Maybe they thought of a better idea like gagging and hancuffing all of the passengers - mind you, the airlines would need to provide extra crew assistance for passengers wishing to use the loos! :)

looks like it will be advisable to reserve your toilet slot when you buy your ticket but latest when you check in...:\
and for in flight entertainment you can trade slots as long as you stay in your seat and don't queue.

efcop

Captain's announcement:

"Ladies and Gentlemen, new regulations imposed by the U.S. government require us to enforce a queue-for-the-loo-ban.

Should you be unable to withhold your delivery, feel free to relieve yourselves into the seat.

Should you feel overcome by the odour of the result, please resort to the air motion bags.

If you wish to use the oxygen masks, please inform our cabin crew.

We wish you a pleasant flight and enjoy your meals, thank you."

;)

>>>...Maybe they thought of a better idea like gagging and hancuffing all of the passengers.... <<<

Bit too close to home for some of the cabin crew:O

Deep vein thrombosis...
 

The current plans and initiatives to curb effects of DVT are going go pear shaped hear then if people are going to be restricted from moving around the cabin, great idea... (not)
Standing up, moving around and limbering up in a toilet queue are great ways to keep the old blood circulation going for all on board.

You know, its an interesting thing.

Everyone says that the USA knows nothing about security and that we should listen to Europeans on this matter.

Okay, lets actually examine that shall we? Where did the lockerbie aircraft take off from? Oh yeah, Europe. How about all those TWA aircraft that ended up in Lebanon? Oh yeah Europe. Hmmm, you are right! Virtually all hijackings and attacks happen on aircraft from European airports... They must know more about it...

Cheers
Wino

Those would be American airlines in your examples, Wino, wouldn't they? :E

Yes it would, and the security airside at the UK is provided by WHO?


I am just wondering if the European security is so good, and American security is so bad, why is it that untill 9/11 the aircraft were grabbed or attacked in Europe. Logic would dictate that it would be easier to grab/board em in the USA...

America has always been the target. Its just that American airplanes are no longer good enough. Now its the American cities that are the target.

Cheers
Wino

And the two dead bodies found in gear door wells at JKF last week came from WHERE?

Q's for the toilet and then I read in that newscutting

"Qantas officials haven't formulated how to handle the issue"!!

I didn't know they had a sense of humour!!

The 2 dead bodies found in the wheel well in JFK came from where? Nigeria.

Wino,

Your examples confirm why the Europeans improved their security measures before we did.

You and I know that until 9/11 we were somewhat isolated from events that other folks have had to live with for many years, OKC notwithstanding.

Ultimately, several "arguments" that we could use to justify the TSA's directives cannot be discussed on this forum. Bit like fighting with one arm tied behind your back. No change there, then!

The pendulum of common sense rarely stops in the middle on the first swing. Eventually however we will find the balance between passenger/crew inconvenience and the best security we can consistently provide.

Others...most AA airplanes have a loo located just feet from the flight deck door. This is the area where passengers are asked not to congregate. It's probably as much for other passengers' peace of mind than just the F/A's.

After UAL 93 it's probably fair to assume that most passengers are prepared to become involved in any potential cabin disturbance. The last thing needed is a vigilante passenger who becomes excited by the [innocent] behaviour of a stranger who has to pee like a racehorse!

Cheers,dd.

Wino the difference is that Europeans do not expect or damand 100% security. It is not acheivable here or in the US. The Bush Admin is claiming to provide 100% security but when it reduces civil liberties and freedoms what is it worth it.

It is interesting to note that over 10,061 people died on US roads in 2001. Where are the draconian laws to stop the carnage.

Yes, VIA Europe in case you didn't hear.

F d'i you are right :100% security isn't to be reached anywhere
 

But, same as technical safety, adding another barrier reduces the bad chances.

We are able to understand it, I hope, around this globe.

The problem is, again, the trend of present US Administration to act unilateraly and consider the rest of the world as obedient followers.
The cherry on the cake (sorry! french expression) is that stupid regulation about toilets use, negation of human needs and therefore impossible to respect. Will be forgotten in weeks time.

Please! Don't fancy I am not aware of terrorism threats: I lost enough friends to understand cristal clear that we must enforce new regulation to protect Civil Air Transport...and people on the ground too.

But this must be done according to the law.
For International Air Transport, the law used to be written by ICAO after talks with the representatives of all nations, consultation of Associations (Airline Pilots, Flight Attendants...), and then introduced in National regulations or not.

It's never clever to pretend solving every problem alone: first you have more chances to mistake, and you can't expect any support from those whose advices were rejected.
I thought this was a common knowledge tought in all schools for management...

So, if Airmarshalls add something positive to security (I do think so...under certain conditions) this new kind of "embarked professional" (call them "police crew member") should be discussed at ICAO...so that everyone concerned could give his advice.

My advice is that terrorist menace imposes a new definition of reponsibilities onboard for Captains and all Crewmembers, with adequate training, so they can integrate this new kind of crew dedicated to "law and order" not to use "antiterrorist personnel" which creates panic in itself.

This personnel needs rules for employment (first one: they are under captain's authority, as everybody is on aircrafts and ships since they sail and fly) work limit (it's obvious so it needs to be said!)....and coordination with other crew and cockpit should be considered essential.

The problem of weapons has to be thoroughly examined and solutions must be found to minimise the impact of their use on aircraft and passengers safety: forget all Al Pacino's movies please, and John Wayne's too .

If Pilots Associations don't demand this international discussion, they will fail in their mission.

If Governments don't agree to it what use are they?

Besides, who is to pay for it, either with money or blood?

The loopholes in security are too numerous to list, but the more glaring examples I saw were in cargo, ramp handling, airside security, staff background checks and management integrity/responsibility (or lack of).

As the wiser among us have explained; Security must be multi-layered to have any chance of spotting most of the various methods likely to be used. Also, an effective deterrent does not have to be 100%, just good enough to make the odds of detection too large and the chance of success too small for the terrorists.

However, humans being what they are, we should be more aware of the fact that humans can adapt according to the challange, so unless we constantly change our security methods, procedures and philosophy, it is only a matter of time before all the layers will be circumvented and/or rendered impotent. I am very surprised that the need for dynamic and abstractly changing security is lost on the decision makers.

There is little doubt that unless we cooperate (that means public/airlines/government as well as between nations), the loopholes will always exist and become ever more apparent to the bad guys. So what worries me the most right now is the 'do it or else' attitude from the US and the unshakable conviction that their opinion regarding guns in planes is absolute fact. Despite many reasonable opinions providing realistic scenarios where having a gun on a plane can lead to bad things, it is obvious that some opinion has become set in stone and oblivious to reason.

The fact is that the minute we start putting guns on aircraft, terrorists will start planning on how to exploit the situation to their advantage. While many are just deluded freaks, some are cold, calculating and intelligent enough to come up with an effective plan.

Since 911, I have made the mental decision that if I am a passenger on an aircraft that is being hijacked, I'll fight to the death and encourage my fellow passengers to do the same. Yet the only thing that could stop me from a distance would be a gun, so that becomes my worst case scenario. Any other weapon (excluding a bomb of course) would mean that I'll at least get a chance to gouge some eyes or bite a junk off, hopefully making the task easier for the next 'have-a-go'. If a bomb was used, at least the aircraft would cease to be a missile that could be used on ground targets.

I'm not convinced by the arguement for armed guards. What disturbs me more is that some people are demanding that we accept their perception and threatening punative action if we dare to disagree. Hardly the attitude to have if one is looking for cooperation and support which is what the US will need to effectively tackle the threat of terrorism.

The point is to make sure that the fellow that shows up at the port of entry with the visa is, in fact, the same fellow who obtained the visa at the consulate.

Visas and passports are far, far too easy to forge.

I think ny'all may be beatin' up a little too much on each other about where some plane started, what airline it was, whose handling crew did it and all of that.

The bottom line is that each country is going to set their parameters based on whatever input they seek. It may include the country's labor union or it may not.And it probably WON'T include some other countries' labor union's opininon.

I can't tell Peru not to check for smuggled computer (I have none). I can't tell Korea not to look for weapons inbound. I don't tell Australia not to look for food (sealed or not means nothing). I don't tell Santiago, they don't have to check EVERY crew member that a spot check is probably about right. I don't tell India not to waster their time on checking crew member's inbound. Ad infinitum.

Give it up. This isn't 1903 anymore and the tooth fairy ain't coming. Santa Claus is on a leave of absence until things get better.l

From the Times today January 08, 2004

BA defends rights to queue for the loo at 20,000ft
By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent



FLYING across the Atlantic is already stressful enough in the current security climate without having to spend eight hours with your legs crossed.


However, that is what the flying public could face after the United States ordered airlines entering its airspace to ban passengers from queueing for the lavatories.

The directive from the Transport Security Administration (TSA) requires the crew to make announcements every two hours telling passengers that they must not “congregate outside the toilets” or any other location. British Airways, which yesterday was forced to delay Flight 223 to Washington for the fifth consecutive day while the US carried out security checks, dismissed the directive as unworkable.

A BA insider said: “Queueing is a great British tradition. How on earth are we supposed to organise trips to the loo? “Should we make people put their hands up or have a ticket system like at the deli counter at Tesco’s? It would be unworkable to stop passengers forming queues outside toilets. There’s big demand for the loo after meals have been cleared away.”

BA is attempting to avoid a confrontation with the US authorities and its only official comment on the directive was: “We are happy that our current procedures adequately cover the requirements.”

But in reality, the airline has no intention of ordering passengers back to their seats. BA has been unable to obtain an explanation from the TSA of the security benefit of the directive, which was issued on Christmas Eve.

The only lavatories located near the cockpit on transatlantic flights are reserved for first-class passengers, who do not have to queue because there are so few of them.

Simon Evans, chief executive of the Air Transport Users Council, said: “This directive is just absurd. It is a security measure too far, which would only make passengers feel more uncomfortable.

“People in aisle seats might spot an empty loo but, by the time they climb over the people sitting next to them, a queue could have formed.”

The directive applies to all airlines which enter US airspace.

Qantas plans to respond by making pre-flight announcements and instructing cabin crew to monitor passengers during the flight. Warren Bennett, chief executive of the Board of Airline Representatives of Australia, said: “It gives the impression paranoia is taking over and is going to place enormous stress on flight crew to be toilet police.”

The British Department for Transport refused to comment on the directive and the TSA failed to return calls.


Words fail me .....

...While the Yanks are training the local wannabbe Atta's themselves... what a joke of a country.

From today's AVWEB:

"TEST DRIVE" A B-737/300 AT CONTINENTAL'S IAH PILOT TRAINING CENTER! The "Airline Training Orientation Program" (ATOP) is a two-day 737/300 familiarization course designed for *any* U.S. pilot, especially those interested in airline careers. Presented exclusively by ATOP Inc., the course features 12 hours' ground school, one hour in the 737/300 FTD, and two hours in the 737/300 full-motion simulator. Earn the optional "High Altitude Endorsement," too! Register for any class by February 1 and get a $40 discount off the $435.00 course fee by mentioning AVweb! For details go online at http://www.avweb.com/sponsors/atop