Re: Air travel carry on restrictions - what's next?

They may be free, but I like to stay well-hydrated when I fly and there is a
limit to how many of those little cups of water they will give you--not that
they are stingy about it, but they are too busy.

Barb C.
"Liz Hug" <lizhug1@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:IbqdnWS-S-1RsUDZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The wait today in most cities was under 15 minutes. Not so in
Philadelphia where over 60% of the passengers fly US Air. We learned a
few years ago after 9/11 that if we were to fly US Air out of Philly we
would go through security at another airline hub and walk back to US Air.
Evidently not everyone has figured this out because even today the wait at
Philly's US Air terminals was close to 2 hours!

BTW, water and juice are still free on most airlines TTBOMK, so why worry
about bringing it on?

"Barbara Carlson" <bbcarlson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:IZednaKHUpXDRUHZnZ2dnUVZ_omdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Profiling definitely would be appropriate, but that doesn't exclude the
gray-haired old lady, or some cool sociopath from getting through. It's
a dilemma, but there definitely are ways of improving safety. Also
yesterday they said it took as much as 3-4 hours in line in some places
to get through security. That is ridiculous. I cannot stand in line for
3 or 4 hours--it is physically impossible. Why do they not provide
seating and a "take-a-number" system where they would announce "Will #s
10 through 20 please come to the checkpoint" etc. There is just so
little consideration for the passengers. I don't mind packing my
toothpaste, shampoo, etc. with my check-through baggage, but I do mind
not being able to bring juice or water on board. Eventually they could
have places where you could purchase "approved and appropriately marked"
beverages (outrageously priced, of course!). There are many things that
could be done to make things better for the passengers, but I won't hold
my breath, and meanwhile I will avoid flying.

Barb C.
"RaeMorrill" <RaeMorrill@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:_aUCg.20869$8j3.12369@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Well, it makes sense - if they were using highly trained FBI level
trained folks to screen. Minimum wage (or close to it) screeners aren't
going to cut it


Margie wrote:
On CNN's Paula Zahn tonight, one of the talking heads (sorry, I didn't
get his name or credentials) said that it would be much easier to
identify people of concern rather than screen all carry-on items for
potential explosives. He said that someone who is about to take his
own life and the lives of many others will show very clear,
measurable, identifiable signs of stress that should be easy to spot.
How do y'all feel about that? It makes sense to me, but I can already
hear the "profiling" protests.

Margie

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 19:58:41 -0700, "Susan Mitchell"
<medlawtrans@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Oh, and we aren't going to let the terrorist change our way of life.
Bullshoes! They already have! Because of 9/11 Georgie feels carte
blanche
to rape the constitution, our civil liberties all in the name of
protection.
Yet our borders are wide open! Our ports are wide open! The baggage
is
never screened in the cargo holds (that's how they really will get the
planes). They are not even beginning to protect us in the simplest of
ways.
They are still seeing as many guns, knives and weapons as they did
before
9/11. No change! They just want more control over us and to change
our
freedom and that is exactly what is happening. No more protection,
just
less freedom. Protection, my blooming arse!






.

Relevant Pages