First time here? Check out the site's "greatest hits" or read a random post from the archives. Feel free to ask a question, and consider subscribing to the latest posts via RSS or e-mail. Thanks for visiting!

The increase in checked luggage, a side effect of the ongoing War on Moisture, leads many to fear that their bags will be lost. And it’s a legitimate fear, of course. So how do you minimize it?

Pack a pistol in your luggage.

Bruce Schneier links to a discussion on a photographer’s blog, in which high-end equipment owners discuss their options. The solution is brilliant:

• Weapons (including starter pistols, which don’t require a permit since they don’t fire bullets) must be declared by the passenger and packed in checked luggage.
• Thereafter, the suitcase is given priority handling by TSA and the airline, since no one wants to be responsible for letting a weapon fall into “the wrong hands.”
• Therefore, putting a gun in your suitcase ensures that your luggage will be handled carefully, and will certainly reach its destination. It’s essentially like sending your suitcase via registered mail.

(image)

Too bad this didn’t happen on WizzAir
An Air Canada Jazz pilot locked himself out of the cockpit after visiting the lavatory. The co-pilot and flight attendant, both up front behind the locked door, were unable to open it. (Insert joke here.) After banging on the door, perhaps even shouting “Let me in!” to the horror of the passengers aboard the 50-seat Canadair Regional Jet, the pilot unscrewed the door hinges and got back in his seat. (The plane landed safely.) — And in case you’re wondering about the puerile joke in the title, there really is a WizzAir.

Security 2: Electric Booga-loo (emphasis on “loo”)
Losing your iPod certainly sucks. Losing it by dropping it into an airplane toilet, even worse. Having your plane make an emergency landing because of your dropped iPod being in the toilet, and being questioned as a terrorist suspect: almost trip horror perfection. (via Consumerist)

Moisture-based lawsuits begin
Add it to the growing list of lawsuits. An Irish woman is suing Delta Airlines for failing to provide beverages for her 18-month old boy, whom she carried on her lap. TSA agents at JFK had required her to empty her child’s juice at security. (via Consumerist, again)

Passports not worth what they once were
The U.S. government is preventing two American citizens from returning to the United States from Pakistan, unless they agree to be questioned — with lie detectors — by the FBI about their relatives, who were convicted in a case involving terrorism. Though they are not considered suspects, and are not charged with any crime, these two Americans are on the no-fly list for now. As usual, Ed Hasbrouck, recently turned consultant to the Identity Project/papersplease.org is on the scene, making a strong (if wordy) case that this is a violation of constitutional rights.

More kung fu fighting, still fast as lightning
China is sending some of its air marshals to the United States for further training. Apparently China’s flying cops are already “trained in martial arts and carry knives and clubs.” But can they sing and dance as well?

(image, taken onboard Southwest Airlines)
tags: travel | airlines | security

Flight attendants on Asian airlines are famous for their attentiveness to customer needs. Flight attendants in the United States will often remind passengers that their primary responsibility is passengers’ safety. Now, China’s Sichuan Airlines is kicking both elements up a notch for newly-hired attendants on flights between China and Korea, by requiring musical talent and martial arts skill:

As well as being aged between 18 and 24 with a knowledge of Korean, skilled in singing and dancing and of “nice appearance”, the new flight attendants will be trained as “part-time security guards” on the flights. “There’s no specific type of martial art we require, it could be kung fu or tae kwon do,” said Cai Chao, a Sichuan Airlines spokesperson.

Ok, I understand the martial arts, for security. But singing and dancing?? Especially the dancing! Southwest flight attendants might lead the passengers in a chorus of “Row Row Row Your Boat” or “Wheels on the Bus,” but I don’t think they’re shaking their booty down the aisle. At least I hope not…

(image)
tags: travel | airlines | security | martial arts | flight attendants

Last week, I briefly referenced Irish discount carrier Ryanair’s threat to sue the British government if security procedures were not normalized at UK airports within a week. Now, Ryanair is coming under fire for “profiting from fear.”

Ryanair chief Michael O’Leary, who has made frequent TV appearances attacking the Government’s security clampdown at airports, allegedly told an official at the Transport Department: “Every time I appear on TV I get a spike in sales.”
But Mr O’Leary, who has clashed with Transport Secretary Douglas Alexander, denounced the claim as ‘preposterous’ and denied having made the remark.
And he stepped up his war of words with the Government by claiming there was no proof that any plot to blow up airliners had ever existed.

A few points:

- That latter claim of O’Leary’s — that there was *never* a threat — is certainly kicking things up a notch with a conspiratorial flavor. I personally still believe a plot of some kind existed, but if it’s the plot that was publicly reported, it would have been ineffective, as noted earlier.

- If Ryanair is making money off of fear, it’s pretty impressive. Considering that the incentives to travel are so low right now, if someone is actually making a buck in this climate, then wow. (The airline is running ads featuring Winston Churchill making the V for Victory sign.)

- Ryanair and O’Leary need to be careful not to overstate their case: The company doesn’t have a lot of credibility when it comes to safety. (or service, for that matter)

- They lose more credibility when they’re grandstanding on television, instead of simply filing dockets in court. Don’t threaten to sue. Just sue.

Despite the holes being poked in O’Leary’s motivations, I think it’s healthy to see some corporate resistance to governments in matters of security incompetence and fearmongering. Clearly they’re running a risk of backlash from the government. But what would the consequences be? Oh, the drama…

UPDATE: UK files official charges against 10 suspects in the London plot. Looks like the UK government is trying to prove O’Leary wrong…

(image)
tags: travel | Ryanair

I’ve been lucky to avoid the latest round of security mayhem, not having flown in the past week. But the missus flew United Airlines to and from Boston recently, and her report leads me to believe that the airline is, at best, missing an opportunity to build its customer base in light of the recent restrictions.

It’s irritating, of course, that one can’t take liquids onto the plane, even those purchased in the supposedly secure area past the checkpoints. And the UK even advises you not to have EMPTY bottles in your baggage. So the airlines are stepping up and serving more drinks in flight, right? Right?

Wrong. Not United. Tuesday’s flight 537 from Boston to Chicago featured a single beverage service from the cart. No walk-through with a pitcher of water, or coffee, or anything. I’m sure you could have walked to the galley and asked for a drink, but with the embargo on onboard fluids, this seems like particularly thin service, even for a short 2-hour 10-minute flight.

In the past few days, hotel chains like Omni and Wyndham have been trying to win over clients by promising free lotions, makeup, and toiletries. Avis is putting Procter & Gamble amenity packs on the passenger seats of rental cars. And the airlines?

United tries to sell itself as a premium brand within the domestic U.S. market. They advertise their Economy Plus and premium transcontinental service. They still have free headphones, pillows, blankets, etc. But the airline isn’t adding water to the catering order?

From what I’m hearing, other airlines are not any better, and haven’t made any effort to improve service either. Air travel is the epicenter of the security-related inconvenience, and yet the airlines aren’t doing much to help matters.

A smart airline would 1) make an effort to assure passengers that their time on board the plane will be a relief compared to the time in the airport. Getting more water on board, at a minimum, would be a start. 2) Then market the fact that the airline is trying to help. Blast an e-mail to its customer base, telling them what they’re doing to reduce passenger frustrations, for a start.

Seems pretty easy. It’s been over a week. Why hasn’t any airline stepped up?

Related:
The future of airport security: Predictions and wish-lists

tags: travel | UAL Corp. | United Airlines | water

Canadian citizens now get to worry about their names appearing on two separate no-fly lists: Canada’s, and the United States’.

Canada’s airlines, voluntarily and against the advice of the Canadian government, have been using the American lists of banned passengers to screen their clientele — for domestic flights within Canada. Of all the products to import from the U.S., they chose this one?

The U.S. no-fly list is full of misspellings and false identifications. Though a “redress” procedure exists on the TSA website that allows the falsely-accused to seek removal, it’s still virtually impossible to be removed from the list.

Best of all, there have been recent complaints that the U.S. no-fly list has been especially good at falsely-categorizing… Canadians. Two Canadian members of parliament, with the astoundingly generic names “Bill Graham” and “Pat Martin” have been delayed at U.S. airports because their names were on a list. They might just start getting delayed at Canadian airports, too.

On the flip side, Canada’s own no-fly list is coming under attack for not being aggressive enough: Membership in a terrorist organization is not sufficient reason to be put on the list, as group membership is not “a demonstrable threat to aviation safety.”

The debate in Canada actually shows the absurdity of no-fly lists in general. Yes, we need to keep threats off planes, but isn’t that what the metal detectors and puffer machines are for? And if the person is a criminal suspect, then isn’t that what ID checks and arrest warrants are for? (Hardcore libertarians may object to showing identification to get on a plane, or to identification in general; I’m not one of them.) But no-fly lists create an opportunity for government abuse, by punishing individuals — and those innocent bystanders whose names are similar — without a trial.

The lists also allow agencies to categorize groups critical of the government as terrorists, and thus as threats to the flying public. Think I’m kidding? Sadly, no. I would bet good money that there are people, whose only “crime” is protesting the war in Iraq, on the no-fly list.

Which now means they can’t fly in Canada, either.

Update: Here’s another great reason to be wary of the watch lists: Denver’s local ABC news reports that Federal Air Marshals have a monthly quota of incidents to report, and that the FAMs have been making stuff up in order to meet the quota. Innocent passengers who do something like taking a photo while onboard could find themselves pegged a terrorist. Fantastic.

Update 2: Even the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security thinks the watch lists are a joke. He calls them “too vague” and a waste of agents’ time. Read on.

tags: travel | airport security | no fly list | Canada

Forget the TSA and their shoe inspections. If you want to sound serious about airport security, bring in the lasers: Northrup Grumman and Raytheon are both starting to pitch ground-based systems for creating a shield around airports.

Northrop described Skyguard [a laser-based system that is designed to create a 5-kilometer bubble around airports or secure installations] as capable of destroying rockets, mortars, artillery shells, unmanned aerial vehicles, short-range ballistic missiles and cruise missiles. Against shoulder-fired missiles, which are relatively easy to heat with a laser and destroy, the protective shield would extend to a 20-kilometer radius, Wildt said.
Raytheon, eyeing a similar market, has developed a ground-based airport protection system that uses high-power microwaves to protect commercial aircraft from shoulder-fired missiles.

On the one hand, increased security for aircraft and airports is a good thing. And it sure sounds neat, though the track record for missile defense isn’t exactly stellar.

On the other hand, if the fear is that someone will shoot down a plane, wouldn’t aircraft-based countermeasure solutions be more appropriate? (Alas, current-generation systems are apparently prohibitively expensive and/or difficult to implement for large commercial aircraft, though the price may drop with volume discounts.)

If you build the equivalent of a mini-ABM system and create a 5km bubble, then wouldn’t anyone with a brain who wants to do harm to planes set up shop just outside the bubble’s perimeter, at the 6km marker? While an Israeli charter flight was indeed targeted by a missile attack departing Kenya in 2002 (it missed), a Sibir Airlines plane was actually shot down by a missile (a in October 2001 nowhere near an airport: It happened over the Black Sea, and at cruising altitude.

Save the money. Skip the laser.

tags: travel | Star Wars | airport security