I no longer fly for this and other reasons. For you folks planning to fly to Showest, read this to see how you could be treated.

quote:

---

FOSS: Well, you see, when I got to the airport, I planned on just going through as I normally have in the past. But they had this mass of checkers back there that seemed to hone in on me.

I had on a Western hat, which I normally wear, and this tie, which is known as a bolo tie, and a belt buckle that says, "Dakota Gun Collectors," on it and Western boots.

CAFFERTY: They eventually wound up taking the Congressional Medal of Honor away from you, didn't they, at the airport?

---

This whole "security" charade is over-the-top. If airlines are suffering from lost revenues and require government bail-outs, one would think that more sane security regulations could be determined and enforced.

The 911 hijackers only had box knives. A person trained in martial arts needs no visible weapon. Locking a reinforced cabin door, thoroughly checking checked and carry-on baggage, and scanning for major weapons seems prudent. Going after nail files and medals of honor is just friggin' ridiculous.

The guys that hijacked the planes chose Logan, not because it had loose security, but because it is one of only two airports that have planes that make transcontinental flights from the east coast.

1) Laguardia
2) Logan

Hence, they will have full tanks when taking off. (Make more fire when they crash.)

They didn't pick Laguardia because it was too close to the intended target. They couldn't get out of the traffic pattern soon enough to home in on their targets properly.

 |  IP: Logged

Excuse me? Are these the only two options? I'm reminded of a favorite psychological trick used with children to make them think they have a say in self-determination... "OK, you can have a cookie OR you can watch tv but not both, you choose."

You can fly, but every time you fly you can ALSO send a note of protest to an airline or senator. You can call an airline ready to place a reservation and then ask the question "Are you still checking for nail files?" When the answer is yes, you can cancel out. You can write a letter to the editor. You can complain on a public forum. You can privately hire a pilot and get personal service while he or she gets to add flying hours. You can claim under the ADA that you have obsessive compulsive disorder and that a nail file on a plane is "reasonable accomodation." You can ask that no people who have studied martial arts be allowed to fly on the same plane as you.
You can become part of a group of people that demand change or you can obey ever increasing restictions on freedom.

I'll play along with some reasonable and sane restrictions (although never try to take my right to bear arms away). I refuse to play along with personal intrusions and militaristic attitudes that have no logic to back them up. Such antics are invariably jingoistic, socialistic, or otherwise play into the hands of those undeserving of power.

From time to time, I read in the Seattle PI and Seattle Times of security breaches that should never happen at some (including our own SEATAC) airports.

The latest was a security guard that knew the X-Ray machine was actually unplugged from the wall, and she passed everyone that came through the gates without inspecting purses and other carry-on luggage.

When a supervisor noted that the X-Ray machine had no power applied, she told that supervisor that "It was not her job to plug it in".

The security guard was fired. Maybe you read about it.

Isn't the deseret a fun place???? Atoms are way more interesting than moving picture machinery! Hey Paul, Wanna come along for the ride?
Mark @ NEW GTS

EDITED: Actually, some of what they are doing does bother me because it's either ineffective or inconsistent, but that's all. Certainly not enough to get worked up over. I don't feel my constitutional rights are being infringed because I can't carry scissors or a pistol on the plane.

Thinking out of the box, there is another way the problem could be addressed, one that seems more dangerous at the outset but would probably have a much higher success rate at stopping all abberant behavior on airplanes.

At the security checkpoint, every passenger with a U.S. driver's license and age of 30 or greater is handed a taser and given instructions on how and when to use it. Any hijacker who realized that he would be immediately cut down by dozens of high powered electric shots would think twice. Tasers wouldn't have the problem of damaging the plane like pistols would. Hijackers tend to be young, and often extra-national. Older people are less likely to over-react and use a taser when it isn't called for. Drunken Showesters would be given squirt guns instead.

The changes in airport security have nothing to do with the government trying to control where you travel. Think of it this way, would soldiers have stopped and harrassed a retired general with a Medal of Honor?

You driving your Hog down? If so, I'll pick up the nuts and bolts that fall off and throw them in the trunk for ya.

So that means that the government is "tightening" security at the "front door" and leaving the "back door" wide open. I have seen the reports on TV where reporters with hidden cameras basically walked through the "crew entrance" and hopped right aboard a plane while it was at the gate.

I think a lot of measures are good... Presenting ID; Matching luggage with each passenger; better carry-on screening, etc.
All this junk about not letting cars stop in front of terminals and having passengers take off their shoes, however, is just rediculous!

So what happens when some idiot hides a 6" ceramic knife blade up his rectum? Are they going to make every passenger bend over and grab their ankles?!

I think the security "professionals", (if that's what you want to call them), should focus more on PROCEDURAL security than physical. Who has access to what areas of the airport and under what circumstances can people get in and out?