How specific are the restrictions?

Reply

Dec 28th, 2009, 05:44 AM
  #1
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 68
How specific are the restrictions?

Does anyone know exactly what goes on that last hour? Are people being forbidden to read books or even the in-flight magazines? Are they allowed to listen to their iPods if the iPods are in their pockets? If you're listening to in-flight music, do they make you stop? What exactly is going on across the skies in airlines out there? I'd appreciate hearing. The last hour of a flight is often the most boring, and the idea of not being able to divert myself is dispiriting, to say the least.
DerViking is offline  
Reply With Quote
Dec 28th, 2009, 06:30 AM
  #2
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,860
I can magange all the other restrictions I've been hearing about, but I do hope they at least let you read.
Jeff_Costa_Rica is offline  
Reply With Quote
Dec 28th, 2009, 08:26 AM
  #3
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 9,919
Chris Elliott posted a letter being issued by USAirways (www.elliott.org) that specifically says all electronics are banned as well as anything other than a personal book (but the TSA regs that I've seen do not mention a personal book). The USAirways letter says that inflight mags are allowed.

I feel your pain and hope these rather silly regulations are limited in scope and time.
doug_stallings is offline  
Reply With Quote
Dec 28th, 2009, 10:40 AM
  #4
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,044
I really don't understand this.

If this guy had tried to detonate his bomb in the lavatory, would the airlines ban trips to the lavatory for the duration of the flight?

It doesn't seem to be a very logical or well-planned reaction.
Placename is offline  
Reply With Quote
Dec 28th, 2009, 11:47 AM
  #5
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 68
I guess it makes sense to check with your airline before flying? Each one may be interpreting the regulations differently. Is a Bucky allowed? It rests behind your head and neck, not on your lap..... I feel we've entered Alice in Wonderland.

My daughter-in-law was in TSA and said this is all "optics," all meant to make us feel better, since none of it is more than what's been rightly dubbed "Security Theater."

http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/200...urity-theater/

The show is getting tired. I've just turned an Ohio flight to a car trip after comparing hours in transit both ways and realizing they were almost identical. Any time now that I can avoid this idiocy, I will.
DerViking is offline  
Reply With Quote
Dec 28th, 2009, 12:36 PM
  #6
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 68
Wow! They're easing the new rules already, according to the NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009...Tolerance.html

But that doesn't change my being sick of the airlines and TSA.
DerViking is offline  
Reply With Quote
Dec 28th, 2009, 03:10 PM
  #7
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 2,121
Doesn't it ever occur to anyone to say "Stop--that's going too far"? If TSA tells all the dark-skinned people on board to get to the back of the plane, will everyone just do it, or will someone have the courage to say "No"?
AnthonyGA is offline  
Reply With Quote
Dec 28th, 2009, 03:29 PM
  #8
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 22,724
I was about to email my congress-critter about the last hour silliness, but maybe I don't need to. This is so obviously "doing something to be seen to be doing something" as opposed to doing something useful. Surely it's time for a passenger revolt? I'm seriously considering taking Cunard the next time I go to Europe. And of course, the real issue here is how come this guy was allowed on the plane in the first place, which is no reason to keep people in their seats.
thursdaysd is offline  
Reply With Quote
Dec 28th, 2009, 03:53 PM
  #9
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,993
I'm a bit fearful that this will be another twist of the knife in the airline industry. First the incident, then the over-reaction by the airlines, federal and foreign officials, then the talk shows and my-brother-in-law-told-me-about-his-neighbor's-kid stories... another [email protected] year for the airlines.

Of course, the cynic in me also thinks, "Wow, more upgrades, fare wars, double elite miles..."
Gardyloo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Dec 28th, 2009, 04:18 PM
  #10
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,044
I'm really annoyed at Napolitano. She seems to have known nothing about security when she told us everything was fine on Sunday.

Clearly, there were multiple security failures of standard "Red Flags" that should have pulled this guy out of line for more intensive searches and investigations.

I also read that Amsterdam airport does have the explosives scanners, but the EU is blocking implementing them.

Screening grammas and 6 year olds for flights from Phoenix to San Jose is ludicrous when you see the major failures in high-risk, terror-target international flights.

Security Theater.
Placename is offline  
Reply With Quote
Dec 28th, 2009, 04:19 PM
  #11
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,044
Oh, and I have nothing against the airlines.

Anti-terrorism security should primarily be a governmental funtion. The airlines should not have to shoulder the burden here.
Placename is offline  
Reply With Quote
Dec 29th, 2009, 12:35 AM
  #12
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18
i agree totally re security screening needs to be better focused/targeted. the govts need to look closely at their data bases of persons of interest and take action. treating all the travelling public as potential terrorists is a waste of resources and unnecessary.
surely there are clues about suspected terrorists? perhaps profiling? but it seems even if someone is on a list for watching they still are allowed to get on planes to do these awful acts.
pully is offline  
Reply With Quote
Dec 29th, 2009, 02:39 AM
  #13
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 68
It sounds like the rules, such as they are, have been chaotically applied:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/29/us/29passenger.html

Yikes.
DerViking is offline  
Reply With Quote
Dec 29th, 2009, 04:46 AM
  #14
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 68
I've now read dozens of analyses of what went wrong, and most security experts seem to agree that what has to happen is not allowing the terrorists to even get as far as an airport. I mean, this guy had the explosive sewn into the crotch of his briefs, according to news photos, so only a body scanner or very intimate patting-down would have revealed anything.

Where the failure was, was with American bureaucrats in Nigeria and elsewhere. This makes sad, salutary reading:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas..._b_405416.html
DerViking is offline  
Reply With Quote
Dec 29th, 2009, 10:08 AM
  #15
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,044
Agree DerViking-

There are so many Red Flags for this potential traveler that he should never have gotten to the airport.

Napolitano needs a stern talking to and the US needs to get control of this EU airport situation. Once a passenger enters a foreign airport as a transit, there is very little if any actual security screening that goes on, especially in the EU. That has to be changed.
Placename is offline  
Reply With Quote
Jan 4th, 2010, 10:56 AM
  #16
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 68
Placename, you're so right. If it's true that he paid by cash, had no baggage and it was a one-way ticket, he never would have made it onto an Israeli plane. He would have clearly responded nervously to questions before going through screening, or, if calmly, the answers would not have added up.

Meanwhile, HuffingtonPost reports European airports are not meeting US demands on security:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_410325.html
DerViking is offline  
Reply With Quote
Jan 4th, 2010, 12:08 PM
  #17
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 19,881
<<< If it's true that he paid by cash, had no baggage and it was a one-way ticket, >>>

KLM don't accept cash in West Africa (too much CC fraud), he had hand luggage - which is not unusual for people from 3rd World countries or even from Europe going on a shopping spree and he had a return ticket.

So none of those "factors" are red flags, one isn't even in control of the passenger and the other two are so easily avoidable by anyone with half a brain (except obviously the TSA) that it's astounding that anyone thinks they indicate terrorist intent. BTW they wouldn't be a disbarment to getting on a plane for Israel as Israel look at the person, not his lack of possessions.

There were however several things that should have been red flags - he was on a watch list, he had a US visa, was on a flight to the US and that airlines flying to the US provide details of their passengers so that the US can spot "unwanted" people.
alanRow is offline  
Reply With Quote
Jan 5th, 2010, 11:21 AM
  #18
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 528
Just an update re what you can do and not do within an hour of landing...I flew into IAD last night from CDG and we were not allowed to have anything covering our laps once we started our descent. They didn't say anything about an hour out. They didn't say anything about not having books, etc.... They did say we couldn't get up, but we were starting our descent anyway.
artsbabe is offline  
Reply With Quote
Jan 5th, 2010, 04:39 PM
  #19
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,692
Here is what I've got. Cannot leave your seat 1 hour prior to landing. If you must go "p", you can't. You will have to wet the seat or wear diapers if you have kidney problems.

Here is the problem with the diapers, the body scan machine may think it is something else (?) .... don't know if the machines can see through plastic liners?

You can have ear phone conencted to the plane's entertainment system but not your own ipods or mp3 players etc.

Books are okay and it is urban legend at this point. Unless someone tries to light up a book and burn a plane then any paper is out, for the whole flght.

Everyone is paranoided so anything can happen. See links below on the news that happened within the last hour.
Airports being shut down on 5 bottles of honey and suspicious baggages.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/nat...osition=recent

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34708124...iner_security/

Here is my soapbox speech. They (the terrorist) want to disrupt our way of life (and kill us too if they can). If we let them, we will live in fear. Soon, we will be all straped into our seats in an induced "unconscious" coma like state when we travel, and we will be awaken after we have landed. The technology is there. It can be done. (Think about what happens when you are getting an operation done in an hospital.)

Here is a tip. Don't touch any fertilizer at least for a day or two before getting on a plane. And if you touch any fertilizer, wash your hands and clothes and anything you have touched after touching the fertizer throughly. The chemcial ingredient in the fertilizer may set off the "exploisve" alarm bell.

My neighbor's soon fertilized the lawn in the morning, obviously didn't wash his hands good enough. He was helping his parents with the luggage to the airport. Guess what, they tested "traces of explosive" on the handle on the luggagee. There was a lot of explaining and TSA searched everything. They almost missed the flight. They were lucky.
Eschew is offline  
Reply With Quote
 



Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:21 AM.