What are your opinions on these new flight rules? Don't they seem outrageous, especially when children are considered?

I’ll suffer through it if it means safer flying.

It’s all such bullshit to try make people FEEL safe. Just like all the bullshit they already had.

They could be doing away with flying all together. Imagine how outrageous that would be and how many potty breaks you would have then, as well as the never ending “Are we there yet?”

forgive my ignorance, but why will the seat cushions need to be replaced more often? Because people will have to sit the last hour? Because kids will pee in the seats?

This is about controlling the American population as much as the War on Drugs was about providing a steady stream of disenfrancised individuals to the burgeoning private prison industry (in addition to providing the CIA with cashflow from the drug trade). This isn’t an effort to fix things, it’s an effort to create plausible reasons to impose restrictions.

Since the old draconian laws didn’t stop it, the only answer is more useless draconian laws.

I’m not an expert on Child Care and peeing ; BUT do you think that MAYBE ..if parents gave kids LESS or Nothing to drink preceeding a flight… it might help for the kids not to have to go pee in that last hour of flight ?

@Likeradar The latter.

I’d prefer the Israeli method of preventing terrorist attacks.

I can’t imagine the airlines will replace every seat that gets peed on. They’ll just clean (hopefully) and dry em.

But to the main point- Few of the post-9/11 rules are actually making people safer. They just give the illusion of safety. The new ones are no different. Hopefully, parents will make their kids try to pee before the end of the flight. No biggie, just another illusion of safety.

From what I gathered from the video, there are inconsistencies in the new security procedures from airport to airport and airline to airline and this is sure to cause more dissention and aggravation among passengers. Additionally, some airlines cutting out all movies and audio/visual presentations in the monitors in the seatbacks are going to make for very long flights and I think this is a really poor decision.

The loss of all passenger movement within the last hour of flight doesn’t seem to be the most logical idea either especially in regards to those needing to visit the lavatories or possibly getting something necessary from an overhead bin. And the no pillow or blankets in the lap for the last hour of flight…..hmmmm….....I’ll have to think on that one.

If they’re able to show, somehow, that these new regulations actually work in providing a more secure flight for all passengers and crew (although I don’t know how exactly), then I would tend to support them. Until that time, I’m probably going to be skeptical about what I presently consider to be dubious new policies enacted by airlines and airports.

It’s not only the young who can experience weaker bladders and sudden urgencies, who can suffer from loose bowels and other disorders, and who can have health conditions requiring frequent relief.

Making whole new sets of rules following a single incident is a pattern we have been following for decades in all areas of our society because public officials feel bound to take the position that we must “make sure it can’t happen again,” whether it’s one kid taking the wrong pill in school or one jumper off a bridge or one bicyclist falling and bashing his head.

When it comes to terrorism, people who are powerfully motivated, are impervious to concerns for their own well-being, and have nothing to do all day long but think up ways to circumvent restrictions and commit acts of violence, are always going to have the edge over public servants who are more attentive to how things look to voters and how many dollars they cost than they are to finding actual solutions.

@Likeradar Exactly. There is little that can be done to actually make us safer (well, at least not when you compare the effective plans to the sheer number of stupid ideas at least), but there is a lot they can do to give the illusion of safety.

What they can do is control people, make us willing to accept ANYTHING in the name of safety and security, and thereby ensure compliance. It’s not about safety; it’s about obedience.

@Jeruba Many of the “security” measures are stupid enough that I can think of ways to circumvent them within seconds without even actively seeking to find a way to do so. Now, imagine if I actually intended to do harm…. and you can’t run because the guard at the checkpoint still has your shoes :D

@jerv Like not allowing liquids on flights. You know what they do with the liquids they confiscate? Do they test them? Do they dispose of them safely? Nope. If they actually thought there’s a chance that my shampoo could be used in an explosive, why would it be sitting in a bin in the airport and then donated to charity? But hey, it gives the illusion that something safe is happening.

If someone wanted to blow up a plane, not being given a pillow for an hour isn’t going to stop them.

@Likeradar Like I said, it isn’t about safety, it’s about obedience.

I’m just remebering a few years ago when LAX “detonated” some kid’s Nintendo :D

It is only a problem for people flying “domestic.”

The private plan roles up. You walk on, no problem there.

Could it be they just want us to be more vilegant? and not as complaciant as we all seem to have become again?

@butterflykisses How would these new rules make people less complacent, and do you really think we have been? The attempts since 9/11 that made it past security on the ground have been stopped by passengers. How have people gotten complacent?

“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”—Benjamin Franklin

While flying is essentially a privilege and not a right and, technically, we aren’t at the point where we need “travel papers” to move from place to place, you need to look forward to where these rules and regulations will take us.

If you wanted to, you could look at all the changes since 9/11 and feel that we’re being conditioned to accept changes readily and without question so that when the time comes to really limit freedoms we’ll happily give up our rights in exchange for feeling safe.

Personally, if you feel like that’s a good idea, then I would politely ask you to leave America and find a home in a country where freedoms are already limited and soldiers patrol every street corner armed with automatic weapons.

@mrentropy GA and Right on!

I think its the authorities over reacting,as to be honest that will not stop a determined terrorist.Why should passengers have to suffer for one hour before they land.What about when they take off and want to use the loo, or does that not count?

edited…...........

Thanks @jerv. It took me a while to write that so it wouldn’t come off as being just a super-gung-ho American.

I would also add that this would be an awesome time for Amtrak to lower their fares and maybe get more people on the train.

@EgaoNoGenki – So this was you, huh?

All these airplane security rules do nothing aside providing the public with an illusion of safety.

Actually… maybe I don’t have all the information, but if this guy tried to ignite his underwear while he was sitting in his seat what does a new rule about not getting up during the last hour of the flight have to do with anything?

@tedibear39 Somebody did their homework…gold star next to your name.
@mrentropy Maybe we should have a “Don’t wear high explosives in your jock rule”.

@Fluthermucker OR…. A “NO UNDERWEAR” rule when you fly… ?

I just heard they’ve already “relaxed” the no leaving your seat for an hour before landing rule. Now it’s up the the flight crew’s discretion.
It is a shame that these rules have to be implemented. They make flying even more inconvenient, but if we fly, we have to follow the rules.
Personally, I’m going to avoid flying at all costs!! It’s just not fun anymore.

Oh God… The diapers? Again?

@Fluthermucker He asks the same questions over and over again on multiple sites. Which only proves that he doesn’t care about the answers, but that he just wants people to pay attention to him.

@avvooooooo Are you one of the Askvillers or (former) Answerbaggers?

Of course I care about the answers. (I just want them to be accurate and to the point.) I ask on multiple sites (sometimes) to get more varied and well-rounded viewpoints. There could be one style of answering in one site, and another style in another.

@EgaoNoGenki My site membership is none of your business. Suffice it to say that anyone can look at any site at any time and find the duplicate questions that you ask and the responses to them. Including previous information about diaper usage.

I read tonight that they are going to scale back on enforcing these “safety” measures; that it will be left up to the pilot’s discretion. Presumably, there’s been such an uproar at the insanity of them. I sure hope so. I once read that any law that is named after an individual is probably a bad law; I think that’s true of “Nigerian guy with incendiary device” safety regulations, too.

@HighShaman I have a standard no undies rule in effect pretty much wherever I go, except when I’m on a ladder. I learned from experience…and 9 year old niece.

@HighShaman Not a good idea to withhold fluids from kids in order to stop them from peeing. Kids are very susceptible to dehydration, which can also lead to nasty complications like blood clots.

Won’t it be pretty simple for a determined terrorist to get around the “you can’t leave your seat a half hour before landing” rule? I mean they can wreak their havoc long before they are forced to sit down for the rest of the flight. If you ask me the whole thing is kind of goofy.

I agree with the principle, @janbb, but how about Miranda?

avvooooo, what’s all this about diapers? I’m so lost.

Hey, avvooo, you used to be on Askville. I remember you! How ya doing? Nice xmas?

@Jeruba I take your point, although that was a Supreme Court decision and not legislation. In any case, I think the dictum refers more to the proliferation of such legislation in the past few decades. Be that as it may, I think we agree in principle in our reactions.

@Fluthermucker I fail to see how it’s an issue unless you are wearing a Utili-kilt. Maybe it’s just because I wear pants with no hole in them…

OMG, the guy almost had a butt explosion. Shiz. LOL

@CBKfromAskville PM’ed you.

A few years ago a guy tried to ignite his shoes. After that everyone had to take off their shoes at the security checkpoint and send them through the X-ray machine.

Does this mean that everyone will have to take off their undies and send it through the X-ray machine?

I think I will stop flying until they get this all under control. We’re getting a lot of terrorist incidents. Why all of a sudden? seems like it all started up again since just early this year.

@CBKfromAskville You only hear about the successful ones. There are probably lots that we just don’t hear about because they were stopped in time. It hasn’t just started up again.

@avvooooooo So basically you are saying that the increased security measures have made us less safe than we were before. Thank you for clearing that up :)

I think our international policies have made us less safe than we were before. That is the legacy of the previous administration.

Personally all of these new rules and regulations for flying has made me avoid flying completely. I don’t want to be have to deal with all the shit that comes along with getting on an airplane. The last four stories on the news that had to do with airplane/flight issues had absolutely nothing to do with the passengers. It had to do with the pilots. Maybe the airlines should spend less time making up more rules for passengers and more time enforcing rules for the pilots.

@jerv That is the exact opposite of what I said. The reason you don’t hear about these things is that they are not successful because improved security both with the airlines and with various agencies that work on our safety. I’m sure there have been plots and attempts, but because they were stopped before they became newsworthy (news being blood and explosions and such), you don’t hear about them. Improved security has probably foiled plans to do harm before any harm is done. Which, again, is the exact opposite of what you’re trying to attribute to me.

Did some research a while back. Between 2002 and 2008, there were 2 serious incidents and another 3 minor ones that were prevented. This year alone there have been about 5 prevented and one at fort hood that was successful.

It’s ridiculous. I was planning on possibly traveling to the US in a few years time, but now that going to the toilet is apparently a crime, I’m not so sure.

Seriously, if some king-shit politicians decide that I can’t get up to go to the toilet on the plane, I’d have no problem pissing on the seats. If urination is a security threat, then I suppose I’m a terrorist.

If kids can’t handle this, they need to not fly.

It seems to me that passengers who witness someone trying light their rear-end on fire or doing anything else too far out of the ordinary, are going to be all over the person like a cheap suit. Problem solved and kids can urinate up to the minute the Fasten Your Seat Belt sign is turned on for landing. Honestly, I feel safer knowing that then I do knowing we are all shedding our shoes before the flight and holding our water toward the end of it.

Well said, SuperMouse

@avvooooooo In that case, I think you need a proof-reader. Let me do you a favor and spell it out for you.
“You only hear about the successful ones. There are probably lots that we just don’t hear about because they were stopped in time. It hasn’t just started up again.”

Well, if we only hear about the successful ones than we would not hear about the failed ones. That means that either there are are more successful acts of terrorism or you are incorrect.
Simple math tells us that if we hear more about terrorists and the success rate of stopping them has increased due to our “better” security, then that means that the rate of attempted terrorist attacks has risen considerably in order to overcome the lower success rate and still have a higher quantity of successful attacks, in which case it could be argued that something “started up”.

No matter which way you look at it, you were wrong one way or another.

@jerv Perhaps you need to work on your comprehension. There are, I’m sure, terror attempts that are stopped before they get off the ground, so to speak. Not just the ones that get to a point where action is taken, but ones where the government uses their resources to stop things before they happen. Hence, ”There are probably lots that we just don’t hear about because they were stopped in time.” There is not a lot of news coverage for whatever the law enforcement agencies catch before they become much more than plots and perpetration. You hear about the ones that were near-misses, but not the ones that were stopped before they got near to a miss. Hence, ”You only hear about the successful ones.” Just because we haven’t been hearing about things happening doesn’t mean that they haven’t been all along. Hence, ”It hasn’t just started up again.” With our international policies, as @Jeruba mentioned, we are less safe and more vulnerable to attack.

Simple common sense tells us that there haven’t been many very successful attacks and that for every attack made that is publicized there are probably several attempts. Simple common sense also tells us that with increased national security and legislation, no matter what one thinks of the laws, that the law enforcement agencies have been better able to ensure that there are less attacks, even when we’re likely the intended victims of many plots.

Terrorism is successful when you hear about it and it inspires fear. Near-misses are successful in some ways if not in others. So yes, you hear about the successful ones. In that hearing about them makes them successful.

You’re so focused on proving me wrong for some reason that you fail to make sense.

@avvooooooo Actually, I am focused on making you write better so you can say what you mean and make sense. It seems to have worked since you are now typing in clear English with far less equivocation.

@jerv You have no influence on my writing. And obviously you have a self-perception problem if you think you can make anyone do anything. My college degrees certify my writing skills. Your comprehension skills and your overinflated sense of self-importance are the things that need work.

@avvooooooo Thanks. I needed a good laugh.

One thing that I can’t help but remember is the hysteria about the plastic-framed Glocks being “invisible” when they showed up fairly clearly on X-ray scanners even before adding in agents to make the frame more visible. Turns out the whole thing was smoke-and-mirrors to cover up the fact that the security personnel were poorly-trained.

We can have all the policies and scanners we want but the human element will always be the weakest link. Also, it could be argued that by making us paranoid or forcing us to alter our behavior in ridiculously inconvenient ways, the terrorists are winning even if the victory is not total or dramatic.

What I find funnier is that we are doing little to stop the root of the problem, and what little we are doing is not only ineffective but also throwing more fuel on the fire. Now, look at how easily @avvooooooo got their panties in a bunch and imagine if I were actually trying to incite something! As you can see, it’s pretty easy to cause unrest and sow discontent, and that is what their real goal is. Dead bodies and news headlines are just a bonus.

@jerv How many times are you going to repeat what I say and pretend like its your idea?

I think I need stronger bifocals!

These rules have apparently been relaxed. On the most recent European flight I was on, access to the overhead and the lavatory were allowed up to the actual landing time, a few minutes before touch down.