Air Travel with tanks post TSA

[Genesis]

But I do appreciate the work EANDIVER and his colleagues are doing. Important work. Work well done.

There is no "work well done" being done.

You have been spoon-fed pablum, and you swallowed willingly. Congratulations are in order for your single-handed reduction in the global level of conscious though.

The fact of the matter is that none of these so-called "changes" have improved a thing security-wise - because there was no security problem TO improve.

 

[jbm]

Genesis once bubbled...


The fact of the matter is that none of these so-called "changes" have improved a thing security-wise - because there was no security problem TO improve.

Well, that is a curious statement .......... do your homework and you will realize there was a security problem to address and it is being addressed. Or maybe you are so self-absorbed that you fail to realize that, unlike you, people DO travel with checked luggage. ( there is a hint for you......you can do the rest.....there WILL be a quiz when you are up to speed.)


jbm

 

[Genesis]

Pray tell, how many bombs or other "dangerous destructive devices" have caused airline accidents?

In how many years?

Please define this "security problem".

Has there been any amendment of the airline "deny deny deny" policy on baggage theft, break-ins and damage? Nope. Not a bit. They still play the "we didn't do it and we're not responsible" game.

You want me to believe that we're "safer" after 9/11 due to the TSA nonsense? Fine. Show me some verification - with the money of those making the claims behind it to back it up if they're wrong - that LUGGAGE is actually safer being checked post-TSA.

The evidence you speak of is wholly missing.

 

[jbm]

Genesis once bubbled...
Pray tell, how many bombs or other "dangerous destructive devices" have caused airline accidents?

In how many years?

Please define this "security problem".

Has there been any amendment of the airline "deny deny deny" policy on baggage theft, break-ins and damage? Nope. Not a bit. They still play the "we didn't do it and we're not responsible" game.

You want me to believe that we're "safer" after 9/11 due to the TSA nonsense? Fine. Show me some verification - with the money of those making the claims behind it to back it up if they're wrong - that LUGGAGE is actually safer being checked post-TSA.

The evidence you speak of is wholly missing.

.......Pan Am 103 and Air India immediately come to mind

......I think the folks in Lockerby believe once is enough

....."security problem" see above

......sorry....that's another issue

..........Luggage screened IS safer than luggage left unscreened ( this should be apparent to an educated man such as yourself)




I know you feel cheap and violated when you go through security screening.......I know you feel that your civil liberties have been abused if someone dares to examine your checked luggage..........I know all that.......and I feel for you....but.......when this does happen to you......suck it up....walk it off......and .....take it like a man!


jbm

 

[Genesis]

and the TSA has nothing to do with either, since both occurred outside of the United States.

Again, show me ONE - just ONE - incident of a plane going down in the US - as a consequence of something nefarious in checked baggage.

You CAN'T, because it hasn't happened.

What HAS happened was the loading of oxygen canisters into a cargo hold, which trashed a Valu-Jet flight. But that wasn't a "security" issue, nor would the TSA have prevented it.

Look, if you want to believe you're "safer" go right ahead. Its a lie. The simple fact of the matter is that 9/11 did not happen due to a security breach. It happened because of what is commonly know as "social engineering" - the hijackers exploited our belief about what a hijacking was and was not.

That mistake will not be made again, as was demonstrated by the flight that went down in PA just minutes after the "worldview" of what a hijacker might want was updated to reflect current reality.

The myth of being "safer" is PROVEN by the fact that neither the government OR the airlines will take FINANCIAL responsibility for your luggage and its pilferage WHILE IN THEIR CUSTODY.

If you do not understand that taking financial responsibility for your checked bags is a much less stringent standard than taking responsibility for making sure there is not a bomb in the luggage, then I cannot help you. The difference in the standard of care required to meet those two standards is so obvious that it should require no more than 20 seconds of thought.

 

[runvus4]

Just because there have been no checked luggage/airline/explosive device related incident in the domestic US doesn't mean that there is no threat of such an incident of happening. Indeed, it is possible that it hasn't happend because terrorists have decided that it is highly unlikely for such a tactic to succeed such that they haven't bothered to plan such an attack. If there was no checked baggage screening, then IMHO, it is highly likely that a terrorist would soon respond to the public's detriment. Stepping on a plane and allowing your baggage to be screened violates no constitutional right, nor does it violate any "spirit" of constitutional rights. There are many other areas of airport/airline security that needs to be tightened up for me to feel substantially safer flying, but I realize that every aspect of airport/airline security can't be improved at once, and better baggage/passenger screening is a well-intentioned component of the larger need.

Theft/loss of checked items/bags IS a problem. Theft/loss is however entirely seperate problem than checked luggage screening. I never check any luggage myself when flying. I always travel with one carry-on sized soft duffel bag and one small sidebag. If I require anything else, then I arrange to have it shipped to my destination to meet me, or find someone local to hold it till I arrive. Most airlines will recompense you for lost items/luggage, but they do limit it to a rather paltry sum. I wouldn't mind at all if there was a mandated higher minimum "no fault/no proof" reimbursement limit for non-declared items, as well as an easy way to declare items above and beyond the mandated reimbursal limit such that someone can be fully re-paid for any lost or stolen item.

Certainly there are some policies which are being followed by the government that I feel are in violation of constitutional rights, but checked luggage screening/airline passanger screening is not one of them.

 

[roakey]

Genesis once bubbled...
Again, show me ONE - just ONE - incident of a plane going down in the US - as a consequence of something nefarious in checked baggage.

Let me see if I understand this: A plane has to be dropped in the US before you're willing to learn from the experience?

Roak

 

[jbm]

Genesis once bubbled...
and the TSA has nothing to do with either, since both occurred outside of the United States.

Again, show me ONE - just ONE - incident of a plane going down in the US - as a consequence of something nefarious in checked baggage.

You CAN'T, because it hasn't happened.

What HAS happened was the loading of oxygen canisters into a cargo hold, which trashed a Valu-Jet flight. But that wasn't a "security" issue, nor would the TSA have prevented it.

Look, if you want to believe you're "safer" go right ahead. Its a lie. The simple fact of the matter is that 9/11 did not happen due to a security breach. It happened because of what is commonly know as "social engineering" - the hijackers exploited our belief about what a hijacking was and was not.

That mistake will not be made again, as was demonstrated by the flight that went down in PA just minutes after the "worldview" of what a hijacker might want was updated to reflect current reality.

The myth of being "safer" is PROVEN by the fact that neither the government OR the airlines will take FINANCIAL responsibility for your luggage and its pilferage WHILE IN THEIR CUSTODY.

If you do not understand that taking financial responsibility for your checked bags is a much less stringent standard than taking responsibility for making sure there is not a bomb in the luggage, then I cannot help you. The difference in the standard of care required to meet those two standards is so obvious that it should require no more than 20 seconds of thought.

First.....thanks for the spelling correction...I could have pointed out spelling errors on your part, but.....I'm just not like that...and you are. Please disregard any spelling errors or errors in punctuation I may make in the future. Thanks.....


Now...I'll address your comments:

......True...these were tragedies that occurred in other parts of the world......and , since they didn't occur over US airspace, they are of no concern to you. Check the passenger manifests for American citizen on these flights...... some Americans were affected....but that is obviously of no concern to you. And although these events didn't involve TSA, they did involve checked luggage.


......True.....although at least one accident investigation involving a US carrier has some "grey areas" that investigators are divided about. This accident..... or perhaps worse...actually occured over Canadian airspace inbound into the US. Total loss of life.....and it was full.....of Americans. So , maybe body parts haven't showered down on Akron or Niceville....but don't believe it doesn't concern the US.


....Valu-Jet is another issue. why did you bring it up?


........September 11 was something new....something we , as North Americans, were unable to imagine. I agree, there was no breach in security. It was opportunism at it's worst........and we should learn from it......
and we should expect the worst. and we should be looking in passenger's checked luggage! It happened once.....Shame.....if it happens again ...Shame on us. It's the new reality.

" the myth of being safer is proven".....wow....what thought processes went into that statement......pure nonsense.

Your next paragraph is pure drivel as well......


It appears you may have some issues with airlines.......fine......but that is not what this thread is about.


jbm

 

[roakey]

runvus4 once bubbled...
Stepping on a plane and allowing your baggage to be screened violates no constitutional right, nor does it violate any "spirit" of constitutional rights.

Actually I have to agree with Genesis in this case, it does violate your Constitutional rights. This is yet another example of "we're from the government, we're here to help" having the typical problem outcome like all intrusions of big government in what should be a free market.

Note that if the airlines as private entities had set up security equivalent to what is currently available there would be no Constitutional issue – it would be a private entity doing the screening and there’s no Constitutional issue with a private entity – the Constitution limits only the powers of government. It truly would be a case of “if you don’t want to be searched, you don’t have to fly” and it would be completely OK on every level (including the inability to point fingers when stuff disappears).

However, because the TSA *is* a governmental agency, they MUST show just cause for the searches (which they do not). A blanket threat is NOT just cause; such reasoning led to the internment of the West Coast Japanese during WWII, which is one of many black marks in our history as a nation.

However to not appear quite as wacky as Genesis, the solution is NOT to scrub the TSA at this point; we as a nation have made this bed and you have to get out of it slowly, unfortunately. Get the right people in government to return to a free market economy and then you can go about weaning the public from it’s dependence on government from cradle to grave (which is where we’ve been heading for quite some time). Pulling the TSA cold turkey opens us up to a terrorist bombing, that’s cutting off your nose to spite your face. The TSA, as well as tons of other government intrusions have to be corrected, but to simply pull the plug on them all at this point in time while principled, would be ultimately self-destructive.

Roak

 

[Genesis]

See, we got TWO parts of this problem at once.

First, we got the TSA. THEN we ALSO got the government making it impossible to SUE an airline out of existence for a bomb that gets on board ANYWAY due to their NEGLIGENCE!

The CORRECT solution was to do NEITHER.

IF an airline has a breach of security that causes fatalities, THEN they should be held responsible.

Fully.

That alone would be more than enough to insure that they did not have such a breach.

If we then also enforced the general civil tort view of bailments (and did not allow the airlines to get out of THAT one as well, due to government intrusion!) then we'd have a COMPLETE fix for the problem.

Your bag would get there in one piece and without being pilfered or damaged, or the airline would be on the hook for replacing it at actual value, since there is a bailment and they accepted custody of your property in an area they have declared as sterile and safe from such events! There would thus be a strict liability test for losses - you can't represent to someone that a place or thing is "safe" and then willy-nilly disregard thefts and other events that prove you were lying - that is, you can't without the government protection racket making it possible.

Further, if a bomb DID get on a plane and blew it to pieces, the airline would be sunk and the families of the deceased would own all those assets - that is to say, money. The fear of that would insure that NO bombs got on an airplane, because the unlimited liability involved in such an egregious violation of reasonable care would bring steps from the airlines that were actually effective to insure safety.

Instead of a fix, we got pablum and violations of rights, sold to us as a bill of goods, and we DID NOT get safe transport of either ourselves or our property.