The following is brought to you by the people who think you have too many freedoms on airplanes, and wish to take them away slowly, until the day when, to go anywhere on a flight, you'll be indistinguishable from a maximum security prisoner being transported. The federal government has ordered Transport Canada and the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority to tighten security the day after an attempted terrorist attack on a Detroit-bound Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam. Air Canada and WestJet are instructing passengers to arrive as much as three hours early at airports to allow for extra security checks. Lets go over the new security precautions, one by one: 1. All bags will be searched by hand. 2. All passengers will be physically patted down. 3. Only half the carry-on luggage is allowed (down from two, to just one) 4. No movement in the final hour of flight. 5. No access to carry-on baggage during last hour of flight. 6. No items on a persons lap during last hour of flight. Now, does this seem a little over the top to you? The safest form of transportation still isn't safe enough I guess! Though I think the bit that really gets on my nerves is the following, as stated by Former CSIS senior intelligence officer Michel Juneau-Katsuya: "The challenge since 9/11 is that we want more security, but we don't want to turn it into a police state where everyone is getting a body search instead of getting on the plane," Source
The same is happening here, as well. The more I read about the incident, the more confused I get. A Nigerian guy with a tenuous link to Al Qaeda in the Arabian Penunsula via another guy in Yemen tries to set off an incendiary device (read: not explosive) during the last hour of flight? If we follow the previous administration's logic, does this mean that we should further splinter the military and start a full-scale invasion of Nigeria? Yemen? The entire Arabian Peninsula? Chaining everyone to their seats during the last hour of flight isn't going to do anything to increase security. The terrorists will just set off their devices an hour and a half before landing. I can just imagine all the potential customers are thrilled about having to arrive three hours before a flight, just for the wonderful experience of instead being treated like potential criminals. It takes me approximately 8 hours to drive across Texas. I used to fly because it was quicker and more convenient. If I have to arrive at the airport 3 hours early, that means I have to leave the house 4 hours early, for a 2-ish hour flight. Add on at least 30 minutes after the flight to get off the plane, get my bags, and leave the airport; it's now more convenient for me to just drive. Good luck to the airlines. They're already struggling, and now they've got to convince the public that all the added inconveniences are still worth it. I almost feel sorry for incoming Continental CEO Jeff Smisek.
Well I am on my way back from Canada right now and the only thing I have noticed is that US Customs are being bigger asses than usual. Just as a heads up to anyone else traveling from Canada to US, Your NEXUS card doesn't mean **** right now (we were questioned for 10min and were asked for even more ID past the nexus and passports). Right now I am actually sitting in Detroit airport and although there is more police presence security lines were actually shorter than normal (the medallion ones at least) and we have noticed almost no delay. Albeit we are not flying from say Toronto, so I cannot comment on CA-US flights. As for the rules, they will go away in a couple of months, unfortunately the US has a bad idea of over-reacting after they should have reacted. What the big **** throwing contest will be is the fact that this guy was able to keep his US visa after being put on a terrorist watch list.
oh ffs, im sick of this PC crap, can we not just impose security checks on those believing in religion?
not really since the airplanes are already scheduled they fly regardless if people are on them or not.
As usual these measures will do nothing to actually prevent an attack, just make the lemmings feel safer. A would be bomber could cause just as many fatalities by exploding a bomb in an airport prior to the security check, so many people in queues waiting to be checked, nice easy target. And as for the last hour of the flight restrictions, what benefit does that hold, surely a bomber would set it of with 2 hours to go. Pure nonsense.
What I find amusing is this: What if the bomber decides to blow himself up at the front door? Yeah waste of time eh?
like you don't already feel like a cow in a corral at the checkpoints.. I don't think they do a good job of checking you out anyway from what I've seen.. if you can somehow rig yourself up a driver license (which a monkey could do).. you can get by the checkpoints with practically anything on your body a patdown I think is a little over the top though.. I mean what about women getting felt up by some horney security guard XD, that's not going to fly with alot of people I don't think.. and 3 hours? getting back to the bush days- just when things were starting to lax up a bit
I hope Canada's got some law saying only women can touch women (with regards to searches/patting down) and only men can search men. If not I wouldn't want to be a hottie (well, I am, but I'm not a girl) right now! Amen. I've never understood why this isn't a more popular tactic, especially during rushes (summer holidays, Christmas, etc). What's so special about making a plane go down (apart from the "oh, look, we beat your silly security measures!" dick-measuring contest) if your only goal is to kill? The security may have failed (how can it not; airport security seems like a very boring job) but from the news reports it seems the guy should never have been allowed on the flight anyway. US officials in god-knows-where messed up big time when the alleged terrorist's own damn father went to warn the US embassy about his crazy-ass son who was going to fly to the US! "Innocent until proven guilty", yes, but there would've been little harm in retracting the guy's visa (temporarily) until he could've been checked out properly. This wasn't a random stranger making an accusation, it was his father. Even if you take into account "estranged father" or "slept with my new wife" scenarios, the warning should've been given more weight. Bruce Schneier said it best (quite some time ago now) when he said the only thing that has made flying safer since 9/11 is reinforced cockpit doors and that passengers now know they can/should defend themselves. The latter worked quite well on that flight. I'm quite surprised the failed terrorist didn't get beaten to death, to be honest - imagine the panic.
Despite your obvious transgender issues, your arguement is sound. Though I think they want to take the plane down over a heavily populated area, and maybe hit a target of interest (pentagon anyone?), as they've made hijacking rather difficult. Maybe it's just the increased terror aspect of being in a small, closed-in space with no direct escape route that appeals to these idiots. Don't know.
Just issue sidearms to anyone aboard the planes who a) aren't religious and b) seems sensible. And for the record, in the US, you are searched by the "same sex". My dads coworker experienced that the hard way after a smartass comment about wanting to be searched by the hot latino chick at the desk. The coworker was then searched by the 6' 7" coloured american standing next to the chick. Karma's a bitch.
The problem is that the bomber boarded his original flight in Lagos, where airport security was likely to be far short of that in North America or Europe. No amount of increasing security in the US will help if the terrorist boards a plane in a country where security is cursory at best. Even if he changed flights somewhere along the way (as I believe the bomber did), transfer security is a lot less stringent than security when you first board. So, short of banning all flights and transfers from second or third world countries, what can you do? In short, nothing. These people believe they have a message to deliver, and whatever counter-measures are in place, they will find a way round them - whether it's starting your journey in a country with lax security or setting off a bomb in the concourse.
It is all paranoia. Fact is: terrorism is easy. 9/11 happened with a few Stanley knives. And although there are no liquids in the world that can be mixed to form an explosive under airplane conditions any suicidal idiot can open a door mid-flight. but the other fact is: there was no terrorist attack in the 8 years before 9/11 and there has beem none since. It is a bit like the cognitive distortions people have when they think they can realistically win the lottery. The superchimp already pointed out the most tenuous connection between this terrorist and Al Quaida, which incidentally is as tenuous as that of the London Tube bombers. We are not dealing with nefarious cells of organised fanatics but disgruntled locals with a personality disorder, probably mental health problems and a big chip on their narcissistic shoulder. Unfortunately the government offficials worrying about them are just as, well, crazy so they can't tell the difference.
To continue the discussion about blowing planes up, as odd as it is: Several men in a packed check-in area can do more damage than a plane, if it is what they are looking for. A couple of flashbangs with a couple of smoke grenades would create enough panic, and thermal scopes would just make it easy for the terrorists to pick people off. So - why do they go for the planes? Is it just a penis size competition - oh look, we got this past your security - or is it to cause all this inconvenience. Another thing to ponder - why do they try to blow it up now? An aeroplane, when in the wrong hands, is a bloody effective missile, as 9/11 showed us, and it would take a leader with iron balls to order it shot down until the very last minute. The people who are complaining about the 'racist' checks need checking out themselves. If you were to build up a profile of what a typical terrorist is, then you have, at the moment, got a fairly tight description. This, admittedly, could be abused though - the whole 'problem' could take a completely different form.
What I find quite interesting is that we reserve the terrorist image for people of middle eastern descent. Do they not know there's a region called the Balkans?
yeah really.. if someone really wanted to put a bomber on the planes- have a bunch of hated politicians making it easy to recruit, get that 1 white guy who says f it I'm down.. he walks right through security while muhammed is getting buttsecks in the holding room
As someone who flys internationally regually (read evey 4-5 weeks, transcontinental) at the moment the only thing ive seen change is my ability to buy duty free booze and bring it to the country of my choice. Eco-class might be a pain right now, but move to business and youll find that you can do just about anything you want and the secuirty can even be a lot easier (dedicated checking/security points). ill be flying at the end jan, ill be on the look out for things that may have changed going from the Middle-east to Europe and then to Canada.
I've always wondered, we've been doing the same thing for years(flying w/o too intrusive security) and nothing's bad happened. So what gives? Searches won't help since people who intend to bomb an airplane(an idiot imo) or the airport(smarter) or hi-jack the airplane(best option XD) would PLAN to do it and hence bypass the search anyways. I scoff at the notion that using plastic knives and forbidding water bottles will stop bombers in any way.
