Canada to US. NO carry on bags allowed
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: God's Country
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roger D
What a very rude chap you are. Profiling is a proven method for assisting in the detection of public transport terrorists. Do you mean Schiphol Airport by any chance? The only robust method of security for airports is profiling, combined with gate security staff trained in body language. I imagine that little gem is worth six squillion dollars in consultancy fees.
Gentleman Jim
What crap you utter. Profiling works?? Tell that to the authorities at Schifol.
Gentleman Jim
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Stockport
Age: 84
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In all the reports I have seen, the new checks and restrictions apply only to international flights into the US. Why? For example, BA are permitting only one item of hand baggage on fligts to the US, but more than one on flights from the US. Posts earlier in this thread suggest that checking is more stringent and time-consuming in Canada than in the US.
The 9/11 flights were all US domestics, the perpetrators legitimately in the US.
The 9/11 flights were all US domestics, the perpetrators legitimately in the US.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: God's Country
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 9/11 flights were all US domestics, the perpetrators legitimately in the US.
Gentleman jim
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hand Luggage Restrictions
Just buy a multi-pocket cargo vest. It is an item of clothing, removed and scanned at security, and can contain everything one needs and could not be checked in.
I can't help feeling some sympathy for Obama. He relied on the security people doing their job, and they failed, pretty miserably, both in the US and the Netherlands - one way ticket, no luggage and on a watch list, and they missed him.
So if done right, there ought to be a number of vacancies coming up in the security business and an increase in the US jobless total! At the very least, some hard ass kicking and demotions.
Some years back, Colin Powell told the Senate that the hassles caused by increased security since 9/11 had led to a drop in visitors and students to the US, such that there had been a loss to the US economy of $35 billion. That must be much higher by now.
If you did a cost/benefit analysis, you would probably come to the conclusion that removing all security from all airports would overall save so much money that the occasional terrorist action would be cheaper overall. Not that I'm advocating it.
As people have been saying on Pprune for years, profiling is what is needed. If the country was run by Ppruners, maybe we would have more sense shown all round......
So if done right, there ought to be a number of vacancies coming up in the security business and an increase in the US jobless total! At the very least, some hard ass kicking and demotions.
Some years back, Colin Powell told the Senate that the hassles caused by increased security since 9/11 had led to a drop in visitors and students to the US, such that there had been a loss to the US economy of $35 billion. That must be much higher by now.
If you did a cost/benefit analysis, you would probably come to the conclusion that removing all security from all airports would overall save so much money that the occasional terrorist action would be cheaper overall. Not that I'm advocating it.
As people have been saying on Pprune for years, profiling is what is needed. If the country was run by Ppruners, maybe we would have more sense shown all round......
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Victory for terrorism ?
Obviously the Americans want to feel safe from bombers, but ever increasing restrictions on ordinary travelers are handing a VICTORY to the terrorists, and discouraging people from traveling, which will impact the US economy.
I have not had the joy of the welcome at JFK for a few years, but the restrictions are not restricted to air travelers.
I was recently on a ship into HNL ex Auckland, and had completed the wonderful new pre entry e-Visa thing before leaving UK. (This is a farce when one hears the suspected bomber was a subject of concern but not stopped from traveling.
On docking in Honolulu, the entire SHIP, including passengers and crew who did not wish to go ashore, had to queue up to be interviewed in person. With thousands of people on board and only five staff assigned, you may imagine how long that took! My day in Hawaii turned out to be five short hours, a lot of it stuck in traffic. Bearing in mind most of the pax were elderly, and many wheelchair bound, it seemed ridiculously over the top to treat everyone as potential agents of Osama the Awful.
Not the kind of thing that will encourage these thousands of passengers to visit the USA again soon. Actually, I could well be on one of their "lists" now because I mentioned that to the immigration officer.
I have not had the joy of the welcome at JFK for a few years, but the restrictions are not restricted to air travelers.
I was recently on a ship into HNL ex Auckland, and had completed the wonderful new pre entry e-Visa thing before leaving UK. (This is a farce when one hears the suspected bomber was a subject of concern but not stopped from traveling.
On docking in Honolulu, the entire SHIP, including passengers and crew who did not wish to go ashore, had to queue up to be interviewed in person. With thousands of people on board and only five staff assigned, you may imagine how long that took! My day in Hawaii turned out to be five short hours, a lot of it stuck in traffic. Bearing in mind most of the pax were elderly, and many wheelchair bound, it seemed ridiculously over the top to treat everyone as potential agents of Osama the Awful.
Not the kind of thing that will encourage these thousands of passengers to visit the USA again soon. Actually, I could well be on one of their "lists" now because I mentioned that to the immigration officer.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Profiling Makes Sense To Me
Sorry - a P.S. to my posting a minute ago!
My ship mates - thousands of elderly and infirm folk - were highly unlikely to be terrorists. Think of the overwhelming mass of visa processing and time spent interviewing these people? What an expensive waste of resources it was.
With all respects to the vast majority of muslims, who I know are decent law abiding people, bombers have tended (so far) to be youngish and muslim. I would think that makes profiling a very sensible idea. Target extra resources on the small group of travelers who fit the likely profile. It is nonsense to call it discrimination or racist, because it is driven by crime intelligence, not by xenophobia. They have been using profiling for years in Customs, and it seems to have a good record of catching villains.
My ship mates - thousands of elderly and infirm folk - were highly unlikely to be terrorists. Think of the overwhelming mass of visa processing and time spent interviewing these people? What an expensive waste of resources it was.
With all respects to the vast majority of muslims, who I know are decent law abiding people, bombers have tended (so far) to be youngish and muslim. I would think that makes profiling a very sensible idea. Target extra resources on the small group of travelers who fit the likely profile. It is nonsense to call it discrimination or racist, because it is driven by crime intelligence, not by xenophobia. They have been using profiling for years in Customs, and it seems to have a good record of catching villains.
If you did a cost/benefit analysis, you would probably come to the conclusion that removing all security from all airports would overall save so much money that the occasional terrorist action would be cheaper overall. Not that I'm advocating it.
I reckon within 5 years it is probable on TA flights that no carryons will be allowed aside from tiny allowance used up by a book.
