I've seen a number of predictions and suggestions, with everyone agreeing that security needs to be tightened, including better airport screening, reinforcement of the cockpit, and perhaps the presence of air marshalls.

I've also seen comments about taking security out of FAA and making a separate agency exclusively charged with transportation security (and not answering to transport companies, airlines, or lobbyists) -- perhaps under Defense or Treasury.

I've also seen suggestions that short-haul trips should be taken over by Amtrak, which should be subsized for expansion and also included in increased security measures.

One thing I haven't seen is the suggestion that we do what European airlines do regarding seat assignments -- which is not to allow pre-check-in seat assignment, other than class. The airlines may or may not have assigned you a seat before you check in, but you won't know until you get there what seat you will be in.

This is a major change from what we have be used to, esp. business travellers with "premier" status, who demand certain priorities. But it would make it just that much more difficult for hijackers to plan details.

What other thoughts, reactions, do you have?

No carry-on luggage with the exception of personal medical needs.

I read references to no carry on luggage before but I'm not sure how this would work. I'm all for security but generally I carry on only things that I need: passport, ticket, gum, extra set of clothes in case luggage is lost, travel guide, money and ID. This would generally fill my backpack. Would we not be allowed to carry on these items?

How about paying a living wage to the security personnel at the airports? These folks make about $6 an hour. My teenagers make more flipping burgers at the local fast food joint. So what do the airlines and this country get for 6 bucks? High turnover- about 90% of these folks have been on the job for less than six months; inadequate training- $6 is a wage paid to UNSKILLED WORKERS such as my kids at the burger place and should not by paid to people who deal in the security of lives for heavens sake; and the obvious breach in security. I have a real problem with the top echelon making six and seven figure incomes while the working stiff if asked to make do with a one figure hourly rate. No wonder the turnover is so high! Hello, America! Wake up!! We must pay living wages to ALL workers. It's time we recognize and respect these jobs that are vital to the operation of our nation and economy.

Since the widely-publicized list of new FAA rules refers specifically to what items people will not be allowed to carry on, it follows that carryons will still be allowed.

But since they must be searched more thoroughly, we should expect the airlines to restrict carryons just as a practical matter to reduce the amount of staff time required to search them.

To get back to the original post, I just don't think that this seating strategy would have a lot of impact. Certainly, air marshalls would be helpful, I'd certainly be willing to pay more to have them around.

As far as taking security out of FAA, that might not be the key step. They key might be to change the current situation, in which the airlines are ultimately responsble for security, and are tempted to cut corners in order to save money. Whover's in charge of security shoudl be an agency (even if it's the airport mamament) whose priority is security, rather than cost-savings or keeping the lines moving.

Sorry about the typo, "airport MANAGEMENT"

Some thoughts on this:

1) I agree with the other posters -- we should IMMEDIATELY end the current system of relying upon poorly-trained, poorly-paid "security" people to be our first line of protection at our nation's airports.

2) The latest in security machines/technology should be MANDATED at EVERY airport -- regardless of size. I saw a report that El Al uses a decompression/x-ray machine to screen EVERY piece of luggage. If a bomb is in a suitcase, it should detonate within this machine, rather in the cargo hold of a fully-loaded aircraft. WHY AREN'T WE EMPLOYING THIS KIND OF TECHNOLOGY?!?!

3) End curbside check-in for good. This is a luxury that we can easily live without.

4) Put sky marshalls on EVERY flight. I thought this program had been ongoing -- I was shocked and dismayed to learn otherwise.

5) We need a domestic security agency who would also cover airport security. It seems to me that neither the airlines or the FAA are either equipped or competent to handle this vital issue.

6) Drastically change the carry-on luggage rules. No more bringing "everything but the kitchen sink" onboard. Only allow a small bag that will hold essentials and vital medical supplies. But, at the same time, increase the lost-luggage liability rules/responsibilitites that airlines are under, as well.

7) And how about using funds from the existing aviation trust fund (which every passenger helps to contribute to in the form of a tax) to help fund these changes? The idiots in the government have been completely irrational on using these funds in the past -- but NOW IS THE TIME.

8) I'm all for strengthening the door to the cockpit, but there MUST be some way of getting in in case of an emergency. What if the pilot/co-pilot become incapacitated (remember the Swissair crash?)? Remember the Egyptair crash? If we make the cockpit an impenetrable vault, we may be exchanging one tragedy for another.

9) Finally, I think that it's now incumbent upon all of us to be constantly vigilant, looking out for any suspicious people/activities, and IMMEDIATELY reporting them to the proper people. Perhaps it's something; perhaps it's nothing -- but let people with the proper traingin make the final assessment.

Let's face it, air travel isn't going to be the same for a very long time -- if ever. So remember to arrive at the airport earlier, and please give the airline/security people a lot of slack.

I heard someone on the radio suggest completely sealed cockpits, separate from the cabin of the plane and the cabin would have many cameras operating into every area and the minute a pilot saw a problem of some sort, sleeping gas of some kind would be circulated throughout the cabin and the pilot would land the airplane at the closest airport. I realize this would all be highly controversial, but this was in a brain-storming for ideas to end piracy in the air.

I've been hearing scary reports that a large number of these folks take these low paying jobs because they can't get hired at McDonalds because of criminal history. I would hope that as well as better pay & training for security personnel, they set high standards for hiring them (as well as for retaining current employees).

The sleeping gas idea is novel, shows creativity. There would certainly be issues concerning passengers with one of a myriad of medical conditions & could be potentially lethal (isn't most anesthesia simply controlled poisoning?), but it sure beats becoming a human bomb at the hands of a madman. How much & what type gas to do the job with minimal injury would be the problem --- how to do the job without injuring a child or a person with respiratory illness like asthma? Well worth exploring.

Message: I don't think that the current security people shold be paid more money.

NOW BEFORE EVERYONE GETS UPSET..

1. I think we should REPLACE all of the unskilled security personnel. These people were hired by the low bidder.

2 Then we should pay more money to get skilled personell.

In other words, upgrade the people by paying more,,and not just paying more to the same people.

Some people have called for the use of customs agents that are skilled looking for subtle signs in a personal demeanor.
That certtainly makes sense to me.

Concerned certainly has my vote! I agree 100%!!

Antoinette, you wrote:
"$6 is a wage paid to UNSKILLED WORKERS such as my kids at the burger place and should not by paid to people who deal in the security of lives"

and "the working stiff if asked to make do with a one figure hourly rate. No wonder the turnover is so high!"

and "We must pay living wages to ALL workers."

I don't think we should pay large wages to ALL workers, pay should be commiserate with skill. And only highly trained & skilled workers should be anywhere near airport security. I think we're on the same page from reading all your posts, that post just rattled me a bit as it wasn't clear.

I'd like to add that all (including baggage handlers & parking lot attendants) should undergo a rigorous background check w/ periodic unscheduled surprise rechecks.

OK. This is getting ridiculous. You want to gas everyone on a plane if a drunk creates a disturbance? If the system malfunctions? How are my grandmother who is loaded with prescription medicine and my newborn baby going to handle this gas, BTW?

No, no, no. You need air marshalls. Trained, armed individuals who will take out a terrorist and use the amount of force required under the circumstances (terrorists get shot; drunks get arrested).

As for whether a government agency has to take over airport security, the answer is yes. Of course. Airport security is the only major security function in this country that is contracted out to the lowest bidder. Courthouses, prisons, police, secret service, federal buildings like the Capitol all have government trained and paid personnel. And they are a WHOLE lot more competent than baggage screeners.

Can you imagine if the secret service were locally controlled by private companies? "Mr. President, this is Ernie, and he'll be protecting you from terrorists today." I think not. Remember how the Capitol shootings ended a few years ago? A nut stormed the Capitol with a gun. He killed two officers, but not before they took him out. Government trained security personnel know what they are doing, and the investment in security pays dividends.

Eventually, all this will come down to money. I would like to remind you what happened in the nation's capitol building after the guard was shot and killed. The target of the assassination attempt, House Republican Whip Tom DeLay, immediately left town and did not even attend the funeral of the man who gave his life for him. Then, when the capitol police budget was up for renewal and increase, DeLay worked hard...to have the capitol police force budget cut.

Now, Tom DeLay had a reasonable reason for getting out of town ... his pest extermination license was up for renewal. He was in TX taking care of bidness. Isn't Tom a class act though? Ciao

"We've known for many years that America was a target of terrorists. And every expert warned that the most likely terrorist plots would involve commercial airlines."

"Yet airports throughout the United States rely on security personnel who are paid about $6 an hour, less than they could earn serving fast food. These guardians of our lives receive only a few hours of training, and more than 90 percent of the people screening bags have been on the job for less than six months."

- Excerpts from 'Paying The Price'by Paul Krugman
Full-text online at: http://nytimes.com/2001/09/16/opinion/16KRUG.html

"For more than 25 years, federal investigators have worried about the repeated failure of screeners to detect and intercept dangerous objects before they are carried aboard airplanes."

"A major problem is the high rate of turnover, which results in an unusually inexperienced work force. The screeners' pay is so low, often just $6 or $7 an hour, that turnover is more than 100 percent each year at the nation's large airports, and more than 200 percent at Logan International Airport in Boston, where two of the hijacked flights originated."

"In the United States, four companies dominate the screening business: Argenbright, Globe Aviation, Huntleigh and International Total Services. "

"Last year, Argenbright pleaded guilty and agreed to pay $1.2 million for falsifying records, for doing inadequate background checks and for hiring at least 14 airport workers in Philadelphia who had criminal convictions for burglary, firearm possession, drug dealing and other crimes."

"In 1978, the Federal Aviation Administration found that screeners failed to detect guns and pipe bombs 13 percent of the time in compliance tests, while in 1987, the agency found that screeners missed 20 percent of the time. Since then, the agency has stopped releasing figures."

- excerpts from 'Even Workers Can See Flaws in Airlines' Screening System' By STEVEN GREENHOUSE and CHRISTOPHER DREW,
NY Times, Sept. 14, 2001
Full-text at:
http://nytimes.com/2001/09/14/national/14SECU.html