Posted on 08/13/2006 8:39:23 AM PDT by robert jones
One way to end terrorism on airplanes would be to have separate planes for baggage. With a minimal crew and no one else on board, an inexpensive baggage plane would not be a very attractive terrorist target. Without baggage the passenger plane would be as safe from internal attack as possible. Terrorists could only sneak on board with nonmetallic objects that they have swallowed or that they can, um, stuff up their rectums.
A simple-minded implementation of such a scheme would be to halve the number of passenger flights, an inconvenience that many would put up with for the sake of eliminating the inconvenience currently attending the flying experience. Our free enterprise system, however, would surely find improvements.
With the air traffic as heavy as it is already.. and with the price of fuel.. I can't see that being a solution.
That sounds great, but with the cost of fuel no one would be willing to spend the extra costs.
It would also double the cost of a trip. A better and cheaper solution would be to register all Muslims, and strip search every one of them before they board. Then, place a limit of 4 adult Muslims per plane.
No passengers no bombs. Brilliant!
I think you underestimate where the main costs of running an airliner come from - I don't think it's stewardesses!
A much simpler solution would be for everyone to pack their luggage and take it to the airport as usual and check it in. Instead of being loaded onto the plane, the luggage then remains at the airport and arriving passengers are randomly allocated a suitcase. The people leaving, of course, will be allocated a suitcase that has been checked in at their destination airport.
Actually, that happens quite a lot of the time now...
And the cost of an airline ticket would be ...
Simple-minded is right.
How did you just eliminate half of the passengers?
(A) A terrorism expert figured out how much plastic explosive a man or woman could smuggle in body cavities.
(B) This assumes that the people who service the plane have not been infiltrated by terrorist cells. We KNOW that there are theives in among the people who hand inspect luggage, I have no illusion of total security among the staffing. And whether it is a bomb or sabotage, the result would be the same.
(C) These are precautions that are unnecessary if the root problem is eradicated. We have no more threat from Nazism. Too much of the world accepts militant Islam for there to be peace.
A better and cheaper solution would be to keep all muslim-islamist-arabs off of all planes. No muslims. No terriorism. No exploding planes.
The introduction of internet reservations has made it so that just about every plane is filled to the max as it is. Cutting that in half to accomodate a 2nd plane following with baggage would not satisfy America's necessity to fly. The cost of fuel on a plane is offset by the passengers. Sending planes empty would more than double the cost of to passengers. I just don't see how it could work. It would be a good idea from a safety standpoint but, the cost would make it impossible. JMHO
We could also fly naked, sedated, and stuffed into containers while connected to an IV drip.
I bet we could quadruple the number of passengers this way... If not more.
This system isn't foolproof - someone can convert to Islam after getting Certified, for example - but it will be much more effective than other current suggestions.
Good idea, punish the perps not the innocents. I would go a step further and forbid any muslims(registered) from flying. Let them take a boat or drive to their destination. We are going about this all wrong. If they want to fly again let them clean up their death cult or disavow it altogether.
In the long run, the cost of the trip would be less because you're moving the same load but in a manner that allows you to take advantage of the different cargo types.
It's unfortunate that our present passenger planes are designed to carry baggage AND passengers.
How do you propose to identify a person's religion? And then how do you plan to constitutionally discriminate against members of that religion?
Yeah, that makes sense. Flying two planes to the same destination HAS to be cheaper than flying just one.
The idea is this: Instead of flying twice a day between city X and city Y requiring two planes, you fly once a day also requiring two planes, but with all the passengers on one and all the baggage on the other. This actually saves money, but at the inconvenience of half as many flight times.
Here's how we can get around the "added fuel cost" problem:
Simply fill the cargo holds with passengers and the passenger cabins with luggage on the luggage-only planes.
If done properly, this would add close to zero extra cost. Though we would probably have situations where we cannot have an exact 1:1 ratio of passengers to luggage, in which case airlines can contract with FedEx and UPS (and other overnight carriers) to completely fill the baggage planes with cargo. This might actually turn this into a money-making endeavor for the cash-flow starved airlines.
Now as for stashing the passengers in cargo holds, this is not as inhumane as it sounds. Cargo holds can be pressurized and lighting can be added at little extra cost. After all, we ship our pets in the cargo holds. Why not passengers at cut-rate fares?
I'm thinking that in order to maximize the number of passengers in the cargo hold, we can be placed in "human cages" similar to those sleeping compartments over in Japan (where you can literally climb into a coin-operated sleeping compartment that is stacked several high). This would allow the compartments to be secured to the aircraft so that they do not slide around during the flight. Passengers could be issued (by the airline) a paper barf bag, a plastic bag (for urination and/or defecation) and a small bag of cheese and crackers along with a bottle of water. Passengers would be allowed to take one book (for reading) but that is it.
We could probably double or triple the passenger capacity of passengers right there (and stash all their luggage on the other plane). Similarly, the overhead carry-on luggage compartments could be converted into low-cost passenger compartments.
So under this system, if you want a regular seat, you pay full fare price. But for less price, you could elect to be stashed in an overhead compartment or you could buy a compartment in the cargo hold. This would have the effect of making flying affordable for just about everybody.
I believe the cruise ships of old used to stash passengers in "steerage" for a cut-rate fee.
Time to bring this concept back.
Speaking for myself, I would probably elect to fly this way going forward should such a system be implemented. Even though I could afford a seat, having my own private compartment in the cargo hold would afford me some privacy and I would not be subjected to inane conversations from my seatmates.
Better yet, what if no one was allowed baggage? If you want to take clothes etc. to your destination, ship it via FedEx or UPS. You'd actually stand a better chance of having it there for you when you arrived then you do now. Ticket cost can be cheaper because there will be less weight and the airlines can take more passangers.
Okay, but I guess you're going to put passengers in the cargo hold of that one plane.
And you're going to have all the passengers waiting around the airport for their luggage to arrive on a different flight.
Now, explain to me how this saves money. Two planes, one filled with passengers in the cargo hold, and one with suitcases in the passenger seats.
I'm missing the cost savings here.
Double the cost of flying?? Hardly. Double the number of planes in the air?? The stock holders of the airlines would just love that.
OK, others have taken their shot, here's mine.
A second airplane would probably be late - twice the traffic density to a given destination. And as for cutting flights in half - they make you sit on peoples' laps now the aircraft are so full.
And I don't like standing there at the baggage area waiting for my stuff. I sometimes do quick turnarounds, and even when I don't, every minute is one I could be doing something else and getting the trip over with. So I carry on for all trips less than a week. And my damned bag goes UNDER THE SEAT so I'm not one of those morons with blank looks stuffing a too-big roller in the overhead. Smart packing and an iron at the hotel can work miracles...
That ain't gonna fly.
How about nekkid passengers and crew and a full cavity search? Even that won't stop a mechanic messing with the wires or such.
Get your own airline.
A database of totally vetted citizens, and doing away with the trillion$ burden made necessary entirely on account of muslims is a much more rational answer.
Not a bad plan!
How about we put luggage in the mailbox, and robert jones into a remedial logic school?
how about if the airlines get the Federal government to build a network of pneumatic tubes between all the world's airports? Then we can load all the luggage on cargo jets and stick passengers in the pneumatic tubes, like on the Jetson's?
Putting passengers in the cargo hold will just give terrorists another easy opportunity to being down planes! Anyone who watched the last serious of 24 knows that all you have to do is pull out a couple of wires down there and you can control the steering of the plane!
I used to work for Fedex for 14 years. You'd be surprised how many people ship their their luggage to the destination and have it waiting for them at their hotel or where ever before the recipient arrived. I noticed it alot after 9/11 because people were tired of dealing with security checks. This can be $$$ though.
Are you a government employee?
Faulty reasoning. The number of necessary planes remains the same. The primary constraint of airliners is not the number of passengers, but the total weight. I do not know this for a fact, but I am willing to bet that the weight of freight and luggage exceeds passenger weight.
In addition, the amount of fuel needed for any given trip (and thus the efficiency in the use of fuel) is directly proportional to the total weight of the aircraft.
1.) You have them register with the airlines as to their religiion, sure they can lie but you can also use profiling to weed out a lot of them.
2.) Airlines are private entities and therefore can discriminate agaisnt whom ever they choose. They are not bound by the 1st amendment. The 1st applies to laws passed by congress not policies set by private businesses.
3.) I don't recognize islam as a religion but a death cult, so even if congress passed a law forbidding the practice of islam in the US I would be happy with it.
4.)Not all countries go by our consitution, actually I think we are the only ones who do, and therefore can implement what ever rules they like in regards to death cults.
5.) If I were you I would be more worried about whether I was going to live through my next airplane flight than I would be about whether I violated some killers rights.
Thinking outside the box (Boeing engineers probably already are working on new aircraft designs):
1) Put all the baggage in a glider to be towed behind the passenger plane and piloted by a robot.
2) Put all the baggage and the Muslim-looking passengers in a glider to be towed behind the passenger plane and piloted by a robot.
3) Prohibit all carry-on items, put all baggage in a separate plane as proposed, and sell the present carry-on overhead luggage space and the baggage hold of the passenger plane as cheap seats, akin to the "steerage" class of ocean liners a hundred years ago. The separate baggage plane could be much smaller, more efficient and could carry regular air cargo.
4) One absolutely positive benefit: No longer will the muslim-islamist-arab Pilgrims be able to board aircraft with their two steamer trunks and assorted sacks and packages as carry-on baggage and try to stuff all of them in the overhead bins, while denying any knowledge of the English language and completely disrupting both the passenger boarding and exiting process.
The immediate reaction, primarily by the sandmaggots, would be "violation of rights!"
Never mind that it can be entirely voluntary. Don't want the exposure? Find some other way to travel and don't saddle the rest of us with that trillion$ expense!
You are grossly misinformed! Study up!
Easy. Make the obvious official: islam is not a religion. At least not the manifestation of the liller aspects of the culture.
Why can't child molesters create a religion and announce themselves prosecution proof? Prescuting them afterwards could be construed as "discrimination against members of that religion", but the silliness of the statement is self evident.
That there are 1.2 billion members of the killer cult does not make the logic any less silly.
A little learning is a dangerous thing...
Nice try, but even if we didn't impose an unconstitutional federal rule to mandate what you want, current federal law would still prohibit a private airline from discriminating based on religious affiliation.
Islam is clearly a religion. It may be a horrible one, but it is one. The fact that you deny it is pretty irrelevant.
Great minds think alike! :>)
Your #21 was not posted when I started my #41. I did not plagiarize your post—I’m just kinda slow and methodical this morning.
Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my Viking Kitty/ZOT ping list!. . . don't be shy.
I have been searching for years a reference I read once of either a state law, or a federal law in the late 19th century making islam illegal. And the statement was that the law was never repealed. In less "enlightened", but also less PC times, the obvious was not as difficult to achieve.
It may be clear to you, but not to me.
That you are ignorant is equally irrelevant.
What about the new cannibalism-child molesting religion that we can create? Once we have a critical number of members must we also be untouchable? Or do you get the final word?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.