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)?"
... I know that B.A. Baracus is happy.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
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
Or, even better for this topic:
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.
You're more likely to die by overdosing on non-perscription pain relievers like Advil or Motrin than in a terror attack by a factor of 24 to 1. (We had 7,600 deaths due to "Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Such As Aspirin" in 2000.)
I suggest someone like yourself, who's all scaredy paranoid about the evil terrorists, to stop taking Advil as well.
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.
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
What will you do if they say the terrorists will swallow the explosives prior to boarding flights like drug mules (If you think they can't because they won't be available in time, they can swallow them the day before).
This while the upper echolons of the US administration have come up with a new name for waterboarding, 'Cuban Surfing', the old euphamism had just become too recognisable as torture.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
I'm a private pilot. Haven't run into any Blackhawks or fighter jets, but haven't busted any restricted airspace, either. If you're flying, you damn well better know where you are. And before you fly, you should sit down and figure out where you're going to fly and be aware of anything of interest in your proximity. If that's too much to ask of you, please don't take off.
Someone save us. Please. 2/3ds of American citizens need your help.
We have like 28 tanks and 431 snowmobiles ready to rush across the border at various points. Please pull the power plugs from your military bases and all will go OK, eh. Can you wait until there is a good snow pack before we proceed?
I think they're worried about binary explosives, which aren't dangerous until you mix the two components. Even then, you need a blasting cap to trigger an explosion.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
That comparison makes no sense. Just because something is unlikely to happen doesn't mean you shouldn't be careful of it. Seatbelts only saved 10,000 lives in 2000. Compared to the number of miles driven by all people in the country, that's statistically insignificant. Should I not wear my seatbelt, just because the chances that it will help are small? We may as well take every precaution we can. And remember, this is only carry-on luggage. How often do you feel the need to brush your teeth mid-flight?
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.
Hear hear. This is yet another large terrorism "bust" in the UK. Each one was originally sold to us as a massive success in the Fight For Freedom(TM). The first was a Brazilian guy who was running away from the police with an explosive vest on. About a week after he was shot in the face NINE times we hear that, no, he wasn't running. No, he didn't have a jacket no. And no, he had zero terrorist links. This happened a week or two after the london bombings and for some reason none of the surveilence systems were functional in the subway station. Righhttt...
The next case was two brothers arrested in possibly the biggest police operation in UK history. Over 200 officers present at the arrest. During the arrest, one of the brothers attempted to shoot the police as they entered. Or so we were told. Appently they went with a similar line to the Chewbacka defence; you see the officer had gloves on that made his weapon discharge when he shot the guy in cold blood. No charges were filed and the police are now paying to rebuild their house after it was torn appart. Again, righhttt...
Another set of guys, who we were told were on the same level as the 9/11 hijackers. Big court case, all that. Well, you see it turns out was ALL they had done was chat about what things could be blown up. They, being young men, were talking about nightclubs etc. They had no terrorist links, no access to explosives and frankly they were a bunch of muppets that would never have done anything. How many of you have joked with friends about robbing a bank and the perfect crime? How would you feel if you were now in jail for those hypothetical musings?
So, here we are once again. The whole nation is terrified of flying. Planes have some downright serious restrictions on what you can and cannot take in luggage. Yet as the parent poster points out, if things were really as they said, they wouldn't be mixing hazzardous binary explosives in large bins, would they? The risk to flying is zero. This plot was nowhere near being carried out. Now, they could just be playing safe and taking every precaution. But if liquid explosives were really an issue today (coke/mentos?), they were an issue yesterday and the day before. They will be tomorrow. Are we going to keep up this ban indefinately?
We are being buttered up for the next concquest in the PNACs publicly stated plan to essentially take over the Middle East. My money is on Iran or Syria. Possibly the latter, the pattern fits with the Syran/Hizbolla links we've been constantly informed about over the past few weeks. It's similar to how the Iraq conquest was sold via a snowballing fear/hate campaign. Many of us observed this propaganda build up at the time. Here we are once again.
Remember people, WE'RE AT WAR(TM)!!