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/)

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 02:07 PM.