new security measures by TSA

[Ashy Larry]

I've been saying all along the airlines have it backward. Make people pay to carry luggage on, but check bags for free.
The amount of **** people are carrying on is getting totally out of control and nobody is enforcing the restrictions on the size and number of things you can carry on.

We're all struggling with what to do with checked vs. carry-on luggage. I still have a problem with charging for the bag, but that's what the company wants and I will do so. We make too much money from it to stop now.

And if you fly through on of my gates, the policy is enforced. Believe me.

If carry ons were banned, I think you could make a case that airlines would save money due to quicker turnaround of equipment. Full planes take at least 20 minutes longer to load and unload due to carry ons.

I would fully support a mandatory luggage carry on luggage ban with exception of small purse/ lap top or book.

but what about the people traveling with infants and toddlers? They need to have formula, diapers, etc....and all that crap can't fit into a purse.

 

[Boom_70]

I've been saying all along the airlines have it backward. Make people pay to carry luggage on, but check bags for free.
The amount of **** people are carrying on is getting totally out of control and nobody is enforcing the restrictions on the size and number of things you can carry on.

We're all struggling with what to do with checked vs. carry-on luggage. I still have a problem with charging for the bag, but that's what the company wants and I will do so. We make too much money from it to stop now.

And if you fly through on of my gates, the policy is enforced. Believe me.

If carry ons were banned, I think you could make a case that airlines would save money due to quicker turnaround of equipment. Full planes take at least 20 minutes longer to load and unload due to carry ons.

I would fully support a mandatory luggage carry on luggage ban with exception of small purse/ lap top or book.

but what about the people traveling with infants and toddlers? They need to have formula, diapers, etc....and all that crap can't fit into a purse.

What do you really need- even coast to coast - a few diapers and a couple of bottles of formula.

Make breast feeding mandatory for flights of more than 3 hours.

 

[Armchair_QB]

I've been saying all along the airlines have it backward. Make people pay to carry luggage on, but check bags for free.
The amount of **** people are carrying on is getting totally out of control and nobody is enforcing the restrictions on the size and number of things you can carry on.

We're all struggling with what to do with checked vs. carry-on luggage. I still have a problem with charging for the bag, but that's what the company wants and I will do so. We make too much money from it to stop now.

And if you fly through on of my gates, the policy is enforced. Believe me.

If carry ons were banned, I think you could make a case that airlines would save money due to quicker turnaround of equipment. Full planes take at least 20 minutes longer to load and unload due to carry ons.

I would fully support a mandatory luggage carry on luggage ban with exception of small purse/ lap top or book.

but what about the people traveling with infants and toddlers? They need to have formula, diapers, etc....and all that crap can't fit into a purse.

What do you really need- even coast to coast - a few diapers and a couple of bottles of formula.

Make breast feeding mandatory for flights of more than 3 hours.

Assuming you're flying non-stop and there are no delays that might be enough.

 

[Small Town Guy]

Just get it over and make everyone wear a pre-approved loincloth already. The 23-hour flight back from Cape Town I'm taking in a month will be miserable anyway, so this won't add much misery.

 

[Boom_70]

I've been saying all along the airlines have it backward. Make people pay to carry luggage on, but check bags for free.
The amount of **** people are carrying on is getting totally out of control and nobody is enforcing the restrictions on the size and number of things you can carry on.

We're all struggling with what to do with checked vs. carry-on luggage. I still have a problem with charging for the bag, but that's what the company wants and I will do so. We make too much money from it to stop now.

And if you fly through on of my gates, the policy is enforced. Believe me.

If carry ons were banned, I think you could make a case that airlines would save money due to quicker turnaround of equipment. Full planes take at least 20 minutes longer to load and unload due to carry ons.

I would fully support a mandatory luggage carry on luggage ban with exception of small purse/ lap top or book.

but what about the people traveling with infants and toddlers? They need to have formula, diapers, etc....and all that crap can't fit into a purse.

What do you really need- even coast to coast - a few diapers and a couple of bottles of formula.

Make breast feeding mandatory for flights of more than 3 hours.

Assuming you're flying non-stop and there are no delays that might be enough.

Add extra 5 minutes for every stroller in security line.

 

[DisembodiedOwlHead]

Just another step toward the restoration of luxury boat travel !

 

[Bubbler]

No pillows? Eff you panicky airlines.

(Says the man who has no earthly idea when his next international flight will ever be.)

 

[Ashy Larry]

I've been saying all along the airlines have it backward. Make people pay to carry luggage on, but check bags for free.
The amount of **** people are carrying on is getting totally out of control and nobody is enforcing the restrictions on the size and number of things you can carry on.

We're all struggling with what to do with checked vs. carry-on luggage. I still have a problem with charging for the bag, but that's what the company wants and I will do so. We make too much money from it to stop now.

And if you fly through on of my gates, the policy is enforced. Believe me.

If carry ons were banned, I think you could make a case that airlines would save money due to quicker turnaround of equipment. Full planes take at least 20 minutes longer to load and unload due to carry ons.

I would fully support a mandatory luggage carry on luggage ban with exception of small purse/ lap top or book.

but what about the people traveling with infants and toddlers? They need to have formula, diapers, etc....and all that crap can't fit into a purse.

What do you really need- even coast to coast - a few diapers and a couple of bottles of formula.

Make breast feeding mandatory for flights of more than 3 hours.

Assuming you're flying non-stop and there are no delays that might be enough.

plus binkies, toys, medicine, wipes.....you'd need more than a purse to carry all that junk. I'm just pointing out one problem with "no carry ons allowed" policies.

Just make an exception for people with infants....the luggage bays are already on the planes.

 

[crimsonace]

Go on a 12-hour flight with an infant sometime ... the stuff you need is amazing.

Formula, bottles, toys, more toys for when they get bored ... some small stuff to munch on so you're not bugging the flight attendant all the time ... diapers, wipes, binkies, all sorts of stuff. Our diaper bag was stuffed to the gills with stuff.

And no pillows? I'd still have a bruised sternum -- the only long flight with my kid (who was 15 months at the time), the way he expressed displeasure was to thrust his head back into my chest.

 

[EStreetJoe]

I've been saying all along the airlines have it backward. Make people pay to carry luggage on, but check bags for free.
The amount of **** people are carrying on is getting totally out of control and nobody is enforcing the restrictions on the size and number of things you can carry on.

We're all struggling with what to do with checked vs. carry-on luggage. I still have a problem with charging for the bag, but that's what the company wants and I will do so. We make too much money from it to stop now.

And if you fly through on of my gates, the policy is enforced. Believe me.

If carry ons were banned, I think you could make a case that airlines would save money due to quicker turnaround of equipment. Full planes take at least 20 minutes longer to load and unload due to carry ons.

A quicker turnaround of equipment would cost the airlines money for the following reasons:
1) They're having trouble filling flights now at off-peak times, offloading a plane quicker to get another flight into the schedule would just add another partially full plane operating at a loss to the schedule
2) If they did add an extra flight due to the quicker turnaround, they'd lose any profit due to having pissed off customers sitting on a plane on an overcrowded runway

Unless you're saying they can save money by having flight attendants and pilots work hourly and then save the money when they get to go off duty 20-30 minutes earlier due to a quicker deplaning procedure.

I would fully support a mandatory luggage carry on luggage ban with exception of small purse/ lap top or book.

I hate having to wait for checked luggage and when I do travel the wife and I have been able to fit everything we need into a couple of carry-ons. Now with the baby we might need to go the checked luggage route, but we'd still need to carry on a diaper bag -- which if packed properly can be about the same size as an oversized laptop carrier.

 

[deskslave]

Well, if idiots like that Nigerian fellow on the flight from Amsterdam to Detroit would stop trying to pull bull****, maybe these restrictions would be loosened. I'm fine with it. The rest of the world can't be trusted because they've proven time and again that they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.

On behalf of the rest of the world, I'd like to remind you that that Nigerian idiot wouldn't have gotten on that plane if he'd been on the U.S. no-fly list.

And I'm not sure why the restrictions are tightened only on international flights. This is crass, and I know it is, but remind me of the departure points and destinations of the 9/11 flights again?

 

[Cosmo]

Good points, Vols and deskslave. I just have no tolerance for anyone pulling shenanigans on a flight...between this guy and the shoe bomber and the people plotting death and destruction over in London back when. Isolated incidents, I know. But I'd rather err on the side of caution, that's all.

 

[Flying Headbutt]

I thought he WAS on the no fly list?

 

[JR]

Another reason not to fly to the U.S.

 

[Double J]

For me, as I said, the price tag is the big reason I won't fly to the U.S. Not when there are airports in Buffalo and Detroit that aren't much further away than Toronto's.

 

[deskslave]

Good points, Vols and deskslave. I just have no tolerance for anyone pulling shenanigans on a flight...between this guy and the shoe bomber and the people plotting death and destruction over in London back when. Isolated incidents, I know. But I'd rather err on the side of caution, that's all.

Err on the side of caution, and paint 'the rest of the world' with a nice broad brush. I know it's easier to pretend like the problems are all someone else's fault, but I'm not sure why the rest of the world should have to suffer disproportionate annoyance, not to mention be blamed for the U.S.'s problems, all because the U.S. DHS can't get its act together. (And gee, if I were a terrorist and wanted to cause problems, what might I do now? Focus my energies on domestic flights? Nahhhh ... too easy.)

There have been terror cells busted in the U.S., too. It's not just a London thing. Or an Amsterdam thing.

ETA: FH, the story I read indicated he was on a watch list, but not a no-fly list. Not sure how they're not the same thing, but there you go.

 

[JR]

For me, as I said, the price tag is the big reason I won't fly to the U.S. Not when there are airports in Buffalo and Detroit that aren't much further away than Toronto's.

Well, Detroit's a little further than Toronto or Buffalo but I get your point. Unless the drive is about 6 hours or more, it's easier and probably just as fast to drive.

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

I'm sure that Nigerian guy was just coming here to deliver the rest of the money someone won in the lottery.

 

[Double J]

For me, as I said, the price tag is the big reason I won't fly to the U.S. Not when there are airports in Buffalo and Detroit that aren't much further away than Toronto's.

Well, Detroit's a little further than Toronto or Buffalo but I get your point. Unless the drive is about 6 hours or more, it's easier and probably just as fast to drive.

Detroit airport is about five hours, Buffalo is four, Toronto is two-and-a-half. But when I was pricing flights to Los Angeles last year, Detroit won out because I could go direct and the cost was less than half of what it would have cost to fly from Toronto. Buffalo's cost was similar to Detroit, but it wasn't straight through.

 

[JR]

So what did you pay Detroit to LA?