent. That includes only, oh, a billion or so people.

And to whomever claimed that "most terrorists are Muslims" -- I don't know if that's true or not -- but most Muslims are not Arabs/middle easterners (think Malaysia and Indonesia).

Isn't it obvious? Cohen, you snarky genius, you should have just come out with what you really meant: Ban all "leisure travelers" from all commercial aircraft with scheduled service to all appropriate destinations.

Vacationers should just have to take their lumps and saddle in on chartered "fun jet" flights to their destinations and be subject to a whole host of intolerable rules. In the meantime, business travelers, who could simply expense the costs of shipping ahead to their next destination whatever knick-knacks they don't want to check items they might have carried-on. That way Delta, United - cripes, even NWA - could simply convert their cabins to business class and higher.

What a windfall for the airlines that would be - charging maximum fares for single or dual class service, what a comfort for all business travelers, what a boon to Big Oil and service industries (what, with forcing families out of the skies and on to the roads), what a boon to the federal, state and local governments, what with more tolls and gas and sales taxes being collected. Amtrak's savior, too (oops, there goes the dining car)!

Everyone wins, except for the average Joe (or, Jo). Too bad s/he'll be forced to pay through the nose for any long-haul travel. Too bad for them that instead of a 3-5 hour flight with the chance that their little one(s) may cry, they'll instead have to deal with 10-12 hours of crying kids and bathroom breaks (more for coast-to-coast or border-to-border trips). Then again, since when has this administration and this Congress cared about the little guy? Since leisure travelers would be effectively banned from flights, at least business travelers won't have to deal with dirty-diaper stench because parents couldn't carry aboard the baby necessities.

Simply allow one carry-on bag, briefcase, OR purse per passenger, not all three. And enforce the suitcase-size limit, as a few airlines do but most don't. If nothing else, this would speed up security lines and boarding times (though it might make for longer lines at check-in). And it might improve the chances of finding dangerous items during security checks, since the security people would have fewer (and smaller) pieces of luggage to inspect for a given number of passengers.

jaymz, you obviously haven't seen the photos of the people who were arrested in England. There wasn't a Clay Aiken lookalike in the bunch.

PJ, I think we might have to agree to disagree on this issue. Like I said in my post above- it isn't that I don't think your concerns are valid or even correct in the current climate. In fact from your posts, I imagine we probably would tend to agree on policies more often than we would disagree. I just don't trust that any profiling based policy that we could put into place and could also enforce will adequately police the airways and solve the issue of safety and terrorism. My fear is that we'd just have another procedure that makes people feel safer without actually accomplishing any real security gains and that such policy may actually cause us to be lax if and when new security threats arise. Thanks for debating with me and thank you for not getting personal. I appreciate it!

What I've suggested can hardly be called "politically correct" in anybody's book. You know what, at this moment in history I really don't believe that you can completely stop terrorism. We can stop the Muslims from entering our lands, if we really want to and we just won't do it until years from now when the unthinkable happens. I believ an attack is coming and it'll make 9/11 look like a drop in the bucket. Why do I also add spouses and children to the roster? I predict the next generation of Muslim terrorist will be born to American mothers. They will infiltrate different corporations and entities as legitimate employees and their true agendas will go unnoticed. Stupid American women have already unkowingly started breeding them, thinking these men actually love them. Laugh now, just don't forget I said it.

Don't screen. Block them all and we live to disagree another day.

And, jaymz, you dispute the statement that "most terrorists are Muslims." Are you also going to dispute the fact that the sky is blue? If you can't even admit that most terrorists are Muslims, your opinions are useless.

Don't screen. Block them all and we live to disagree another day.

Wasn't McVeigh on the government's radar for quite some time? It's not like he popped up out of the blue and set off the bomb. So I don't buy the argument that just because he was white, profiling is a bad idea. Most of the Muslim extremists are not on the government's radar, and this is where profiling would be helpful, ESPECIALLY in a country like the US where Muslims are a comparatively small minority (as in "what are they doing flying to/from/around the WASP-y U.S.? Check them out..."). However, I support increasing human intelligence gathering over targeted profiling, since not everyone who has a beef with Western values will resort to mass murder to make their views known, extremist or not.

I also second, third and fourth all the complaints about oversized roll on luggage. Such a pain to witness the stuff people will carry-on. I limit what I take to be a backpack or computer bag I can easily slip under the seat, and I'll use my credit card for any emergency, such as lost clothes, etc, and my cash to buy samples of shampoo, etc for use during the trip.

V, I apologize. Your statement about banning all Muslims from the US was so idiotic I assumed you were making fun of those who support profiling of air passengers.

Clearly you are the opposite of politically correct. But you are perhaps even worse.

America cannot ban all Muslims (and their Muslim and non-Muslim spouses etc.) That is preposterous and a genuine insult to good Muslims everywhere.

Screen out the monsters but don't assume everyone is a monster.

My brother-in-law was forced to check his computer as luggage - only to watch as it was destroyed by a careless baggage handler who dropped it from about eight feet above the ground onto the tarmac.

It was his business' computer, not his, but the lesson was well-learned.

Sanity,

I only said I don't know if it's true or not -- it may very well be true, but whoever made the claim should back it up with some numbers. Certainly media coverage would make it APPEAR that most "terrorists" are Muslims, at least those targeting the US which may be the only ones that matter for the discussion here.

If only Clay Aiken gets a free pass from the profilers, that still leaves an awful lot of us. Moussaoui was Algerian and could have passed for an African-American from the photos I've seen.

I don't entirely disagree with you, Sanity: I think some degree of profiling makes sense, but the danger of going about it too hastily or zealously should be considered.

V writes: "Don't screen. Block them all and we live to disagree another day."

America cannot live in a coccoon. We can't insulate ourselves entirely from the world in which we live. Are we really going to hang "No Muslims allowed?" signs at our airports? What about American citizens who believe in Islam? Are we going to ban Islam? That's insane.

This is America. We can't just ignore our fundamental principles. I support profiling air passengers but I draw the line at banning all people just because they belong to a particular religion or outlawing that religion entirely. If we abandon all our principles just to save our collective butts, what's the point? We're better than that. We have to be.

I love the 'crying babies' argument. I assume these folks were created in a lab as teenagers.

I've flown my toddlers across the country a couple of times and have had 5 minutes of crying between them. Yet nobody seemed to appreciate it. If everyone was so indifferent, why should I care if my kids scream for four hours?

And the profiling argument is a hoot. Let's hold up airplanes endlessly as we scrutinize everyone who fits the physical profile of that crazy Arab Timothy McVay.

Sanity,

I only said I don't know if it's true or not -- it may very well be true, but whoever made the claim should back it up with some numbers. Certainly media coverage would make it APPEAR that most "terrorists" are Muslims, at least those targeting the US which may be the only ones that matter for the discussion here.

If only Clay Aiken gets a free pass from the profilers, that still leaves an awful lot of us. Moussaoui was Algerian and could have passed for an African-American from the photos I've seen.

I don't entirely disagree with you, Sanity: I think some degree of profiling makes sense, but the danger of going about it too hastily or zealously should be considered.

stow em away! make them check them in (and buy a bag that is solid to hold em). they can be a 'special' line for all those laptop fiends who have them checked first, and then sent to baggage check.

i'm sick of the dufus next to me in econo breaking out his 21" screen "laptop" and i can't get out to take a piss.

my other offer is make it so if you want to use your precious lappy, you gotta buy a first class ticket. if it's THAT important, you'll do it.

Sanity,

I only said I don't know if it's true or not -- it may very well be true, but whoever made the claim should back it up with some numbers. Certainly media coverage would make it APPEAR that most "terrorists" are Muslims, at least those targeting the US which may be the only ones that matter for the discussion here.

If only Clay Aiken gets a free pass from the profilers, that still leaves an awful lot of us. Moussaoui was Algerian and could have passed for an African-American from the photos I've seen.

I don't entirely disagree with you, Sanity: I think some degree of profiling makes sense, but the danger of going about it too hastily or zealously should be considered.

I will not be traveling to the UK!

Why? The airline will want me to get on the plane without any of my stuff!

The Airline will take my Laptop, Ipod and Digi Camera away,

AND WILL REFUSED TAKE ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ITEMS

In addition, you are the BAD Guy for want to Get on the Net, listen to music, get work done on the plane,

This sounds like the Tellaban wins, we lose!

I will find my items on EBAY.

The Bottel of H20 will cost you $6.50

Banning all carryons is not practically and banning all Muslims (as someone writing under "V" has suggested) is unAmerican.

I have no problem profiling travelers and, though it makes me a little sick, I can live with subjecting passengers who fit a terrorist profile to greater scrutiny. But we can't go to extremes. People who travel need certain items. And lawful Muslims have every right to travel.

We may not be able to insure our safety, but we can at least be humane about it. And reasonable.

buy urselves a lear jet. then you can do whatevr you want on er it!

I will likewise not travel to the UK until carryons are allowed. I need my laptop when I travel and there's no way I can check it. If it gets lost or damaged, I don't have the money to replace it. And, as noted by others, the airlines will not take responsibility for their negligence. Unless airlines are forced to compensate people fully for lost or damaged items, they MUST allow these items to be taken on the plane by passengers. If they won't allow these items on board, they won't have many passengers to worry about.

An outright ban is not practical. However, there is no justification for not restricting passengers to one small carry on item (the size of a small computer bag or purse) that can be easily searched. Present rules allow passengers to bring on two carry-on items (which is frequently stretched to more) and that is at least one too many. Allowing one carry on item allows work and personal reading, electronics to stay in your control (is it possible to pack a computer in a checked bag without having that bag opened in the bowls of baggage handling?), medications and baby food to be avialable but limits the time it takes to inspect. Also, as suggested above, passengers that do not bring carryons should be rewarded with designated security lines that separate them from the carry oners, as is the case at other crowd sensitive places like stadiums and disney world.

i've had to check my $1200 surfboard that can get dinged by the slightest thing. Surely you people can check your instruments and lap tops. C'mon.

Limiting carryons is fine, as long as people can still bring on water, laptops, cellphones, etc. But banning carryons is just crazy.

I'm a man but I think there should be two security lines. One for men between the ages of 16 and 40 and one for everyone else. The "young(ish) men only" line would have greater scrutiny. But everyone would be forced to take a sip of water (or whatever) or to prove other liquids are what they claim to be. If a woman can use her lipstick, it's obviously not a dangerous chemical. It's stupid to make her throw it out or check it. Let's use our brains here.

expensive stuff writes: "i've had to check my $1200 surfboard that can get dinged by the slightest thing. Surely you people can check your instruments and lap tops."

It's kind of hard to walk off with a surfboard (or a bag of golf clubs) without somebody noticing. It's a little different with a laptop.

Did some idiot just compare a surfboard to a laptop? Are you freaking kidding me? A laptop is a business NECESSITY today that holds proprietary and other valuable information. A surfboard is a toy. And nobody in the baggage department is going to walk off with a surfboard without being noticed! It takes very little effort, on the other hand, to slip an expensive laptop inside your jacket.

Re:babies on flight

So stick 'em in the neck with a needle and let them sleep through the flight. And give your fellow man a break from what you squirted out from between your legs.

Posted by: WJT | August 11, 2006 10:27 AM
---------------------------------------
Here's an excellent example of where the gene pool went bad.

WOW a lot of ppl actually post comments on here. i don't really see the point?

WJT, I'm not fan of screaming babies on airplanes but you're a moron. And you're probably one of those fat guys who falls asleep, drops his head on my shoulder and snores for the entire flight. The issue here is terrorism, not babies or, for that matter, snoring fat guys.

I bet that most of those that complain about babies and the noise they make are the very same people who have cellphone conversations at the top of their lungs and subject the rest of us to their mindless drivel.

KG writes: "WOW a lot of ppl actually post comments on here. i don't really see the point?"

And yet, KG, you post a comment yourself. I'm not sure I see the point of your not seeing the point.

"To those passengers who bemoan the frequency of lost luggage, I would say: the airlines and airports will try harder."

Andrew Cohen is obviously high

I mean, "TRY HARDER"?!?!?
WHAT PLANET IS ANDREW COHEN ON?!??

Has he ever actually dealt with an airline?

You guys better just throw up a white flag and surrender and hope "they" treat you nicely (maybe they'll forget all the images of kids and families blown apart in Iraq?) if you're gonna get scared by baby bottles, juices and lipstick.

For people who only make short trips, it might be fine to check all bags. But when you have a 6 hour layover in the middle of your 36 hour, 4 flight trip from Asia, it is good to have a hot shower, change clothes, apply fresh makeup/deodorant, shave, etc. Not to mention using a laptop or having work with you to actually make the hours productive. However, I would not object at all to having the overhead bins locked by the flight attendants while the plane was in flight. I just want my stuff during the layovers and to know that it is actually on the airplane with me.

Anybody know of a small cap dedicated to tele-conferencing?

I think that business travel is going to take the deep six if this no-carry-on becomes long standing policy.

Lots of great (and quite a few idiotic) ideas here. Merge "Fan of Personal Policings" idea for lanes with "Curious and Concerned's" naked check-in (new expedited lane). Also improves on Aldous' idea for banning Muslims without explicitly naming names and thus keeps ACLU at bay.

Checking laptops is a super idea to increase identity theft (not just laptop theft) by orders of magnitude.

It seems like tranquilizing the adults would be the best move to ensure flight-time serenity.

If I had just one trip on a time machine, I'd go back to when WJT was an annoying, whining, stinking infant, cram him in a plastic bag, and drop him in the river. No more crying WJT!

Of course, it sounds like WJT still is an annoying, whining, stinking cry baby, so maybe the time machine isn't needed after all.

Yo Ben-
" ... If I am traveling for business I'm not going to want to check my $400 iPod just so some guy can toss it around, damaging the hard drive and voiding my Apple-Care. I don't want to store my $1500 Mac Book so the LCD display can crack, especially if I have work to do."

Whaaaa!! What a frikkin' geeky crybaby. Do you think for one minute when your precious I-pod or laptop gets shipped from the factory it gets handled any diffently by the people who load & unload trucks that get it to the local retailer? Get a clue buddy, pack it properly in hard case luggage & it will be fine. Been there, done that .........

Phil,

Perhaps you could consider just one more trip to England -- one way of course?

5 years after 9/11 and we are still at this stage. God helps us.

The real solution is to shackled all passengers to their seat during the flight. They must be required to wear diaper before boarding the plane of course.

Hey, great idea! While we're at it, why don't we ban shirts and blouses onboard as well? It's got to be absolutely easy for a terrorist to take his shirt (or her blouse), whip it off and, in one quick motion practiced for weeks in a secret training camp, snap the sleeve at just the right angle to break the neck of the pilot and take over the cockpit. Oh, and what about eyeglasses? Remember that scene in GODFATHER III where some guy gets done in by one sharp jab of the Foster Grants to the Adams Apple? Heck you sleep most of the way on most long flights anyway, what do you need to see for? Of course, you can't be too careful...with the training these guys have, they probably could punch a hole through the plane just by butting their heads through the passenger windows!

So it's simple: just don't allow anybody or anything on the plane and America's skies will be safe!

Ah ah......so it is now clear to any government or airline official reading this that you're all much more frightened of a (screaming) infant on your plane than you are of terrorists.
Well I agree.
The terrorist can do more harm, but the probability of a bad flight due to howling babies is so much greater than the miniscule chance of a really bad day due to suicide bombers.

We have enough security already folks. Remember that you can get hurt doing anything at all, that that living a happy life requires that you take a moderated stance about your own security.

Don't expect government or the airlines to do anything except tie you up with more checks and security restrictions. I would if I was in charge. There is only down-side for them if the imponderable should happen, and very little up-side if it doesn't. They will tell you it is all for your own good, also known as cover your ass.

best solution is to ban the large roll ons (which take up too much space and aggravate passengers who follow the rules) as carry on and allow small bags and laptops.

Ban all liquids from going through security but allow passengers to purchase drinks etc. at the gate an take on.

And to all those who suggest only searching middle eastern looking men, you should note that one of the people arrested in the UK was a white male British citizen recently converted to Islam and some of those arrested are women. So profiling really is pointless

Well since the next step will probably be someone ingesting the right combination of chemicals to "combust" or explode in flight then maybe we should just send the bags and ban the "people" from travelling..

Wow, what a lot of interesting fun and silly as well as brilliant and dumb comments.

If someone could please inform me why BA (and Heathrow Airport) chose to BAN BOOKS, I'd be very interested in the information. Lipstick and stick deodorant are NOT gels (vision of terrorist trying to make a bomb with Hot Pink and Regal Red lipstick)???

I understand the need to limit carryons, but face it, no one who travels regularly TRUSTS these people (justifiably so). I have a friend who recently returned from Hawaii and discovered the TSA had stolen a pair of inexpensive noise-cancelling earphones out of her checked bag, after they BROKE her TSA lock.

To trust any of these employees with digital cameras, laptops, cellphones, the car alarm locks on keychains, Ipods or cellphones (guess how many calls they can rack up before you discover it's been stolen by either a TSA, airline or CONTRACT baggage handler) is an exercise in futility.

The person who mentioned traveling 4 flights to get home internationally, over a 26 hour period for an example, is correct. It's difficult to travel at best in crowded, stuffy airplanes with limited air recirculation. NO BOOKS? What do we do, talk to the CREW?

Someone somewhere somehow has got to put some sanity back into this whole thing.

How many people actually do fly every day? Within the US or out/in?

The TSA has just crippled over 25 million people (sheep) who are following along listening to a large group of $12 an hour employees who will steal stuff out of your checked luggage. NOT one of the people involved in this "plot" is from the US.

The fact is, we are giving way too much control over mindlessly and thoughtlessly to a group of people who have no interest in us or our safety.

I pity all those who believe that tossing lip gloss, lipstick, toothpaste etc makes them "safe". It's simply one more bandaid and it does not make anyone safer. None of these idiotic method will make any of us safer. If you read through the comments, most people are more concerned about being inconvenienced by cellphones and laptop users. They just want to see the other guy get his.

If you really want safety, unfortunately you must profile. This takes lots of training and if you've observed our TSA, you'll see there isn't much hope with the current crop of employees. And nothing suggested yesterday will make anyone safer. It's all smoke and mirrors - making people turn on each other.

Clearly, 'Boston' is afraid of something - or someone - I wish he would tell us. Are you putting on a good face? Are you deliberately being provocative - or do you really feel this way?

I don't think that anything this country has done in the past 8 years has done one thing to make most people in most other countries think that the US is a civilized country - that we are decent people or anything. . .

Boston certainly hasn't done anything to help that with 'his' postings. I wish that he would be forced to take some 'cultural sensitivity training' course - what a nightmare for him - or that he would be dropped in the middle of Iran and be forced to cope all by himself.

He must be lonely living in such a Blue state. . .

By no means do I think that we should let the terrorists do what they want to do - but let's look at the reasons why they feel the need to do the things they do - we do not have to compromise our own values in the process - but only then will we really be able to think about a world without them.

WJT:

Don't expect many parents in the military to support your idiotic stance -- and be damn glad they're willing to defend your right to make such asinine statements.

How the heck do you think families stationed in Hawaii, Europe, or Japan (or for that matter, transferring from one coast to the other) get from base to base when their tour of duty is up?

That crying kid's parent might just be putting his or her ass on the line so you can fly the friendly skies in relative safety.

I take my laptop with me on business and given how many people I know who have checked one and never seen it again I'm not inclined to check it. Actually our company has a rule against doing that because they got tired of replacing all the company laptops that got swiped when people checked them because it was easier than schlepping them through the airport. If the airlines want us to do that, they'd better upgrade their baggage security.

I know we need to be secure and I for one don't particularly want to be blown up on my way to do a presentation, but surely there's a way to see if a laptop is legit. There was a time when they used to make you power it up. Now they put it through the X-ray. If there needs to be a separate line for those who have to take stuff, that's fine with me. I don't mind taking the extra time.

On another matter, the people who've suggested "Muslim looking" people should be singled out, did they ever stop to think that there are millions of Asian Muslims and African Muslims? And that there are plenty of Mid-eastern Christians and Jews? Much as I understand the annoyance at searching old ladies, if we don't, somebody's going to figure out a way to use that gap in the system. It has to be everybody unfortunately.

And I'd gladly travel naked except who knows who the naked person who sat in seat 24 C before me was!

Since explosives can be hidden in carry-ons, ban them. Wait, you could hide explosives in shoes too...let's ban those as well. Come to think of it, if everyone is naked on the aircraft then there would be no place to hide anything....unless those silicone breast implants contain explosive. I guess we're left with banning flying entirely. That's the only "safe" option, right?

OK, for those of you complaining about poor service with the airlines (cramped seating, long lines, lousy food, luggage "throwers", etc.): I may be showing my age, but I remember the day when traveling by plane was luxurious. Service was attentive, the food (full meals) were served on china and there was plenty of legroom. Crying babies were usually doted on by at least one flight attendant lest it disturb the rest of the cabin. Of course, flying was also pretty expensive and rare back then.

Then came deregulation, and airlines started competing on price, not luxury. Let's face it, the thing we usually look for when we book a flight is price, with convenient departure time a close second. Now we complain about lousy service, cramped seating, inedible food and long lines. For those of you who have flown "first class" lately, it's not much better than coach class was about 20 years ago.

So, if you want better service, start demanding it from the airlines. But get ready to pay for it.

Also, as another historic reminder, all this screening started back when some (white) guy named DB Cooper skyjacked the first plane.

"Get perspective folks. Soldiers are killed in Iraq, and perhaps they are raping and killing because of a month in 110 degress without showers."

No, it has nothing to do with the heat, they're Republicans and that's what they do - kill and rape. When they get killed in Iraq, it's a few less Republican's we have to worry about. Tut tut.

the DHS, Blair, RNC, Executive Branch, and Complicit congress....

reliably pull out the same old terrorist rag doll.........

everytime the lid starts to come off of their caper......

examine the people that "arrested" the "terrorists"

one at a time away form each other, see if they tell the same story...

there's been a spate of articles talking about the ineffectiveness of DHS

given that O'sama benny Ladin appears on a Burbank soundstage everytime the administration needs propped up, or they manage to exterminate a "terrorist" that they fabricated to begin with "Al Zaqueeri,"

this looks like more of the same,

if _these_ people, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, Rice, Blair

weren't so inept, these things would happen before the press started pointing out the obvious....

BUT, since they are soooooooooo hated by the agencies whose reputations _they__are_ destroying

the agents do what they are told in the hopes that sooner or later _you_ catch on

inappropriate commentor,

my name is Cohen, are you talking to me?

If so, come closer, so I may suck the meat from your bones....

..

.

Also, don't think for half a beat violinists are going to stand for being forced to check their instruments. You think vacationers with cameras will raise a ruckus? You think the sound of a crying baby is bad?

The thing is allowing carry-ons cover a lot of plausible, sensible scenarios you encounter when you travel. For instance you buy a small piece of artwork and you don't want it crushed in your luggage, or you buy a nice bottle of wine and you don't want it to shatter in you bag. The list is endless, right?

Just broadly banning carry-ons will have a detrimental effect on travelling, if not right away eventually. Flying is already not a very pleasant experience that can sometimes made better by bringing an extra book, or sweater, or something to eat. All of which is carried in a bag. Nevermind the fact that it becomes a health issue because people will be de-hydrated because they can't bring water on board. If you make the experience worse, you will lose travelers.

The thing that bothers me the most about this article is the nonsense about artifical entitlement to carry-ons. At the core of this is personal freedom, which I think you agree is something we all have an entitlement to.

answer to what to do is this,

arrest PNAC members, complicit congress members, the Executive Branch and all presidential appointees....

seize their properties, sell them, give the money to the Federal Department of Justice and sue their survivors into the ground........

mark them all with the brand felony, and from that position require them to find jobs at WalMart

apologize to the world,

offer to assist the Iraqi people to forma government, use the soldiers as police for the people, not against them as punishing intimidators.........

find alternatives to OIL,

investigate the participants of the Midnite Oil Conference that was held by Cheney,

Investigate using supercomputers to jerk the stock market around and find out who invested sooooooooooo heavily in gold before the Israeli/Lebanon

"take your mind off of I_RACK" debacle....

tell Israel that, "once the oil is gone," you're on your own.....

because that is what will happen.

they will act differently when they "get it" that the United States Government is _currently_ operated for the "haves and havemores" as your current president so humourously quipped at his inauguration....

who hosted Tom Delays' REELECTION BID

Darth cheney, at the Houston Westin

Abramowitz, Cunnin ham and cheney have all been linked to the same "selling favour scheme" on the Potomoc Landing area

and bush he got busted for "mean spiritedly" outing Valerie Plame, that's a felony isn't it?

mean spirited, I'll give you mean spirited, send Newt to me and Rove too

I like pig meat.

.

send me cheney, I like dark meat

For me, there are a few essential carry on items:

Medications -- no way they don't travel close to me.

Reading material -- long flights -- one or two paperbacks.

Music and sound reducing headphones - simple Ipod like and headphone combination.

Notebook computer -- no way I'm ever trusting it to the gentle mercies of baggage handlers -- even though I don't use it on the plane.

To this, my wife would add a camera (same thinking as a notebook computer).

Regarding babies -- well I don't see them as carry on, and restricting them from flying -- nope, don't buy it. But in a capitalist environment, how about airlines having a 'no babies' flight -- at extra cost. Wonder if that would fly...

I agree: ban carry ons.

If you are afraid you will lose your electronics in checked baggage, FedEx them to your destination.

I've flown zillions of miles, and I have never lost a piece of checked baggage.

I agree Cohen, no carry on bagage, none, no purses, just a wallet for money, ID and your boarding pass. Remember there is no ammendment in the Bill or Rights guranteeing the right to fly. Flying is a choice, driving is a choice, the train is a choice, options exist. There are alternatives. People complian about no laptop, cell phone, or electronics. If the ban were institued companies would adapt, and peoples work ethic and schedules would adapt accordingly. The apocolypse would not occur if people could not call someone, or type and email in the airport waiting for their plane. As far as boredom, what did people do 20 years ago before all the electronic gadgets. As far as I know planes were flying and carrying passengers without all the electronic toys. I say it is better to be bored than take a chance some idiot with a death wish decides to die and take hundreds with them in the name of Allah.

And even with the carry-on ban, we should ban the Arabic's as well. They as a population are the ones spawning all of these "martyers" with death wishes.

Between the two bans, it would make air travel much safer.

Under these circumstances, does is a certain amount of profiling necessary? Unfortnately, probably, and I say this as a Black man who deals with it damn near every day, unlike those WASPs named Chad, Biff and Skippy.
But what does "Middle Eastern looking" mean? My ex had brown hair, blue eyes and was Israeli. That makes her, guess what? Middle Eastern.
And the guy who works at my corner grocery happens to be what is suppsed to be "Muslim looking" or Middle Eastern looking, far as I can tell from the profile. But from my view, he could just as easy be Jose Rodriguez and Abdul Ahmed Malik.
Plus, don't forget that Muslims come in all shades. I haven't seen Ahmad Rashad or Kareem Abdul-Jabbar blow anyone up lately, and China has a large Muslim population as well.
Would we be going through all this mania if the perps were blond, blue-eyed white guys? In a word, I don't flipping think so.

I live in blue state, August. But in my experience most people I know in this blue state would support profiling of airline passengers. How do we determine who appears to be a Muslim? It's not always easy but we can start by singling out those who obiously AREN'T Muslim and go from there. If their name is Mohammad, there's another hint. Nobody is saying profiling is perfect, but it's necessary. You ACLU types who would rather inconvenience everyone a lot rather than inconvenience the target group (Muslim men) are ridiculous. The responses from the loony left on this page show why the Democrats lost the 2004 election and will probably lose the 2008 election, even if they manage to prevail in 2006.

can think up three lies before most people recognize wh o he is? He's like the bassmaster of blarney right?

Given that the most recent major bombings have been in subways and trains in the west, and along roadsides and in marketplaces in Iraq, it is amazing that the focus on banning is only on airplances.

I propose that we let the Arab extremists win and that we return to their beloved Stone Age condition by banning all liquids, powders, cell phones, laptops, MP3 players, GameBoys, purses, briefcases etc. in public places where other people may be present and could be killed when a bomb goes off. However, they won't appreciate the fact that everyone will also be required (including women) to only wear gym shorts and t-shirts in public (form-fitting long underwear in winter) so we can't conceal any of these items on our person. Cars and trucks will be made out of plexiglass so that bombs can't be hidden there.

I believe that these security measures should make us all sufficently safe to go about our business (although somewhat chillier and less efficient).

It is people that kill, not bombs. We will not win the technology war against these folks. It will be human intelligence and keen observation of people's actions that will do it. That is the approach that the Israelis have successfully followed for many years now, although it did not prevent the terrible Palestinian suicide bombers a few years ago.

Allow carry-ons to be placed in the overhead bins. Then the airline should LOCK the overhead bins somehow so that no one can access them during the flight. OR on smaller aircraft, collect the carry-ons bags as passengers board the flight, the airline stows them, and then has a cart with the baggage as people get off the plane.

Finally, use clear plastic bags for your clothes, etc. in checked luggage. Keeps things organized and flat for inspection.

attracts parasites, they crowd in and start spraying the disinformation in an effort to avoid discovery, wherever the truth starts popping out...

they use jingoism, demagogurey, "hate disguised as family values," the word terrorist....to help you give them your car keys....

the neo conartist is a lesser member of the jacka l family...best described as the upright walking son of Kye Ote'

.

If we have to check our laptops, cameras, and Alice Cooper concert t-shirts (all of which would be attractive to thieving airline employees and baggage handlers), the airlines and Congress will just have to modify their policies (and the Warsaw Convention) on lost luggage to provide fair replacement value when our valuables disappear from checked luggage.

I'm afraid that the airlines will move towards no carry-ons. I travel with expensive pro camera gear and a laptop. Odds are high, based on experience, that it'll get lost/broken/delayed if checked. So I guess I'll be flying as little as possible. Same with a lot of people. This'll kill the airlines. Dang terrorists aren't idiots, I'm afraid.

You want to hear crying babies? ban the diaper bags. You'll have the crying, and the stinkiness!

Looks like they're pulling baby food jars too. That's going to be interesting (yes I have an infant).

Another columnist, Eugene Robinson, got it dead right today with his prediction about the direction that airport security is heading:

"We will end up boarding our flights barefoot, barehanded and buck naked except for a hospital gown they'll make us put on at the airport."

The airlines rely on the overhead and under seat storage as their luggage bays are not large enough to accommodate everything being checked unless they give up the lucrative U.S. Mail and cargo they haul, but that would result in an increase in ticket prices which customers hate.

Putting everything in the luggage hold only makes maniacs look for other ways to foil the system. It is not a cure that will make us safe!

There was a time when carry on really was just that. laptops and electronic stuff, books, baby stuff, etc really dont take up that much space. The problem is that now carry on seems to also include suitcases and everthing else, it speed exit from the airport but it lsows the entrance and exit from the plane.A carry on bag big enough for a laptop is big enough for whatever people may need. I would love to see a ban on carry on suite cases, boxes etc from all flights.

Frequent business traveler here, I work in the healthcare industry servicing medical equipment. I typically visit 2-3 clients a week, clients distant enough that air travel is the only realistic option.

Standard carry-on equipment for me is a cellphone (BlackBerry) and my laptop. My laptop is loaded with proprietary information from my company and our customers. Occasionally there is even data on it that falls under HIPAA regulations. Would anyone suggest that I check that piece of gear, thereby making it easy to steal? If it were stolen and that data fell into the wrong hands (think the VA laptop that was stolen recently), who takes responsibility? The hardware can be replaced...the data can't.

Why not FedEx it? Simple. I'm often called out for same-day work. I need that laptop the minute I get off the plane and arrive at a site, FedEx is overnight. It's also not unusual (bringing me to the phone issue) for me to get a call or email during a layover re-routing me from a non-urgent situation to another location for an emergency. If I don't have my cell phone, I can't get the call that sends me to a site with sick people who can't be treated due to equipment breakdown. And if I've sent my laptop to Cleveland via FedEx but I'm now being rerouted to Albuquerque... I guess me, my company, my client and the patient on the table are now flat out of luck, aren't we?

The company should fly me via corporate jet you say? In my wildest dreams. My company will pass that cost on to you, the consumer. Think healthcare is expensive now...wait until every service engineer for medical equipment is forced to fly around on private charters. Same things goes for the telecom industry, etc. etc. etc.

How would any of you feel if data pertaining to you as an individual (obtained via some legitimate business transaction) were stolen because someone's laptop...which they were forced to check...was stolen from checked baggage? How will you feel when someone dies because a doctor or service person was unable to get a message because their cell phone or pager had to be checked?

I think that the folks who are criticizing those who are whining about whining babies are missing the beautiful Darwinian point here: These people are responding to crying babies as they should.

It turns out that there's a reproductive advantage to becoming aroused to action at the sound of a child's cry, and to becoming frustrated when we are unable to cause it to stop.

The baby-whining-whiners are proposing to respond to that frustration in unthinking ways, but maybe that's the best that they can do.

It IS all pretty off-point, though. What do crying babyies have to do with binary explosives? As I recall, the US had no problem suspending ALL commercial air travel for a few days in 2001. Compared to that, it seems to me that pissing off new mothers and gadget junkies is pretty small potatoes.

Obviously, travellers will adjust their habits, screeners will adjust their rules, and businesses will adjust their policies and offerings. It'll all work out eventually.

Matt - You are being disengunuous at best when you make the claim that data integrity is the reason why you must always carry a laptop with you. I suspect that if you were to do a little soul-searching, you'd be willing to admit that you haven't actually given much thought to other possible solutions, and are mostly seeking to justify a natural resistance to change of habits. Raw data, and even applications, don't HAVE to be transported in the memory of an active device.

I'm guessing that solutions will be found, even as policies are being modified.

Just a word about profiling. A lot of people here seem to feel that profiling consists solely of identifying people by their ethnicity.
When I think of profiling, I think of people watching - a sport most of us do when we're in crowds or bored. Watching people's behavior, their response to others...are they nervous? Are they sweating? Do they avert their eyes?
Accurate profiling should consist of carefully looking for people out of the norm.
Not being an expert, I think most of us at this point would notice someone acting weird (other than the TSA). It's not the complete answer, but it is a starting point. If "Security" was trained to watch behavior instead of just forcing people out of wheelchairs (in their 90's) and making people unwrap babies, it might be a good start.
I believe this is what El Al does and it seems to be fairly successful.
Banning books, reading material, eyeglass cases, contact lens solution, LIP and Chapstick, and medical lotions is flat out stupid.
As far as carryons, they should be allowed (in my opinion) as long as size is enforced. When the airlines began CHARGING for overweight baggage, the carryons started pushing the limit again.
What are you expected to do when you are (for example) going away for a month? Internationally?
We recently flew in/out of Buenos Aires and since Aerolineas Argentina had a weight limit, we offloaded stuff from our suitcases and took 4 carryons aboard. It was dumb but it was allowed by the airline.
If the airlines expect people to check luggage, they must allow more checked lugggage. We pay for a ticket to travel and there are some things we must take.
Disallowing laptops/iPods/CAMERAS/ is not going to work.
If they keep this up, all the carriers will be bankrupt. This is still a business and since airfares are at their highest level in years, people want some return for their money and have a right to expect it. Figure out just how much you are paying to fly in a tiny little seat with no water or food - cross country, and then the airline tells you what you can and cannot pack including reading material, etc.
And since they won't cover any merchandise that is stolen out of your checked luggage, they walk away scott free.

I feel some boycotts going on. People will postpone or avoid flying if this continues.

But profile for heaven's sake - only do it the right way, by watching for erratic behavior and not focusing solely on ethnicity.
And get people with brains doing some of this stuff. The TSA has a nickname "Thousands Standing Around"....typical big government agency that is visible giving only the appearance of safety.

I meant, of course, that I thought that you were being somewhat "disingenuous". Sheesh, I used ta' could spell, a little! :)

Bob...

Honestly, I can't remember the last time I fired the laptop up in an airport/airplane...BlackBerry suffices. I don't need my laptop to watch DVDs, in fact there are many times I wish I could check the sucker. I am being 100% straightforward when I say that I carry it to safeguard the data contained on it. I have in fact given consideration to other solutions, but in one way or another they have all come up short. The most suitable I've come up with so far is an encrypted USB key, but I expect that they would be banned from carry-on as well (too hard to prove it's inert/safe). I will continue to try to come up with a solution that'll work for me, at this point however I don't have one.

So my question stands...who bears responsibility if proprietary/sensitive data ends up being stolen due to TSA regulations?

"Until we're naked at check-in, how do I know the guy next to me doesn't have a camelbak bladder full of who knows what taped to his back under his sweatshirt?
Posted by: Curious and Concerned | August 11, 2006 10:55 AM"

We don't. The Islamics are a highly intelligent, adapting enemy we allow in our midst to probe chinks in our armor. How long do you think it will be before the radical Muslim enemy tries the "drug mule" route, but instead of cocaine, C-4? You can't stop them totally.

You can add ridiculous layer after layer of security, culminating in no carry-on, flouroscopy, body cavity search and no clothes (could be impregnated with explosives) and an airline issued hospital gown for the flight. And all that would do would be to deflect Muslim terrorists to cargo or high value alternate target like a shopping mall, subways, sporting event, train station, another Beslan style school massacre.

But you can deter them.

If you ban Muslims from all commercial air travel in the West today, tomorrow morning Mullahs would be issuing Fatwas right and Left blubbering "discrimination" but saying further blowing up of planes and thousands of infidels was Haram, in return for their ability to get in the air again.
**************************************

Another troll writes - "yeah, let's just completely violate the rights of anyone who happens to be Muslim or from a Middle Eastern country, or just happens to LOOK like they do. All that will do is A) mean they recruit "black/white businessmen/women or soccer moms" to start carrying out terrorist attacks. The case of the 'American Taliban' proves there are people willing to do it."

The fallacy is in thinking Islamoids can be created as easily as iPod consumers from other non-ethnic Muslim sectors of the populace. Yes, you can get a few, but if you are profiling known Muslim men from Africa, the ME, Asian backgrounds if they wish to evade profiling and launch terror from a small non-profiled population of "converted to Muslims" - you reduce their potential population to recruit from by 95-97%. The other thing is "converteds" are less reliable - they grow up with infidel family and friends they are told are targets now, and they lack tribal loyalties. The traitors Lindh and Reid, for example, sang like birds about stuff that had to be pried out of a born and bred enemy Islamist. The other nice thing is the Islamoids had great operational security when the terror rings were confined to relatives from the same tribe, background. If they get hungry to get whites and blacks to do their killing, we would know about it fairly soon and that would allow far easier penetration of Islamic killer cells by non-Paks, Arabs, Iranians...

Chris - Well, it's an approach that would do SOMETHING, that's for sure! Creepy & scary, but definitely an approach. It's useful as a thought experiment pointed toward developing slightly less extreme policies, I think.

We have come to feel so entitled, that it is our precious "right" to do what we want to do.

Truth is that while we are reacting to this latest threat, the terrorists have already moved on to the next page in their play book.

his creeep y comments on many boards, he is the consumate neo conartist, disguised as someone that cares......about jingoism

I have even better idea: let's ban people on planes. Better yet, let's ban travel, period. Oh no, let's not stop there, let's ban any form of transportation with exception of bicycles for ordinary people. No...let's ban them too. Let's keep going, let's ban Internet, computers, drugs, medicine, hospitals, TV, radio, smoking, damn cell phones, movies, beer, Scotch, football, baseball, Britney Spears, Brangelina, Tomcat, music, arts, electricity, fire, candles, lawyers, mail, books, clothes, weddings, birthdays, bold guys named Andrew...but before all of that, let's do 2 things: let's look up the term 'fascist', understand exactly what it means, and second, let's turn back the clock to 1776 and start over.
All problems solved.

Sure, let's ban carry-on luggage. It's a risk. Ban it. Then, when the terrorists shift their focus to placing undetectable explosive devices in check-in luggage, we'll ban that, too. Then when the terrorists start sneaking bombs into containers holding all the in-flight meals, we'll ban all in-flight food. And drink. Then when terrorists start smuggling aboard exploses in various body cavities, that's when we institute pre-boarding strip searches.

At some point, we have to take a step back and ask, "What government policies got us into this mess?" In a word, the answer is oil. "Our" oil companies are profiting from our government's Middle East policies, but we, the average Americans, are the ones who die on hijacked planes and in collapsing buildings. We're the ones paying the price, not the small handful of Americans who've gotten extraordinarily rich on Middle East oil.

In the last few hours a number of things have occured to me. First, I'm sure we all remember seeing the little fixture by the check-in counter that showed a small frame, maybe about 25X15X10. In all my flying experience, I've only seen that rule enforced once. I've seen people bring on what seems to be their entire worldly goods with them on the plane. Maybe we need to go back to a strict enforcement of that rule. Bring on only what you need: Meds or medical devices, wallet, passport, expensive jewelry. Small containers of necessary personal items, toothbrush, small tube of toothpaste (c'mon we all steal those tiny, pinky fingered size ones from the hotel rooms. Just save them for your next trip) You can now get those little strips of mouthwash so you don't even need a bottle of that. Small electronic items (iPod, Gameboy, laptop). A good book. Change of underwear. Makeup if you feel you really need it. Check the rest. It's just stuff, fer cryin' out loud. It can be replaced. You'd be surprised on how much you really don't need in this world.

Second, as I understand it, the authorities now have a pretty good idea of what chemicals were involved in the liquid bomb making plot. Couldn't we get the TSA, DHS or somebody to come up with a dipstick or something to test any suspicious liquids? Positive, you're busted, negative, have a nice flight.

Third, I suspect, being a capitalist driven society (and I don't mean that disparigingly,) we'll find a way around the liquids on the plane problem. I can see buying bottles of water or other liquid essentials, sold past the checkpoints, probably with some sort of seal (like liquor or cigarettes) at no doubt premium prices. Complain if you want, or wait for the tap water on the plane. No one's making you fly.

Fourth, here's an idea I'd like to throw out to anyone still out there, and maybe anyone from the airlines monitoring this chat. What would it be worth to you to pay a premium to have any valuables securely checked and handled? Would you be willing to arrive early at the airport, have an inspector from TSA or the airline inspect anything of high value you may be carrying, such as musical instruments, expensive cameras, electronic gear, etc., place it in a locked--maybe you'll have the only key--specially handled container which you can retrieve at the end of the flight. If someone whose livelihood depended on that equipment, such as a musician or a professional photographer, were to do that, and in return, the airline would guarantee the safety of the equipment, that might solve part of the problem, I'm sure they'll even find a way to make the extra fees tax deductable for professionals. If it is really that impotant and valuable to you, you'll do it. Think of it as insurance.

Finally, for those of you posting on this chat who wanted to turn this into a forum to vent your hatred, shame on you. I didn't come to this chat to hear racial slurs or political blame-gaming. I thought it would be a way of coming up with ideas, not whining. What we need in these times is less heat and more light. If you can't play nice, go stand in the corner.

And always remember, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

I have wondered this since 9/11, and totally agree. Do we really have to have toothpaste and shampoo with us on the plane? Carry-on your laptop, camera or purse, but check the luggage.

Heres an idea for Americans who so love to have choices: Airline security offers a fast line for those of us that like to travel light, and a slower, arrive-3-hours-before-flight-time line for those that can't be bothered waiting 20 minutes after their flight to check their luggage.

I just spent, oh, about an hour and a half reading this blog. There's so much to address here I don't know where to start...

Crying babies... I used to hate them until I had one. I still hate to hear them on the plane, but my emotion is one of concern not anger now. I've flown RT twice with my baby (and helpful hubby in tow who changed a poopy diaper in the small airplane bathroom, goodness bless him), and he has never thrown a fit (baby not husband). But this, I believe, is mostly because we paid EVERY second of our attention to him and showed him Boobah and Teletubbies on our laptop, which brings me to the next point...

If I can't bring my Ipod and laptop on the plane, I cannot fly. I'll miss Vegas very much, but I can't fathom spending several hours in an airport and on a plane with nothing to distract me or my sweet infant from the noises around us (screaming children who are old enough to know better, cell phones, loud tour groups). It's not a matter of whining. Anyone who has been stranded in an airport knows what I am talking about. I once spent 12 hours at an airport gate because the airline people kept saying we'd be leaving in an hour... hour after hour.

Has anyone ever been on a plane that has been sitting on the tarmac for hours at a time? Is there REALLY enough water (forget food, there's not any, anywhere) on the plane to last that long? It's happened and there's not.

I agree that we are giving in to the terrorists with extreme reactions. Typical Bush administration response. No respect for average, working Americans. The government should do their jobs and find the terrorists without making us give up our civil liberties, and yes, dare I say, conveniences. The answer is simple: let's vote for better leaders this year and in 2008.

Insurers in Britain have refused to cover the cost of lost or stolen electronics and valuables banned from carry-ons on UK flights and checked into the hold.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2309322,00.html

Me, I'm not comfortable checking an essential business item like a laptop or a cell phone. In general, I either keep those in a locked personal area to which only I have keys or I don't let them out of my sight. Like the laptops of many non-corporate people who carry computers for business reasons, mine was purchased with my own money, also serves as my sole personal computer, and I can't afford to replace it should it get stolen. (I'm a PhD student in chemical engineering, I don't even own a TV or a microwave). I'm also very concerned about privacy in terms of what happens to the eighty gigabytes of personal and business data on my laptop should it be stolen. I travel frequently enough that this is a real concern for me and I don't even leave my laptop unattended in a hotel room.

I've regularly had less expensive items stolen from my checked luggage. I think you'd have to be really clueless to be willing to let an airline have control of any valuable personal items. One out of every 100 bags is "mishandled," and that doesn't include the ones from which items are stolen.

I feel for musicians, who cannot just check a $20,000 violin (for example), and for whom switching to a new violin is NOT the same as buying a new car -- many, if not most, professional instruments are one of a kind, unique in behavior and sound and valued for their own 'personality' and 'quirks.'

Instead of banning carry-ons, why don't we just ban passengers? Then all we'd have to worry about would be the flight crew on every flight - maybe ten on the biggest planes. I bet we could strip-search even ten guys. So yeah, let's just ban all the passengers. Then we could probably eliminate the terrorist threat.
Seriously, ban carry-ons? Are you nuts? Like the airlines don't do little enough for customers now, they have to start taking away privileges?
If someone packs an explosive material into their shirt, or bra, are we going to not allow people to bring those on planes? When does this madness end? Endless tightening of security doesn't make us safer, or the terrorist's jobs any harder. These are people who are willing to die for their God. Banning hair gel isn't going to stop them.
This is the kind of piecemeal solution that so many people go after instead of the obvious: hunt down terrorists in the nations that give them refuge, and improve police capabilities to track the domestic ones. Don't restrict the rights of citizens because U.S. intelligence and police forces can't do their jobs properly.

Bob S - A middle ground - where a society DOES target, profile and adapt some discriminatory measures against a small host population that insurrection and sabotage arises from is preferable to blanket action against all. Meaning it is far less intrusive than taking away certain privileges and rights of the entire population of a society in the name of "fairness" in combating in the name of public safety what all know is the "source population" of insurrection and violent terrorism.

"Government's invariable response to terrorism is a new set of restrictions on the previously innocuous behavior of ordinary citizens". Eventually the day may come when whole populations are wandering around in the functional equivalent of prison clothes and leading their lives under maximum security conditions without even being able to mention how they came to that unfortunate state.

I worry about the rights of the Americans, rather than the rights of a community with considerable terrorist, cultural assimilation, and criminal violence issues.

Historically, even in America, the community that is the source of insurrection and violence is targeted, not the broader population. It's common sense. When they imposed a curfew and heavy police patrols in LA after riots, they did not insist on Minneapolis St Paul also go into curfew double police coverage so LA would "feel better" or say it was unfair to impose on the "vast majority of innocent LA residents" without including Minnesota and all other States outside California for that matter.

First, non-targeted controls are wasteful if there is no need for the security costs if no security threat exists. Second, it does not help to correct behavior if the consequences needed for quashing a single community's dysfunctional elements are "pretended" not to reside in that community and fixes focused on mainly there by residents and authority....but are consequences equally directed at all persons without acknowledgement of where the problem resides.

In foreign lands encountering ethnic or tribal insurrections the countermeasures may be brutal or enlightened - but without variance, they are directed at the community the insurrection stems from...not unaffected communities. To do otherwise would be idiotic.

In the case of correcting Islamic insurrection, what motive to change behavior is there, if consequences are spread with no concern of the community harboring the problem??

A sample of our modern PC idiocies which only date from laws and Leftist policies started in very recent times"

A. Due to the Muslim terror problem we are really cracking down on Polish visas to "balance" our Saudi crackdown..
B. We need to crack down on Muslim terror affecting air travel, so we will make old black ladies dump all their makeup in the trash to "make up" for the Muslim with the bin Laden T-shirt having to dump his sports drink.

As a teaching tool, you never punish the whole school for the misbehavior of a class, but it is good to single that class out even if a minority in the class are the trouble-making real problem because peer pressure can be applied to bring the misbehavers in line, because others in a position to influence have a powerful interest in doing so, so they too are not punished. Same logic is applied in "functional units" in the US military...group responsibility tends to create powerful norms of accepted behavior within the unit that tends to correct behavior problems....

Singling out Muslims for air travel banning would have a powerful effect on the ambivalent. It's one thing to ignore the "wild male teens" at the Mosque who wish to do Jihad on infidels on grounds that Chinese Americans, Hispanics, blacks and whites will all suffer equally - so it is society's obligation to speak out against them - not Muslim brothers....But it's a whole 'nother thing when only Muslims are screwed by the actions of wayward Muslims...They become far more likely to be irate and take action against the juveniles lethal fantasies and actions if they encounter:

1. "Muslim applicants are temporarily not able to work in this job category while the state of emergency due to Islamist terror is in effect."

2. "Muslims need to make alternate arrangements for travel. Only certain flights permit Muslim passengers until the Jihad ends."

3. "All Muslims please alert security and allow an extra hour for supplemental security checks."

4. Muslim study in the fields of virology, genetic modification, nuclear engineering, chemical engineering, martial arts is on hold until the Islamic terrorist emergency is over.

5. No Muslim enlistments in the military allowed until further notice unless applying for non-combat translator positions needed in Farsi, Pashtun, Gulf Arabic, Moroccan Arabic.

Now, of course, laws on the books since the 60s would have to change...but discrimination of this sort would be healthy in encouraging Muslim community members to both want to shut down radical activity they have willingly overlooked and have a good excuse for demanding it in confronting the radicals - [You are not screwing the infidels so much as you are screwing all us fellow Muslims.]

I continue to believe, based on the Israeli experience and success, that it is more efficient and effective to try and identify the bomber than to try and find the bomb.

Babies: Though some debate the humanity of an infant before birth, few have successfully done so afterwards. And though a baby is far more dependent than most of the adults on the flight, many are less annoying. If you have a right to fly, so does an infant. If it's a privilige you are paying for, the infant (and his parents) has the same right to pay for the privilige that you do. There are an infinite number of reasons why an infant might "need" to fly; do you really want someone to completely analyze YOUR reasons every time you buy a ticket?

Racial profiling: Fine and dandy, until someone who looks like YOU commits an act of terrorism. Then YOU become a suspect every flight you take. And as for the terrorists--they can and will use someone who won't be profiled, if it comes to that. Including someone's handicapped grandmother.

Carryons: You can't lock your valuables away from TSA personnel, and there are other ways to get in even if you could. The mechanical systems that airports have put in to streamline the baggage delivery to the plane and back again don't care at all if something sensitive and fragile is inside. And again, like an infant's reasons for flying, or a person who fits the profile of a "terrorist", people have myriad reasons for wanting their carryons--bad experiences, boredom, medical necessity, sensitive data, gifts, personal attachments, perhaps even religious reasons for having a given item nearby. You never know. A partial or outright ban on carryons has to deal with all the possibilities, whether YOU think they're worthwhile or not.

There is no simple answer. We can't give up our freedoms for security--we will lose both.

Terrorists are not going to be stopped by this measure or that measure at the airline gate. They're going to be stopped by ending the ability for terrorism to achieve the results that terrorists want, and that's a lot harder.

To whew!--thanks for being a responsible parent, or in your case parents. Yes, babies cry, and with the noise, pressure differential, strange surroundings, it's no wonder. I get a little freaked at times myself. But if parents are willing to take the time to care for child it can be kept to a minimum. If we'd all take just a moment to think how our words and actions affect those around us, I think we'd all get along a bit better.

Although terrorist acts are despicable and evil, I observe that terrorists are well motivated and creative. If we ban all carry-ons, I can only assume that terrorists will simply find another way to cause terror in order to bring attention to their cause. It is time for us to begin talking about why human beings are motivated to carry out these terrible acts. There is no easy solution, but it begins with a discussion.

I'm sure I'll get rided for this, but I'm being honest: I'd rather lose an occasional plane to terrorism than have the entire country majorly inconvenienced, the airlines bankrupted, etc. This is the most sophisticated response to terror threats our country can come up with? We should just be glad Richard Reid was not the Underwear Bomber.

I'm not spoiled, but I'm not flying 14 hours to Thailand, a vacation I have dreamed about all my life, without my own blanket (I am freezing to the point of numbness in airplanes), my camera in hand (I've had valuables stolen out of check luggage), or toothpaste. I am ready to take the risk.

Idiot

Checked Luggage is not a reasonable option. TSA requires that suitcase either not be locked or you use TSA approved locks. you can guarantee that your checked luggage will be lost, delayed or items stolen by TSA staff or anybody with a TSA approved lock , key.

Maybe airline travel has become imposible and obsolete??

I have a better solution DONT FLY at all until the airlines & Govts come up with a safe , comfortable and convenient airline system. Let's have a passengers boycott in the meantime, anyone else want to drive their car and visit historic Williamsburg VA!!

I agree with the previous poster on the way to Thailand. I do not let my life be ruled by fear in other aspects; why would should we in this one? We drive despite the commonness of car crashes, people smoke even though it will kill them, and so on. TAKE CHANCES. We should live our lives and not let the terrorists win by making us live by our fears.

I haven't had the patience to read all the comments, but as far as I got, nobody specifically mentioned the fact that the stuff in your carry-on is also the stuff you have available to you when you're stuck in the airport between check-in and boarding and during layovers. THAT's when you expect to be able to use your computer and cell phone; that's when you need the toys and other stuff to keep your kids from going completely nuts; that's when you may need food or medications even more than when you're actually on the plane. If you've ever been stuck in an airport for hours and hours due to canceled or delayed flights, you know how important it is to your sanity and comfort to pack sensibly. Of course, it's even worse if you spend hours and hours IN the plane, waiting on the tarmac ...

I like the idea of lockable overhead bins to keep the carry-on items close to the traveler but not accessible during flight. You would still be able to get at them in the terminal when they are often more needed than during the flight. But that isn't the whole solution. I personally will have a panic attack if I don't have access to chapstick, nasal spray, and a high-protein-low-carb snack (NOT the pilot pretzels) during flight.

Air travel is intrinsically claustrophobic and stressful, and each additional security restriction makes it more so. Sure, we should all be glad at any given moment that we are not in a Humvee in Iraq or a bomb shelter in the WWII Blitz or Europe during the Black Death. But as long as the rest of our lives is outwardly "normal," people are going to travel even if they are not physically and psychologically well-suited to cope with significant privations and discomfort. Consumers have a reasonable expectation that air travel--a civilian for-profit industry deeply intertwined with the rest of the economy--should operate insofar as possible by civilian for-profit principles of reasonable convenience and customer service.

God, I am the last poster.

Good. That means I get to leave some final thoughts. I have a friend, a co-worker, who is of Indian (the subcontinent, not Native American) descent. He is by background of the Hindu faith, although he has converted to Catholisism (go figure.) He has medium dark brown skin, black hair and dark brown eyes. He is also unruffled by almost anything, which is good, as he gets carefully screened, not to mention eyed by fellow passengers, every time he flies. Those of you who are proposing profiling by ethnicity please expain to me why this kind-hearted man should be scrutinized simply because of his looks? Of course, that may be why a nice English bloke by the name of Richard Reid got on a flight so readily (hey, he looked pretty Western to me. Couldn't be a threat...) and, if it weren't for sheer ineptitude, would have blown up a plane over the Atlantic.

Peace out.

Infrequent Flyer a la Japan - "Racial profiling: Fine and dandy, until someone who looks like YOU commits an act of terrorism. Then YOU become a suspect every flight you take. And as for the terrorists--they can and will use someone who won't be profiled, if it comes to that. Including someone's handicapped grandmother."

The fact that a community is judged in need of profiling - then is in the doghouse and gets "special attention" because they refuse to speak out against, act against extremists and terrorists within their community is an excellent example for other communities not to emulate their failure.

It not only motivates the community assigned "group responsibility" ample motive to change...their collective incoveniences then makes for a powerful deterrent to any other group that is contemplating following in radical Islamist footsteps.

Group responsibility is one of the most important and widely used tools to achieve social norms needed to make the group integrate well in the larger organization or society. It is present in corporations as "teamwork" performance evals, in profit-sharing, and a host of other legal and ethical metrics. Military personnel are evaluated in several areas on unit performance with accompanying rewards and punishments.

Group responsibility is assigned nations. If Japan has no tolerance and good control over it's citizens involvement in extremist terrorism, it can expect different and more conducive treatment of it's citizens traveling oveseas than the Sudanese, with an out of control terror problem - have any right to expect.

If British Muslims are banned from air travel as a collective punishment for failing to confront a lethal menace within their ranks - it is an incentive for them to work to get internal control of extremists through family and peers. And it is a warning and excellent deterrent to other groups contemplating terrorism or moving towards developing excuses justifying it's use by certain extremists within their ranks.

The argument that profiling only guarantees "it will be your groups turn in the leper colony soon" is false logic. Profiling is a reason for other groups NOT to end up being singled out for inconveniences and personal misery by preventing their family, friends, and acquaintances from becoming involved in violent extremism. And incentive for the affected community to turn in or cast out the terror-loving Mullah, the pro-life fanatic who counsels others that abortion clinics should burn, the preacher of racial violence.

Kristine - "He is by background of the Hindu faith, although he has converted to Catholisism (go figure.) He has medium dark brown skin, black hair and dark brown eyes. He is also unruffled by almost anything, which is good, as he gets carefully screened, not to mention eyed by fellow passengers, every time he flies. Those of you who are proposing profiling by ethnicity please expain to me why this kind-hearted man should be scrutinized simply because of his looks?"

You might wish to ask him how he feels. Hindus on the Subcontinent calculate that 25 million of their bethren were murdered by the Islamic enemy since around 900 AD. Many Indians actively profile themselves. Americans are "new" to significant numbers of Hindis and Muslims from the subcontinent, do not pick up on the existing differences in behavior, dialects, appearance Indians utilize to distinguish...Generally, Hindis understand they are still "exotic" to Americans but that the only real area of concern Americans have with HIndis is about outsourcing and economic competition issues.

And Americans have a learning curve where they will eventually understand they should have little concern about Hindus, Sikhs, Singhalese, Tamil resistance indulging in international terror. There was one incident of Sikhs taken down a jet 20 years ago. Otherwise, compared to Muslims, the groups are almost whistle clean with regards to violence carried outside the Subcontinent and affecting foreigners.

Not so the Muslims. Lots of Paki, Indian, Afghan, and Bengali Muslim terrorists.

Chris - I appreciate the point that you're making: That it's a counterproductive waste of time & resources to spread investigative resources broadly & randomly, when some types of threats are known to be highly correlated with certain identifiable traits (age, ethnicity, residency & travel history, etc). I know that you're overstating things to make a valid point, but you're also continuing to use (what I think is) a very weak link:

"Islam". Affiliation to a major religion is usually self-identified and therefore suspect. I will grant you that when someone claims to be a disciple of Meir Kahane or Osama bin Laden or Bal Thackeray or Pat Robertson, then I know something about that person. They may well be capable of less-than compltely charitable or well-considered thoughts or actions. But I don't think that their rashness is particularly related to their being Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or Christian (respectively). Zealots with selfish motives and vicious impulses crop up regularly, both historically & recently.

Religion is generally a self-or-parent-selected arbitrary attribute, and means nothing. When Sammy Davis Jr. became Jewish, plenty of "cool" folks wanted to be a Jew. Once Cassius Clay became Muhammed Ali, half of the thugs in U.S. prisons wanted to be a follower of the Prophet.

If you believe that intelligence investigators should target their investigations more carefully, then don't fall into the trap of using meaningless labels like "Islam" as if they actually have any bearing on the real world. Muhammed Ali, Omar Khayyam, the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (just so we don't mix him up with all of the other "Khomeini"'s & "Khameini"'s running around!), and my ex-coworker Idriss (from Ethiopia) at Best Buy were all Muslims, but have very little in common that would be helpful indicators while protecting air travellers.

I guess my point is - try to stick to the stuff that matters, don't get drawn off into vaporous things like religion. Religion has very little to do with the cruel games being played recently.

Aww, heck. It's the middle of the night, and nobody's going to read this anyway, so I'll offer a parable:

Several Chicago Bear's fans "met" each other through a football-oriented website. Most of them shall remain nameless, but two of them were named "Rob" and "Kris". As this group continued to trade banter and insight, it came to light that they were all deeply offended by the practice of putting fruit (particularly, but not exclusively, pineapple) on good, honest Chicago-style pizza. It also turned out that some of them were weird/wild/crazy/anti-social enough to consider extreme schemes to make the world aware of their displeasure at this abomination of an otherwise perfect food.

Rob & Kris started having quiet discussions about attention-getting schemes to publicize their hatred of the impure toppings, and (even more quietly) recruited a couple of the other members of the football group as helpers for their eventual acts.

When the first few pepperoni links were heaved through the windows of Chicago-area pizza restaurants, all bearing the "No fruit, More sausage!" message burned into the casing, it was initially viewed as obnoxious but relatively harmless vandalism. But given the costs of replacing plate glass windows and cleaning up the shards, patrols of private security guards and the "City's Finest" were stepped up, especially in the party districts where the after-game crowds gathered for drinks and pizza.

The increased scrutiny led the COPAFF ("Chicago Original Pizza Anti-Fruit Fanatics", as they'd taken to calling themselves) to devise increasingly devious techniques to deliver their message without detection. When a time-delayed pepperoni mortar seriously injured a late-night cleanup crew member at Aurelio's (the pepperoni was firm but supple. It was the glass shards that caused the bleeding!), the constabulary got serious, and the boys had to "up" their game with random pizza delivery carjackings and supply truck robberies which seriously restricted the flow of pineapple throughout the town.

A lucky break eventually led to the arrest & conviction of Rob & Kris (& three other co-conspirators) and the dissolution of the COPAFF organization.

The question is: What does any of this have to do with being a Bears fan?
The answer is: Nothing.

Somebody wrote that most of the terrorists today are muslims. Who took the census of terrorists?

the terrorists are now using the worsd "islamo fascists" to ntofiy the world that hree is a new enenmy...

this is alamrming....

neo conArtists in love....

Nicaragua, Dallas Texas Nov 22, 1963

Just ban the Muslims from flying until after the war. Then the problem is solved. The Muslim community has never made any serious attempt to condemn the activities of there extremist nor have they promoted tolerance toward western culture. It is extremely difficult to tell which Muslims have nefarious intent so ban them all regardless off race or nationality from flying. Why sacrifice security for political correctness?

Spot on Andrew, but let's go a whole lot further. Muslims should be made to travel on exclusive airlines, full stop. Never mind about terrorist issues - THESE PEOPLE JUST CAN'T ASSIMILATE WITH OTHER CULTURES. On a recent Thai Airways flight from Bangkok to Australia, other passengers were subjected, for eight hours, to the incredible bad manners of these people. They made up a large percentage of the plane's passengers, and proved themselves downright rude and ignorant. Their children made nuisances of themseleves running around the plane and remained unchecked. The men sent the women to take up any spare seats in economy so the menfolk could stretch out to sleep, causing discomfort to other passengers. Checking luggage in took TWO HOURS longer than normal. Why? Because these people took on far more on board than is supposedly permissible. Yet not one airline official objected, despite it causing irritation and anger amongst other passengers. In short, why the hell should any person have to be subjected to the discomfort, let alone outright fear, that having these people in our society engenders? Ban them and their hand-luggage from planes, and preferably from our society also. Am I a racist - No! But I am "Faithist" - I hate Muslims, and am proud to stand up and say I don't want them in my backyard.
PS: To the person who made the comment about entertaining a child on a flight when their toys are in the hold - I'm sorry, but I think the safety of all passengers is more important than entertaining a whining kid!

Jayne Y said:

"
THESE PEOPLE JUST CAN'T ASSIMILATE WITH OTHER CULTURES
"

are you talking about the jewish nation? "the chosen"? what people are you talking about, some other racists, crackers maybe?

aryan nations? or just elitist caste driven perps?

please be more specific, unless you're a man posting as a woman under several different names as you have in the past, spraying out aryan propaganda,

hate filled agenda? do I need to post this six or seven times with different names to match you?

.

I have the best solution of all ban all people from flying. No more delays,no accidents,no bombs,no security checks, and no loss of life !

These "ban babies" posts must be from some of the angry people I see here and there who acream and rant about everything that isn't exactly the way they want it. Grow up, grow a pair and learn to be an adult. Babies sometimes scream; sometimes they don't. But they are no more annoying than the "tap-tap-tap" of the laptop user behind me all the way there. And if they OK cell phoen use on planes, watch out. At least babies are human, which - judging by some of these posts - some of you are not.