Fodor's Travel Talk Forums

Fodor's Travel Talk Forums (https://www.fodors.com/community/)
-   Europe (https://www.fodors.com/community/europe/)
-   -   MOST RECENT FAA ANNOUNCEMENT (https://www.fodors.com/community/europe/most-recent-faa-announcement-189067/)

Deb Sep 12th, 2001 01:28 PM

MOST RECENT FAA ANNOUNCEMENT
 
Hi. I'm a Travel Agent and I thought all you Fodorites might be interested in the most recent announcement from the FAA....here you go! <BR> <BR> <BR>The FAA has just released these new security directives for when flights resume: <BR> <BR>1. There will be no curbside check-in nor off-airport checked baggage acceptance <BR> <BR>2. Access through the security checkpoints will be for customers with tickets or ticket confirmations only <BR> <BR>3. Customers with E-Tickets will be required to have a receipt or will have to check-in at the ticket counter in order to gain access to the concourse <BR> <BR>4. Knives of any length or description will no longer be allowed through the security checkpoint <BR> <BR>5. Recommends that customers check-in at least two hours prior to departure for ALL domestic and international flights to cope with substantially increased security measures <BR> <BR>Hope this helps anyone who will be traveling in the near future. <BR>Reagrds, <BR>Deb

Grounded Sep 12th, 2001 01:33 PM

That's it? You mean, that's the extent of security the FAA thinks is appropriate to remedy the widespread problems in U.S. airport non-security? They're going to ban knives now? <BR> <BR>Oh, come on! This is a bandaid for a serious problem. People, you should be up in arms demanding more security. Open your eyes! <BR>

Deb Sep 12th, 2001 01:39 PM

Grounded, <BR>As of right now this is what the FAA is saying. No one knows what the future will bring. I believe as you that it just isn't enough and is to little too late........my heart goes out to everyone and everybody who lost someone on Sept. 11th. However I thought that it should be posted where everyone could see it. <BR>Regards, <BR>Deb

M.M. Sep 12th, 2001 01:39 PM

There is every justification for 2 sky marshalls per plane, now, as El Al has. I would gladly pay an additional $10-20+ per ticket to pay for that. <BR> <BR>

Deb Sep 12th, 2001 01:42 PM

M.M., <BR>I completely agree!!

xxx Sep 12th, 2001 01:47 PM

As long as they aren't doing thorough backround checks on the airport security and baggage handlers there will still be a gaping hole in security.

arabella Sep 12th, 2001 01:48 PM

We have security at sporting events, concerts, schools, parking garages... you name it. I'd be happy to pay more to have security in the sky. Would make flight attendants' jobs easier, too.

??? Sep 12th, 2001 01:50 PM

I don't want ANYONE on a plane with a gun. What is to stop a hijacker from managing to subdue a marshall and get the gun to use for his own purpose?

Oops Sep 12th, 2001 01:50 PM

I think Bush should use the surplus to pay for additional airport security. <BR> <BR>What's that you say? The surplus is gone because Bush sent out rebate checks and the economy tanked? Bummer. I'll bet that money would have paid for an awful lot of sky marshalls.

knock Sep 12th, 2001 01:54 PM

political commentary

joe Sep 12th, 2001 01:59 PM

TOPPER............

Beth Sep 12th, 2001 02:14 PM

Whether you know it or not people are on planes all the time with guns who are law enforcement personnel. My hubby is with USSS in Chicago and travels constantly it feels like to this area or that for Bush or clinton or whoever's next public appearance. He is flying commercial and is required to fly armed! These people have special credentials though.

l Sep 12th, 2001 03:19 PM

Does the travel industry anticipate a rise in airfares in the near future, or will people be afraid to fly after this.

Capo Sep 12th, 2001 03:23 PM

Thanks, Deb. Those new directives certainly sound like a good start, especially #4. The fact that knives up to 4" in length have been allowed all along seems pretty amazing to me.

Joanne Sep 12th, 2001 03:26 PM

Interestingly, nothing in the FAA's proposed new regulations would have prevented Tuesday's tragedies. Box cutters are basically just a razor blade holder. On a cross-country flight, probably most passengers are carrying at least one razor blade! I'll cast my vote with the sky marshalls, thanks.

xxx Sep 12th, 2001 03:35 PM

We need to secure the cockpit so that no one can take over a plane. Anyone determined enough can force his way in there. Once the plane leaves the terminal the door should be locked, no coffee from the flight attendants, no one going in and out, LOCKED until safely landed. I don't know what would have to be done to accomplish this, but that's the only thing I can think of that might prevent something like this from happening again. A flawed plan I'm sure, but maybe there is a way to make it work.

Capo Sep 12th, 2001 03:55 PM

To: xxx, about securing the cockpit. <BR> <BR>Perhaps there will be some way to accomplish this, and it certainly seems like something that should be done but, according to aviation expert John Nance, under questioning from Peter Jennings last night, the door separating the flight cabin from the rest of the plane simply cannot be made impenetrable, like a bank vault door. He said it's due to potential problems during depressurization (or something along those lines.) <BR> <BR>

lisa Sep 12th, 2001 05:53 PM

Deb- <BR>I am scheduled on a flight from NYC (JFK) <BR>to Lisbon on Saturday Sept 15. As of right now the airport is still closed. My question to you as a travel agent... If the airport should resume service by Saturday, where do I stand?? Do they offer the flight to those who were scheduled earlier in the week, is is first come,first serve or what? I am unable to reach TAP. Any advice you can give me will be most appreciated. Thank you.

Andy Sep 12th, 2001 07:38 PM

Lisa- If the FAA allows flights to take off, passengers holding confirmed reservations for that flight (meaning you) get on the plane first. <BR> <BR>Just make sure you get to the airport 3 hrs early for new check-in policy- <BR> <BR>Passengers that didn't make previous flights due to the airlines not flying, are put on the "next available" aircraft. <BR> <BR>You should be fine, as long as the airport is open and your flight is going to depart...Make sure you call the airline ahead of time to re-confirm you flight and make sure of the departure time. <BR> <BR>Hope this helps-----

Debbie Lee Sep 13th, 2001 05:22 AM

Hi Deb, or any other travel folks in the know... This is not directly about European travel, but we gained our Frequent Flyer tickets from our European sojourn, so maybe it still counts!! I am emailing from Australia, and in a little over a week and a half our little family of 6, will be travelling over to the other side of Aus to visit Nonno and Nonna. The problem is, our tickets are booked on Ansett, which is an Australian Airline that looks daily as if it will be going into liquidation/administration, due to financial difficulties... We have 4 bought tickets that will be covered by our travel insurance, but our 2 Frequent Flyer tickets won't be, as we could have changed the dates if necessary, I hadn't even considered the fact that the airline could go bust. (They were booked 6 months ago, which is what you often need to do in Aus to get your dates) I'm wondering if anyone would know if we would get some sort of reimbursement pretty much straight away for the FF tickets, as we would have to try and re-book on the competitive airline to still go in the kids school holidays... Anyone have any idea about this?? Thanks...DLC...

lilipad Sep 13th, 2001 06:42 AM

rule to prohibit knives, even pocket knives and sharp objects in general, is laughable ... why don't they prohibit shaving, and eating with utensils while they are at it, ... does anybody at the FAA honestly believe that if these hijackers are capable of learning to fly commercial planes, they are incapable of learning military/combat skills that would make merely their hands and intent just as much of a weapon against passengers? they really have to get a bit more serious, and try really thinking for a change

Karen Sep 13th, 2001 06:54 AM

Deb, <BR>Thanks for providing us with this valuable information. It's a start, and a very good one. It's not enough, but it's a start. <BR>The US is so lax in security checks. Perhaps they can learn from other countries, and some day our security checks at airports will be as good or better. <BR>

dan woodlief Sep 13th, 2001 07:08 AM

The new directives made me think of the possible political implications of all this. If you look at it in a broad perspective, doesn't not allowing knives on planes in someway contradict the allowance of gun possession in some parts of the country? If it can be argued that "guns don't kill people, people do" and "only the criminals will have guns," then can this not be extended to knives? Not trying to start a debate on a somewhat unrelated topic (notice I didn't say where I stand on this issue), but just something to think about. Personally, I don't have a problem with no knives on planes, but it remains to be seen whether it will help.

Cindy Sep 13th, 2001 08:44 AM

I heard two airport safety experts respond to the idea of making cockpit doors impenetrable or keeping them locked throughout the flight. This is unworkable. Aside from the personal needs of the pilots that they must attend to in-flight, there are many reasons the pilots must be able to have access to the whole plane. Sometimes they have to check out an engine fire, ice on the wings, landing gear issues, and of course, on-board disturbances.

Rex Sep 13th, 2001 09:12 AM

On the subject of cockpit access, my thoughts turn immediately to the system of banks' doors in so many parts of Europe. Have to enter one door, and it has to lock behind you before someone who can see you on the other side of the second door will let you get in. <BR> <BR>I don't believe that this would be so hard to implement. <BR> <BR>Best wishes, <BR> <BR>Rex <BR>

Joanne Sep 13th, 2001 09:20 AM

Cindy, Making cockpit doors impenetrable from the cabin side does not necessarily mean that it would be impossible to open them from the pilots' side if warranted. Just a strong-enough door with a deadbolt, in principle.

Cindy Sep 13th, 2001 09:39 AM

Hey, I'm only repeating what the "experts" say about making the doors completely impenetrable, as was suggested earlier in this thread. <BR> <BR>As for making the doors more secure, I would wager that the pilots opened the doors to investigate the disturbances, as the terrorists knew they would. Doesn't matter how many doors you have to separate the cockpit or how strong they are. <BR> <BR>Did anyone mention sky marshalls yet?

Joanne Sep 13th, 2001 09:50 AM

Sky marshalls sure sound like the only real solution, to me! And let the pilots lock themselves in and have a closed-circuit TV or something if they want to check up on the cabin.

LISA Sep 13th, 2001 05:17 PM

ANDY <BR>THANKS FOR THE RE ASSURANCE. MY FLIGHT IS SCHEDULED FOR 7 PM I HOPE TO BE @AIRPORT BY 3 PM IF DO NOT HIT TOO MUCH TRAFFIC (LEAVING @1:30) <BR>AS OF TONIGHT JFK SHUT DOWN AGAIN DUE TO 3 ARRESTS THIS EVE SO I AM STARTING TO LOSE HOPE ON LEAVING. TRIED CALLING TAP H/E THEY HAVE WONDERFUL HOURS... 9-5PM I JUST HOPE THEY WILL ANSWER THE PHONES ON SATURDAY AM SO I DONT MAKE THE TRIP TO AIRPORT FOR NOTHING. THANKS AGAIN

julie Sep 14th, 2001 01:07 PM

Well, today three officials 'tested' the 'new security' and all of them foiled it, easily. These measures are band aid measures....we must get serious.

Deb Sep 14th, 2001 01:25 PM

Capo, <BR>We in the industry had no idea that they allowed any type of knive on any flights either. Needless to say we were schocked and disturbed that this had been going on!!

Deb Sep 14th, 2001 01:30 PM

Debbie Lee, <BR>It appears that as of today Ansett has stopped service. As far as I know you will lose the 2 frequent flyer tickets and I really don't believe that you have any recourse. Sorry, unfortunately this is how it goes....there is really no one to get anything from!!

Deb Sep 14th, 2001 01:39 PM

This is to the poster that asked about a rise in airfares: <BR>The airline industry has always used any "excuse" they could get their hands on to raise fares. <BR>Now that many people will be afraid to fly and the fact that many corporations have discontinued all travel for a period of at least one month they are again panicking and asking for monetary help from the government. <BR>Bush will most likely give them the help that they need, however this is yet another "excuse" to raise fares. <BR>In case anybody is interested, the airline industry only lowers fares to be able to raise them higher than they were in the first place, which they always do. <BR>If you were in my industry you would see this and understand that this works for them time after time. <BR>The travel industry and it's travelers are the only ones who end up paying for it in the end. <BR>Beware, higher fares will be the result imdeed!!

Liv Sep 14th, 2001 02:26 PM

Deb: The airline industry has been very competitive the past 20 years. Airlines have not been able to sustain fare increases due to fare wars such as $69 flights from VA to Atlanta & $159 to Las Vegas if booked in advance. That really doesn't sound like pricing gouging as you might suggest! Almost everyone flies today whereas previously only the affluent could.

Rex Sep 14th, 2001 05:01 PM

Deb, <BR> <BR>I am plenty critical of certain business practices of the airlines, and I hate as much as anyone that MORE tax dollars are going to be pumped into "protecting" domestic flights - - when not one in 100,000 flights would ever actually be vulnerable to attack (this outrageous expenditure is, regrettably, letting "them" win, in my opinion - - and has been for over 25 years already). <BR> <BR>But complaining about the cost of air travel (and the incremental increases this is going to bring) is truly whining to an audience that could not care less, Deb. <BR> <BR>Right this minute, you can buy a ROUNDTRIP ticket from the midwest (Columbus, OH) to Los Angeles for $110!! I remember when I bought my first airplane ticket to California in 1970 (age 16) -- it cost me about $160, and that took me 80 hours to earn it. How many americans now earn $110 in 80 minutes! <BR> <BR>There are any number of things wrong with air travel today in America. Being overcharged or price-gouged is NOT one of them. <BR> <BR>I see you have carried this soapbox on to some other threads. I am not looking to pick a fight, but I think that the low cost of air travel speaks for itself. <BR> <BR>Best wishes, <BR> <BR>Rex <BR>

Huh? Sep 14th, 2001 05:27 PM

Rex, wrote: "I hate as much as anyone that MORE tax dollars are going to be pumped into "protecting" domestic flights - - when not one in 100,000 flights would ever actually be vulnerable to attack (this outrageous expenditure is, regrettably, letting "them" win, in my opinion - - and has been for over 25 years already)." <BR> <BR>Are you saying we should not devote funding to improve airport security? Really? This seems an odd thing to say just now. What would it take for you to think we need to drastically improve security? Had the fourth plane blasted away the Capitol and half of the Congress, would that have convinced you? <BR> <BR>This is so ironic. I believe you've told us that you work in neonatology. We spend huge sums to try to save the life of a single pre-mature baby, but you don't think it's worth it to pay to prevent the loss of over 5,000 lives and thousands of injuries in one pop (and it could have been much higher had the last plane slammed into another landmark like the Capitol or a skyscraper in DC)? <BR> <BR>This week's events mean that the U.S. is a major terrorist target, that it is really easy to hijack a plane and use it as a missile. The flying public ought to be quite willing to pay whatever it takes to secure the skies as best we can. <BR> <BR>Perhaps I misunderstood you.

Rex Sep 14th, 2001 05:41 PM

Yes I allowed myself to be misunderstood. <BR> <BR>Let me try it again this way: <BR> <BR>I hate it - - I hate the fact that it is NECESSARY - - to spend this money on security. <BR> <BR>Heck, I hate it that it is necessary to have a lock on the front doors of our homes. It's an expense that doesn't serve any real "purpose". <BR> <BR>But it's a utopian wish. These are expenses that have to exist in our world from now and forever more. <BR> <BR>Increased security is a cost that cannot be avoided. It is an expense, a tax, that "they" - - the terrorists - - have succeeded in imposing upon us. <BR> <BR>I guess I was just reacting to Deb implying that the airlines - - and whatever goes into the price structure for security measures - - are not the bad guys. <BR> <BR>Or like the rest of us, perhaps I am rambling incoherently for now and a little while to come. <BR> <BR>Forgive me. <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR>

Linda Sep 14th, 2001 05:47 PM

Rex, there ARE those out here who understand/understood what you are trying to say. I too hate that I live in a world where this is necessary. I hate that security has become a daily worry. And I hate that people can't love their brothers on this earth, just simply because we are "brothers" and do share the same earth. I don't think that's what any god, no matter which one you worship, has in mind for his children.

Huh? Sep 14th, 2001 05:47 PM

Oh. OK. Never mind. <BR> <BR>Thanks, Rex.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:33 AM.