Slashdot Mirror
Charter Flight Websites / Services?
X86Daddy asks: "TSA's latest announcement banning all fluids (toothpaste even) from carry-on luggage is the icing on a very sour cake. Many passengers are growing tired of the invasive security screenings, the increasing prices, lost and stolen luggage, and the decreasing quality of service with commercial flights in the United States. However, given the geographical size of this country and the lack of rail options, flight remains the only practical method of travel for most destinations. Can anyone suggest alternative flight services? Are there websites that connect Cessna or other small scale air charter services with interested passengers? I've found CharterX and CharterHub but they seem more geared toward executives looking for jets. Does anyone have experience traveling this way? Is the price point a lot higher, making this a dumb idea (just resign myself to buying toiletries at every destination and prepare for the mandatory anal probes in '07)?"
... you could just, you know, not put your toiletries in your carry-on and not buy them at each destinations. Am I the only one who doesn't typically have toothpaste in his carry-on ? The only case I could see is when you're gone for only two days and want to avoid waiting for the other luggage but even then...
Who, the G-men or the poster?
If you've been paying attention the past few years, the FAA and the major airlines seem hellbent on removing general aviation from the US altogether (closing non-airline airports, insisting on implementing per request fees for ATC, trying to ground all aircraft built before the last few decades. And don't get me started on the stupidity of every major city wanting a Washington D.C. style Air Defense Identificaton Zone). I suspect having nothing flying anywhere near the ground except governemnt controled drones would suit them just fine.
Join Tor today!
... I know that B.A. Baracus is happy.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
...the "not being blown to chunks at 30,000 feet"...
Inconceivable that you would rather "take your chances" than leave your toothpaste behind.
Doesn't the Government work for us? (Rhetorical question). It was interesting to hear our Attorney General at the press conference- the ernest docent, trying to convince us they were doing their very best to keep us informed and that all of this was for our safety. It's ridiculous.
I wonder if who's going to test suckling womens brests?
I don't know which side you're on with the reactionary comment but to me this is a clear trend towards reducing personal freedoms through bureaucratic hoops. Personally, I don't want to fly as much as I used to because I don't want to wait in line for 2 hours or give them my fingerprints to get in the quick line. I want to bring my own freakin toothpaste when I travel. Freedom to move around the country is a pretty basic right which is being eroded by stealth.
I was on a flight to Kuwait deploying with my unit. We were waiting to fly out of Ft. Campbell and these guys are running around telling us we have to pack our Gerbers, Folding knives, and lighters in our stow bags and that they cannot be on your person or in your carry on.
All of our guns though - no problem. We didn't even take out the bolts.
I understand that a military flight vs a civilian flight is totally different, but c'mon. You let me bring my GUN on the plane?
hi mom!
Getting your own pilot's license is a bit of work but easily do-able on your average geek's salary. Then go in on a Cessna with a few friends or join a flying rental club and you've got something that can do the shorter hops easily. It won't be cheaper, but it's not as insanely expensive as most think, and no one will search you or even ask you where you're going (unless you fly through class B or C airspace, and then only in general terms).
Alternately, in a couple years the Very Light Jet (VLJ) market is supposed to take off and offer the kind of services you suggest on a level that an upper-middle-class American can afford, but not yet. Watch Eclipse, Honda, and the others roll out their aircraft and look for the small carriers to use'em.
E pluribus unum
Had they (terrorists/freedom fighters) succeeded would this article be here complaining about we cant bring on toothpaste, or would we be talking about the 10-20 planes and thousands of people who died today?
-- "of course thats just my opinion, I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
My brother-in-law and his family live up here in Vancouver. When his father-in-law comes up to visit from the Bay Area he just flies his own plane. No security, no lines, and he can even smoke a cigar.
Source:
eBay Motors> Other Vehicles & Trailers> Aircraft> Airplanes - Single-Engine
In a mature society, "civil servant" is semantically equal to "civil master." --Lazarus Long
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
Or, even better for this topic:
So the article says they will make an exception for "prescription medicine with a name that matches the passenger's ticket". Because we know that no terrorist would be able to forge those labels, right?
On the flip side, the U.S. Department of Transportation is completely ignoring the railway as an answer to our nation's transportation problems.
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
You said one thing right:
In order to be fair, this ultimatum should be only *after* we have stopped our meddling in the Middle East. All troops should first be unilaterally withdrawn and all aid to Israel should cease.
I think you'd find that if the US did that, all of the attacks would stop.
You never actually get to see the G-man for more than a few seconds except at the end of the game.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
...Because if there's one thing better than folks whose government dislikes us but whose population is ambivalent, it's a country with a desperate, starving population with nothing to lose and whose brothers, sisters, parents and babies we've killed.
Seriously, the only way to stop this stuff in the long term is cooperation and a sharing of cultures. The amount of energy at the disposal of each person on Earth is becoming more massive each year, and we're never going to catch everyone. We need to begin the process of stopping them from wanting to attack us. That means marginalizing the radical elements of both their culture and ours (people such as yourself), and eliminating those people's support among their peers (that's us, modding you down).
E pluribus unum
Forget about toothpaste. What about, like, packing a lunch -- bottled water, yogurt, some energy bars? Its not like you get anything to eat on the plane anymore, and if you load up on fluids so you don't dehydrate (an issue in the dry, thin cabin air), well, they don't let you go potty on the approach to Washington National.
So I guess the flight experience will be like the Ramadan fast -- no fluids, no food -- for X hours, only X may be unpredictable and open ended given flight delays. A multi-hour no-fluid no-food fast is doable for multi-hours, but we are talking about in an environment where you don't want to be dehydrated because 1) dry-thin air, 2) the cramped seats where you are vulnerable to deep-vein thrombosis, 3) you are packed in with strangers sharing their nasal viruses. So it will be like Ramadan combined with the Hadj.
So the coffin corner is you can't pack lunch, and they won't serve you lunch, so you can sit there and be hungry and thirsty.
True. I wish high speed rail would become a reality in the United States. The first step would be removing the broken-beyond-repair disaster known as Amtrak so that a competent agency can take their place. Currently, politics prevents passenger rail in the U.S. from being anything but a miserable failure.
I am sure they're all just laughing their heads off at this very moment.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Who do we complain to about this? And how quickly will such a complaint turn into a spot on the no fly lists?
I mean, honestly, this is just insane.
I'm trying to put together a coherent thought or two about this, but I just can't wrap my brain around the scale of the disconnect between what they claim they're trying to achieve and the means they're employing. Either they're lying to us about their goals, or they have absolutely no sense of perspective, or they're viciously incompetent. Or some combination of the three. I just can't come up with any other explanations.
Had they (terrorists/freedom fighters) succeeded would this article be here complaining about we cant bring on toothpaste, or would we be talking about the 10-20 planes and thousands of people who died today?
Thousands of people did die today... Due to car accidents, cancer, and poverty. If we're just trying to stop deaths, we should focus on making safer cars, researching cancer, and helping those less fortunate than ourselves.
I suspect, however, that all of this terrorism hype isn't about stopping deaths. We don't even know for sure that there was going to be a terrorist attack. The US and UK governments are far from being trustworthy. The US government has contemplated "simulated" terrorist attacks to change public opinion.
Anyone who has been flying very often for very long knows:
- Flights have gotten dramatically cheaper in the past few years. With the discount carriers (Southwest) and competition from the big carriers, round-trips under $150 are not uncommon.
- Flying is easier than ever. Security has gotten more annoying, but everything else is better.
- Gone are the days when you had to go to the counter (or tip a skycap) to check in (even if you don't have checked baggage). - - Gone are the days when you had to wait for your tickets in the mail (or go to the airport or a travel agent).
- Gone are the days when you had to spend countless minutes (sometimes hours) in line or on the phone just to book a flight. Today, you can book online easily and get your boarding pass from an easy-check-in kiosk.
- There are more flights to more places from more places at more times. Non-stop is the norm if you are in a decently large city.
So, I guess the only real complaints are:
- Services have been reduced. No more free meals, for one - often no hot meals at all. But, hey, airplane food was never good, and at least you don't have to pay for headphones anymore. And, if it lowers my fares more, I'm all for cutting the frils.
- Security takes longer. It's always been a joke, it still is, and I suspect that it always will be. Guess what, though? It's standardized now, so you know what to expect, and the inspectors are paid better, so they usually aren't asleep on the job. In a well-managed airport (e.g. Denver), the lines are short or nonexistant during off hours, reasonable during normal times, and acceptable during peak hours.
So, air travel is available to more people than ever before, and it's easier than ever in most regards. I think that you can put your toothpaste in your checked luggage.
"We have a strong, technologically advanced military. It's time that we used it to put the fear of God into our enemies. " :)
We HAD one, then came the post-Gulf War drawdown (woo hoo! we gonna git da Peace Dividend!) after which the Chuck Spinney-predicted Bow Wave ("tsunami" is more like it) coupled with Rumsfelds insistance on not using the 9/11 mandate to rebuild the armed forces left us strung out and overstretched.
The US military has exhausted the Reagan-era equipment we have relied on for the past two decades, and "transformation" ain't happening. We don't have the resources to "carpet bomb" much of anything. Most of SAC and TAC went to AMARC or the smelter.
Now we are shitcanning 40,000 airmen to pay for jets we cannot afford because leadership refuses to buy in quantities that allow economies of scale. Good luck if we actually have to fight someone that is both competent and has an air force...
Not that I'm bitter.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
There should be an ultimatum: if there is another terrorist attack or attacks causing major loss of life, any country found to be harboring and/or funding Islamic terrorists will be attacked. Not invaded. Attacked. Their cities will be summarily carpet-bombed...
It's a reasonably good strategic response to a rational state-like entity whose strength is in their infrastructure, especially in a situation like, say, Afghanistan, where there's close cooperation between the state and the terroists. It loses a considerable amount of its strategic value against non-state actors whose life depends on in the appeal of their ideology, and where the state and the terrorists may have at best an uneasy state of coexistence.
In many cases, what we want from states which are in the uneasy-coexistence state (or better) is greater cooperation in pursuing and apprehending terrorists, and in suppressing radical Islamist elements. That greater cooperation has to come both from the authorities and population. Carpet-bombing a city is unlikely to produce the cooperation. Nor is it particularly improbable it could create sympathy for radical Islamist claims.
Tweet, tweet.
I can't agree with that because you'd probably end up killing hundreds of innocent people for every terrorist that you manage to kill. I think the worldwide opinion would drastically change if the US was attacked even after having pulled out of foreign countries, although we still couldn't be sure about whether any attack was a false flag attack.
I agree with you on the negative trend with air travel, but ultimately we have to remember that air travel is a very expensive, cumbersome and fragile way to travel. When you introduce terrorists trying to screw it up it just makes it tougher from a practical and economic stand point. To me, it is obvious that we have to be looking at alternative infrastructure in the way of trains, not just as a backup for terrorist disruptions but if oil prices keep rising. Over the last 100 years we have dismantled trains and poured money into highways and air and neither of these are as robust or cost effective, especially if mass transit is a priority. There's a reason why all other nations have kept or expanded their rail service: it's reliability and long term cost efficiency.
Are you glad to see me or is that a tube of toothpaste in your pocket that you're gonna use to blow the plane??
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
You've hit the nail on the head. The OP's strategy would work great against Iran, or Syria or some other active sponsor of terror. But in many cases, like with Pakistan, or Columbia, or the Phillippines, such a strategy would backfire badly. The collective punishment of the entire populace would simply make the terrorists there more popular, as they'd be the only ones seen doing anything against "American aggression."
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
You might as well get used to staying around home. The security and safety problems with air transportation are just part of the problem with long-distance travel. There's also the problem of decreasing fuel supplies/increasing costs, and the ecosuicidal problem of pollution and climate change. Has anyone else noticed that air carriers keep going out of business? Maybe it simply isn't a viable business anymore.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if, within the current generation's lifetime, long-distance travel again became fairly uncommon, and the late-20th-century jet-set boom turned out to be an historical blip. Fortunately we now have global communication, so people wouldn't exactly be cut off from the rest of the world like in the 19th century and before... but physical travel may become a luxury. And the global manufacturing economy? Could be strictly a short-term phenomenon, with it eventually becoming cheaper and safer to make things in Toledo rather than ship them in from Thailand. P.S. Be nice to your local farmer; you may end up depending on him to produce food for you.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
In SE houston, we had a small start up airline called "Metro Air". They flew twin and 3-engine craft, seated about 20-40 passengers, went Houston-San Antonio, Austion, DFW, New Orleans, a few other closeby destinations, cheaper than you could drive a car, and about half the time. They flew out of small airports, the kind that can't take jets. Their planes were always full, and they were expanding flights, etc. They were seriously cutting into the big jet/big airline's market space because of simple efficiency: prop planes use less fuel, less ground support, require less technology, etc.
Continental bought them out and shut them down.
I heard (but can't verify myself) that these "puddle jumper" airlines were popping up all over the country because of this, and the big airlines were buying them like Continental did.
Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
I guess what I never understood is where air travel is protected in the Constituion.
Might I suggest that you read the Ninth Amendment?
Apparently not, because they're emptying all of these containers of potential explosive and dangerous chemicals into big trashcans right in the middle of airport crowds:
d _could_.html
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/08/10/if_the_liqui
Is there any way they would endanger the public this way if they really thought there was any chance the "liquids" could be dangerous? And if they don't think there's such a chance, why are they confiscating them in the first place?
I call bullshit.
If everyone who was fed up with this whole "war on terror" thing decided to vote their conscience, things could be very different. We could...
* Get rid of the so-called "Patriot Act",
* Protect our troops in Iraq -- by bringing them HOME (and apologizing to the Iraqi people for the mess we've made; two wrongs don't make a right),
* Restrain the TSA,NSA,CIA,FBI,FAA,FCC, and their kind before we have no freedoms left,
* Employ a two-prong approach with respect to terrorism: Be very willing to talk to any nations and groups who want to open dialogue -- as long as they renounce terrorism. Truly work with them to address their concerns. (Reducing our dependence on military action to keep the oil flowing would help here.) On the other hand, be very forceful when dealing with terrorism. Determine the responsible parties, and make them and their supporters pay. No theatrics -- just quick, effective measures with an absolute minimum of so-called "collateral damage".
* Reduce our dependence on oil. This would help on many fronts, by reducing our need to ensure the oil supply is uninterrupted; to cut funding to these radical groups; and to no longer be the massive consumerist empire in the eyes of the rest of the world.
* Finally, elect a government (from whichever party) that will recognize that neither are all of the world's people Christians -- nor do they want to be. We need to elect ourselves a more secular government that won't treat this whole mess as a jihad from the other side. Hezballah and Al-Qaeda aren't the only ones fighting a so-called "holy war" here. Let's keep our religion personal. Above all, let's have the courage to say -- and really mean -- those four important words: "I might be wrong."
(Sorry to rant, but this seemed to be the place for it.)
Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
Is this a troll? I just can't tell anymore..
Those US soldiers in Iraq are not protecting MY freedoms. If that's their goal, they're doing a piss-poor job of it, because MY freedoms have been getting reduced and eliminated left and right since the infamous 9/11 tragedy.
Maybe they are over there to "bring freedom and democracy to Iraq" instead? That wasn't the given reason at the beginning. The Bush administration was telling everyone that Saddam had "ties" with Al Quaeda and Saddam was actively developing chemical and nuclear WMDs, and Rumsfeld said they knew exactly where. Fast forward several years.. We are $450 BILLION dollars deeper in debt because of this war (here you are, son), even while pork spending has increased, freedoms and rights have decreased, our volunteer forces have been stretched beyond their sustainable limits, and over 100 THOUSAND people have died as a result of this incompetently planned war. And we are no safer from terrorism in 2006 than in 1996.
Truth is, the soldiers over there are obeying orders, and generally obeying them well. The orders are what's fucked up, and the reason we're over there in the first place, and it's a fucking crime that we're at WAR in Iraq at all.
Back to the shampoo bottles.. do you think it matters to a suicide bomber whether the explosives are in the carry-ons or the checked luggage? Or whether the utensils are plastic? Forget whether you feel safer? Are you safer?
Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts.
If they kill 100 or 1,000 our innocent civilians, you think we should respond by killing thousands or tens of thousands of innocent their civilians? That's about the only thing I can think of that will swell the terrorist ranks more quickly than our current meddling in the region. You're not exactly dealing with rational, cost-benefit type people here: they place zero value on human life, including (maybe especially) their own. The nuclear standoff of the Cold War worked because the USSR didn't want war anymore than we did. To a radical Islamist, mutually-assured destructions just looks like the express line to heaven.
The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer. - Albert Einstein
If you've been paying attention the past few years, the FAA and the major airlines seem hellbent on removing general aviation from the US altogether (closing non-airline airports, insisting on implementing per request fees for ATC, trying to ground all aircraft built before the last few decades. And don't get me started on the stupidity of every major city wanting a Washington D.C. style Air Defense Identificaton Zone). I suspect having nothing flying anywhere near the ground except governemnt controled drones would suit them just fine.
You clearly aren't aware of AOPA's extensive, successful lobbying efforts. They've been a constant voice against GA (General Aviation) paranoia (ie "someone's going to steal a Cessna and smash it into a Nu-cle-ar power plant!") in the Federal and local government. When the FAA abritrarily revoked the license of the widely loved Bob Hoover because he hit the maximum age, AOPA fought his case. They made a HUGE ruckus when Mayor Daley bulldozed Meigs Field illegally for a park (Daley literally had bulldozers come in during the middle of the night and start tearing up asphalt, when several groups challenged the plans in court.) They've been a powerful, strong voice to Congress (and the press) regarding the incredibly frightening "standard operating procedures" for when pilots stray into restricted airspace.
Most of the time, controllers don't actually TELL pilots they've done so- or the pilot has switched over to the next control jurisdiction (and when you do so, you tell the controller you were with that you're leaving the frequency- so they SHOULD be able to 'know' 'where' you are.) Most of the time, either nobody notices or cares, or the pilot gets an "interview" with a friendly local FAA or Homeland InSecurity rep when he lands.
However, all too often, the first sign a pilot has strayed into restricted airspace is when a blackhawk helicopter pops down next to them, or they get buzzed by a fighter jet. Radio problems are a recurring theme in the encounters- military aircraft with semi-working civilian-band radios, or military pilots not knowing what frequencies the pilot is on/should be on.) You can't really lean out the window and say "hey, officer, what's the problem?", and GA pilots are faced with a terrible conundrum- clearly someone is pissed, but what to do? Change flightpath, possibly becoming more of a threat? Keep going straight, inadvertently continuing towards whatever everyone is hot and bothered about, and get shot down once they cross some 'line in the sand'? Nevermind that when you've got a guy with a very big machinegun trained on you, flying the plane suddenly becomes the least of your worries, and that's VERY dangerous...
Then there's the media frenzy and news helicopters covering you getting taken down on the tarmac by a SWAT team, getting "interviewed" by half a dozen government agencies over a simple human error, possible criminal charges, your pilot's license suspended, your plane (or someone else's plane- many times they are rentals) getting impounded, etc.
If you're sitting there saying "stupid pilots should know not to fly into restricted airspace", keep in mind that the number of restricted spaces EXPLODED in the last few years because of You Know When...and these spaces are frequently around insignificant things like, say, a major grain processing plant that Homeland Insecurity classified as "critical infrastructure". Things that are NOT marked on charts. They're also frequently date/time specific (ie, some big concert is going on somewhere, and DoHiS issues a restriction just for the event. There are a half dozen KINDS of restricted airspaces, with all sorts of varying altitude limits and such.
Please help metamoderate.
The point is that, while many people in certain countries may somewhat support the radical Islamists, a relatively small fraction of the population is actually willing to take the express train to heaven. If they realized that the actions of the radical Islamists had dire consequences, they might well take it upon themselves to eliminate the radical Islamists.
-b,
very well put..
The only thing I over-heard which would upset me is 'no water bottles' I find airplanes extremely dry, so I'll usually take 2 - 1 liter bottles of water with me, ( yeah, thats a guarenteed bathroom break, ha ha ). But seriously, without a good constant stream of water, my eyes are burning, my mouth is all clammy, and twice, i've had nose bleeds. ( i take about 4 round trip flights a year ) So to lose something as basic as water would really frustrate me.
But as i stated at the beginning " I over-heard ", so it may not even be that bad.
I really wonder how business travellers are gonna handle this...
I am often amazed by the real blind spot America has to the advantages of rail.
I put it down to the unbelievably negative effect of any Amtrak travel experience, I can understand anyone having a negative opinion if Amtrak is all you have had opportunity to experience. They are a freight network. Please do not judge modern commuter rail travel by their miserable example.
The second barrier of course is the political influence of the airlines and car/road makers.
The fact is there are three, not two, integrated forms of transport. High speed rail is a major utility between cities and towns in most modern nations, except the US.
The lack of rail in the USA, is in fact a big opportunity to do it right. For example, if we used Maglev, we could run fast (300 mph plus trains) between cities, bridging the transit gap between (gasoline dependent) short haul cars (good up to a few hundred miles) and security infested terror target aircraft (good for long haul). Fast trains neatly fill the 50 mile to 1000, mile middle range. Imagine new york to washington in 40 minutes. Downtown to major airports in 10 minutes. Less traffic and city congestion. Less car pollution. Fast, smooth, safe, cheap. Whats not to like? Trains themselves are also a low pollution option (Initially building a rail network, however, is not so green , a necessary trade off).
Electric surface level trains are an inherently poor terrorist target, if anyone hijacks one, just turn off the power and call SWAT. They have no-where to go. If we want to talk about strategic security, I imagine that a high speed transcontinental alternative to air travel just might be a national asset in a real war. Are the people who calmly veto this, really the patriots they claim to be?
The lack of a decent network of high speed rail in the US is, IMHO, a clear example of the negative effect of corrupt political lobbying preventing any form of purely public benefits in long term planning. It seems to me that if it doesn't benefit an existing power-bloc, it simply can't happen anymore. This defeats real progress and innovation. Not a good thing.
Train networks are certainly not perfect, they tend to break even at best and in most countries seem to oscillate between inneficient government operation and efficient but overpriced and fragmented private operation.
High political maintenance not-withstanding, I submit that having a good inter and intra city commuter rail network, is a major public benefit, its simply a huge advantage to have a third travel option.
There is no god; get over it already! Never exchange a walk on part in the war, for a lead role in a cage.
Airline security is a joke. And it's on us.
Next attack attempt: weapons/substances smuggled in via anally-inserted container
Response: All passengers must submit to anal probe prior to takeoff. You may request a same-sex examiner, but it may delay you further.
Next attack attempt: weapons/substances swallowed, produced in-flight either by regurgitation or timed bowel movement
Response: All passengers must submit to a 24-hour fasting/emetic/diuretic/laxative regimen before takeoff. Water will be provided; outside drinks not allowed. You must use the provided toilet facilities to ensure proper testing/inspection of waste.
Next attack attempt: a team of guys trained to bite effectively
Response: All passengers must have all teeth removed prior to takeoff. There will be two dentists on duty per airport to process the unprepared, but lines will be long, so plan ahead.
Next attack attempt: regular old martial arts
Response: Seats eliminated; all passengers shall be assigned a sealed 3' x 3' x 8' pen and will be locked in for duration of flight.
Next attack attempt: guys wait near airports with surface-to-air rockets
Response: All buildings/cities/people removed from all airports to a distance of five miles, and land paved (and landfill created, if near water); round-the-clock patrols and spotters emplaced, with orders to shoot on sight anyone straying from the single barbed-wire/barrier-encrusted access road.
Next attack attempt: bomb detonated and/or machine guns deployed in by-now immense crowd waiting to get through initial security checkpoint
Response: ????
How far does this idiocy go before we decide there must be a better way, folks? Hm?
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
Asking people to remove their shoes and preventing them from bringing liquids on board is that invasive? There are the rare extreme cases of people being unfairly searched, but that's a handful of people out of hundreds of thousands that fly each day.
Well, yes and no.
Our current commercial airline security system sucks and it is no better now than it was before 9-11. They continue to look for "stuff" instead of doing threat analysis. They continue to treat the passengers as the weakest link. They continue to ignore the thousands of other ways to get bad stuff onto airliners. Whenever something like this comes up in the news, they renew their focus on passenger screening and add whatever the threatening item of the day is to their list of stuff you can't bring aboard airliners.
The simple truth is nearly anything can be a weapon when in a skilled hand, and bombs can be made out of items that seem harmless.
The only real solution is a comprehensive approach to security. While passengers are the most obvious entry-point, there are dozens of other ways that items make their way onto airliners that aren't examined. The big deal right now is air cargo, as it's not searched at all, and it's put in the belly of the plane right under your feet. However, there's also catering and provisions, maintenance, luggage handlers, the TSA themselves, and a whole slew of other support personnel that go through no security at the start of each shift and the majority of which have full, unsupervised access to aircraft.
Why don't we search these people? Because it's impractical and costly. One could argue that, as part of the hiring process, these people would be thoroughly checked out, but I assure you the checks aren't nearly as thorough as you think they are or should be.
So, to answer your original question, is it invasive to have to discard all of your liquid or gel items as you go through security? No. Is it going to make any difference? No.
Instead of bringing it on in gel or liquid form, they'll weave it into a fabric and wear it or they'll use prescription drugs, dissolved into liquids served aboard the aircraft, detonated by their digital watch or they'll have their good friend in provisions put something in a cart or they'll send something via cargo or they'll come up with something never considered before. After many years of going back and forth, we'll be forbidden from wearing clothing aboard aircraft, will be served nothing in the cabin, and the prices will go way up because there's no cargo in the hold anymore and it will still suffer from insecurity.
Am I advocating doing nothing? Absolutely not... security is necessary. However it needs to be put into context... huge efforts in screening sometimes produce small results in security. We should be striving for the small efforts in screening that produce large results in security.
All opinions presented here aren't mine.
Wow. Are you really that ignorant?
Let's review what we know: Terrorists are 1) usually middle eastern
Wrong
2) always Muslim
Wrong
3) aged 15-35.
Wrong again
That's strike three, you're out. Thanks for playing!
We should give every adult who boards a plane a gun, that way the first terrorist to stand up and yell "allah ackbar" would get his brains splattered on the cabin ceiling and that would be the end of that.
Your "idea" (it's not even your idea, I've heard other morons spouting it before) is absurd. 400 cramped people, too much heat, screaming kids, travel stress & alcohol does not equal a sensible environment in which to introduce firearms.
(and despite what Penn and Teller's BullS*$T says, there is actually less crime in texas and that's why)
And yet again, Wrong. From the linked:
In the year 2000 Texas had an estimated population of 20,851,820 which ranked the state 2nd in population. For that year the State of Texas had a total Crime Index of 4,955.5 reported incidents per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 8th highest total Crime Index. For Violent Crime Texas had a reported incident rate of 545.1 per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 13th highest occurrence for Violent Crime among the states. For crimes against Property, the state had a reported incident rate of 4,410.4 per 100,000 people, which ranked as the state 10th highest.
Texas is, statistically, one of the more dangerous states. It seems they are also lacking an education system.
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
Great idea, the only problem is that both sides (ie the Anglo-American Axis and the Pan-Islamic fundamentalists) want everyone else in the world to adopt their respective cultural values and to cooperate, unilateraly in a very one-sided, one-way, master-slave arrangement.
:). )
While perhaps true on a national level, I have not found this to be true of most individuals not directly affected by the national actions (ie. having been bombed in retaliation for something they had no control over). And the more individuals travel and interact with each other's culture, the less this is true. Eventually those folks become leaders and change the system.
I don't think it's coincidence that Bush was one of the least-traveled presidents in recent history and is making so many horrible blunders. I've known and worked with plenty of muslims, and none of them particularly cared if America or I adopted their cultural values. And I sure don't care if they do. I would prefer they (and us) generally respect all of their citizens, and recognize basic human rights, but I think in general a "survival of the fittest" system will take care of that in the long term. (ie. Countries with more racism, sexism, and inequality will under-utilize their citizen's talents and get worse "return on investment" per citizen trained/fed/supported. Maybe I've played too many Civ-style simulation games
What were we talking about again? Oh, right... airline security. Insta-bombing campaigns is unlikely to help with that, either.
E pluribus unum
Let's review what we know: Terrorists are 1) usually middle eastern 2) always Muslim
You mean except when they're named Timothy McVeigh or Terry Nichols?
Or how about Thomas G. Doty, who bombed a Continental Airlines 707 in 1962, killing all on board?
Or, internationally, what about Kim Hyun Hee, who bombed a Korean Airlines 707 as an agent for North Korea in 1987? (No, I'm not talking about flight 007, which was shot down by the USSR.)
Or what about Inderjit Singh Reyat, who constructed the bomb that brought down Air India flight 182 in 1985? Oh, but he's of Indian descent, and I guess to you "they all look the same" over there. (Even though he was Canadian...)
Or how about John Graham, who bombed United Airlines flight 629 in 1955?
That's just scratching the surface; I haven't included bombings where non-muslim extremists from Latin America, the Balkans, or Asia are suspected but not named.
Still going to cling to your theory that terrorists are "always Muslim" or even "usually middle-eastern"? The vast majority of airliner bombings have been perpetrated by non-muslim, non-middle easterners. They're not always political (at least two of the above were life insurance scams), but that hardly matters to the passengers, who are just as dead.
I've seen a guy like that getting on Air Force One, maybe they better check him out
Any explosive can be disguised as anything. All a potential terrorist has to do now is to disguise a explosive in something that isn't currently banned. Let's say that a terrorist is able to place a hard drive-sized bomb in a laptop. Do we ban laptops now? Any explosive can be disguised, and any object can be made a weapon if you throw it in the right angle. Banning everything we see just because of some irrational fear of "oh my god! oh my god! Terrorist can do this, and this, and that" is a ridiculous policy, and it doesn't stop a true terrorist. At best it just inconviences travellers, and at worst it just gives terrorists new ideas.
This is an important issue. It's the government's irrational anti-terror measures that are causing more and more irritations each day. Government officials aren't reacting out of common sense, they are reacting out of irrational fear. And, you just thrown another "grow up, suck it up, c'est la vie" comment that a lot of other people are saying these days. The terrorists have already won if we have to dramatically change the way that we live our lives just because we have some irrational fear that the bogeyman is out to get us. Look at the facts. How many terrorist attacks happen in America per year? Now, how many people die from car crashes/heart attacks/old age/murders/suicides/etc. each day?
All of these anti-terror measures are getting out of hand. But this is what the terrorists want. They want us to live in fear every day. They want us to give up all of the conviences and freedoms that we have. And you're suggesting that we just bend over and take it, as if it were the same thing as taxation and other laws.
Somebody please change this current attitude and policy of security through fear mongering. All of this security and anti-terrorism policies is starting to get really bad and reek of the old days of the Soviet Union. In the 80s, we prided ourselves of travelling anywhere within the country without having to go to a desk with a guy saying "Papers, please." That was restricted to places like the Soviet Union. Now it is not only "papers, please," but it is also a growing list of banned items that do not make sense to ban. Once again, anything can be made a weapon. Do we ban everything, or do we think of sensible policies?
We need to end this war on terror now, before we lose serious freedoms. All of this stuff is a small but growing list of annoyances for the most part. But if this doesn't end, they'll start taking away some real freedoms.
I agree with your position -- I fly on business all the time, and I want (hell, I expect) my government, if it doesn't do anything else for me that day, to at least make traveling reasonably safe.
On the other hand, the security that they do implement seems like a total waste of time. People have already pointed out the problems with the "no liquids" rule: what about liquid medications? Do you not let people with liquid medications on? If you don't, you might kill them or make it much harder for them to travel; if you don't, the whole "no liquids" exercise was pointless, since all you need to do is get an Rx medicine bottle, fill it up with your liquid explosive, and take it on board. (It's even better than putting it in a water bottle, because nobody can reasonably demand that you take a big swig to prove it's not poison -- many medications are poison, or close to it.)
Plus, all the additional restrictions apply only to hand luggage. If you're not putting the same level of scrutiny on every single checked bag (which they don't, because they don't have the resources to do so; it improved slightly after 9/11 but they still do more to hand luggage -- because that's where people will see the security, so that's where it gets put -- than to checked stuff) then someone could put the liquid-bomb there, and remote detonate it from the cabin with a transmitter like every other person in this country already carries on their keychain.
Planes are big, fragile machines; it doesn't take very much to knock one out of the sky. Eventually, I think a few things are going to happen, because the current way we're approaching security just isn't working, and isn't going to work. It's designed to create the appearance of security, not security itself. Probably the biggest step we're going to have to take is to eliminate jumbo and super-jumbo jets: when you have people hell-bent on blowing themselves up, it's not practical to assume that you're going to catch all of them. Thus you can't put so many "eggs" in one basket, either in terms of just the lives lost if one of them is crashed, or by giving the attackers such a large weapon (both literally and in terms of public relations). Smaller, lighter, more fuel-efficient jets, going to more localized airports (further removing some of the terrible centralization our system suffers from now), are probably the best way of limiting the consequences of an attack.
There is just no way to prevent someone who is so absorbed with the task of killing others that they're willing to destroy themselves, from accomplishing their task. Any screening procedure will have holes. Any background check will have places where information can be injected, manipulated, omitted, or forged.
The problem we have, and which our government (and the airline industry generally) isn't willing to tackle, is not something that's going to be solved by issuing a few new procedures to the TSA screeners. It's something that can only be mitigated, and even then will require a huge systemic overhaul of our transportation infrastructure, removing the centralized points of failure that we've built up as ready targets for terrorism, and replacing them with a more robust, fault-tolerant, and survivable one.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
I got a pilots license years ago but stopped flying. Until 9/11. After standing in security lines for hours for a 45 minute flight I realized I didn't need to do that. So I got my pilot's license up to date, bought an airplane and use that for flights under about 800 miles. Now I drive 5 minutes to my local airport instead of an hour to the airport that services airlines. No security lines, freedom to come and go as I please, and faster door-to-door times for shorter flights. Yes it is more expensive. But owning and operating a car is more expensive than taking the bus. Anyone can get a pilots license in 50 to 60 hours of flight training. Check it out.
"Written on the pages is the answer to the never ending story..."
The simple truth is nearly anything can be a weapon when in a skilled hand,
Yup. I can't carry my wooden practice sword into the cabin, but I can bring my wooden cane. I know the cane form a lot better than the sword form right now, so if you're really looking to disarm me, take my cane away. Oh, you think I need that to walk with, so you won't do that. Oops.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
It's not that people can't adapt to small shifts. They can and usually do. The problem people have here is that they realize that adapting to each shift is an acceptance of the extra quarter degree of heat. --The eventual result of which, when all those quarter degree increases are added together, is that the water will boil and the frog will die. Why doesn't the frog jump out before the water boils? Because it's easier to pretend that small shifts don't matter than it is to do something to remedy the situation.
-FL
It is pretty unlikely that charter companies will be able to compete with major airlines for the low cost end of things, more due to physics than business. Turbofan engines tend to be more efficent the larger they are, and the LARGEST aircraft tend to be the most efficent per seat mile, with an execption being for ultra-hi bypass jets (otherwise known as turboprops) in the 50 seat (give or take 20) category. For illustration, the cost per seat-mile for various aircraft is about (on average) $0.06/seat-mile in 777's (about 350 seats), $0.09/seat-mile in 737's (about 130 seats), and about $0.14/seat-mile in EMB-145's (50 seats). Of this, usually 30 - 50 % is fuel costs. When you get to charter size aircraft, the numbers get even worse. Look at a typical charter outfit: http://www.wisconsinaviation.com/charter/intro.htm l - let's do some basic math on the numbers listed there to get an idea of seat mile costs - I'll neglect anything less than a turboprop, because of their far slower speed and ability to handle weather. Based on their numbers, here are the costs per seat-mile, only taking into account aircraft rental and fuel - i.e. ignoring fees, repo flights, and pilot expenses.
:)
Cessna 340: 0.66
Piper Navajo 0.41
Cessna 414 0.51
King Air 0.40
Cessna Conquest II 0.36
Cessna Citation 500 0.59
Cessna Citation I 0.72
Cessna Citation S/II 0.53
All these, even the cheapest, is more than TRIPLE the airliners. And I also made the calculation assuming that every seat was taken, an unlikely assumption given than the person was interested in charter (i.e. non regularly scheduled) ops. It's just not a viable idea. Sadly, from a long-term cost and energy consumption standpoint, rail beats air hands down for most overland travel. Oceans still give planes somewhere worthwhile to fly over....
Not only was it hypothetical, it existed: The Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
Thanks to the Taliban, the Buddhas of Bamiyan, statues that were 1,500 years old and stood 120 feet tall, were blasted out of the mountain cliff from which they were carved because they were "un-Islamic". From the Wikipedia article, "On March 6, the London Times quoted Mullah Mohammed Omar as stating, 'Muslims should be proud of smashing idols. It has given praise to God that we have destroyed them.' " Refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_Bamiyan.
Of course, that is just one of the outrageous acts commited by the Taliban during its terrorizing reign of the Afghanistan, such as beating women for not wearing burkhas, denying women education, executing homosexuals, executing men who didn't wear their beards to the correct length and style, forbidding children from flying kites, etc., etc. Reminiscent of the Nazi regime, which required Jews to wear the Star of David, the Taliban required Hindus to wear a visible patch signifying their religion http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2001-05-22-tal
See also "Islamofacism" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamofascism_(epith
You haven't flown recently, have you? Nobody checks anything if they can even remotely get away from it. Last time I flew (a few months ago), there were people carrying on things that would hardly fit through the door -- they knew damn well it was too big... the "if your bag doesn't fit in here" things are all over the airport. There are two reasons for this... first and foremost, carry-on stuff never leaves your sight and often never leaves your hands. So, It. Doesn't. Get. Lost. (or stolen/picked up by mistake) Since you are carrying it, it goes exactly where you go. Second, checked items are subject to TSA "inspection" which too often translates to breakage and theft.
Compared to what, and how do you justify that claim? Certainly not in terms of actual passenger injuries per mile, since air travel is close to rail travel in that respect, and much better than road travel. For longer trips in particular, alternative forms of transportation can't compete with air travel in terms of speed, and it's not as easy as you might think to compete in terms of cost. Rail isn't cheaper than air in many (most?) cases, and that's not just because of market distortion etc. Building a faster, more ubiquitous and more reliable rail system wouldn't help bring costs down.
NY to Chicago is an 18-hour train trip. NY to LA is something like 56 hours, IIRC. Faster train systems would help, but no country in the world has succeeded in making train travel a really viable system over such long distances. The U.S. dependence on jet travel is a pretty rational one, assuming you don't hanker for the days when travelling across country and back was a multi-week affair.
Let's begin:
Those are the issues that are affecting me the most. The first one might not be so serious (although it still reminds me of the "papers, please" policy of the Soviets), and the second one may only be a local issue, but the latter two are big pressing issues that are a direct consequence of our War on Terror policies.
The best way to fight terror isn't to make our government bigger and to impose countless amounts of restrictions on our citizens, as well as curb civil liberties, listen in on our conversations, and log our data. The best way to fight terror is for the government to get out of Middle Eastern (or any other foreign) conflict. The sooner we exit, the sooner the Middle Easterners won't hate us anymore (hence, no terror attacks from them or any other foreign country), and the sooner we can return to some sense of sanity again. We'll have no terrorism if there is no reason for terrorists to terrorize us in the first place.
This is of course quite true; however, people seem willing to trade security against dying accidentally, for security against dying at the hands of terrorists. For whatever reason, we seem to care more about getting killed by someone else intentionally than we do about dying in a perceived accident. My suggestion more or less took this as a premise: that the increased risk inherent in having more planes in the air would be a good tradeoff for having smaller targets for terror.
Given the political destabilization that can occur as a result of terrorism, this might actually not be a bad thing: look at the chain of events that we can extrapolate out from 9/11, and from the responses to it, and to the responses to them. If an equivalent number of people had died accidentally, many of those secondary and tertiary deaths would not have occurred, the government would probably be less powerful, in general the world would probably be a better place, etc.
While it may seem stupid to say that we should increase our risk of dying in one way to prevent dying in another, when looked at as a society, it may be preferable to have more people dying in airplane crashes than to have a system that is susceptible to terrorism, because of the destabilization that occurs as a result of it.
Indirectly, we do this already: as we make it more and more of a pain to fly, we encourage people to use other, more dangerous methods of transportation. Although I've never seen anyone actually investigate the number of highway accidents as a function of the wait times and security screenings at airports, common sense dictates that when people don't fly, they either don't travel or they use some other method of transportation, and driving is undoubtedly popular. Given that we know driving to be a dangerous way of moving oneself around, we are in effect raising a person's risk by causing them to use the roads instead of the airlines, by making the latter less attractive.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
I would say that The Prez has pretty much got it nailed.
Which is why we are in Iraq...
No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
There are extremists on BOTH sides of the fence. I know we have people here who think a little nuke or three dropped in the right spots would "show 'em who's boss."
However, MOST people, Christians and Islamists alike, would just like to have a decent job, a roof over their heads, enough food to eat, and the desire to send healthy kids off to school in the morning with a reasonable expectation that they'll stay that way.
Bin Laden has a distorted view of his religion, and an agenda to push. GWB also has a distorted view of his religion, and also has an agenda to push.
Personally, I think the planet would be better off with both of them locked away somewhere. Let them fight it out, and the rest of us can get on with living our lives...
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
The reason we have a lack of rail options is mostly due to the fact that our government, or better yet our president is simply not interested in providing tax dollars to fund such a project. Every other rail system in the world (well, a majority of the great ones) are subsidized by the countrie's governments in which they reside. I recall not to long ago, Dubya (congress stopped him) was trying to eliminate ALL government funding to Amtrak. Amtrak NEEDS that funding to survive, even if that money they get is just going to making rail repairs.
;)
I don't think most people realize how much upkeep the railroad takes, and modernizing our crumbling rail infrastructure will not only take time... but some serious investment from the government to make it possible.
Of course, I am biased... because I hate planes and think trains are sexxxy
see sig. see sig run. run sig run.
You just don't see their point of view. Remember how in doom in case of death you appeared at the beginning of the level with just the basic weapons? It was really pain in the behind if it was something like that "spider/fiery fat guys" square level, because you didn't have anything to find with. In the near future flights will be something like loosing your life in doom, only ADVANCED: In every single place (level) you woud have to get completely new identity: new wife, new job, new kids, new college degree etc.
there is no issue with my network
I run it, so this could be spam, but http://www.rsvpair.com/ is exactly what you requested - a free directory that lets people who want to fly charter find operators, give feedback and see prices, both for large executive jets, turboprops, and smaller props like you were requesting here.
I work for an air charter agency in the UK but we operate globaly and put a number of domestic US charters together for our American clients.
Currently, the cost per person of chartering an aircraft is very roughly in line with your high-end business class fare on a scheduled carrier. As an example, a return flight from Port Columbus Intl., Columbus (OH) to Orlando International, Orlando (FL) would cost apprx. USD $1,840 per person in a King Air 200 (based on 7 passengers travelling) and USD $2,660 per person in a Citation II jet (based on 8 travelling).
However, the general aviation world is gearing up for what many people predict to be the dawn of a new age in aircraft charter, the introduction of the VLJ or 'Very Light Jet'. These new style jets are due to come in to service at the end of this year and they have been designed from the ground up for the specific role of air taxi. They are massively more efficient than existing aircraft in their class (4 to 5 seater light jets) and take advantage of all the advancements in material sciences, airframe design and fuels consumption that have been achieved over the last decade or so. It is predicted that these VLJs will open up the air charter market to the middle classes and SMEs. You will no longer need to be a high net worth individual or work for a Fortune 500 in order to afford to regularly fly in them. For more information, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_Light_Jet/. Cessna, Embraer, Eclipse and even Honda are all entering this market.
By the end of 2007 air charter in the US should be a lot more viable for people who are fed up with airlines and major airports.
Your laptops and cameras, cellphones, pdas, all have to be in checked bags now for UK flights or if you are transiting UK. There is talk of these restrictions becoming permanent.
That's really going to be the big problem for business travellers in particular. All the discussion on toothpaste is bizarre - replacing a tube of toothpaste is trival compared to replacing your laptop cellphone and car keys. [when they lose them, not if].
We obviously have a hub & spoke system at the moment, the economic change to switched requires the hub and spoke system to become more expensive or switched transport to become less expensive. Hub & spoke is very expensive as it is, airports are expensive and large jets are also expensive. For that matter, trains are expensive, stations are expensive and rail lines are also very expensive. The additional security concerns will add to those costs.
Switched transport though has to become cheaper. At the moment it's limited primarily by the cost of the vehicle and cost of pilot/driver. The solution is to get rid of the pilot/driver entirely and to mass produce the vehicle to reduce the per unit cost. Frankly this means something like a fully automated Moller aircar or CarterCopter for air transport and Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) for ground based transport.
Deleted
At the moment you may be right, but when airplane fuel becomes prohibitively expensive, maybe trains would be an option. And I'm not talking 60 mph diesel trains, I'm talking 200+ mph electric high-speed trains. Heck, if Transrapid (or a similar system) would get cheaper, you might even be travelling at 310 mph at a reasonable price point.
And at 310 mph, that would be slightly more than half the speed of airplanes, possibly making up for the two hour plus security checks and inconvenient baggage restrictions of current air travel.
I used to live in a small town about 200 miles from the capital of the state. The small town was served by a small commuter airline and had an FBO that chartered small airplanes, including a Piper Aztec that could carry 5 passengers (plus pilot). It was cheaper for four people to get together and charter the small airplane to fly between the small town and the big city than it was to buy four tickets on the commuter airline. The air time was about the same and the fifth passenger was a bonus. Another factor was that the morning commuter flight was frequently canceled due to fog; the chartered plane (which just had to be wheeled out of the hangar) could take off, but the commuter plane (which was flying in from another small town) could not land in the fog.
I really don't understand why everyone is jumping on toothpaste as their example of how this rule bothers them. How about water? You can't bring a water bottle onto a plane. This means that you are completely at the mercy of the very slow cart that brings the tiny cups of soda once or twice during the flight. And airplanes are very dry places. When you're terribly thirsty and you realize that you were barred from doing anything about it by the TSA, you're going to be much more pissed than when you realized you would have to check your toothpaste.
From the most informative link provided:
That's not a counter-argument. That's a wholescale denunciation of everything Islam could possibly stand for. You have essentially equated the world's second largest religion with a philosophy that single-handedly caused over 6-9 million in the slaughter of innocents alone. This is not counting the war casualties.
I don't know what to make of people like you, or people like the creator of that website. In a lot of ways you remind me of Muslim extremists, (whom I have actually met), because there is an overwhelming sense of hatred, of aggression, that no amount of victory or destruction can ever pacify. The OPs statement wasn't about religion, it was about people. Every Muslim is a human being first. (Or do you deny that too?) And human beings, or at least the vast majority of them, don't want to see their brothers and sisters die, or watch their children grow up in a warzone. The problem with the Middle East, (and I am an Iranian-American, so I have some personal perspective on this), is that they don't yet understand that they have to let go. There are decades of humiliation and occupation that spur the extremists to hate the West, to hate everything the West is associated with. And the average Muslim in the Middle East is ambivalent to the actions of those extremists. They refuse to condemn the atrocities that happen in their countries, because they too hold on to the pain and anger that centuries of hostilities between the Christian and Islamic world has inspired. But it's pointless. They have to let go, and consciously reject Bin Laden's embrace of death. (I am not saying every Muslim follows the bullshit that spews from Bin Laden's mouth, but there is a tacit acceptance of that lifestyle in every Islamic nation--if there was not, then extremists would find no quarter anywhere.) Once Muslims (and more generally, Arabs and Iranians, because not all of them are Muslims) make that decision--that they would rather build infrastructure than strike back at aggressors--then things will change. But that sort of shift in philosophy takes decades in and of itself, and will probably involve lots of bloodshed. But the only hope the Islamic world has is itself. No amount of Western intervention will ever "fix" the it--and it does need fixing. But it has to come from inside. Inshallah, it will happen. Or my culture, my religion, and my people will die out, and they'll have no one to blame but themselves. (Although I doubt they'll see it that way.)
My camera/laptop won't leave my sight. I'm willing to check batteries, but I'm betting that the "new improved regs" will make that impossible as well.
So I won't fly if I have any choice in the matter until these regs are gone. FYI: I've already experienced the joy of mistakenly checking valuables once. Let's just say that my baggage arrived, sans valuables. And this was before they checked everything.
As for the water, you should check the stories about water. I'll only accept bottled water, and that's usually $3. (unless you're flying in enhanced classes) If they included free bottled water, or at least just @ cost water and drinks, that would make at least the no drinks part more acceptable.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
1. GW Bush
2. TSA
3. Airlines
Very little content on answering the poster's question: alternative airline travel options and cost-benefits analysis. Quick suggestion on these rants:
1. Work to get GW and the Republican majority out of office (we are still notionally a democracy). Primaries and elections are coming up--VOTE. Don't just whine. Go work for a candidate-they need IT people!
2. Ditto about TSA- GW created it from 21 agencies, and threw in FEMA to boot-remember Katrina this November.
3. Vote with your dollars-if one airline screws you over, check for nearby airports using competitors (I have Southwest now in my area of PA that has broken the monopoly USAir had on air travel-prices are down, service has improved). You'd be surprised how many airports are nearby-within an hour's driving distance.
Enough ranting...it's rather addictive; I think most Americans are getting fed up with the current regime...gotta stop....must remove hands from keyboard...take coffeee......
Okay...better now...
I'm thinking about that myself (but I rarely travel by plane, mostly by train or car within 200 miles of my house) and will investigate it a bit further but my take on it is:
1. Fractional ownership is not cheap...at least for me...$100k and up per year
2. Can use smaller airports for domestic flights...less time in security and most smaller airports have car rental agencies right at the airport or serve them regularly.
3. International flights generally use the same airports as commercial, smaller planes (20-30 passenger) with long range flight capabilities, quicker security (same level, but since you pay more and are more "noticed", less incentive to be a terrorist).
If you are with a large corporation, check and see if they have their own fleet or fractional ownership. You might be able to hitch a ride with an exec. Might want to suggest that to company as way to save cost/time/amortize expense to shareholders (ooohhh! financial talk)/etc. Also keep in mind for medical emergencies or family emergencies, companies might make private jets available to employees or family members for evacuation/airlift use--great for goodwill.
On the flip side of fractional ownership:
1. With cost-cuttings going on today, most companies won't do this
2. If you got money, you get special treatment; otherwise, move along with the cattle...
3.Some companies restrict it only to senior executives as a matter of policy.
Hope this helps...
Supreme Granter of Doctor of Obviology Letters ("A FIRM Command of the Obvious")
How about DON'T resign yourself to anything? Have you forgotten that this is supposed to be government of, by, and for the people? They work for us, not the other way around; does a boss resign himself to the fact that his employees will show up 5 hours late every day? Hell, no; he tells them to show up on time or he fires them and finds others who will. It's time to take a stand against bad government, the kind that has allowed our rail infrastructure to degrade to pre-1900 performance levels and the kind that scares and/or bullies people into waiting in line 2 hours to get searched for incredibly dangerous items like nail clippers and shaving cream while as everyone knows there are dozens of ways to destroy an airplane if you're determined enough. Instead of kowtowing to the government's plans for you, how about sending the government a message by proxy?
Stop traveling. Just stay home.
I understand this may be a slight annoyance for you, but it's vastly more effective than writing your Congressman. Why? It puts the economic multiplier effect into play. When you don't travel, and make it clear to potential hosts, such as family and friends, as well as the hotel you would have stayed at, the theme park you would have visited, the owner of the boat you would have rented, and the guide you would have employed, you give other people reason to fight for your cause. And when these people turn around and tell their local chamber of commerce about these calls, an entire city's worth of business leaders will be on your side, even those who don't care about tourism or hospitality: they know that the hoteliers, theme park operators, boat shops, and guides are their customers, who now have less money to spend. Just a few thousand people making a point not to travel, and to let others know why they're not traveling, are enough of an economic force to enlist millions of powerful allies. Start an organised travel boycott in a few cities and it's all but over. Direct pressure on the government doesn't work; a few thousand people can't influence an elected official, especially if they're not wealthy. But the interconnectedness of the economy, and business owners' fresh memories of a nation that doesn't travel, allow us to harness the multiplier effect and force change.
What kind of change? Nationwide high-speed rail, for one. An end to ineffective, inconvenient, undignified, and unconstitutional searches and demands for identification for all domestic travel modes. Better training for all transportation and emergency personnel to ensure that everyone knows that transit vehicles, whether on land or water or in the air, have priority at all times. Changes in the law to prohibit police (whether federal, state, or local) from interfering with safe and timely transportation operations - be it traffic on a freeway or a train crossing a bridge - for any reason. In short, the only reason any transit vehicle should ever arrive late is unavoidable mechanical failure. And no one should ever be searched without a warrant. Simple as that.
Join the travel boycott. Enforce change.
As a small aircraft pilot I can tell you that flying in small planes is not economic. The wet fee (gas, insurance, aircraft) for a single engine aircraft is usually upwards of $80/hour. This of course does not include a pilot, which will cost even more (probably around $40/hour). Most small aircraft have a cruising airspeed of around 120 kts/hour, which means that traveling 300 miles would cost upwards of $240 and take around 2 hours. High performance and multi engine aircraft can travel much faster but also are much more expensive to rent. The other problem is that small aircraft are affected much more by the weather. While large jets can navigate above storms, most small aircraft cannot, and must either navigate around the storm or land. Corporate jets (like Lear and Gulf) cost ridiculous amounts of money, which is why the only people using them are those who are amazingly rich. Needless to say, there are very few Lears out there for charter flights. Unfortunately, this means that the only practical method of air travel is through the large airlines.
What's the fuel efficiency of these things? With only 1 passenger, it sounds like the passenger-miles-per-gallon efficiency would be abysmal. This isn't an environmentally viable option for tons of people to take up, unless you're extrenely selfish and don't care about spewing pollutants into the atmosphere.
Do some research before condemning them. You'll find that some light aircraft are actually more fuel efficient than cars or trucks, even when only occupied by a single person (the pilot). For example, the 2-seater Diamond Eclipse DA20 cruises at 138 knots, while burning 5.5 gallons per hour. That's almost 160 (statute) miles on 5.5 gallons of fuel, or 29 miles per gallon. Factor in that you're not burning any fuel sitting at stoplights or crawling along in traffic, and you'll realize that even from an environmental point of view, flying can be very efficient.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.