I never liked to fly but the last 7 years it has just gotten worse & worse & worse. First, 9/11 has really made going to the airport feel like we are cattle going to the slaughter. The rules keep changing as to what you can bring on, what you can't. The last time we flew, the guy in front of me in line had an orange drink confiscated. I said to him, "Don't you know there is danger in that orange drink?" He said, "I guess." Well, I feel so much safer that the guy had his orange drink taken away. That could be a lethal weapon, you know.

And then there is the so-called "No Fly List." This list is so secret but if you are on it-you have a hard time getting off. And how do people get on it? Good question. I saw a story on CNN last night that there is a congressman on the list, he went through the hoops of getting his name off of it-that was 3 years ago and he is still on it. The guy doing the report about it, discovered that he was on it-about the time he started doing the report. Hmmm, sounds a little suspicious to me. Of course the TSA is saying that getting on the list is not politically motivated-yeah right. Babies & toddlers are on the No-Fly list. Well, I can understand that because they can cause a disturbance with crying.  ::)

Then you FINALLY get on your plane-that is if you didn't go broke buying your ticket. Ok, I sort of understand this because the cost of fuel is going WAY up so airlines have to make it up someway but it is getting a little ridiculous if you ask me. As Southwest Airlines ad campaign states that a lot of airlines are nickel & diming you. It now cost $15 to check your first bag. Ok, so you can carry one on-but if you have a bunch of toiletries, you have to make sure that they are in a clear plastic bag (as if that is going to do anything). If you want to eat or drink-that is also going to cost you. It used to be included in the price of a ticket. And what they feed you is NOT worth the price they charge. Some airlines are even charging you extra for a window seat or for an aisle seat. There are some planes that is all there is-so I guess you have to pay extra for that. Other airlines are charging you for your weight.

Seats are so tiny. I am a fairly small person and I am uncomfortable in those seats. I can imagine how someone who is bigger than I am or even Carlos who is 6'1." He needs the aisle to stretch his legs. So they pack as many people they can in the smallest amount of space. Then, you have to wait on the tarmac forever-I have heard horror stories about people having to wait 8-9 hours-sometimes more. Then when you finally get up in the air, you have to hope that you don't have any near misses like they had twice last week at JFK.

I'm sure that sometime soon, Congress will give a bailout package to the airlines. I understand that air travel is the quickest-especially in terms of the business community of this country-and the world. But, I think Congress should be looking at the rail system in this country. Amtrak has been struggling for years and Congress refuses to help out. With the cost of fuel today, rail is the way to go. I'm sure our friends here from all over the world will tell us that their country uses rail and it works great for them. I think we can learn from that.

Ok, rant is over. Any thoughts? Comments?



Cat 

Don't try and use a train in the UK. If it doesn't crash, it'll be 4 hours late and cost about the same as flying would have!

What would be a sensible option would be to look in to the so called 'bullet trains' in Japan and the high speed TGV in France. There was talk of installing high speed rail lines from L.A to Phoenix, Vegas, Seattle etc, but I haven't heard anything more about it.

bring back streetcars!

obviously that wouldnt be a replacement for airline travel, although hmm... maybe on interstates a lane could be set aside and turned into a streetcar line. intercity streetcars! i thought of it first, im gonna be feckin' rich.

But, I think Congress should be looking at the rail system in this country. Amtrak has been struggling for years and Congress refuses to help out. With the cost of fuel today, rail is the way to go. I'm sure our friends here from all over the world will tell us that their country uses rail and it works great for them. I think we can learn from that.

Ok, rant is over. Any thoughts? Comments?



Cat   


I read a lot about this while researching our trip to California and it ticks me off that Congress can't or won't sink some money in Amtrak.  Okay, yeah, Amtrak isn't as fast and cool as flying, but you get to see and do SO MUCH MORE.  If the kid in the seat in front of you won't STFU, you can go hang in the lounge car or in the dining car.  Even better if you have a room on board.  Want food or drink or something else?  The lounge is open until midnight and the food is EDIBLE.  The attendants are nice, the conductors are helpful, the scenery is lovely, and you meet a ton of cool people from all over the world.  Let's also not forget that it is cleaner for the environment to travel by train.  It is a tad expensive if you get a room, but for the most part, a round trip ticket across the country in coach would probably set you back about as much (if not less) as a plane ticket.

You're not safe from searches though.  On our trip out to California, Jason and I were settling into our room and the ATF agents knocked on our door to search our luggage.  It was thoroughly amusing to me. ;D


What would be a sensible option would be to look in to the so called 'bullet trains' in Japan and the high speed TGV in France. There was talk of installing high speed rail lines from L.A to Phoenix, Vegas, Seattle etc, but I haven't heard anything more about it.


It's in the planning stages in California.  They want to start one from L.A. to Sacramento first off.  Speeds would be about 220 mph. :o

amtrak = socialism  >:(

I haven't been on an airplane since I was a kid.  I'm much to afraid to fly now given all that's happened since 9/11

I never liked to fly but the last 7 years it has just gotten worse & worse & worse. First, 9/11 has really made going to the airport feel like we are cattle going to the slaughter. The rules keep changing as to what you can bring on, what you can't. The last time we flew, the guy in front of me in line had an orange drink confiscated. I said to him, "Don't you know there is danger in that orange drink?" He said, "I guess." Well, I feel so much safer that the guy had his orange drink taken away. That could be a lethal weapon, you know.



This stems from a group that were found making bombs from two liquids that were not explosive separately but were when mixed together.  The plot was uncovered in the UK in August 2006.  Ever since then you have not been able to carry liquids/gels/pastes above 100ml volume through security.  You can buy drinks or whatever from the shops the other side of the security checks.  Surely this 'rule' is so well publicised that no one should be caught out by it by now?



Then when you finally get up in the air, you have to hope that you don't have any near misses like they had twice last week at JFK.




Don't know about JFK specifically but several US airports have their Air Traffic Control run by private companies I understand.  Dai might know but he's not around at the moment to ask.  The problems with staffing and aging equipment in US air traffic control is fairly well-documented.



Then you FINALLY get on your plane-that is if you didn't go broke buying your ticket. Ok, I sort of understand this because the cost of fuel is going WAY up so airlines have to make it up someway but it is getting a little ridiculous if you ask me. As Southwest Airlines ad campaign states that a lot of airlines are nickel & diming you. It now cost $15 to check your first bag. Ok, so you can carry one on-but if you have a bunch of toiletries, you have to make sure that they are in a clear plastic bag (as if that is going to do anything). If you want to eat or drink-that is also going to cost you. It used to be included in the price of a ticket. And what they feed you is NOT worth the price they charge. Some airlines are even charging you extra for a window seat or for an aisle seat. There are some planes that is all there is-so I guess you have to pay extra for that. Other airlines are charging you for your weight.




Not serving you food and drink is allegedly because, in a survey, passengers said they wanted cheaper tickets which got interpreted as 'find ways of making the tickets cheaper' and therefore lead to them cutting out meals.

A problem with the baggage is that airlines try and calculate how much fuel they'll need for a particular flight and this is based on the weight of the loaded plane.  If people stuck to their baggage allowance (both hold and carry-on) there would be less of a problem.  But many people (mainly americans it has to be said) regard allowances as guidelines or for someone else.  So they take HUGE bags and cases that are often two or three times the limit.  As well as loading the plane it also causes problems with all the overhead bins being full before all the passengers have been loaded.

amtrak = socialism  >:(

Yeah, but it's not Sweden-type socialism.  It's Stalinism.  The way those cars rattle along at 58 mph, it could be some shabby railway in eastern Siberia back in the 1940s!

::)

Anyway, so much of this airport security is about cowing the general public and getting the general public to fall into line like peas in a pod when we declare martial law!

"Oh blinding light, oh light that blinds, I cannot see, look out for me!"

--Firesign Theater

This stems from a group that were found making bombs from two liquids that were not explosive separately but were when mixed together.  The plot was uncovered in the UK in August 2006. 


But the viability of the plot was debunked by September 2006.  The chemical in question could not be synthesized in the environment of an aircraft.

It's a testament to how far we've fallen that I'm scared to provide the link (or the names of the chemical, or its components, or its synthesis).  I'd love to provide proof of my point, but I'm more scared of my own government's interpretation of a few google searches than I am of any terrorist dumb enough to try synthesizing it on an aircraft.  I've given you most of the pieces of the puzzle, but you're probably safer not researching it either, even though anyone with first-year organic chemistry would be able to explain why it was a completely ridiculous plot. 

And yet, to this day, I still can't buy a bottle of wine (I live in an excellent wine-producing region, and while most of the stuff our region produces is is good, most the really amazingly good stuff is only available at the wineries, because it's not produced in sufficient quantities to justify wide distribution) and take it home to my parents when I go home on vacation.  (Unless, of course, I want to check my wine and trust a bunch of expensive glass bottles to the luggage-smashing apes on the tarmac, or the thieving TSA goons who will paw through it as soon as it's out of my sight.)

For that matter, we're still taking our shoes off because some asshole decided to cram his shoe full of boom-stuff and light it on fire.  TSA didn't defend us against that threat; the passengers of the flight did.  But to this day, we still dutifully take our shoes off at the security checkpoints.  Imagine how pleasant air travel would be today had he hidden boom-stuff not in his shoes, but up his ass?  (Gosh, I hope no bad guys were reading that, becuase I've just told them how to permanently end all air travel in the States, or force every American to undergo a full cavity search in order to see his grandparents.)

It wasn't enough to trade liberty for security.  I could understand that, even though I disagree with it.  But we traded liberty for the feeling of security, which is not only uncomprehensible and unforgivable, it's downright un-American.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y112/toejam13/csmonitor/looking-for-danger.jpg

If you got a guy whose kiester-stashed a BOMB, are you going to notice a guy walking a strange antalgic gait and intercede before the plane boards, then you should ALL have to pay the victim's family!
::)

I haven't been on an airplane since I was a kid.  I'm much to afraid to fly now given all that's happened since 9/11
9/11 gives extra thrills to flying!  8) i seriously was afraid of flying until 9/11, and then i got over it. it's weird. in 2002 i rode on a plane that had an engine flame out (it was one with only two engines) and we made an emergency landing in gander, newfoundland, which is famous for having taken all those planes that weren't allowed to land on 9/11. it was kinda cool, they have all this 9/11 memorabilia at the airport.

Today a nutcase was detained on late breaking news- an American Airline plane from Boston to LA had a 20 year+ 'unstable' passenger take off his clothes, then tried to opent he door in flight.

What have we learned since 9-11?

1. Crazy people have money.

2. Even though the origin of the 9-11 flights were from Boston....NO MARSHALLS were on board the departing Boston flight leaving passengers to overpower the guy.
    Must be some budget cutting going on in the 'air safety' department.

3. (Although they take the guy off in an unscheduled OKLAHOMA CITY stop)Wonder if they remove his luggage as well or does he have to file a missing report?
    What kind of things do you think they let him on with?


4. $15 to check in bags  $25 to get them back when you land. :o

Fly at your own risk! 
 

lol. i actually knew crazy people had money before 9/11, but that did kinda drive the point home.

But the viability of the plot was debunked by September 2006.  The chemical in question could not be synthesized in the environment of an aircraft.

It's a testament to how far we've fallen that I'm scared to provide the link (or the names of the chemical, or its components, or its synthesis).  I'd love to provide proof of my point, but I'm more scared of my own government's interpretation of a few google searches than I am of any terrorist dumb enough to try synthesizing it on an aircraft.  I've given you most of the pieces of the puzzle, but you're probably safer not researching it either, even though anyone with first-year organic chemistry would be able to explain why it was a completely ridiculous plot. 

And yet, to this day, I still can't buy a bottle of wine (I live in an excellent wine-producing region, and while most of the stuff our region produces is is good, most the really amazingly good stuff is only available at the wineries, because it's not produced in sufficient quantities to justify wide distribution) and take it home to my parents when I go home on vacation.  (Unless, of course, I want to check my wine and trust a bunch of expensive glass bottles to the luggage-smashing apes on the tarmac, or the thieving TSA goons who will paw through it as soon as it's out of my sight.)



We do the same thing when we go to Puerto Rico. There is a kind of rum that Carlos loves but can't get it in the states. We usually bring it on our carry-on but now we can't. I managed to pack 4 bottles in our luggage and prayed that there will still be 4 bottles when we got home and not a suitcase full of broken glass smelling like rum. I think I did a good job because all 4 made it home alive.



For that matter, we're still taking our shoes off because some asshole decided to cram his shoe full of boom-stuff and light it on fire.  TSA didn't defend us against that threat; the passengers of the flight did.  But to this day, we still dutifully take our shoes off at the security checkpoints.  Imagine how pleasant air travel would be today had he hidden boom-stuff not in his shoes, but up his ass?  (Gosh, I hope no bad guys were reading that, becuase I've just told them how to permanently end all air travel in the States, or force every American to undergo a full cavity search in order to see his grandparents.)

It wasn't enough to trade liberty for security.  I could understand that, even though I disagree with it.  But we traded liberty for the feeling of security, which is not only uncomprehensible and unforgivable, it's downright un-American.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y112/toejam13/csmonitor/looking-for-danger.jpg



I forgot to mention about taking off your shoes in my first post. I love how just one idiot decides to do something stupid and then the rest of us have to jump through more hoops-which I don't think really does any much good.


If you ask me, the TSA is so incompetent like everything else that this Administration has gotten touched.



Cat 

I forgot to mention about taking off your shoes in my first post. I love how just one idiot decides to do something stupid and then the rest of us have to jump through more hoops-which I don't think really does any much good.


If you ask me, the TSA is so incompetent like everything else that this Administration has gotten touched.



Cat 


Are you saying we SHOULDN'T HAVE SAFETY CHECKS SO WE CAN MAKE IT TO OUR DESTINATION IN ONE PIECE?
OR just a certain type?

I heard of a girl recently going through the checkpoint pre entering as we all have to wait, and she was asked to take off her shoes...she told them 'they are sandals' and got into a discussion about WHAT is considered a shoe..while others waited and shouted how their plane leaves in 10 minutes etc..

First off, the TSA should have a system where they pull those types out of line to handle and they must think the bottoms can hold enough liquid to ignite something, so even though it was an open SHOE, AIRHEAD ANNIE needed to take it off.

Now...if no one has thought of this I'd be surprised:  As we also hear complaints that the people with TSA are being paid poorly or slipping up, how about for every flight that MAKES it to the destination without incident, THE PASSENGERS get a few $$ taken off their tickets?
That way, you get screened once before boarding and then if someone on board tries something and the passengers onboard see something about to happen, they can give it a 'NOT ON MY WATCH PAL!' And collectr after arriving in one piece!

Are you saying we SHOULDN'T HAVE SAFETY CHECKS SO WE CAN MAKE IT TO OUR DESTINATION IN ONE PIECE?
OR just a certain type?

I heard of a girl recently going through the checkpoint pre entering as we all have to wait, and she was asked to take off her shoes...she told them 'they are sandals' and got into a discussion about WHAT is considered a shoe..while others waited and shouted how their plane leaves in 10 minutes etc..

First off, the TSA should have a system where they pull those types out of line to handle and they must think the bottoms can hold enough liquid to ignite something, so even though it was an open SHOE, AIRHEAD ANNIE needed to take it off.

Now...if no one has thought of this I'd be surprised:  As we also hear complaints that the people with TSA are being paid poorly or slipping up, how about for every flight that MAKES it to the destination without incident, THE PASSENGERS get a few $$ taken off their tickets?
That way, you get screened once before boarding and then if someone on board tries something and the passengers onboard see something about to happen, they can give it a 'NOT ON MY WATCH PAL!' And collectr after arriving in one piece!





I wouldn't have any problem going through all that if I thought it was worth it but to me, most of the stuff we are asked to go through is totally bogus. You have to practically undress at the checkpoint-and then they don't even provide you seats so you can put your shoes back on. I believe that there is a way to do a security check without making passengers feel that they are cattle. And if they really wanted to make sure that flights are safe, they would also check the cargo which they do not!!! Yes, that is right. Passengers have to go through pretty much a strip search while much of the cargo goes unsearched.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/08/america/web.0208security.php


I really think there can be a balance of doing a security check & treating people the dignity & respect they deserve. 



Cat

I fly once every two months and yes, it is annoying.  I think all of the TSA safety checks are a good thing.  However, I think the liquid rule is annoying.  If some crazy person really wants to do damage, I am sure they can do it with less than 8 oz of chemicals. 

Check out the TSA banned item list - it is actually kind of amusing.  Ice picks, swords, and flare guns are not allowed. LOL.