 |
Reader's Replies Here's your chance to join the fray and be heard. You can respond to my columns and share your own opinions and insight.
|
|||
|
An anonymous reader from the US writes : Have you heard anything about the fact that this plane, prior to leaving the manufacturer (Airbus), had to have all of the bolts that held the tail to the plane reworked? Airbus felt that it was a minor issue and never notified AA. Is this public knowledge? I haven't heard anything about it in the news. I am assuming that if this is true that it might not even matter because that would have been years ago since the plane was over 10 years old. But I don't know that much about planes. Does that mean that for the life of the plane it would always have a weaker tail than other planes of its type? What if this info fell into the wrong hands? Would this make it a easier target for sabotage? That's what was running through my mind when my friend told me about the repairs Airbus made to the tail prior to delivery. LuAnn from the UK writes : Alright, will someone please tell me exactly which of the new and intense security measures would have prevented 9/11? Hand luggage scrutiny- yes... ID checks- NO. Increased sensitivity in the metal detectors- Maybe. M-16's in the hands of kids too young to order a drink at the bar- NO. Explosive detectors would have prevented Lockerbie. European standards of off-loading luggage of any pax that didn't board the aircraft would MAYBE prevent a Lockerbie....But NONE of this would have kept the tail on American's Airbus. I'm flying a bit over the Hols ...lots of miles but only 4 RT flights. I am NOT worried about being hijacked, I'm slightly concerned about unaccompanied luggage... but SERIOUSLY worried about Airbus's that lose their tails! or maybe BOTH engines! or perhaps a whole WING? Come on, guys... the best security against hijacking is an alert and aware Cabin crew and passenger manifest. (hello, we have that now). If someone wants to blow themselves up with the aircraft, only luggage explosives screening will work (it must be money... are the screening devices REALLY more expensive than an entire aircraft? or, like Pan Am, the cost of an entire airline?) As for luggage matching, 7 minute delays have been considered 'on time' for at least 18 months. The real delay is getting that unmatched luggage off the aircraft... but it can be done. What's scarier than flying to Greece today or Genoa next week or Dulles or SFO or ORD is the knowledge that I'll be flying in an Airbus. American is not AirTrans. American has perfectly sound maintenance. Barring sabotage, that airplane fell apart in the air. That airplane was not air-worthy... and NO ONE KNEW IT. How many others are up there (for now?). There are a LOT of A-320's in the US airspace (they are the ones that haul fewer people on more frequent trips... congesting the airports). Heck, 707's only lost their wheels, not whole body-parts. NOW I'm a little bit scared. Gary from Texas writes : While I tend to agree with your column regarding the foot-dragging by both Government and the airlines on many security matters, I must disagree with your opinion that bag-matching would be a good thing. In this day and age when suicide bombers will drive a vehicle laden with explosives into a small crowd and blow themselves and several innocents to bits; when these same suicide bombers will board a city bus with a backpack full of explosives and detonate it in a town square or near a shopping/dining area just to kill themselves and a few innocent bystanders, what makes you actually believe that such a suicide bomber would hesitate to check a bomb-laden suitcase and board the flight themselves? It is a ludicrous argument. These are fanatics that have no qualms whatsoever of dying for their cause. The time and expense involved to do bag-matching at all U.S. airports would not only be futile, it would be infantile. Rather, let's use the 441 million of taxpayer dollars that have already been spent on the CTX Scanners by getting the 19 that are still sitting in warehouses into service and, along with those already in place, man the damn things to do the screening of checked luggage that was mandated by law several years ago. Hold the "powers-that-be" feet to the fire and demand they follow the law, not ignore it. The entire airport and aviation security process is still a joke and nothing more than window-dressing to appease the general public. A determined terrorist cell would laugh at the current tactics and strategies and then go over, around, or through the system to wreak havoc once again. When will Washington ever wake up? Lyn from the US writes :You're right about the huge hole in security if airlines don't match bags with passengers. What good does it do to hassle people at a security checkpoint if they allow most bags to be loaded without any scrutiny whatsoever? I travel about twice a month. One thing that the new security bill didn't do is create "frequent traveler" ID's so people who are traveling for a living don't have to get the 3rd degree. Since both you and I know that the security screening done now is a joke, I'm becoming more and more irritated when I have to stand in long lines waiting to go through security. Why can't this ID program be part of the "security" package? Bill from the US writes : What would be so difficult about having every person, while waiting in line to get to the check in counter for example, OPEN UP their check in bags so someone can quickly check through it to see that it does not contain a bomb? A trained sniffing dog would help too in this process. It would not add any delay time since you are already standing in a long line. Just matching check in luggage with a passenger is no good because suicide bombers don't care if they die along with everyone else. David replies : This might help but problems remain. The biggest problem is that a bomb can be very small, and of just about any shape - it really isn't possible to recognize a bomb when you see it. A dog would be a good idea and is one of the options open to the airlines in the new Security law. I think the biggest problem with dogs is that it takes a long time to train up some extra dogs to meet the new need for them. Fran writes : I am aware that this is a naive question, but.....do the airlines have any plans to post or publish lists of items not to take on in our carry on luggage? I do know that I am not to take the ever so dreaded knitting needles that I'm using to make a baby blanket. I now know that those kindergarten snub nosed scissors that NWA gave to a child are illegal, also the dangerous tweezers and Grandma's hatpin, but do you think we'll ever get a list? Also, as other countries do, any chance that the airlines will use their heads, set up tables and hand search luggage? David replies : The FAA have indeed published a revised list of prohibited carry-on items, but it would be wise to combine this list with a sense of caution as it is quite likely that anything which looks even remotely frightening will be forbidden. Marion writes : Can we organize a campaign amongst your readers to send this email to influential folk in DC. I wrote the NY senators and representative on the subject weeks ago--no reply except for thanks for the note! Can you suggest a place/person to protest to?? Is an organized campaign possible?? What do you think?. Send David an Email - dr4@thetravelinsider.info Copyright 2001 by David M Rowell. |