Thief13x on 26/8/2006 at 22:59
and I would like your oppinions, because I may end up writing to some people on this.
As an aviation major, the problem with potential terrorism has been particularly upsetting to me. We all know that because of all the measures being taken to secure the airlines from terrorism, the airlines are progressivly doing worse and worse financially. It is also no seceret that many people are simply unwilling to fly for safety reasons.
Based on these two factors, I think the most practical solution is to not allow anything to be taken on as a carry-on. Additionally, I think consideration should be given to shipping cargo items on a seperate airplane. I think that this would virtually eliminate nearly all possibilities of a hijack and eliminate the insentive to smuggle bombs onto an airplane. Furthermore, I think that this system would make it so difficult to successfully hijack an airplane that terrorists won't even consider the option. As for anything a passenger might absolutly need on a flight (enhaler), these items could be screened and taken aboard the airplane by a flight attendent or an air martial (which I think they should also use).
Of course people are probably going to complain and possibly (but not probably) resort to other methods of transportation because of this. Nonetheless, I think those who were unwilling to fly before for safety reasons would be more inclined to fly with this security measure and would most likely outnumber the people who decide that they can't go 2 hours without their laptop.
thoughts? comments? shoot it down
metal dawn on 26/8/2006 at 23:21
They'll still find some way around it even then; next up--cavity searches.
While we're at, let's disallow pacemakers, they could be used as bomb triggers!
Wait, hold on, terrorism is an idea; therefore it can't be stopped with security measures. A terrorist for all purposes could board an international flight as a civilain with nothing on them and fly into the country causing no trouble whatsoover (and all the while with the ideals of terrorism in their mind).
Once in the country they can go to a local store and (holy hell!) buy all the impliments it takes to built a WEAPON OF TERROR.
Simply put, all travelers will have have to arrested. Terrorism is pretty much all in motivation and driving ideals, not weapons.
====
^
|
BAN THE TERRIST SYMPATHIZER!11
(:
Gingerbread Man on 26/8/2006 at 23:23
Quote Posted by Thief13x
I think the most practical solution is to not allow anything to be taken on as a carry-on.
Welcome to a couple of weeks ago.
Quote:
Additionally, I think consideration should be given to shipping cargo items on a seperate airplane.
And this is going to help airlines how? Anyway, most cargo shipping is already done with specialised carriers.
Speaking as someone who has been flying an whole hell of a lot in the past few years, I think I can safely say that a) people are still perfectly happy to fly places, and b) the current security measures are for the most part entirely adequate and not off-putting to passengers.
If people would stop making things out to be a case of "omfg terrists could blow us up at any minute" that would do a lot to improve things from a passenger viewpoint. To be honest, passengers on the whole don't give a shit.
Paz on 26/8/2006 at 23:29
Spookily enough, this was the competition subject on the recording of the Adam & Joe show I was listening to last night. They had the "separate plane for bags" suggestion too, alongside "everyone travels nude" and "Derren Brown screens passengers". It also featured excellent variations on the threat alert system based on the Spice Girls and Reggae. It's not an especially serious show. Just sayin'
Surely it can't actually be the case that "many" people won't fly due to RISK OF EXPLOSION? I mean, on that basis they also won't travel in cars or use the stairs or eat food, 'lest they accidentally choke.
Swiss Mercenary on 27/8/2006 at 00:07
Toughen up airline security, and they'll just start setting off bombs in subways, on buses, or in city squares. Yeah, no carry-on'll really show those terrorists who's boss. :confused:
Mortal Monkey on 27/8/2006 at 00:49
Quote Posted by Gingerbread Man
Welcome to a couple of weeks ago.
And amazingly enough, nothing has happened since then! This system is perfect.
Aerothorn on 27/8/2006 at 00:59
Quote Posted by Thief13x
It is also no seceret that many people are simply unwilling to fly for safety reasons.
PERCIEVED safety reasons. Even with hijackings and whatnot, I think you are hundreds of times more likely to die on a car ride than a plane ride of equal length. Planes and trains are the safest forms of travel - maybe even safer than walking (not sure on this).
While I think your solution is a good idea, it's not practical. The chance of any plane being hijacked/bombed is 0.000001% or something, wheras pretty much everyone has carry-on luggage.
And if you have no carry-on luggage, what do you DO on that 8 hour flight? Some of us can't just sleep on command, and 4 back-to-back bad in-flight movies would drive me to leaping out of the plane.
SD on 27/8/2006 at 01:04
Quote Posted by Thief13x
the solution to people who try and curb our freedoms is to curb those freedoms ourselves
you are george bush's wet dream
metal dawn on 27/8/2006 at 01:09
zing haha
"The less likely something is to happen, the more it's feared."
Or something like that.
Don't remember where I heard that, but so far, it seems to have held true.
Renegen on 27/8/2006 at 02:32
Quote Posted by Thief13x
We all know that because of all the measures being taken to secure the airlines from terrorism, the airlines are progressivly doing worse and worse financially.
Based on these two factors,
I think the most practical solution is to not allow anything to be taken on as a carry-on. Additionally, I think consideration should be given to shipping cargo items on a seperate airplane.
Hmm... no.
