Ok stick with me, giving background to enlighten my point of view but will get to the point.
As a Greek citizen living in the US for the past 9 years (to the day tomorrow), I know I am a guest in this country and respect its laws, however stupid I might find them at times, much more than the average US citizen.
Now in these 9 years, I have spent 6.5 of them in Houston (yes the fat city) and the last 2.5 in New York. I have gotten both the southern and the most "European" northern views of people in the US.
I moved to New York 3 weeks before 9/11, saw one of the towers come down in front of me, from the parking lot of our corporate headquarters in Long Island and not TV, and wept for some friends that were lost in that living nightmare.
Yes, I do want to avoid future disasters like this, whether in the US or any other part of the world but I fail to see the reasoning behind some of the paranoia suggested. This "congregate" rule seems to beat everything so far. I fail to see any sense behind this rule.
Wino said at one point that it provides justification into a steward (male or female) seeing something funny and having the plane diverted. So basically you suggest that a group of terrorists have managed to get themselves all in this flight, despite all of the other measures, and having gotten there, they decide to get together to see what they are going to do next because their plan is not clear ???
Or even if they need to clarify something, the steward noticing and alerting the captain will provide for enough time for the flight to be diverted or prevent them from doing something before they accomplish it ???
SORRY BUT THAT IS ABSURD TO EVEN SUGGEST.
I see it more likely for someone to misinterpret a few individuals actually waiting for the damn toilet and having a flight disrupted for nothing.
Now eventhough these were discussed in different threads, I have seen that this thread has taken the role of "Security, what can work and what is total a** covering"
In respects to Sky/Air Marshals, although I have utter respect for people specially trained with firearms and their use and what they can accomplish, I do see the reasoning behind some people's objections about keeping any sort of weapon, much more a gun, out of airplanes, where they can be used by terrorists. I guess I am neutral on this one.
In respects to fingerprinting. Like I said, I am a Greek citizen, and although an EU passport carrier, I do require a visa. Although I have no objection in getting fingerprinted, as I too have had to have this done at an early stage in my life, I do not really see it as a serious deterrent as it is being used.
Anyone carrying a visa already has had to get this visa at a US consulate abroad where he can be checked against watchlists. Also anyone carrying a visa has to go through thorough immigration anyways. So what is the point ???
Not to mention that this check is only done after the person has already gotten themselves on the flight and LANDED in the US.
The only thing I can see this resulting to, as any other visa carrying person that has arrived at terminal 1 of JFK at around 16:00 can testify to, is another never-ending line after a minimum 6 hour flight. There will never be enough self-serve kiosks, the process will never be fast enough, especially with the 82 year old non-English speaking grandmother, that has never seen an electronic sensor, in front of you.
So add at least another 15 minutes for every lawfully carrying visa-holder on their trip while terrorists on the other hand can easily sail into any small port in the US with a chartered boat from the Bahamas, or even walk across the Mexico - Texas border.
Bubba, Duke and AA SLF. Yes, the US does have the right to regulate things in the US. However every other country has the right to regulate things in their country. As Ranger One has put it, if two countries make two contradictary rules, then all flights from-to these two countries will by law cease. Wouldn't it be better if the two countries (or all countries) got together and agreed on what is reasonable ??? Or should we just abolish flights all together and have people take the ship to get to the US ???
Now going to the economic aspects of these regulations:
Since 9/11 I have seen our COO's company-wide announcement that we are going to be limiting trips to client sites and relying much more into video-conferencing, due to the difficulties introduced into flying, with great sorrow. This did not only cause me sorrow because I would have less chances to spend in my beloved skies, but because I knew that video-conferencing is not nearly as close as the chance to "mingle" with the clients. I have seen two multi-million dollar deals with international clients go to hell just because of this, and the effect this has had to the small-scale economies of our company and our employees just fearing the whole widescale perspectives.
I myself, chose to drive alone 13 hours to Montreal and back, just 2 weeks ago, instead of taking one-hour flights, and keeping myself once again away from my much loved aviation environment, just because I was afraid of the hassle I would have to go through at the airport. My trip was a result of a stupid combination of US immigration and Greek passport laws, which meant that I would need to go without a passport for 3 months if I tried dealing with it by working with the INS inside the US, or I could just make the first U-turn in Canada and be back here in the US in 5 minutes. Being an electrical engineer and seeing today's DL43 incident, I do not regret having driven. Seeing a trend develop ? Lost revenue for the airlines here ?
I have chosen to live in the US at this time of my life because I like most things in this country. It is a great nation, but as El Grifo put it, not in its finest hour. The things that have made this a great nation are now being totally overriden.
I feel that people of all nations have lots to learn from the people of other nations while keeping their individuality. Yes, the US might be the superpower right now, but that does not give it the right to try to "regulate" everyone.
The Europeans have been dealing with terrorism for a lot longer and have had the time and experience to find the reasonable boundaries between protecting the public from the insane and protecting personal freedom. Yes, 09/11 might have happened in the US, but everyone is trying to avoid it from happening again ANYWHERE. You cannot paralyse the world economy and international relations by trying to prevent others from abusing them.
Maybe the US should start listening a bit more to some of the experienced people on the block.
Finally as movies seem to have quite an influence on most of my American friends, maybe I should remind them of that 1998 one called "The Siege" (Denzel Washington, Annette Benning, Bruce Willis). Whoever wrote it must have had some foresight as the whole premis was how far can you go before fighting terrorism becomes counterproductive. For obvious reasons, it was never a super-hit in the US.
SLF Rambling ends here.
PS: Does this "law" mean that I will not be able to flirt with the spotted cutie 3 rows ahead on my next cross-the-pond ??? Another drawback to Human Relations !!!!