Originally Posted by
Romeo Delta
... but still goes against the "Bag can not travel without the Pax" mantra.
As I understand the philosophy, it's "passenger cannot choose to travel without the bag". I think the idea is that so long as there is a chance that the passenger will have to travel with the bag, the passenger will not put a bomb in it. He's only going to bomb the aircraft with the bag if he can be assured that he will not be on the aircraft. In a sense, the philosophy holds him hostage to his own good behaviour. So in both your cases, you have not chosen to travel without the bag; on the day, there is always a chance that it will be on your aircraft.
That's the philosophy - it sounds like some countries have stricter rules, with which I'm very comfortable.
Agreed about the suicide bomber, but there
have to be different defences against one of them.