DHS/TSA considering a ban on carry on luggege - cuz u know "terrprosts"

[tangent4ronpaul]

and check in is $25 a bag... hmm, can you say lobbyists? I thought you could...

:rolleyes:

-t

[Zippyjuan]

With the fees and hassles, everybody uses carry on these days. I never check any baggage (also makes getting in and out of the airport much faster and easier- print your own boarding pass and you never even need to visit the ticket counter).

[rp08orbust]

No, I don't know "terrprosts". Sounds scary, please explain.

[jmdrake]

Well since the last two times the TSA purposefully let a terrorist get on a plane the terrorist had the bomb in his underwear. So what isn't the TSA banning underwear?

[Anti Federalist]

Link?

Article?

[Zippyjuan]

Try this: http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2014/12/04/a-ban-on-carry-on-bags-travelers-say-no-way/


DALLAS (CBSDFW.COM) - Could there ever really be a ban on carry-on bags when you fly?

According to a report by National Public Radio, a ban on carry-on luggage was discussed by U.S. counter-terrorism officials.

A TSA spokesperson told CBS 11 News it’s “not anticipating any further changes in the carry-on bag policies.”

The spokesperson said as always TSA will make adjustments when necessary to meet the ever-evolving terror threat.

Travelers and industry experts alike say a ban on carry-on bags would be hard to imagine.

“I know that they believe there’s a threat,” said FareCompare CEO Rick Seaney. “The question is what’s the solution to the threat.”

Seaney said a ban on carry-ons would financially be devastating to the airline industry.

He said, “Airlines know this will depress people from buying tickets.”

Traveler Sue Holt at Love Field says she want flights to be safe, but also said there has to be better options.

“I travel with two iPads and a computer and there’s no way that I would allow them to check that,” said Holt.

In a written statement, a TSA spokesperson said, “DHS will continue to adjust its security measures to ensure the highest levels of aviation security without unnecessary disruption to travelers.”

[acptulsa]

Sounds like Embraer has been spreading the love around K Street. I couldn't stand up in their aircraft if they didn't have overhead lockers.

It also sounds like a good way to get the mothers up in arms. Hell hath no fury...

[Occam's Banana]

“I know that they believe there’s a threat,” said FareCompare CEO Rick Seaney. “The question is what’s the solution to the threat.”

Note that the question is NOT "is there actually a threat" ...


a TSA spokesperson said, “DHS will continue to adjust its security measures to ensure the highest levels of aviation security without unnecessary disruption to travelers.”

LOL. Gotta love how that works out to saying "any disruptions DHS causes to travelers are necessary because DHS causes them - and DHS causes them because they are necessary." (And for more fun 'n' games with words, I leave it to the reader to ponder the question-begging assertion that DHS "ensure[s] the highest levels of aviation security" ...)

[Anti Federalist]

Much fail.

[Zippyjuan]

Could always ban people and baggage from planes. It would cut down on the security lines too.

There is always some theoretical threat in any situation no matter what people are doing. But what are the real odds? How many planes have been taken down by terrorists? Is security failing and need to be tightened? Risk can never be zero. But what is "reasonable"? That seems to have been crossed long ago (not long after 9/11 which was itself a very rare -one off- event).

[jmdrake]

Could always ban people and baggage from planes. It would cut down on the security lines too.

There is always some theoretical threat in any situation no matter what people are doing. But what are the real odds? How many planes have been taken down by terrorists? Is security failing and need to be tightened? Risk can never be zero. But what is "reasonable"? That seems to have been crossed long ago (not long after 9/11 which was itself a very rare -one off- event).

Yeah. Or you could just ban the TSA from allowing known terrorists to board airplanes.

Witnesses saw someone walk the first underwear bomber through security.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAtK7FFDukQ

Patrick Kennedy admitted to congress that the TSA knew that the first underwear bomber was a terrorist and that he was allowed to fly on purpose.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaMQss3ANZ0

The second underwear bomber was a double agent under CIA control.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YnhkE-GHlw

[mosquitobite]

Could always ban people and baggage from planes. It would cut down on the security lines too.

There is always some theoretical threat in any situation no matter what people are doing. But what are the real odds? How many planes have been taken down by terrorists? Is security failing and need to be tightened? Risk can never be zero. But what is "reasonable"? That seems to have been crossed long ago (not long after 9/11 which was itself a very rare -one off- event).

http://cdn2.teen.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Fainting.gif

[acptulsa]

Yeah. Or you could just ban the TSA from allowing known terrorists to board airplanes.

But--if you don't purposely fail to do your duty once in a while, how can you go screaming that your budget isn't big enough?