Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
More On Why I Won't Fly  
User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 46
Posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 1515 times:

I just have to keep beating this dead horse because I feel that strongly about it, and I also hope to reach some other people.

So here is what I imagined a Q+A session would sound like if I were to "interview" the airlines, collectively personified as a person.

If anyone thinks I am wrong, please tell me.

Q: So is flying safe now?

A: Oh absolutely. We have implemented numerous new security measures to ensure your safe travel experience.

Q: Such as?

A: We are not at liberty to discuss that.

Q: Why not?

A: It's for security purposes.

Q: How do you respond to the charges that you are treating everyone like a potential criminal?

A: We are.

Q: But aren't you also complaining about how traffic is down and you are losing millions upon millions of dollars?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you think that everyone having to wait in line for four hours, getting strip searched, having undress, turn and cough, not allowing relatives to the gate areas, and having their luggage ravaged might have something to do with it? You know, people are getting fed up with the hassle.

A: It's in the name of safety. We all have to make some sacrifices.

Q: I used to love hopping in a plane and going up to Las Vegas for an evening on the town. I can drive there in the time it takes to check in and fly there now.

A: But flying is so much more convenient.

Q: Even in light of these changes, and being treated like a criminal? I mean at least on the road, the only thing I have to wory about is getting pinched for speeding.

A: We are not at liberty to discuss that.

Q: Why not?

A: It's for security purposes.

Q: So in essence what you are doing is giving me this bipolar split-personality, trying to beg me to fly on your airplanes because it's safe, and extending me the red carpet in an affort to open my wallet while simultaneously telling me that I am a potential terrorist threat and thus not really welcome in the airport.

A: We are not at liberty to discuss that.

Q: Why not?

A: It's for security purposes.

Q: Can you tell me ANYTHING about your new security measures, other than that they are a big hassle that are a great public repellant?

A: It's been stepped up significantly.

Q: How so?

A: We are not at liberty to discuss that.

Q: Why not?

A: It's for security purposes.

Q: I have been a lifelong airliner enthusiast. I used to love taking pictures and watching the planes. Now I get hassled wherever I go, can't even get into the gate areas without a ticket, and seem to have a target for the cops painted on my forehead. Why?

A: Can't take any chances.

Q: But what about that? I mean the guys that started this whole mess had tickets. And they are not afraid to die. So how can punishing everyone else be really effective?

A: We are not at liberty to discuss that.

Q: Why not?

A: It's for security purposes.

Q: Can you tell me what routes you will be using your new planes on?

A: No.

Q: Why not?

A: It's for security purposes.

Q: Will the sun come up tomorrow?

A: We are not at liberty to discuss that.

Q:Why not?

A: It's for security purposes.

Q: Thank you for taking the time to do this interview.

A: It has been our pleasure. Anything else we can help you with?

A: Yes.

Q: What else can we answer for you?

A:I am not at liberty to discuss that.

Q: Why not?

A: It's for security purposes.



25 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 1443 times:

And this bitching session was brought to you commercial-free and without interruption by Matt D.

 Yawn


User currently offlineBA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11153 posts, RR: 58
Reply 2, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 1436 times:

LOL


"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
User currently offlineBA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11153 posts, RR: 58
Reply 3, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 1434 times:

I agree with you Matt. I would love to be able to visit airports just to watch planes and hang out.

But you need to remember something. Before 9/11, the rest of the world DID NOT allow non-ticketed people past security.

At security checkpoints you had to show your ticket, and in some countries even your passport, even if you are not traveling out of the country (Switzerland is an example).

The only thing that's changed is the US has become like the rest of the world.

Regards



"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 1427 times:

But you need to remember something. Before 9/11, the rest of the world DID NOT allow non-ticketed people past security.

True, ba, but Matt D is better than the rest of the world, and shouldn't be inconvenienced so.  Big grin


User currently offlineBA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11153 posts, RR: 58
Reply 5, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 1425 times:

LOL Alpha 1! Thanks for letting me know.  Smile


"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 46
Reply 6, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 1421 times:

Speaking with all due candidness, I don't give a schidt about how the rest of the world operated. Europe can do things their way. We can do things ours. It sickens me to the nth degree that we respond to things by adopting the socialist, restrictive measures-which I might add is the chickenshit halfass knee-jerk method.

It's kind of like the Liberal method of flying, as pointed out on another thread:

"If you cannot read the safety cards, please notify the Flight Attendentm who will then promptly remove all safety cards so that no one else can read them either."



User currently offlineTwa902fly From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 3128 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 1416 times:

Hey Matt for flights like LA-Vegas, I agree driving is better. For instance here in Chicago, O/D passengers on routes like ORD-MSP, ORD-IND ORD-DSM are just not putting up with it anymore. But say you want to fly ORD-SEA, what area you going to do? You can drive there in two days, or take 2 hours to check in, 4 hours flight, plus teh extra time that always comes up... about 7 hours, compared to 2 days driving.

I agree with the airlines about searching better, but not allowing people in the gate areas without a ticket is pointless. Same with not allowing pics taken. If a terrorist has a home made missle or something, he can still drive up under a runway and shoot it at a plane, even if it is illegal to stop there. People with camera's aren't a threat. And people in the gate areas... There's no point to that! I am pretty sure that terrorists would pay the price of a ticket to do what they think is destroying a country. The only reason I see for not letting non-passengers past security is to speed it up. Say for every person leaving theres 2 people dropping them off, that means 3 times as many people in the security areas, 3 times more people needing to be searched, and for what? 15 minutes and a goodbye kiss behind security? But I think picking people up is a hassle now. Meeting them by the baggage claim? easy to lose someone like that...

Its all confusing and messed up. But oh well.

By the way Matt D... When I went to Punta Cana, check in here at O'Hare took about 10 minutes, in coach class, and i was 3rd in line for security, got through it in about a minute. So some people are lucky some aren't. I guess you weren't, and there goes the airline's business with you.

twa902



life wasn't worth the balance, or the crumpled paper it was written on
User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 46
Reply 8, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 1439 times:

Well as stated in my profile, I am adamantly refusing to patronize the airlines or any of their affiliated companies until they get their act together. Instead, they continue to bumble around blindly, creating more problems than they solve.

Of course, I could have a major quandry in 13 months:

A close friend of mine that lives in New York, recently announced her engagement to be married. She has asked me to be the one that walks her down the aisle and gives her away. I guess this is quite an honor.

But the thing is, she lives in (and will be getting married) in New York.

What happens if this crap is still going on in March of 2003? I'm going to be faced with either driving, taking a train, or going against my principles on hopping on a plane. I live in LA.


And just on a separate, but related note, can somebody tell me about the fisco behind making airport screeners Federal Employees?

Weren't THEY a good chunk of the problem to begin with? I would've thought that they would be the first ones shown the door.

So here's another example of taking the wimp clause:

We change their job titles to make them Federal Screeners. All of a sudden a new title, higher pay, and lifetime job security going to solve the problem. I mean forget the fact that they are the same people with nothing else but a new title and a new uniform.

And let's not forget the Competency Tests.

Apparently nearly HALF of the existing screeners in the country couldn't pass them. Again so what did we do? Not fire them. Not bring in people that can pass the test.

They LOWERED the score required to "pass".


My $.02 says that the real (Politically incorrect) reason why the screeners were not replaced was that the majority of them were "protected" status, meaning that they were Minority, Crippled, Old, or whatever.

Can you imagine the political firestorm that would ensue if overnight, all of those "protected" people were to be handed Pink Slips?

Why can't we get some leadership with some nice, fat, hairy balls that can stand up for the truth, and not be afraid to call a spade a spade?


User currently offlineBA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11153 posts, RR: 58
Reply 9, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 1407 times:

Matt D,

The fact is, its not going to change. The terrorists screwed up everything.

When it comes to security at US airports, I like to leave my aviation interests OUT of it and think of the average flyers who are not aviation fans like us.

Therefore, I support the "only ticketed passengers past security rule".

Sorry Matt, but you can never be too safe. Flying these days isn't a joke. Its a shame that there are threats out there who want to hijack planes and crash them into buildings.

Its worked in the rest of the world, and it'll work here.

Less people in the concourses means easier to track down threats, and means shorter lines at security checkpoints and therefore the security personnel can concentrate more in doing there jobs well.

Thats just how I feel.

By the way Matt, read my reply in your "Light-Rail or Heavy-Rail?" post.

Regards



"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 1397 times:

That's your continuing problem, Matt: you don't give a schidt about anything but yourself.

User currently offlineCrewChief32 From Germany, joined Dec 2000, 418 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 1376 times:

Alpha1,

if you`re not able to say anything intelligent better keep quiet.

Professional security at work:
http://www.sj-r.com/news/Monday/w.htm

CC32


User currently offlinePanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 1364 times:

I'm starting to agree with Matt D.

Ever since I heard of the uncontroled Cessna flying over US Central Command, and heard the Air Force's reaction of "we didn't think it was a threat", I knew something was up. I guess an uncontrolled Cessna is ok, but a 763 is not?

Most of these security measures are simply cosmetic. It was funny when soon after 9-11 curbside check-in was banned. I thought "alright, maybe the terrorists could use that as a tool in their mission". But, only a few days later curbside check-in was deemed "safe".

May heaven help you if you fly often these days, especially as a business traveler. One too many visits to Aunt Edna's in Seattle, and you'll find yourself strip searched and interrrogated by 25 different "security guards/rent-a-cops", embarrased in front of the 30,000 people, and this is before you get to your gate. Then at the gate comes another round of "let me see your ticket" and "why did you choose to fly today?" , "umm, because I need to go somewhere...".

Now, if you've passed the first two stages of strip searches, interrogations, and baggage checks, you're almost there. Just like Indian Jones in The Last Crusade, you can almost see the holy grail. But you have a harder job than he did. He had to find an invisible walkway over a canyon. You on the other hand, have to prove to others (fellow passengers, gate employees, and the like) that you are deemed worthy to fly on the flight.

Then you get on the plane. You settle into your first class seat, in which you paid $10,000 for. First you are told that there will be no flight attendant to serve first class pax due to company cutbacks. Then you are told you have a responsibility and a job to protect the flight deck (I guess you performed well during the strip searches?). But you have to keep in mind the door is still the one they used on September 10, as the company didn't think it was cost effective to order the new ones.

Halfway during the flight you come down with a bad headache and it seems like you will pass out. You ask for the flight attendantand she said they can't help, and if you cause anymore commotion the plane will land and 8,000 police officers will take you away.

So, you sit there almost dying, and still with an unwavering sense of duty, try to guard the flight deck door, armed only with your fists because your finger nails were deemed dangerous.

But you finally make it to your destination amd to baggage claim where you find your suitcase and all its contents ripped open because it was a threat.

We need Mary Shaivano(sp?) back in the FAA.







Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
User currently offlinePanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 1360 times:

CrewChief32-

The answer is simple in this case:

We need to hire more security personel to watch over the security personel, that's the only cost-effective solution, right?




Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
User currently offlineLindy field From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 3120 posts, RR: 13
Reply 14, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 1349 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

What are your feelings about trains? Boats? Cars?

User currently offlineBA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11153 posts, RR: 58
Reply 15, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 1339 times:

Lindy field,

I like trains.  Smile

Regards



"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
User currently offlineMinuteman From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 271 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 1326 times:

Not Flying?...

Why that's just ... that's ... YOU COMMUNIST!!!  Smile


User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 1321 times:

CrewChief, I'm allowed my opinion, so if you don't like it, just ignore it. Maybe you understand that.


User currently offlineLufthansausa From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 188 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (12 years 8 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1282 times:

I agree with Alpha 1. Matt D is a whiner who should stop expecting sympathy from us. Most of us are mature enough to deal with flying, even if it is less convenient than it used to be. He expects the world to cater to him, and bitches when it doesn't. Guess what? I don't want to hear about it.

User currently offlineMrman_3k From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 150 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (12 years 8 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1273 times:

Okay, since flying is becoming out of the question, I think they should raise the speed limits and in some stretches of highway do a German style Autobahn. Then we can go up and down CA in no time!

User currently offlineHoffa From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (12 years 8 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1266 times:

It is a very simple thing to get past security without being a travelling passenger. Just buy an unrestricted, full-fare economy ticket and cancel your reservation after the flight has left and you can get the full refund later on.

User currently offlineBA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11153 posts, RR: 58
Reply 21, posted (12 years 8 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1261 times:

Hoffa,

That doesn't work out. Once you checked in with the airline, you can't get a refund because you showed up.

Regards



"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
User currently offlineTguman From Canada, joined Apr 2001, 431 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (12 years 8 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1243 times:

Hey Alpha 1
If your entitled to your opinion, then so is Matt D. If what he wants to no longer fly thats ok. personally that is his choice and though i find that seems unfounded. However I don't believe that he should be trying to get people to no longer fly because he no longer wants to fly. Just like my trying to get my friends to find the same interest in flying that i have, it will never happen.
Matt D, if you dont want to fly and arent interested in aviation, leave this site and go make your own anti-aviation site. You no longer belong here, this is an aviation enthusiasts site. We will miss you.
TGUMAN



Life is a Mine Field.
User currently offlineAirlinelover From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 5580 posts, RR: 22
Reply 23, posted (12 years 8 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1238 times:

Ok. A little error in what Matt D said.. (Sorry..)

Q: So in essence what you are doing is giving me this bipolar split-personality, trying to beg me to fly on your airplanes because it's safe, and extending me the red carpet in an affort to open my wallet while simultaneously telling me that I am a potential terrorist threat and thus not really welcome in the airport.

Bi-Polar is NOT split personality.. It is a disorder that basicaly gives people mood swings.. some mild, some severe.. A person can be real giddy and happy one moment, and the next, depressed beyond words.. OR anywhere in-between..

How do I know? I HAVE IT.. Fortunately for me, it's not severe at all.. Just thought that needed to be said..

Chris



Lets do some sexy math. We add you, subtract your clothes, divide your legs and multiply
User currently offlineSEVEN_FIFTY7 From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 957 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (12 years 8 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1218 times:

>>Bi-Polar is NOT split personality.. It is a disorder that basicaly gives people mood swings.. some mild, some severe.. A person can be real giddy and happy one moment, and the next, depressed beyond words.. OR anywhere in-between..<<

Don't we all have that then?

 Confused


User currently offlineTurbolet From Cape Verde, joined Nov 2007, 0 posts, RR: 1
Reply 25, posted (12 years 8 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1207 times:

I would like to repeat for the ten-thousandth time on these forums that having federal screeners won't help. Here in Malta, Europe (MLA), security people are government employees and their level of incompetence, recklessness and terrible manners is shocking. What is worse is that if an airline gets fed up with this kind of security, it doesn't have the power to do anything because they are government officials. So there... if they were private companies the airline could at least kick them out.
-turbolet


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why I Won't Fly With BA posted Fri Mar 25 2005 18:09:38 by Saintsman
My Opinion On Why Films Are In The Tank posted Mon May 8 2006 04:46:12 by Blazingcessna
Why Won't It Perform When It's Cold? posted Thu Dec 15 2005 04:15:39 by MaverickM11
Why Won't The DVD Player Work? posted Tue Nov 8 2005 02:31:59 by Swisskloten
Why I Won't Mourn The Pope - Warning, Anti-Pope posted Mon Apr 4 2005 14:25:05 by 777236ER
Religious Analogy On Why $h!t Happens posted Tue Mar 29 2005 23:35:45 by Superfly
Why Won't The UN Call Darfur What It Is? posted Wed Mar 23 2005 17:24:07 by MaverickM11
More On The Oil For Food Scandal posted Thu Feb 3 2005 21:47:04 by Newark777
More On Sweeping Nasa Changes, Return To The Moon posted Tue Jan 13 2004 00:20:06 by AvObserver
Why Won't Hillary Run? posted Fri Jan 9 2004 17:31:04 by N6376m