Starve The Beast: Airlines

Market Ticker - Karl Denninger
View original article
December 26, 2009 01:29 PM

I've had it with this sort of half-assed response to terrorism:

Air Canada said in a statement that new rules imposed by the Transportation Security Administration limit on-board activities by passengers and crew in U.S. airspace. The airline said that during the final hour of flight passengers must remain seated. They won't be allowed access to carryon baggage or to have any items on their laps.

Flight attendants on some domestic flights are informing passengers of similar rules. Passengers on a flight from New York to Tampa Saturday morning were also told they must remain in their seats and couldn't have items in their laps, including laptops and pillows.

Let me make myself clear: I am very interested in not being blown to smithereens by some Islamic Nutjob who believes his personal path to a bunch of virgins lies in killing "infidels."

But let me also be very clear: It is not little grandmas, 40 year old white businesspeople, or families with a couple of young kids (all of whom have the same, non-muslim or arabic last name) that have or are attempting to blow up airliners.

In this case said nutjob recently visited a place known to be a terrorist hotbed, we knew he was there, and even more damning, the NSA knew he was on the plane before it entered American airspace - yet that flight was permitted to proceed all the way to Detroit where he tried to set off his device (and it failed to detonate, most likely because he was tackled by another passenger, thank the Christian God!)

Even better, this jackass' name is "Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab".  Is that your first clue that there's a materially higher risk that he's a terrorist than, say, "Sam Smith"?

The American people have been subjected to outrageous and insane restrictions and inconvenience with regards to air travel since 9/11, all in the name of "improving security."

Let me remind everyone of the following facts, lest anyone forget:

• The terrorists of 9/11 were in the United States for a long period of time before they launched their murder spree.  They were in fact taking flight lessons but refused to learn how to land, which prompted a report of suspicion from the flight school.  These nutballs then overstayed their visas which was plenty-sufficient reason to deny allowing them to board any aircraft and in fact was sufficient to arrest them at security in the airport and deport them.  Had we done so the 9/11 attacks would have failed.
  
  
• The terrorists of 9/11 did not take any prohibited item onto an aircraft.  Box cutters were not prohibited items prior to 9/11 - short-bladed knives were considered acceptable in the cabin.  We simply did not (as a collective consciousness) think of an aircraft as a potential bomb, and therefore did not foresee someone trying to hijack one as a means to acquire a bomb.
  
  
• Flight 93 on 9/11 is proof positive (as is this incident) that once Americans understood what was going on they were both willing and able to rise to the occasion and stop the terrorists.  It would be even better if we could carry on board aircraft as civilians, but I understand the concern over bullets penetrating things that could cause the aircraft to crash.  However, no such reasonable expectation of aircraft damage is associated with Tasers - so why can't a law-abiding citizen carry one on board?  Had the citizens on 9/11 been armed with Tasers (even a few) "Sir Boxcutter" would have met his twitchy demise in short order instead of being able to carry out his plan.
  
  
• ALL recent terrorist activity targeted against The United States has been Islamic.  Argue with that if you'd like.  Tim McVeigh is the last reasonable incantation of "non-Islamic" terrorism you will find.  9/11, attacks over in Europe (e.g. Madrid, etc), Mr. Shoebomber, Ft. Hood and now this - all Islamic Terrorism.

What has been our response?

1. We have refused to profile even though the threat is clearly, at this time, subject to profiling.  While profiling wouldn't stop every attempt, it sure would have stopped this nutball!  Been to Yemen of late have you?  You ain't getting on the plane.  You have a Muslim name? You get the "special" security screening.  You don't like it?  Tough crap - we'll stop being selective when the muzzies stop trying to blow up our airliners and people!
   
   
2. We have severely inconvenienced travelers without doing one thing to actually address the problem.  Again, the simple fact of the matter is that changing the prohibited item list all on its own would have prevented 9/11 from succeeding.  Instead of a 30-second change by the FAA to the rules we built another bumbling federal bureaucrazy. (Yes, I spelled it that way on purpose.)
   
   
3. We call the TSA "security" but we refuse to make them legally responsible for the luggage they allegedly have control over from the time we check it until it is on the carousel.  Theft from luggage remains a problem and the TSA is explicitly exempted from financial responsibility.  Why?  If someone can steal something from your bag, they can also put a bomb IN YOUR BAG!  The latter makes you (and everyone else on the plane) dead.  Why do we accept this half-ass claim of "security" when it is not backed up by financial responsibility - that what is in your bag when you check it will still be there when you retrieve it?
   
   
4. I don't particularly mind taking my shoes off so they can go through the scanner, nor having some TSA dude see my computer turn on (so he knows it's an actual computer) nor do I care if they throw all my carry-on crap through the scanner as well.  Letting them see that there's nothing that goes "boom" in my bag (or more importantly, the bag of the guy who I don't know sitting next to me!) suits me just fine.  But if the TSA is so good at this and so are foreign security checkpoints how is it that this jackass got on a plane with a bomb in his possession?

Now that the TSA and its foreign counterparts have proved they are clearly unable to stop someone from getting on a plane with both a bomb and the means to set it off we're being told that we must "remain seated for the last hour of flight" and that we "can't have access to carry-ons."

Of course you've never been on a flight where the "last hour" is in fact the entire flight less climb-out, right?  Let me clue you in - if you fly from the East Coast to anywhere east of the Mississippi, your flight time - actual in air time - is likely under two hours, and about 10-15 minutes of that is climb-out - that is, before the "seat belt sign" goes off.

Nor have you ever had a "last hour" that was three hours, have you?  I have - more than once.  Indeed, I was once on a flight into Detroit that was literally turned around and returned to the point of origin, allegedly due to "conditions", even though I later discovered that Detroit Metro airport was open at the time and accepting flights.  That "last hour" turned into four, and it was entirely because the prior delay in departure (for which I sat on the tarmac waiting - two more hours!) meant that the airline didn't want the equipment in Detroit.  That's the only reason they turned around.

I won't even get started on the games airlines play with government approval, where "on time departure" means the jetway was cranked back and the aircraft left the gate.  This is why they strand you on the runway with nothing to eat or drink, forcing you to sit in your seat with no access to the bathroom for hours.  It is all about the possibility of being penalized for "late" flights - anathema.  Don't believe for a second the "three hour" rule just adopted will change things materially - is three hours sitting in a tin can with no A/C, food, beverages or access to the can (say much less your carry-ons that might include a book, music player or laptop) "ok" with you?  It's not ok with me.

What this means is that if you brought your laptop to do some work, forget it.  If you want to listen to your iPOD, forget it.  If you want to read a book, forget it - that's a carry on item too.

What's next - handcuffs and leg irons at each seat?

I'll give you my answer to this crap:  Screw that.

I don't have to fly.  You don't have to fly.  Nobody has to fly except for government bureaucrats, and they're welcome to put up with all the crap that we shouldn't and I won't.

I had planned a nice vacation this summer that, surprise surprise, included giving some of my hard-earned money to the airlines.

NOT ANY MORE.

I have tolerated the insane changes in rules that demand I be at the airport more than an hour before departure for domestic flights and two hours for international, simply because the TSA can't manage to run checkpoints efficiently nor put in enough people and machines to keep the line from snaking out the goddamn door.  There is no reason for there to be ANY wait for security screening - the TSA knows how many counters are open at check-in, and they COULD have enough lines and agents to screen everyone with no more than "X" (a small number, say three or four) people in queue for each line - maximum.

I have tolerated my luggage being pillaged (literally) and then being told by the TSA that "they're not responsible" even though the pillage clearly happened while the bag was in their so-called "sterile area" - all the while wondering if the jackass who stole my (expensive electric) razor and a couple of CDs stuck a bomb in someone else's bag while they were at it.

I have tolerated the TSA goons telling me that I can't bring a goddamn tube of toothpaste with me in an overnight bag because it is slightly over 3oz, never mind that I'm perfectly happy to demonstrate by eating some of it that it is indeed toothpaste and is of a particular type that I use on recommendation of my dentist.

Never mind the obvious - 3oz (by volume) is more than enough to make a big bang if something bad is in there.  The TSA justifies this of course on the premise that "well we had to balance things out."

I strongly suggest that every American refuse to patronize the goon squad until we do the right thing - that is, profile, staff checkpoints appropriately so there are no obscene waits, make the TSA legally responsible for the contents of luggage in their care and make unlawful the detention of passengers on the ground in an aircraft for longer than is reasonably necessary for that plane to taxi from the gate to the threshold, wait for a couple of planes to depart in front of it, and take off.  That is, force the airlines to not close the door and push back a plane until that flight has a take-off slot on an actual runway within the next 15 minutes.

In the 1980s I flew on People's Express Airlines.  You want to know what "hassle free" air travel was like?  Let me tell you how it worked:

• You showed up at the airport.
  
  
• You got on the plane.
  
  
• You paid on the aircraft.
  
  
• You got off at your destination.

It was a freaking city bus that happened to go a thousand miles or more between stops, and it worked.  Yeah, I know the business failed, but let me tell you - that was hassle-free air travel.

I have tolerated the gradual erosion of what was an enjoyable experience for more than twenty years.

My limit of tolerance has been reached, and I believe yours should be as well.

Vote NO with your wallet.

PS: If you're wondering what PETN, the explosive that allegedly this guy and Richard Reid tried to use will do, here's an example from Youtube.  This is supposedly 50 grams of the stuff - less than two ounces - taped to a tree.  Still think that 3oz "liquid or gel" restriction is all about safety eh?  Still think this was a "firecracker"?  Uh, no.