New TSA Rules for Flights headed to the U.S.

I just heard on the news that these guidelines will also be applied to domestic flights. That means on short flights (less than 1 hour) you will not be able to work, read, etc. Something is going to have to give!

That's right...which means on flights of less than an hour you will have to just sit there....no food, no drinks, no reading material, no ipods, no laptops, no blankets, nothing. Your hands will have to be in plain sight.

No going to the toilets, no getting a jacket/sweater if you're cold.

They're also limiting carry-ons to one...not one and a personal. More people will have to check luggage. More money for the airlines.

The TSA gets to put on more theater, the airline gets to increase revenue, and the passenger....well....he just gets inconvenienced.

This seems awfully silly. Just because this one guy tried to set off a bomb at the end of a flight, no one can hold anything in their lap for the last hour of the flight. So we'll force the next one to set one off an hour and a half before landing. Or maybe he'll have the bomb in his pocket. I mean, what does this accomplish?

It will accomplish nothing. No extra safety for us, just inconvenience and more $$ going to the TSA and the airlines for checked baggage. They can have all the rules and regulations they want, it really comes down to the individual doing the checking. Heck, my wife was allowed to bring bottles (small) of cosmetics and perfume (not in a zip lock bag) onto the plane last year (she forgot about the rules). The agent was "chatting" with her about their common ancestry and told her not to worry about them. She also had two lighters in her purse. No problem. He said go ahead.

I'll have to check and see if I can open a kiosk at Dulles Airport selling adult diapers......and miniature cans of air freshener spray.

I have one trip planned for San Diego at the end of January and one to Egypt in the fall. I realize that the TSA is having a bit of a knee-jerk reaction and I think that AMS has some of the more stringent security measures I've seen. However - what about people traveling with infants/children (who won't be able to carry their own bag) or those who have medical conditions? Many, many people have CPAP machines and travel with a camera. Neither of which should be checked.

What's next - flying with our hands tied together?

NEXT? We'll have to go the airport naked and stand up on the plane in ranks (like on slave ships maybe). We'll have buy EVERYTHING we need at our destination. Checked baggage will become too risky.... You'll have to hold your passport in your teeth (no talking allowed anyway- too risky) and all meds will have to be given up (You don't REALLY need that insulin do you?) and babies will not be allowed to travel at all (they don't follow rules).

Don't laugh too much. Ten years ago we would have thought taking off shoes, 3-1-1 bags etc. would have been just TOO extreme.

Some overseas airports are already suggesting people don't bring carry-on bags, some domestic flights have already informed passengers they can't get up the last hour, TSA now suggests people flying to the U.S. get to the airport at least 3 hours ahead of time because there will be multiple layers of security....and on....and on....and on.

Let's hope this idiotic, knee jerk reaction, is just for a few days and the TSA gets sensisble.

I can understand allowing only one bag because they will have to be more thorough with searches. I can understand having extra levels of security on the ground. I can't understand this stupid one hour rule. It makes absolutely no sense.

TSA has yet to officially post these new rules on their website. We'll have to wait and see.

Frank II,

Thanks for posting that! I agree that this is definitely an overreaction, one that will have adverse affects to large numbers of law abiding travellers. These oppressive rules only address the particular circumstances that were used in this most recent "attack". It should be quite apparent by now that the "evil doers" are very adaptable and it's not likely they'll use the same method again.

Traveling to the U.S. by air seems to be becoming increasingly complicated, difficult and annoying. The timing of these recent events is somewhat unfortunate, as I had a short holiday planned in January. I'll think about it for a few days, but I'm seriously considering cancelling the holiday. Oh well, perhaps this would be a good opportunity to see more of Canada or take a first trip to Cuba. I think it's inevitable that this will have a detrimental effect on tourist travel to the U.S.

Hopefully someone at the TSA will re-think this goofy policy.

"Traveling to the U.S. by air seems to be becoming increasingly complicated, difficult and annoying."

Perhaps it's different for non-citizens (as I suppose some might argue it should be), but I had no trouble flying to the US a couple months ago from Italy via Zurich. Was exactly the same as my last international flight to the US two years ago.

As for the new rules, yeah, maybe it's a knee-jerk overreaction, but a guy got on a plane with explosives and it almost succeeded. On Christmas, no less. I personally can't really blame them for reacting like this. Sure it's a shame if innocent people decide to stay home, but I also think it'd be unfortunate for people to allow a few extra regulations to keep them home, too. And frankly, if a few tourists staying home means there's even a minute less chance of a terrorist getting on a plane, so be it. A lot of people argue the whole liquid/3oz rule is an overreaction and silly, and maybe it is, but people are still getting on planes with explosives, so obviously other measures need to be explored.

Well, Debra, I see it differently. Getting on a plane two months ago is now different than getting on a plane today.

I have no problem with the increase in security at the checkpoints. Just train them better to do the job.

But why must I suffer on the plane because the screeners didn't do their job. Are you telling me you don't mind having to sit in your seat the last hour of your flight and do nothing--no reading, no watching movies, no listening to music, no writing in your journal. Nothing. Just sitting there. No getting up. No going to the bathroom. Nothing. Because one screener didn't do his or her job correctly, we all have to suffer?

And do you realize how much money the U.S. makes from tourism? It's not as if our economy is so great that we can afford to turn people off from coming to the U.S.

The mistakes here were made by the screeners at Schipol and by the U.S. government who were warned about this guy but ignored it. But instead of the government saying we need to do our job better, they punish the innocent passengers.

And it looks like the one hour rule might be extended to domestic flights. That means you will not be able to leave your seat on any flight less than 90 minutes.....the first 30 you usually can't get up anyway since the plane is ascending. And once it reaches cruising altitude, you won't be able to get up since the one hour rule will take effect. So for may 20 minutes of that flight you'll be able to do something. The rest you'll have to sit there like a zombie.

What's next? No talking because terrorists have talked to each other on planes and might plot something. So if no one can talk, they can't plot.

Does the TSA really think the terrorists are so stupid they can't figure out when it's one hour and 15 minutes prior to landing to do something? It's absurd.

Bush once said that Osama hated us because of our freedom. Ironically, he might not have succeeded in taking away our freedom, but he has gotten us to do it to ourselves.

The TSA are such idiots. They never do anything but react to past threats. With the liquid ban, there was a plot in the nineties, early in Clinton's administration, to use carryon liquids to blow up some 747s coming from the orient. We knew about that possibility for over ten years, but didn't do anything about it then.

Let's see. We are allowed no containers over 3 oz., but we can easily take 3 3 oz containers in that bag. Weren't there six or more hijackers on each plane in 911? 6 times 9 oz each. They could easily bring almost ½ gal of some liquid explosive on board and get together in the lav and put it all together.

Somehow our "We're going to bomb the s..t out of you until you don't hate us anymore" policy isn't working very well.

"Even El Al, which has some of the strictest security on the planet, doesn't demand this ridiculousness in the air."
Actually, Frank II, they do. In fact, all airlines flying into Ben Gurion had to have passengers belted in...I think it was about 40 minutes before landing....last year when I flew in.
As well, you may want to recall that the TSA had a 30-minute sit-down rule for flying into Reagan airport for four years after 9/11.

True, Norm, in fact just about every airline puts it's "seat belt" sign on about 30 minutes prior to landing which is when most airliners begin their descent.

That's fine with me.....what gets me upset is extending it to an hour, and then saying we just have to sit there like prisoners--no reading, no listening to music, no nothing. That's the ridiculous part.

I used to fly into Reagan National all the time. The rule really wasn't an inconvenience since it was pretty much equal to descent. (BTW, it's not really done for safety. More to make it easier for the cabin crew to prepare for landing.)

But it looks like some of the "rules" we've been discussing may have been implemented by Air Canada on their flights but nowhere else.

Let's not over-react... note, these are "possible" new rules. The article provided only one indirect reference, and I could find no other article on the internet that quotes any other source. So, before we rant (we Americans are good at that, especially before we know all the facts), let's hold our breath and wait for an official announcement.

Just saw a blog from a man flying TO Japan on United Airlines. UA has turned off all its in-flight entertainment for the trip -- a 13-hr flight...they can't let you see where the plane is along its flight path. This is already getting truly insane!!

No, Frank II, you are incorrect...the rules are not being applied only at Air Canada. People departing from Britain are being told the same thing about seating, as are those boarding Singapore Airlines flights to the U-S. CDG is telling passenger that ALL luggage (except womens' purses) will be put into the hold, and anything they want to take on board will have to be put into the clear carry-on liquid bags. Canadian airline Westjet has also implemented the one-bag rule.
I've been on many flights where the final seatbelt sign hasn't come on until the aircraft has turned long final....certainly not 30 or 40 minute before touchdown. The Israeli requirement was a security requirement....40 minutes....60 minutes...it's still security.
Rather than airlines deliberately inconveniencing their passengers (not terribly logical), it sounds more like adherance to Janet Napolitano's statement that these new security measures "are designed to be unpredictable."

I read this morning on the BBC website that both Virgin and BA are restricting passengers to one carryon and WILL NOT charge extra for checked bags.

I think everyone is overreacting in a foolish way.
The new regulations are for your safety...just go with the flow. Yes it is an inconvenience but so what?

Too much complaining is being posted. we are talking about people's lives!!!

After all we havae all gotten used to the liguids rule so we will get used to this one as well.

Happy New Year to all.

Maryann...please tell me how being forced to sit in your seat for the last hour of the flight is helping to keep us safe?

Does the TSA think that the bad guys can't tell time? That they won't do anything an hour and 15 minutes before the flight is supposed to land?

What if you're traveling with a baby and the baby needs to be changed? Too bad kid, live with it because if mommy gets up to change you, she goes to jail. Or the passenger that may need access to his medical supplies, say a diabetic who might need insulin, who isn't allowed to get up and retrieve it. Their only choice is go to jail, or die.

Those are the stupid rules we're against. It's not the extra security on the ground. That's fine. But if they are going to do such a great job, why the extra restrictions on the plane? What TSA is basically saying is we can't train our people to do a thorough job, and we really screwed up on this one, so instead of taking the blame, let's inconvenience the passengers to let them know who's boss.

And maybe, just maybe, there are enough people out there who still cry when some people mention the word "terrorist" and think all this theater is actually doing something.

These new rules are another infuriating example of bureaucracy gone mad. They don't make us a whit safer, just much, much more inconvenienced. And they cost us jobs in the travel and tourist industry and beyond. I have to travel a lot for work and I have to tell you, the idea of traveling for fun is becoming less and less attractive.

According to the TSA website, the only current change is more pre-flight security on flights to the US from abroad. I guess we will see TSA in foreign airports again.

BA has announced that they will allow only one piece of carry-on luggage on flights from London. Whether this means that they will not allow personal items (coats, purses, and "small" laptops) or whether it means 1st and business class passengers will now be limited to one regulation sized carry-on, in addition to personal items, was not clear. Apparently, BA has imposed these rules itself, not in response to any TSA mandate.

Lufthansa has not announced any changes.

And, Tom, who accused me of over-reacting to "possible" new rules, I was only observing that the existing rule about liquids was enacted over 10 years after their first alert about the possibility and does nothing to prevent determined people from bringing onboard enough explosive liquids to bring down the plane.

It would seem that Air Canada are the ones over-reacting. So far, TSA has not said anything other than increased security at the foreign airports. It is Air Canada that is inventing all of these "proposed" restrictions. Note, on their website they say they are now restricting cabin luggage to one personal item (purse, computer bag, diaper bag, brief case or small backpack)[that means a woman carrying a diaper bag cannot also carry her purse!]. Anything else has to be checked [They're going to check a purse? That sound real secure]. No other airline has announced such a policy.

Air Canada is also the only one saying that for the last hour passengers must sit in their seats, with their hand folded in their laps [actually they only say that passenger "will not be allowed to ... have personal belongings or other items on their laps."] during the final hour.

It's way past time to stop worrying about being politically correct and start some serious profiling.

When more people quit travelling because it's too much of a hassle and big $$$ are involved, maybe some people with actual common sense will get together and try to make all this work better and more safely! Overall I think the TSA is a bad joke.

Lee...why would any airline slap on extra security precautions unless they were told to do so? Doesn't make much sense to me. You might note that the TSA says...
"Passengers flying from international locations to U.S. destinations may notice additional security measures in place. These measures are designed to be unpredictable, so passengers should not expect to see the same thing everywhere. Due to the busy holiday travel season, both domestic and international travelers should allot extra time for check-in."
According to the UK's Daily Telegraph....
"the most stringent restrictions came as aircraft entered US airspace, with passengers confined to their seats for the last hour of their flight, banned from having access to books, newspapers or even blankets or pillows."
And further from that newspaper....
"In Paris passengers were told to check all hand baggage into the hold with anything essential for the flight placed into clear plastic bags usually reserved for liquids. Details of the restrictions emerged from passengers and airline sources rather than the Government or the airlines themselves after official requests not to disclose details relating to security measures. Information was kept deliberately vague prompting confusion among passengers about what was allowed."

Common sense died. Let's get away with this super political correctness. We all know who these terrorists are. Certainly not 80 year old grandma or 50 year old businessman. Let's not waste our resources with super screening everyone. I usually give this example. I am walking through the very dark street and lose my wallet. Then I go to the next street and search for that wallet under the street light. That's not the place where I can find it because it's not where it is. But it is easier to search for it under the light. So we have to start searching for terrorists where we can find them not where it is more politically correct to do it. How many times there was a suicidal terrorist on the plane who was not a male, muslim or younger than 30 years? We have to do it smart way and more selective screening will be needed. I suspect that these terrorists know that with little explosives they were able to bring on board they cannot bring the airliner down and instead are trying to bankrupt our tourism and airline industry and thanks to idiots in TSA and other places they are almost succeeding.

Usually right before the last hour of my flight, I am packing up all my plane entertainment and using the bathroom and prepping mentally for my arrival and landing (secret fear of flying, I need a bit of meditation to keep calm). I am always a bit nervous about leaving things behind so I do it early instead of waiting til the last moment to get my stuff ready for landing. If I were to wait til the last moment, I would also be a bit nauseous too, because the last 1/2 hour or so is also the bumpiest (yeah, I am prone to some motion sickness when flying).I would have no problem just sitting there if this were a rule, because I am doing it anyways. People who scurry around at the last minute putting stuff away and using the restroom annoy me and make me more anxious than I already am.

I would always rather arrive alive than dead or badly injured. If security has to be more strict, I will play the game if I need too. We are dealing with a horrible enemy and while we can't profile peoples religious affiliations before boarding, we have to work hard to make it more difficult to not let igniting materials and explosive liquids board our planes. It sucks for us non violent, non martyr folk but it is our world we live in.

I know new safety rules are not convenient, but I have labeled flying to be not a part of my comfort realm. Flying is torture, more specifically in coach. But it is just a temporary moment in my life where I have to sacrifice luxury, personal space and comfort and share the living space of the plane with others. You are no longer in the comfort of your own home so you can't expect everyone to cater to those personal comforts.

Since the latest wanna-be terrorist epic failure looser's evil plan was to hide his bomb in his underwear, the new TSA requirement is: all passengers must now wear their underwear on the outside.

We're living in an old Woody Allen movie!

So, what you're saying Kelly is that because you're afraid of flying, we should all be inconvenienced because otherwise you wont' be happy?

Okay, so, now during the last hour of flight, if you need medication to help calm you down, you can't have it. If you feel naseous and need to use one of the "bags" left in the seat in front of you, you can't use it. You have to vomit all over yourself because using the bag would mean covering your lap and that's not allowed. And then, you can't get up to go to the bathroom to clean up because getting up is not allowed. And if the flight is less tha 90 minutes, you can't get up at all.

I hate to tell you this, but the terrorists are winning. Their goal is to destroy our way of life. By puting people like you into constant fear, they win. Why? Because the government spends billions of dollars on security theater to make you happy. The government takes away any freedoms you have and treats you as a criminal in the name of terrorism. And that's exactly what the terrorists want.

We are destroying ourselves in the name of fear. I can understand thorough screening on the ground. I can understand extra screening in places where there is a higher likelihood of terrorist attack. I cannot understand how sitting like a zombie for the last hour of flight is going to stop terrorists? I cannot understand, if my belonging and I are thoroughly searched, why can't I take my bag on board?

No, it's theater. It's just a way for the TSA to inconvenience the passenger. It's a way for them to ask for more federal money to be wasted so they can implement their new plans--and buy new equipment from companies who are offering jobs, kickbacks etc, for when they leave office.

Even El Al, which has some of the strictest security on the planet, doesn't demand this ridiculousness in the air.

Why don't they just duct tape us to our seats with our ankles and wrists bound? Why does the flying public have to pay the consequences whenever the TSA, and others, drop the ball and one of these loonies gets through their fingers? We are still having to take our shoes off at security because of that goofball that tried to set his shoe on fire. The TSA needs to take a long, hard look at itself before it starts saddling the flying public with more restrictions. I used to love to travel, but since 9/11 it has become a pain in the butt!! If the airlines want to save themselves, they need to say enough is enough!

This paragraph from CNN online:

An official with the Transportation Security Administration told CNN there will be increased security measures taken on international flights to the United States. The official advised travelers to allow for extra time before the flight. There will be no change in the number of carry-on bags allowed.

Looks like TSA is backtracking....of Air Canada made up its own rules and the British followed.

Just as a matter of interest:

I am unsure exactly what rules you guys have been living with but as of Christmas Day we in Australia can now take knitting needles, crochet hooks, nail clippers and tennis racquets on to aircraft.

''The changes will ensure that security screeners and personnel are able to focus their full attention on items that pose serious security risks for Australian aviation,'' Transport Minister Anthony Albanese said yesterday.

Metal cutlery will also now be allowed on board aircraft.

But bans will remain on knives, firearms, letter openers, scissors, baseball and cricket bats, golf clubs and hockey sticks.

Changes to rules that leave transiting passengers at risk of having their duty-free alcohol and perfumes confiscated will not be brought in until the new year because of the need for co-operation from each airport operator.

Personally, I think we have more to fear from the rich and famous....
From the AP: "Police say Ivana Trump has been escorted off a plane in Florida after she became belligerent when children were running and screaming in the aisles."
;)

And so was the guy who tried to blow up the plane. And so is Osama bin-you khow who.

Everyone is overreacting. After the shoe bomber, these same things happened and fortunately only lasted a few days.

And how is not allowing carry-on luggage going to help. The device was taped to the guy's leg.

No, it's security theater. Luckily, the TSA is now beginning to clarify. It now states it will not restrict carry-on luggage but airports or airlines can.

And some airlines are reporting that no one can use laptops during the trip. That will go over well with business FF'ers.

Hopefully, this nonsense will stop soon.

If not, and people are told when they arrive at the airport...Surprise....you need to check your laptops, and electronics, and just sit quietly for your 12 hour flight because we wont' turn on the entertainment system...you're going to see a major backlash against the airlines. And none can afford that now.

And has anyone heard the goverment say...we made a mistake here. No,....all they say is.....let's put on a show to convince the American people we mean business.

And, Norm, I'm sorry I maligned Air Canada....I should have known better. Only Canadians can do that.

It really is ridiculous. If someone were to want to blow up a plane, they wouldn't do it at the beginning or end of the flight, they would do it over the deepest part of the ocean or at the highest altitude where evidence would be scarce and spread out. I think that this BOZO just finally got the nerve to pull it off at the last minute. Thanks a lot DOOFUS!

Hey Frank II....as I've said before...feel free to criticise Air Canada...as long as you have your facts straight.

Some of the restrictions I really love:

Singapore Airlines is not allowing anyone on flights to the U.S. use the in-flight phones. We all know the terrorists like to call home and say "Guess where I'm calling from, the plane I'm about to blow up." And if they can't make the call, they wont do anything.

Many airlines are turning off the in-flight entertainment systems because most have maps to show you the position of the plane. Without that, of course, no one knows when it's close to landing. "Ugh, they says the flight is 12 hours long. I'm going to Chicago and we have been flying for 11 hours. I wonder if we are over land. Agh, I hate the new math."

I'm surprised they don't make people pull down the window shades during the entire flight. (That's probably the next thing.)

And they had better stop serving water. If you add plain sodium to water, it explodes. Sodium is very pliable and can be shaped into almost anything. Oops, no more water to be served.

Ridiculous or what?

The big question we have to ask is...how will this affect your travel plans?...and with "your" I mean everyone here, not just one person.

Actually, John, the terrorists want to explode the planes over the U.S. It has more impact on people to see the wreckage over U.S. soil than to see nothing over the ocean.

Think of the recent Air France flight lost over the Atlantic. The visual images weren't as graphic as say wreckage on the ground.

The terrorists want to put fear into people. That leads to disruption of our daily lives and the loss of many of our freedoms--the true goal of the terrorists.

Just to clarify a few points in the discussion.

ALL airlines flying to the US are subject to the new regulations. The Canadian federal government (after discussions with US Homeland Security) agreed that "Security threats to the United States are security threats to Canada", and have ordered Transport Canada and the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA) to "assume a heightened state of vigilance". This applies to ANY airlines flying to the U.S., however Air Canada seems to have been the first one to issue a press release.

The restriction to ONE carry-on item seems to have been implemented solely to make the secondary screenings (at the gate) move a bit faster. Searching one small bag will be much easier!

The story from Paris is an example of an extreme overreaction (IMO). Forcing travelers to only take a few items in a clear zip-lok and not even take a carry on is foolish and ridiculous. This will probably only last a few days and then it will be back to business as usual.

The airlines are already predicted to lose $6 BILLION in 2010, and these oppressive measures will probably increase this loss. As someone else mentioned, the "evil doers" appear to be winning by creating an atmosphere of fear.

The one-hour seating rule is a bit extreme. Some people have "medical issues" that require more frequent trips to the WC. I wonder if the airlines are going to start issuing Depends diapers to those with these problems? The method used in this latest case could possibly be employed while seated?

I definitely support any measures that will make flights safer, but sometimes these are a bit silly and of dubious effectiveness.

One news report mentioned "full body scanners" as one solution to detect "hidden items". Our local airport is a test centre for these and although I've never been scanned, perhaps it's a good idea?

It will be interesting to see if these measures evolve over the next few weeks.

Cheers!

One further thought.....

It's somewhat understandable that the Security staff in Amsterdam failed to detect this one. The perpetrators in this case were very devious and cunning in using a non-metallic device carried on the body. This could have been detected by dogs, by electronic "sniffers" or by a "swab", however it's highly unlikely that anyone's underwear would be searched using any of those methods.

Again, perhaps the full body scanners would be a good idea as those would likely have found the device in this incident.

It's quite surprising that this individual wasn't subjected to more rigourous screening and perhaps a "pat down" before being allowed to board the flight. His Father had reported him to one of the U.S. Embassies and he was on some kind of "watch list" (but not on any "no fly lists"). Somebody was "asleep at the switch" on that one!

Turning off the inflight entertainment is particularly inane if the point is to ensure that passengers don't know when they are landing. Pressure changes make descending obvious--people knew that long before there were inflight maps! I suppose next we will have to have flights of unpredictable length, taking long unannounced circuitous routes so the terrorists won't know when they are over US airspace. Sheesh...

Can you imagine being an airport security employee in these new days of unpredictable regulations? All day long, nothing but angry, upset, confused travelers to deal with because there will be rules, but we won't be allowed to know them and prepare for them.

None of this makes anyone any safer, but it will make air travel much more aggravating. At the margins, it will make people think twice before flying. (My dad stopped flying after the liquids and gels ban set it--just too darn confusing and annoying for him to remember to leave his shaving cream and Aquavelva home!) People forced to check computers, CPAP machines, jewelry, etc. will be predictably distraught when their property is damaged, lost, or stolen.

So, as travel becomes more and more unpleasant, fewer discretionary trips will be taken. More inventory reduction by the airlines will make itinerary logistics more limited, less convenient schedules will further depress air travel demand, and the vicious death spiral of the airline industry gets accelerated. All for "security" measures that give us nothing but an illusion of greater safety.

As a former Israeli Shin Bet agent, now a security consultant, once observed a few years ago, the difference is that Americans look for weapons, while Israel looks for terrorists. Until the TSA and similar agencies in other countries are properly-staffed by well-paid, well-educated, and well-trained personnel who can use modern psychological tools to probe flyers' intentions, then these people will continue getting through. The Israelis thought so much of this guy that they recently let him fly only with an armed sky marshall in the seat next to him.

I agree with Norm...don't be so surprised Norm. TSA has to start re-training their people to do things properly and hire the proper people to do them. (It wouldn't have helped in Amsterdam unless the rules change there as well.)

While we probably can't have the level of security the Israelis have--we have just too many flights--we can have better security on the ground.

I'm sorry, some may disagree, but if you have a stamp in your passport from a country known to harbor terrorists or known terrorist training camps--Yemen, Sudan, Iran--then you should automatically go through secondary security which includes a pat down. Have the dog do a quick sniff. This only takes a few minutes. But we're afraid it would be seen as racial profiling and we can't do that.

Right now, the majority of people traveling are doing so for leisure. They are not frequent fliers and they buy into this theater. However, after the first of the year, and the business travelers return, I'd like to see what happens when they're told no laptops, no working, no nothing.

It will be interesting. I give it until the end of the first week in January before the Airline's lobbyists are beating down TSA's door.

Interestingly, there has been no affect on domestic flights. Southwest reports no changes at all. I'm wondering if this will keep a lot of American's home rather than travel overseas? Will Amtrak see an increase in business?

Frank II...I'm never surprised by you! ;)
You say, "I give it until the end of the first week in January before the Airline's lobbyists are beating down TSA's door." I think you're being generous....I give them until Thursday.

Time to relax and let the dust settle on how TSA policy will change, if at all.

Norm,

"The Israelis thought so much of this guy that they recently let him fly only with an armed sky marshall in the seat next to him."

That's incredible! The Israelis had this guy flagged as a significant threat, but no one else picked up on that? Do these security agencies not talk to each other?

Frank II,

"TSA has to start re-training their people to do things properly and hire the proper people to do them."

Training would be a good improvement and also some "profiling" (racial, psychological or whatever as the Israelis do). I have to wonder if part of the problem is the wages paid to security screeners. They typically only earn about $10/hour, so that's probably not going to attract the most motivated or career oriented individuals (I doubt that I could house and feed a family on those wages). I suspect there's a degree of "turnover" as people move on to better paying careers, resulting in some degree of inexperienced staff on every shift.

No one seems to want to talk about pay increases for screeners as it would result in higher costs to the travelling public and/or the airlines (I'm sure who pays the costs for the screening function?). If I was just starting out, I'd consider a career in law enforcement and working as a screener would only be a temporary measure to get me to a full time career.

Ken....he was apparently on the "watch" list but not the "do not fly" list. I guess they didn't "watch" him too closely! ;)

The U.S. government is finally beginning to admit they may have "blown this one."

No kidding?

And who's paying for it both in inconvenience and money--the U.S. taxpayer.

But we shouldn't be surprised...after 9/11 we were angry at Al Queda and the country where most of the hijackers came from (Saudi Arabia.) And what did we do.....attack Iraq.

I've been reading up on Canadian immigration laws to see if I can qualify......I can. (Sorry Canadians.)

Frank, I don't think Canadian citizenship is going to work for you: one of the conditions of becoming Canadian (if you're originally a US citizen) is that you have to unconditionally and irrevocably waive your right to complain about the US--you can only complain about Canada. It would take a lot of the fun out of becoming Canadian.:)

But I'd get health care......

Yes, Frank II, you'd get health care....so the next time the TSA causes you to blow a gasket....you'll be treated without charge!!

Regarding Ken's post about the potential use of body scanners, I personally feel that IF they are an effective tool (and not "theater," to use Frank's line), I'm all for them. Of course, there was a huge hew and cry several months back from people who felt they'd be too personally invasive, as the images are rather, well, let's just say there isn't room to hide anything. But, to echo sentiments from this thread, the best security defense begins in the airport, and if that means a TSA agent gets a birds-eye view of me, so be it. I'm not vain enough to think he/she cares.

Metal detectors just seem so antiquated in this age where one with villainous intent can do a lot with plastics. Or maybe I've just seen In the Line of Fire too many times.

It just gets better.....early reports are saying the TSA will ban the use of all electronics on international flights coming to the U.S. No laptops, ipods, ebook readers, inflight entertainment offered by the airline (i.e. seatback screens). You can still bring a book.

While not specifically outlined, here's the first official info from TSA:

TSA Guidance

The line I have noticed most today goes something like this:
"Things will be random, what is done at one airport will be different from what is done at another and even day to day it will be different"

Translation:
"We want to make the "rules" as we go and not have to explain our actions (or inactions) or justify what we do to you"

I agree that the best security is at the airport- not on the plane. If they cut out in-flight entertainment people may rebel and really 'terorize'- only half-way joking

Reason needs to be re-inserted into this process by someone. Profiling works- it is not prejudicial.

We've been sitting around trying to think about what we could do during that last hour so we wouldn't go mad or die of boredom or twitch to the point that you'd likely be in trouble! So far, we've come up with the idea of a sing along. Who is ready for a rousing chorus or two of 100 Bottles of Beer on the Wall? Any other suggestions?

Pam

This from MSNBC....and you won't believe it.

New Reality for Travelers

(This is a video)

The TSA has stated that they are not requiring any change as to the number of carry-on bags and is leaving that up to the individual airlines and airports.

So, the rule you heard this morning is NOT coming from the U.S. government. I believe Air Canada is implementing it for their own flights to help lessen the very long security lines.

American Airlines is allowing it's customers traveling in the next few days from Canada to the U.S. to rebook at no charge to help alleviate the long lines. No word on baggage restrictions.

United Air Lines is doing the same thing.

Air Canada has canceled many of its short haul flight into the U.S.

And I just realized Janet Napolitano's comment of "the system worked" was her "Brownie, you're doing a hell of a job" moment.

Frank II I just want to thank you for starting this post. It has helped to have a place to vent. I hope this has opened some eyes! Maybe if more of us had the courage of our convictions we'd have safer ariports and more comfortable flights. Oh well.... I can dream can't I...

Well,, I am confused,,, how not being able to watch a movie( inflight entertainment) supposed to make a flight safer. I mean,, they could simply remove the little plane over a map thing if they wanted.. not that all flights even offer that flight tracking option. I mean,, we all know how the terrorists NEED that little map to bomb and blow up things ,, right.

And,, what good is the "last hour" rule, why not blow up plane during first hour??

I do get the restricting of carry ons,, less for the security personal to have to search,, so thats fine with me. As long as I can carry on my wallet and meds I am happy.

I personally would rather have a full body scan then a pat down anyways,,,

The sky is falling, the sky is falling. TSA overreacts to a terror attempt and Frank II overreacts to TSA's overreaction. I have one question, who cares? If the worse thing on that flight is that you have to sit there for the last hour and not read a book, who cares? Do you REALLY need something to do for that hour. And no one is going to die from lack of medication if they really need it. Don't like it, drive next time, or take a boat, you'll have plenty of time for reading then.

Why don't they just take the maps off of the in-flight entertainment? It's their entertainment system, can't they control what's in it?

As far as the "no getting up for the last hour", good luck with enforcing that one. I've got kids, when they have to go, they have to go. And what am I supposed to do with them for the last hour, if we can't read books or watch anything?

Some years ago, maybe about 4 or 5, we did get the full pat-down at the Frankfurt airport. We went through the regular security checkpoint, and then another before getting to our gate.

On many of the in-flight entertainment systems, the GPS map is integrated. To remove that would mean reprogramming every plane. Very expensive and the airlines aren't going to pay for that.

The reason for the hour rule, if you watched the video, is that TSA is afraid if a plane was blown up, the debris might scatter over a city.

And I'm not overreacting Rob. I guess you don't fly much. But TSA already had too many "differences" when flying. It seems they make up their own rules as they go along and when they feel like it. No oversite. No looking into the real problem. No re-training so the proper security checks are done on the ground. No, if TSA or the U.S. government screws up, the passengers pay for it--both literally (more tax money will go to TSA) and as an inconvenience.

On some flights, you won't be allowed to use any electronics at all. Not just the last hour, but the entire flight. No laptops, no mp3's, no in-flight entertainment. You are allowed a book.

On some flights, you won't be allowed any carry-on at all. Only emergency items that can be brought on in a clear ziploc bag. Oh, wait, no inflight entertainment, no books, nothing to occupy your time for a 12 hour flight. Too bad, we're protecting you from the bad guys because they've been known to read, and watch the in-flight movie. And if they can't do that, maybe they won't fly.

And you won't know, until you get to the airport, which of these will be the rule on your flight. Break the rule, go to jail.

What if the next idiot who tries something smuggles something in a hollowed out book. You know TSA will ban all books.

If we would start actually getting people in their jobs in Washington who had real experience, rather than political appointees getting the jobs because they helped the President get elected (and this is done with both parities), then we might get something done. But that's not going to happen.

According to a NY Times article this morning, Cathay Pacific is reporting that they are now allowed to turn the GPS system back on and that passengers no longer need to be seated the last hour but would have to remain seated if instructed to do so by the cabin crew.

No other airline is reporting this, as of now, and continues on with the original rules.

And while the TSA says there should be no new limits on carry-ons, most airlines and foreign airports are allowing only one carry-on, not one carry on and a personal item.

But you better limit your toilet time. On numerous flights, people who spent too much time in the loo, they didn't specify how long, are being investigated.

The key word here is "reacting", period. How in the world did a very common (& previously used) explosive device make it through security is MY question!

I travel very frequently & sometimes I have liquids that are in my carry on that I forget about & they usually go through. Sometimes you get someone who is extremely anal retentive, and sometimes you get someone who couldn't care less what goes through. I can understand the oversight with a person viewing my bag through the scanner, but walking through the screener with explosives taped to your body wouldn't set off an alarm? A tiny little metal buckle on my jeans can sometimes set it off, but not PETN?!? Or, let's say it did set it off. All they do is pat you down if necessary after going over your body with a scanner. Well, if it went off around your zipper, they would just assume it's your jeans & let you go.

Now let's say I'm a terrorist with these new possible rules going into effect. Gee, I think I'll blow up the plane an hour and a half before landing! Ha! Beat THAT TSA!!

From Janet Napolitano, the secretary of homeland security -- "One thing I'd like to point out is that the system worked."

We are doomed.

None of these changes will make any difference in actual security until TSA reps actually enforce existing policy.

By way of example: I used to travel 100% for my job, taking 200+ flights per year. When you fly that much, sometimes things get left in your bag you don't expect.

After a trip from Detroit to Sacramento one day I discovered several things intended for my checked bag, plus some not appropriate at all, were in my carry-on the entire time -- -- I was pulled aside for additional random screening, but none of these items were found -- I found them in my hotel that evening. Including....

9.6V Rechargeable drill/driver with extra fully charged battery, three cigarrette lighters, 12oz ball peen hammer, butane powered soldering iron with extra butane bottle, duct tape, can of drilling/tapping fluid.

That should have looked reeeeeaaaal suspicious -- fortunately the TSA is so inept that I didn't have to try to explain. Unfortunately the TSA is so inept that none of these new rules will help... at all.

Gee, Rob. Most of the people using this website are those who fly to Europe. Eliminating in-flight entertainment -- movies, music, etc. for several long hours is going to be a real drag. And that might entail taking more than one book -- but remember, you can't hold it in your lap to read it, and you can't lower your tray table to put your book on either because you might be doing something suspicious underneath that tray table. And all those people who bought digital books are going to be PO'd. I'm sure parents of small children are more than dreading any long upcoming flights.
The insanity of all this is incredible. But that's what happens when the government gets involved.

Frank II,

"TSA is afraid if a plane was blown up, the debris might scatter over a city

I saw one news report yesterday which indicated that if this latest incident had been successful, the debris would have scattered over a Canadian city.

Carroll,

"One thing I'd like to point out is that the system worked"

Actually, in an interview this morning, the Secretary of Homeland Security admitted that things could have been handled better. Her previous position was ludicrous and indefensible. The "system" definitely didn't work in this case, as despite several "red flags" this moron was allowed to board the flight. It was only pure luck (and perhaps some degree of incompetence) that the device didn't function as expected.

What's more surprising is an interview I heard this morning with one of the other passengers on that flight. He stated that he overheard the conversations when the the terrorist showed up at the departure gate. He was accompanied to the ticket counter with a "well dressed Indian man" who had an air of affluence. The Indian man did all the speaking to the ticket agent (the terrorist said nothing) and explained that terrorist didn't have a Passport. He went on to state "we're from Lagos, we do this all the time". The ticket agent referred him to a Supervisor down the hall, and moron was allowed to board the flight. If this is true the idiot Supervisor should have his head examined! Perhaps he'd like to consider another career as a greeter at Wal-Mart?

Some of the news reports this morning indicated that NO carry-ons would be permitted on flights to the U.S. (from Canadian airports) except for Purses, Diaper bags and Laptops. There's NO WAY I'm checking my dSLR Camera gear as I'm sure it wouldn't be in one piece after a trip in the cargo hold under 500 lbs. of luggage. If this is true, I guess my holiday will have to be cancelled.

Hopefully some sanity will prevail over the next week or so.....

Frank II,

"So, the rule you heard this morning is NOT coming from the U.S. government."

From what I can determine, it has nothing to do with Air Canada either, but rather the way the rules are interpreted and implemented at different airports. The news reports this morning were documenting traveller experiences today at YYZ, YUL and YVR. There still appears to be chaos at YVR but the others are starting to get things sorted.

I suspect the main reason for this is that the airport authorities simply don't have the Staff to man both primary and secondary (at the Gate) screening sites (a lot of overtime will likely be paid?). Those travelling with no carry-ons will be able to move along a lot quicker and the secondary search especially will be expedited.

I often use Horizon / Alaska on flights out of this area, and I'm not sure what their policy is? I couldn't find anything on their website when I checked this morning, nor on the Transport Canada or CATSA websites.

I checked the WestJet website a few minutes ago and they state "No carry-on baggage will be permitted, with the exception of a small purse, diaper bag, laptop bag or backpack. Roller bags and larger backpacks must now be checked in." This seems to confirm the information I've been getting from the news.

The rules seem to change every day (and sometimes hourly), so it's hard to get any kind of accurate idea on where these are at at any given time.

Cheers!

WestJet seems to differentiate between a "backpack" and a "larger backpack". I wonder where they would classify an Appenzell (day)bag? I just got an Appenzell bag to use as my sole carry-on (everything I brought back from my last trip, in my larger bag, fits.

Lee- that may vary day by day, even flight by flight. Apparently gate agents and TSA agents are being given great lattitude and "discrestion" in interpreting the very vuage "guidelines". Good luck to us all.... may we get reasonable people....

Fortunately, for those of us who reside in the US, checking an otherwise carry-on coming back is not a complete tragedy. I won't need that stuff for 11 months. It would be an inconvenience to never get my carry-on back, but the specially selected clothing could be replaced. Thank God I'm not coming TO the US for a vacation. Also, let's hope this insanity does not migrate to outbound flights.

So, in addition to the illogic of the liquid limit, which I previously pointed out, the ban on the GPS display and making every one sit zombique in their seats for the last hour is equally illogical. They should require all flights to land in Boston, Kennedy, LaGuardia, Newark (groan) or Philly (groan-groan). Otherwise, the flight will be over US cities outside the one hour quiet time. Maybe they should paint over the windows so we cannot see out to know if we are over a city.

Or maybe the TSA should anesthetize everyone for the duration of the flight and administer an antidote on arrival.

OK, let's get serious. If we had a foreign policy predicated on making friends, instead of killing everyone who disagrees with us, maybe there wouldn't be so many people in the world who wanted to kill us.

Our local airport just announced NO carryons whatsoever for flights into the US. No word on how long this will last. Doesn't mention if you can stuff your pockets with a few bits and pieces.

Maybe that is the answer, like stuffing your pockets. Wearable luggage. A 36 ID "cuff" worn around my middle, 2 in thick, 12" high, is 1200 sq in. All for clothes. That's just about what I need.

The other 200 cu in of bulkier stuff (tooth brush, soap, etc) and my electronics (camera PS, battery, etc) can go, along with my netbook, in a very small backpack.

Scottevest

Lee,

Your comment about the Appenzell Daypack reminded me that I have an Eagle Creek pack of about the same size sitting in the closet. Perhaps that would be one answer?

However, as JumpinBug indicated I'm not sure any carry-ons will be allowed on flights TO the U.S. (aside from the exemptions stated on the WestJet website).

I'm wondering whether my Camera Bag might fall into the same category as a Laptop. There's no way I'm checking it!

I wonder whether the restrictions might ease a bit over the next few weeks?

BTW...the Westjet restrictions are only until Wednesday, Dec. 30.

Frank II,

I'm not sure I understand the logic of putting these measures in place for just a few days? Are conditions going to be less dangerous after Dec. 30?

Steve,

Did they provide guidelines on what constitutes a "small Backpack" or any idea on what might be acceptable to carry in it? Also, are other airlines (ie: Horizon / Alaska) also subject to the same rules?

My guesstimate, and this is only a guess, is that some of the airports in Canada don't have the extra manpower available on such short notice for the extra screenings. With less bags, screeners can handle more people. And don't forget, there's probably more "international" flights to the U.S. from Canada than from anywhere else.

That's why Westjet says these rules are only in place until Dec. 30 (according to their website).

I'm telling you, if I was in eastern Canada and had to travel to the northeast U.S., I'd seriously consider the train. (I'm not as familiar with the train system in western Canada.)

Alaska Airlines has the following statement on their website:

Transport Canada prohibits passengers from taking any carry-on bags through the screening checkpoint excluding the following items: small purses, cameras, coats, items needed for infants, laptop computers, diplomatic or consular bags, crutches, canes, walkers, containers carrying life sustaining items, medication or medical devices, musical instruments, or a special needs item. Passengers with non-exempt carry-on items will be denied access through the checkpoint.

Frank II,

I suspected manpower might have been an issue, which is what I was referring to in one of my earlier posts regarding "paying overtime".

The information you listed from Horizon/Alaska showed "Cameras" in the list of "approved" items. That would seem to indicate that I might be able to take my Camera bag as carry-on? I'd rather carry it inside the bag rather than in the open, as would provide at least some protection.

It will be interesting to see how or whether these regulations change over the next week or so? A large part of the problem seems to be a lack of information and lack of consistency in applying the new rules at different airports. The authorities should consider a more effective way of disseminating information.

Steve,

Thanks for the confirmation.

I would think a "reasonable" sized camera bag would be okay...noting the subjective "reasonable."

It's holiday time and most people traveling are for leisure. Once the business travelers return next week, I believe things will change.

And I agree, there is no consistency or understanding what the rules are. What exactly is a "small bag?" What are the dimensions? I really think it's up to the security person at the airport making the decision. And that's not a good thing.

But at least you now know the current rules are from the Canadian government and not the individual carriers.

I can give you a first-hand report. I flew home today from Amsterdam, just got in. I flew Northwest, Amsterdam to Detroit, then on to San Diego. Here is what occurred: The security checkpoints in Amsterdam are at the gates. We had an extremely long line at the gate. Everyone had their passports checked again, a thorough body search, carry--ons went through the x-ray and then were very thoroughly hand searched. No limits were placed on carry-on items and all personnel were very polite, asking if they could check you and your bags. The plane left about an hour late due to the time taken for security checks. Onboard all was normal until 90 minutes were left. At that time the announcement was made to get up now, or basically forget about it. Once we hit that 60 minute mark, it was belt yourself in, stay seated, no pillows, blankets, books, etc. An urgent need for the bathroom would be handled by escorting you there and back. The in-flight entertainment, including the map, stayed on. At least we had that. In Detroit, nothing at all was different on the ground or in the air back to San Diego. No enhanced security, no sit-down rule, no change in carry-ons. I'm tired.

I agree with the Israeli approach of "profiling". Certain passengers need to be screened more carefully than others. Also, body scanners should become the norm. I would rather be incovenienced than dead. Travel isn't a fundamental right!

Passengers are again free to move about the cabin

Or are they?....it's now up to each individual flight crew to do as they wish. (And you know keeping you in your seats is easier for the crew.)

During the last hour:

laptops?...maybe
ipods?......maybe
other electronics?....maybe
books....maybe
going to the toilet?.....maybe

We're going to surprise you!!!!!!

What fun.

18 people signed the PNAC letter asking President Clinton to overthrough Sadaam. 10 of those people ended up with high positions in the Bush administration, including Sec of Defense Rumsfeld, Nat Sec Council member Elliot Abrams, UN Ambassador John Bolton, Asst Sec of Defense Peter Rodman, and Dep Secs of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and Robt Zoellick.VP Cheney was not a signer, but was a PNAC member. How can you fantasize that those people, with there existing agenda, did not influence our decision to overthrough Hussein?

Oh, by the way, Condolezza Rice was also a member of PNAC. Are you now going to accuse me of being anti-women.

And why do you think they wanted to overthrow Sadaam?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

They thought we'd overthrow Sadaam and then American companies could move in and do business...and, of course, the oil.

Karen, you shouldn't have any problem with carry-on between Paris and London. The restrictions are only on flights to the U.S.

And Maureen is right. We have gotten off track here. It's a travel board not a political one (and I'll accept some of the blame). So let's get back to travel talk.

If they would just let us good guys carry guns onboard, we wouldn't have to worry about the bad guys, right?

Frank II, I'm with you in that I think often there is an overreaction and an urge to scare us into obedience, but with al Qaeda of Yemen now taking responsibility for this attempt it is possible that TSA has knowledge of other attempts. They need to get over their unwillingness to profile, and triple screen everyone with stamps or passports from Nigeria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, etc.

Karen...you may be right...but here are a few things to remember:

What family was allowed to leave Washington DC two days after 9/11 on a private jet when all other aircraft were grounded? The bin Ladins

How many FBI agents were allowed to question the bin Ladin family (mostly siblings of Osama) prior to their departure? None

Who has made millions of dollars in "consulting" fees from the Saudis? George Bush Sr.

Who did George Bush Jr say was an unofficial Bush brother? The soon to be former Saudi Ambassador to the U.S. who is also a Saudi prince.

Where did the majority of the 9/11 hijackers come from? Saudi Arabia

What country is Osama bin-Ladin from? Saudi Arabia

What country did we attack in retaliation? Iraq

What country was the biggest threat to Saudi Arabia in 2002? Iraq

Which line is stupider-"The system worked" (Janet Napolitano) or "Brownie, You're doing a heck of a job" (George Bush)?--too close to call.

Why don't we profile? Because every politician is afraid of losing votes from whatever group we decide to profile.

What's the biggest excuse used by politicians to prove profiling doesn't work? The Oklahoma City Bomber. He was white.

Who was one of the first world leaders Obama met with? The King of Saudi Arabia.

See a pattern?

Frank II,

Interesting list of facts!

Perhaps it's time to consider the same type of "profiling" practised by the Israelis? Whatever they're doing seems to work, as I don't recall any problems of this type on an Israeli airline for a LONG time.

Frank II: You raise some interesting points. A couple of things to keep in mind:

Osama bin Laden is an outcast in his family.

We attacked Iraq first and foremost because we believed they were developing weapons of mass destruction. (Yes, I know a tie to 9/11 was implied.)

We don’t profile because it is against the principles this country stands for. It appears to prejudge people based on characteristics such as race, country of origin, age, etc.

I think politicians are more worried about losing votes from liberals (who put principles over pragmatism) than from the groups that are hurt by profiling.

A good profiling system will not let all white people pass. That said, profiling is not 100% perfect. But it’s got to be better than total random screening.

I fail to see how restricting us to 3 ounces of liquid in a quart sized bag and making us take off our shoes has really made us safer, or restricted any terrorists from doing what they do best... terrorizing us, whether it be physically or mentally. People (terrorists or not) are smart and will always adapt. Terrorists will find new ways to do their job, and we travelers have adjusted as best we can to the changes to flying because we love to travel. I just wish that TSA and Homeland Security would stop blanketing the industry with disjointed and unrelated changes to security procedures, and actually connect the dots and see the big picture. This incident, as well as past and future ones, is not about micro-scrutinization of every passenger and whether or not their knitting needles are too long. This should be about overall, well-thought out security that connects dots and fills in holes.

Carrol,

"We attacked Iraq first and foremost because we believed they were developing weapons of mass destruction."

That is yet another conservative LIE. They made that up to justify attacking Iraq, but in reality we attacked them FIRST AND FOREMOST because they had oil, and weren't giving us any of it.

The Project of a New American Century (PNAC, which included Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al) had, in the 1990s, long before 911, written a letter to then President Clinton urging him to attack Iraq. Cheney was in the oil industry; many others belonged to Zionist organizations. They used the excuse of weapons of mass destructions, but none of them at the time were in a position to know. When Bush II became president, he appointed half a dozen PNAC members to his cabinet and top advisory posts. Bush came into office with the obvious objective of attacking Iraq; he just wanted an excuse.

I am an admirer of Colin Powell, but I was frankly embarrassed for him when he presented our WMD arguments to the UN. I had hoped for a Henry Cabot Lodge type of revelation, not the poorly prepared fantasy based on misinterpretation of data that the administration had obviously prepared for him.

Lee, I guess we don't see eye to eye on this. However, I really don't want to get into a political debate. That really wasn't my intention, though I can see where my post was somewhat provacative.

The main issue for me is profiling. It is troubling is some regards, but not as troubling to me as planes being blown up. I agree with the people who think we should follow the lead of the Israelis in this matter.

The reasons we attacked Iraq had nothing to do with PNAC or zionism--although blaming the Jews/Israel is the easy way out. Where have we heard that before, Lee?

The reason we were given as to why we attacked Iraq was WMD and 9/11. Both of these turned out to be false.

All of the above were red herrings.

The real reasons we attacked Iraq are:

1) Bush Jr. wanted to get back at the Iraqi's because of the threat against his father

2) The Saudi's were truly afraid of Sadaam and asked their friends in Washington for help.

3) If we go to war, we could start handing out military and civilian contracts. The first company to get no-bid contracts was Haliburton. Prior to becoming Vice-President, Dick Cheney was CEO of Haliburton. Haliburton also does a lot of work in the Arab world especially in Saudi Arabia. (And isn't it strange that they moved their corporate headquarters out of the U.S. and to Dubai within a year prior to Bush leaving office? The reason they gave was that they claimed the majority of their business was in the Middle East and they wanted to be closer to it.)

4) The Bush Administration wanted to transfer as much money as they could from the U.S. Treasury and into the hands of their friends. They could get away with no-bid contracts overseas but not here. And much of the work was shoddy and overpriced.

So, in reality, the main reason we went to war was.....money. We can't even say oil because we were recently locked out of Iraqi oil contracts.

The Bush Administration really thought it would be easy to just march in and everyone would be happy to see us. He admitted he had no idea that there were different Arab groups that hate each other.

The U.S. government claimed Sadaam was sheltering Al Queda when just the opposite was true. He kept Al Queda out of Iraq.

When you want to find out the truth to almost anything, follow the money.

And I don't want people to think I'm picking on the Republicans. I'm sure when it's the Democrats turn, they'll have their own dirt.

This got a bit off track, didn't it? As far as profiling goes, a lot of people of Arabic ascent that I know don't like it a lot, but understand it. I have a part-Palestinian friend who always has his bag hand-searched, but he has come to expect it.

Patty....thank you for the report. I'm flying to London next Wednesday and will be flying out of Paris a week and a half later. I really, really, want to take my carry on bag on the plane there. The carry on is all I'm taking besides a small purse, so everything is in that bag and I would like to know I had some clothes to wear when I get off the plane in London. I don't care so much returning home if I have to check my luggage. I figure by the time I wear all that stuff over and over again I won't care if I ever see any of it again! lol!

Karen....we Karen's are on the same page. I agree with what you said, even if it was a little tongue and cheek!

I just heard on the news a comment from a "security expert" that said if full body scanners are used for everyone, every time, the terrorists will hide explosives in their body cavities making full body scanners useless. Terrorists will always be one step ahead of whatever security is in place. I agree we should do as the Israelis, they do it best.

I also agree that the TSA is inept and incompetent and we pay the price for that.

People keep saying we should do what the Israelis do. But keep in mind that Schipol Airport already had the Israeli style security screenings in place for transatlantic flights (profiling, one-on-one questioning, full body pat downs etc.) and yet this guy still managed to board a plane with explosives. I travel through Schipol several times a year for flights back to NYC, and security had always been very rigorous. On most every flight I have witnessed security personnel refuse boarding to at least one passenger based on the stamps in their passport. On one occasion I saw them literally dump the entire contents of a passengers carry-ons on the floor, and then place each and every item onto the x-ray machine for closer examination, and even though no weapons were found, still refused boarding. In my own case, I was almost refused boarding because I didn't have my frequent flier card in my wallet. In the end they called the airline to confirm that it hadn't been mailed out to me yet.

If Ben Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv were a hub airport like Schipol, CDG, or Heathrow and had to deal with zillions of passengers a year, their reputation wouldn't be so squeaky clean.

I don't know Michael, I doubt this guy would have gotten through Israeli security no matter how many passengers they had to screen.

Another fun fact: A lot of the security staff actually doing the screenings at Schipol are Israeli- former El Al employees; I guess Schipol pays better. When I took a transatlantic flight out of Heathrow back in October, the young lady doing the final screening at the gate was also Israeli. If a bad guy wants to get on a plane they'll find a way, no matter what system is used to screen passengers.

I agree with you Michael that terrorists can always find a way. As I wrote in my post above, even full body scans can't prevent terrorists from hiding explosives in their body cavities. No system can be perfect. But I'd rather have the Israelis in charge of security than the TSA.

That's it. Two hours before boarding, everyone has to take a fast acting laxative.

In my line of work, I analyze human behavior on a regular basis in order to help change unwanted behaviors. The only method that works is identifying the reason why someone does something and then intervening on that level. This will probably take us in to a political discussion that perhaps we are not willing to face, but in my opinion, the only way to keep us safe from terrorism is to address the reason behind why it happens. The problems will not go away until we start front loading on the problem rather than reacting after the fact.

By the way, because of my original nationality, I am on the "watch list" and get pulled over once in a while for "random" checks. I'm sure it provides lots of folks a false sense of security, but it is discrimination. I will continue to endure it, however, would like to see the data on how many attacks such profiling has prevented.

Maryam,

Whether it's "profiling" or a combination of other methods, the Israelis must be doing something right; the results speak for themselves.

Sorry to hear that you've had to endure "random checks". Hopefully that will improve.

The point you made about intervening at the source is interesting, as one of the "security experts" interviewed regarding this latest incident said much the same thing. His opinion was that we've almost reached the end of technological measures that can be used for screening, so it's time to look at the reasons why these attacks are occurring and start addressing them at that level.

Amsterdam's Schipol Airport will soon start using fully body scanners on all U.S. bound passengers.

Virtual Strip Search

I'm not on a Watch List, but have been subjected to extra screening, have had my bag gone thru thoroughly, etc. I think they do some of this so they don't appear to be profiling.

Swan,

Interesting you should mention that. I got the "third degree" last time I transited through YYC. I suspect the screener was new on the job and was trying to be thorough, but it was a darn nuisance. He went through everything, even feeling the clothing to make sure nothing was hidden inside (even thought the bag had already been through the X-Ray machine and he could see there was nothing hidden).

My thought at the time was "WHY ME!!!!".

In talking with a number of people over the last few days, we all agreed that travel by air used to be fun and somewhat of an adventure. However, the unanimous opinon now is that it's becoming more of a nuisance, and travel by air is only used if there's no other option. No wonder the airlines are losing money!

Cheers!

A few years ago, on our flights to Australia, my husband was selected for several random checks in the US and in Australia. We figure it was because he carried a laptop--or maybe it was because of the straw hat he wore!

How does profiling work when the "terrorists" travel on passports that probably aren't even real?

Interesting point Pauline. Of course the id terrorists carry tends to be false, or filled with false info.

I think the profiling could easily be done based on a few things.

Families travelling with small children to Disneyland from Kelowna B.C ,, are likely not threats.
Two old ladies on their way to a quilting convention( yes,, they have these, my MIL does attend them,, one last year in Seattle),, likely, not a threat.

Single young man travelling on expensive last minute one way ticket,, umm,, maybe we should chat?

Is it always fair to profile.? No. But profiling does not mean they all get strip searched,, it just may mean they spend a few more minutes being questioned,, or perhaps their bags are hand searched more often then not, ,,that is already being done randomly,, and should continue, but also spend a few more minutes with travellers who seem a little out of place. It won't kill them, and it may save someone else.

I am willing to undergo those scanners,, and I know I am not a terrorist.. and not a pretty sight either,, LOL but we all have to make a few concessions.

Travel by mass transit is not a right.

We all profile every day. We segregate based on reasonable assumptions as well. The most commonly accepted are Men's / Women's restrooms. That divisional practice is accepted everywhere without anyone claiming bias.

When security profiling is sufficiently well thought out it can be similarly acceptable. Some countries not quite so squeamish about political correctness as we already employe profiling with great success.

We have all got to remember that being selected for further screening based on our apparent ethnicity, or for our recent countries of travel, in no way discriminates against us. We have only suffered discrimination if we are denied entry to the airplane based on our race, religion, or other trait -- rather than by the findings of the further screening.

In Israel it is common practice for all males between the apparent ages of 14 and 30 to go through additional screening -- without regard for race. Why? That is the group that commits the greatest percentage of crime, terror acts, and is the group that is physically the greatest threat.

Identify why people are commiting acts of terrorism and stop it at the source? Sounds great, but it's totally unrealistic. Who is going to figure this out? I don't know why people commit acts of terrorism, but I suspect it's pretty darned complicated. And maybe it's not the same for every terrorist. And then who is going to fix it? I can only imagine the amount of money the government could throw at potential solutions based on someone's theory.

There's no way to prevent all terrorism. You just try to prevent it as much as you can by making it difficult.

What is unrealistic is believing that we can kill everyone in the world who disagrees with us, or people living in their houses and call them "suspected terrorists", and not suffer the consequences. Other countries in the world are not bullying everyone and they are not having the problems we're having. It's our sledgehammer approach to foreign policy.

Gosh, I guess I missed all those murders before the first World Trade Center bombing and 9/11. Thank goodness all the other countries in the world believe in free speech, freedom and democracy.

I knew it was coming: Someone blaming us for being attacked due to our "sledgehammer" foreign policies. Problem is we tend to only think about the terrorist attacks against the U.S. Watch the news: the terrorists are attacking many, MANY other countries over than the U.S. Are they all practicing sledgehammer tactics, too?
We are the victims here. They are the bullies. Don't blame the victims.

Al Queda bombings between 1993 and 2004

And don't forget to add London, Glasgow, Amman, Mumbai and much of Pakistan.

And all because of the way the U.S. treats other countries.

Perhaps the terrorists aim at their targets is the same as Dick Cheney's aim when hunting?

Dick Cheney was drunk (and a bad shot).

The US is like a big Labrador Retriever. We almost always mean well, except when we're trying to steal that chicken off the table. We try to be friendly, but sometimes our wagging tail knocks over the lamp. Sometimes when we go charging in to help all we do is leave a chaotic scene with our muddy footprints all over the place. We can also be uncommonly brave and save people and bring tears to your eyes. Help people navigate the dark.

(Can you tell I used to have a Lab?)

So, ahem, getting back to the talk about TSA and profiling, since we fly standby, which means we can change our travel plans last-minute, we often get pulled aside for hand-searches of our luggage. This happened once on a domestic flight when my son was a baby, they even gave him the pat-down. We understand the reasons for this and put up with it as the price we pay for flying standby. Nothing personal.

Chani, thanks for your post, the information is really fascinating. I'm wondering why they don't use full body scanners as well?

I find it hard to believe Schipol was using El Al security procedures and let this guy through. As Norm said, he paid cash for his one-way ticket and he had no luggage. Big Red Flag.

Don't forget that this flight was on Christmas Day. I doubt the "a-team" was working security. Those with the most experience/seniority probably got the day off. It's entirely possible that Al Qaeda took it into consideration.

Very good point Michael. I'm sure you're right and that had a lot to do with it.

We seem to be reactive rather than proactive. Someone smuggles liquids aboard and we restrict liquids, someone tries to set off a shoe bomb and we have to take off our shoes. I shudder to think of the final response to the "underpants" bomber.
With El Al's record, maybe we ought to talk to them about security.

Like I said in my above post, Schipol Airport was already using El Al's security procedures for transatlantic flights. Yet he still managed to smuggle explosives aboard the aircraft. If a bad guy wants to make trouble, they will always find a way.

I love this thread. So interesting. Thanks Frank II.

Personal experience here, and maybe a touch of chauvinism, which I apologize for.

While Ben-Gurion Airport doesn't have the volume that other international terminals do, we have the distinction of both being a prime target and having an indigenous population with many potential and proven terrorists.

Profiling is standard operating procedure here, because we haven't found a way to be both safe from terrorism and politically correct at the same time. It is a bad situation and many Israelis are not happy about it. I doubt that North American or European countries are ready to not be PC. Security personnel are trained in interrogation. One of the high risk groups, by the way, is the single woman tourist. She may have become friendly with a local person, and be carrying some small gift . . . .

Did you know: El Al security personnel are all Israeli - in every airport that El Al flies through. (El Al's security costs are believed to be higher than other airlines).

Security procedures at Ben-Gurion for all airlines: All checked luggage is xrayed (well, you know, the machines that aren't really xray...) while the passengers wait by the machine, before they check in for their flight. Then passengers go through the personal security check. No shoe removal, no belt removal, just empty their pockets of metals and electronics. No liquid restrictions. In the past two years, I have carried 1 to 2 liters of beverages from home onto flights to Europe, North America, and China, as well as various toiletries in my hand luggage.

Unless you are tagged for closer inspection, getting through security here takes no more time than anywhere else.

While there may be "Ben Gurion-style" security at Schipol, there must have been a massive breakdown somewhere there. I mean, the guy paid for his ticket with cash for god's sake. That would put up a massive red flag at the local airport that hosts my flying club! And you may also notice that the Israelis did allow this guy to fly....but only with an armed sky marshall sitting right next to him.

Good one, Larry, re the underpants!!!

I've read where security is moving right before the gate in some airports. Doesn't this make logical sense instead of going through security and then spending time in the shops, where anyone working there could slip us explosives, etc.

Michael, if the B team was on duty, then they weren't trained well enough. And I doubt that they'd put second-stringers at Ben Gurion during Hanukkah....thinking, logically IMO, that the chances of attack might be higher then.

Comparing El Al/Ben Gurion with the rest of the airline industry is like apple & oranges. 90% of El Al passengers are Jews (as I am), which makes security's job much easier.....how many Jews are gonna want to blow up any El Al airliner? Most other airlines don't have that "luxury", which makes their job much harder, if not impossible.

Funny story about El Al.....My Father fought in the Israeli War of Independence. Back in 1991 he, and some other Americans who helped found the State were invited to meet with the Israeli President to accept an award. When we were at JFK , El Al security looked through the pages of our passports and noticed my father had an Egyptian visa from a previous trip and freaked-out! Despite the fact that the visa was issued at the Embassy in Tel-Aviv, and that Isreal/Egpyt have diplomatic relations, and that he was invited to meet the President himself, security told us we would not be allowed on the plane, and that they would make arrangements to fly on another airline. When one of the other veterans in our group found out about this, he started screaming his head off in Hebrew to the airline and security reps, they started shouting back...long story short El Al did let us fly with them. So even El Al will let a "security risk" fly of you make enough noise.

Michael....it would be interesting to know how El Al manages to tell that passengers are Jews, considering passports usually don't have religious affiliations on them. Perhap you meant 90 per cent of the passengers hold Israeli passports...that still seems a little high....and, of course, passports can still be faked.
Schipol's passenger traffic is about 4 times Ben Gurion's...doesn't it make sense that 4 times the secuity would make our airlines safer?
My question is that, if Schipol has Israeli-type security, as you say, then how did they let an obvious case like this get through?

What I'm saying is that, IMO, Israeli style security isn't a big deal, bad guys will always find a way get around any type of security barrier (Israeli or otherwise), and that I wasn't surprised that despite using the Israeli "system" at Schipol, a bad guy managed to board a flight anyways.

And how do I know that 90% percent of my fellow passengers on my El Al flight are Jews?.....it's called Jewdar:) I hereby copyright that term, and if Woody Allen uses it on his next movie, he will owe me a lot of money!

Yes, they will find ways,...but, so far, not on El Al, and that has to say something. However, this wasn't particularly innovative....cash for his ticket, no luggage, and already flagged by the Brits and the Israelis!
Let me give Woody a call....for 15% I'll be your agent!

True, El Al hasn't hasn't been the victim of any terrorist incidents in the last 30 years or so, but neither has any other airline flying to Israel in the same time frame, and not all of them use the same El Al security procedures flying into Israel.

"El Al hasn't hasn't been the victim of any terrorist incidents in the last 30 years or so, but neither has any other airline flying to Israel in the same time frame."
Well, not quite,..Air France 139 in 1976, subject of the famous Entebbe raid.
And why limit it to Israeli flight? After the security tightening, several hijackings in other parts of Europe and the midde east targeted Israel with their demands.
You may recall that the only aircraft to avoid being hijacked duing the multiple hijackings of September 1970, was the El Al flight.

Steve, I was referring to El Al (not Schipol) and Chani's post when I wrote "I'm wondering why they don't use full body scanners as well?'

The article from your link is referring to Schipol and quotes a Dutch government official who says the US didn't want the scanners used for US bound flights, only for flights to all destinations. First of all, you can't believe everything you read and just because a Dutch government official says something doesn't make it true. I'm really skeptical that the US didn't want scanners used for US bound flights unless they were used for all flights to all destinations. Not saying it's not true, I'm just very skeptical of that.

I agree with Norm, I don't think Schipol was implementing El Al security. Whatever security they did have, Michael's point that it was probably the B-team makes sense to me.

I don't think El Al has a B-team.

Yes, a terrorist can still get through even with body scanners, but I think the best system available with our present technology would be El Al security and body scanners.

One thing I do know, the TSA is completely incompetent.

I agree with Norm, I don't think Schipol was implementing El Al security.

Schipol absolutely does use the Israeli Style security screenings. Security at Schipol and CDG is contracted out to a Israeli company called ICTS. ICTS is operated by former El Al and Mossad employees. Not to get too conspiratorial, here's another fun fact: But Richard Reid (CDG airport) and Umar Mutallab (Schipol) were allowed to travel by security carried out by ICTS personnel.Although Israel denies it, there are some reports out there that Richard Reid was allowed to fly on an El Al flight to Israel, before heading to CDG to attempt his bombing on a transatlantic flight....spooky!

No problem Steve, I was responding to what Chani wrote that's why I didn't specify. I agree with you, modesty be damned. And maybe that's the good that came out of this most recent attempt...Americans will now accept scanners despite modesty.

So now there needs to be scanners for all US bound flights, all domestic flights and they need to xray every piece of luggage. This isn't going to happen anytime soon, if ever.

Michael, I still don't understand how this guy got through if it was El Al security. I realize no system is perfect, but this guy??

There is a difference between El Al (Israeli) security personnel and El Al (Israeli) security procedures.

A procedure is only as effective as the personnel who are implementing it. If a procedure relies on the acumen of the person performing it, then the effectiveness is only as good as the individual. Rather like a physician diagnosing a case, don't you think?

Michael....we seem to be talking at cross-purposes here. Just because an Israeli company runs security at Schipol doesn't mean they implement El Al-style security. I've never been asked to report for a flight from Schipol 3 hours early to cope with extra security screenings, as El Al passengers must do. I have been questioned about my stay before checking in for flights...but only those to the U.S., and only by airline personnel. And I'm pretty sure Schipol doesn't pass every piece of luggage through a decompresion chamber to check for altitude-triggered explosives (I wish we'd've had those for Air India here back in 1985).) As Chani says, Israeli-run security doesn't mean El Al security.
We'll probably find the breakdown came because the Christmas Day bomber was in transit from Lagos at the time.....a weapons check, but no interviews or questions.

We'll have to agree to disagree....having flown on El Al and through Ben Gurion and Schipol many times, my experience is that the procedures for transatlantic flights are more or less the the same. But I agree whenever you put anything Nigerian into the mix rarely anything good comes from it.

Here is a quick report on a recent (01/01/2010) trip from Paris to Portland, OR and the security I encountered.

CDG to BOS (Delta/AirFrance): After going through regular security, every passenger on my flight was subject to a search of all carry-on luggage plus a pat down by security. I'm not sure if this was done only for flights departing to the USA. There were two flights ahead of us (Chicago and Los Angeles) that departed at least 2 hours late because of the bag checks. My flight was scheduled at 1:30pm but we did not board until 3pm (had to switch planes due to mechanical problems not related to increased security and did not depart until 9pm).

BOS to DEN to PDX (United): I didn't notice anything different about this leg of my trip. Went through regular security and passengers were not instructed to put all electronics away until the plane started its final descent.

From what I experienced, the "nothing in your lap an hour before" is not being implemented at this time.