TSA Wants You To Keep Your Seat, and Your Hands In Sight

An anonymous reader excerpts from an AP story as carried by Yahoo News about changes stemming from yesterday's foiled bombing attempt of a Northwest Airlines flight: "Some airlines were telling passengers on Saturday that new government security regulations prohibit them from leaving their seats beginning an hour before landing. The regulations are a response to a suspected terrorism incident on Christmas Day. Air Canada said in a statement that new rules imposed by the Transportation Security Administration limit on-board activities by passengers and crew in US airspace. ... Flight attendants on some domestic flights are informing passengers of similar rules. Passengers on a flight from New York to Tampa Saturday morning were also told they must remain in their seats and couldn't have items in their laps, including laptops and pillows." The TSA's list of prohibited items doesn't seem to have changed in the last day, though.

Comments

Oh, look!

[NeutronCowboy]

Another reason for me not to fly. And another Al Qaeda success in disrupting the US economy and society beyond their wildest dreams.

Re:Oh, look!

[TheLink]

Agh. Mod me down, I can't read.

Re:Oh, look!

[Osty]

First, IANAGAP (I am not a general aviation pilot) but I've considered getting my license and I paid pretty close attention when a friend was working on getting hers.

How much did it cost to get lessons and a license? Was it comparable to the requirements for driving a car legally?

I'm sure it depends on your area, but it also depends on what licenses you need. Figure $3-5000 for a visual-only license, give or take a grand or so. Definitely not the same as getting a car license.

Also, doesn't a private plane cost a lot more to buy than a car?

Depends on the plane and the car you're comparing. Obviously buying your own Learjet is going to be a lot more expensive than buying a used Honda. On the other hand, a used Cessna is much more affordable than a Bugatti Veyron. Most pilots don't own their own plane but instead own a portion of a plane with a number of other people. Unless you expect to fly each and every weekend, there's no reason not to get in on a co-op ownership rather than buying your own.

Re:Oh, look!

[notseamus]

Europe has locked down it's train stations a bit, especially London, and in the UK, largely, you won't find a bin in a train station. In Glasgow Central you have to throw your rubbish on the floor, and someone sweeps it up.

Airports are a different matter. Airlines used the one bag security restriction to limit people to one piece of hand luggage permanently (maybe this was only a UK restriction, and it's been largely lifted now, but I think it's still in place in some airports), so you can't even bring a handbag and a shopping bag, or a handbag and a piece of luggage aboard the plane (it does seem to unfairly target women).

There's also the restrictions on luggage, photos at the gates, searches etc, but it's been years since I flew to America, so I don't know how bad it is in comparison.

Elsewhere in Europe, it's not as bad, but the UK is Americanised in more ways than one.

Re:Oh, look!

[digitig]

Europe has locked down it's train stations a bit, especially London, and in the UK, largely, you won't find a bin in a train station. In Glasgow Central you have to throw your rubbish on the floor, and someone sweeps it up.

That happened long before 9/11 -- it was officially a response to Irish republican terrorism, although many of us suspect it was to save the cost of emptying the bins (bomb resistant bins were already available at the time the bins were withdrawn).

Therein lies a reason for a difference between the European and US responses, of course. Europe has lived with terrorism for centuries, from Guy Fawkes to Basque separatists so we're a bit more stoic about it. That doesn't stop politicians trying to deprive the public of more freedoms, but it makes it harder for them.

Re:Oh, look!

[Faluzeer]

snip...
the IRA, seeing its major source of funds dry up, became a lot more willing to negotiate.

Hmmm

Credit where credit is due, the republican movement had shown they were willing to negotiate several years before 9/11. The good friday peace agreement occurred in april 1998, negotiations had started under the previous conservative government led by John Major.

Re:10,000,000+ U.S. commerical flights annually...

[MichaelSmith]

Has anybody provided any evidence that the guy had anything remotely like a bomb?

From this article:
 

High explosives are believed to have been moulded to his body and sewn in to his underpants.
...

A preliminary FBI analysis has found that the device allegedly found on Mr Abdulmutallab contained the high explosive PETN, also known as pentaerythritol.

It sounds pretty full on to me. I think we dodged a bullet.

Re:This is kind of rediculous

[keithmo]

Ok, I'm game. What's been implemented post-9/11 that's made us more secure?

I agree with Bruce Schneier on this: "Only two things have made flying safer [since 9/11]: the reinforcement of cockpit doors, and the fact that passengers know now to resist hijackers."

To make stupid people feel more secure by appearing to do something.

Sadly, most people confuse "activity" with "progress".

Re:Congrats TSA/Al Queda

[Concerned Onlooker]

I flew from Las Vegas to LA today so I have yet to see these tightened up rules. At LAS I couldn't detect anything different and it was as though nothing unusual had happened yesterday. The only unusual thing I experienced was a family so dense--in line ahead of me--that they couldn't get it together enough to get through the security scan in under 10 minutes while everyone waited behind them. And oddly enough the TSA folks were unflinchingly polite about it all. It took so long that I finally gathered up my bins and went to another line.

So, despite all the talk here it's not like it's instant crackdown in TSA land.

Re:NO!

[h4rm0ny]

Uh, oil props up the Saudi Arabia government. The USA does not purchase that much oil from there, so the focus of hate is incorrect.

Firstly, the Saudi's have a great deal of influence over world oil prices which affects the US economy greatly. Secondly, the Saudis are an ally of the US in the Middle East (at least the ruling regime is, the people are a different matter). For example, the Saudi's are fighting an on-off proxy war with Iran in Yemen (a small country on the Southern border of Saudi). They fly US supplied F-15s. The US navy has intervened at their request to carry out bombings. Up until 2003, (i.e. post 9/11) the US had around 4,500 troops stationed in the country. I hate to pull out Wikipedia as its often used as a lazy way to find facts that support ones case out of context, but in this case I'm going to post a link: US & Saudi Relations. Note that the US provided both training and modern weaponry to the Saudi military in order to "combat shiite extremism". Extremism of course means revolutionaries that you don't like. Bahrain isn't legally part of Saudi Arabia, but I think you'll forgive me if I roll them in together given their indivisible strategic and military circumstances and united political positions. The US Fifth Fleet is based there (normally). If you think those forces wouldn't (and haven't) got involved in putting down any revolutionary efforts, you're mistaken.

I think that demonstrates US support for the Saudi regime. The US wants a strong presence in the Middle East and the Saudi regime is happy to be their loyal ally and base of operations at the expense of the people. It's a fucking monarchy for fucks sake. As regards your statement that Al Quaeda being "a big baby using the excuse of "OMG they stepped on our sand, get em'", Bin Laden himself stated that their one of their main motivations was US presence in Saudi. Why should that be false? Al Quaeda wanted to overthrow the Saudi regime. The US protects the Saudi regime. What is your reason for disputing their given motivations? It's a piss-poor sort of terrorist that goes about striking terror for causes other than their own.

Re:Which 4,000 vs. which 1 million?

[I_M_Noman]

The people at the top of those buildings were some of the wealthiest people on the planet

WTF?!? The people I worked with on the 97th floor of 1 WTC were working stiffs like you & me, not "some of the wealthiest people on the planet". So were the people on 96, 95, 94, 93, 98, and 99. There were no "multi-millionaires" among them. (The multi-millionaires in the firm I worked for then stayed in the Midtown Manhattan office. WTC was for back office staff only.)

Don't talk about things you have no knowledge of.