We can have absolutely secure skies..But, are we willing to pay is the question. Yes, you will not be able to just stop your car and get out (you may have to waLK a block), no, you cannot carry knives, guns, anything sharp (and we will look at everything you have--can you spare the time), Yes, we can have skymarshals and it will cost us all (are you willing to pay for it in increased costs, and time) and No, we will not let you talk us out of searching you if we deam it necessary (never mind what race and sex you are)..This is what it will take....ARE YOU WILLING??? or are you too cheap, too much of a hurry, to bothered, etc. NO, it doesn't always happen to the other guy. Freedom does not imply LICENCE>>and we must give up some freedoms for safety, or Tuesday's lesson will not have been learned.

<BR>Traveling all over the world since airfares have come down is worth the risk. The lifestyle we have and enjoy is worth fighting for. I would rather die in a plane crash than from cancer or any other ongoing disease. And would rather die flying back from a wonderful trip than from a car wreck returning from work.

Beth, you're right on target!

What a weird post, Beth. Are you saying that you don't want to pay for security? That having your plane ticket $25 cheaper is worth the chance that a terrorist will hijack you and ram you into the TransAmerica Tower in SF? <BR> <BR>How strange. I assume, then, that you don't spend any money for locks on your home, for instance. If someone breaks in and murders you, I guess it was just your time to go? No sense having an airbag or decent tires on your car -- we all have to die sometime. <BR> <BR>I'll bet we can really bring down ticket prices if we start using untrained, unscreened personnel as air traffic controllers. We'll have more crashes, but that's the price if you want cheap tickets. <BR> <BR>I don't get you people.

Me neither!!~!!

I might be wrong, but I think Beth was agreeing with Sadie. I think she was just adding her opinion.

I don't believe Beth was saying that at all. I think she was really saying that travel is worth the risk. And that she'll pay whatever she has to pay to do it, even if ticket costs increase.

Beth's post was incomprehensible. Let it go.

No question. I'll pay. I'll walk. I'll wait in line. Just make DAMN sure the money, distance, and delay actually goes to better security, not plastic doorlocks and minimum-wage civilians without intelligence (in both senses of the word). <BR> <BR>How much would I pay? Well, what I can AFFORD is about $20-$50/ticket more. But if it takes more than that to keep a marshall on board and the cockpit a fortress, go ahead and charge what you have to -- I won't be able to go, but my neighbors will be safe.

<BR>The airlines have been forced to reduce fares in order to fill planes. If they increase even to previous levels passengers will be reduced again. The security everyone is talking about will cost more like $1,000 per ticket. I will not nor could I afford to pay that. Extreme security measures will not stop terrorists, just follow the life in Isreal. I would rather have the freedom and "easy" travel opportunity that we enjoy now than to make travel a luxury only the wealthy can afford.

Kathy, I'm with you. Yes, security can and should be improved. But some of the ideas I've heard bandied around represent costly overkill that can and will leave a lot of people at home due to costs and simply the impracticality. Policy makers can and do sometimes do the wrong things for all the right reasons. Let's have a balanced approach that says security is very important but it is not the EXCLUSIVE consideration. We can build a secure system that very few people will be willing or able to use. Terrorism will find many different venues besides air travel. Recognize it.

I remember back in '92 being a bit miffed at the plethora of security checks, cross-checks and "interrogations" from El Al before boarding a flight (the plane was unmarked too) from Cairo to Lod. But when I really thought about it, I was glad for all the security - it might have saved my life.

At last it is on that how the job is done. You pay already for security – so what? Did the stuff care? No! They checked it out on the first hours the planes started to Europe again in NY. They carry knifes and guns abord without lot of hiding this. The stuff jsut didnt care or telling they didnt have had the time. In Europe You pay 10 - 30 bucks for securty, what a joke if You see how perhaps Greece securitys handle it. You never been to Greek? Ok, let me tell: They do their job by sitting in the corner, smoking and give You a smile. So paying more for this would give You more smiles I think. Happy and safe travels ...

There's something all of you are overlooking here: on Tuesday, commercial airliners were used as weapons of mass destruction. If you're not willing to pay more to ensure your own safety (I certainly am willing to pay more) then do it for the people in the next World Trade Center/Pentagon crisis.

Beth, since when does traveling protect you from dying from cancer? Your post made absolutely no sense.

I'll even check all my baggage. There, I said it.

I would gladly pay for security. Realistically, I do wonder how much travel will change in the future though. Right now, we are all just about willing to accept anything or at least say we are because it seems the right thing to do. However, if airfares rise significantly many of us will travel less even if we do think it is worth it for the security. Also, from my viewpoint, I wonder specifically if photographers, especially professional ones, are going to be hit hard by future restrictions that may require them to check film and/or expensive and fragile equipment (they have already been battling with the airlines over some of these issues). This may seem insensitive now, and I am sure some will see it as so, but issues like this will matter to many of us once the years separate us from what happened Tuesday. I hope the airlines and the FAA come up with real security measures like air marshals, well-trained security personnel, and a computer system that points out people who may be problems, without going overboard. A lot of our economy relies on air travel, besides those of us who use it for pleasure.

I second Dan's remarks.

Well, sure. But one of the issues is the time it is going to take to get through beefed-up security. <BR> <BR>So how about if we create two lines at carry-on baggage screening? If your bag is below a certain size (size of a small purse), you can go in the "express" line. Everyone with the big wheeled suitcases slowing everything down has to use the other huge long line. <BR> <BR>That will discourage carry-on baggage, to the ultimate benefit of everyone, and it will make sure those creating the delays are the ones suffering the delays.

Here in the UK, a couple of our low cost airlines ( Easyjet & Go) are resticiting carry on luggage to the essentials ie medication, with everything else going into the hold.