Jim, Thanks for posting this. That's an awesome insight to this whole mess that is about to happen. There is no way it'll work. I just skimmed over it for now, but I didn't see anything about the flight/duty time impact as flights are snowballed late as planes/flights are out of place/sequence. One big fiasco. I'm glad I'm not a dispatcher come this Friday. Walter DCA ----- Original Message ----- From: <WaterskiPilot@aol.com> To: <AIRLINE@LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 13:30 Subject: Airline Hunting Season Begins > This was posted on www.tsalounge.com, I don't know who wrote it but it is > pretty much on target. > > Airline Hunting Season Begins > > Another interesting article on the Jan 18th deadline to inspect all checked > bags... > > -------------- > > Friday, January 18: Airline Hunting Season Begins > > It's real possible that January 18 will be Black Friday for the airline > industry. > > It's real simple. They are being required to do what really can't be done, > and what won't do what it's supposed to do. And when it doesn't work, they'll > get all the blame. > > We're talking, of course, about screening all bags for explosives. We're > talking, of course, about something that can't be done because the equipment, > the technology, and the facilities aren't in place. We're talking about a > program that could be the next step in helping Mr. Bin Laden get to his goal > of torpedoing the economic viability of our air transportation industry. > > The hard fact is that nobody can screen all luggage for things that go boom, > and worse, the option most airlines will be forced to use -- bag matching -- > doesn't screen for anything. Except for maybe how politicized aviation > security has become. > > But the political beauty of it all is that when the well-known substance hits > the electrical convenience this Friday, as it may, it will all be the airline > industry's fault, according to the DOT, Congress, and a host of fruitcake > consumer groups. "They've had two months to get this done, and they're still > dragging their feet" will be the refrain. (Hey, this comes from Washington. > Reality need not apply.) > > First, It's A Scam. The Aviation & Transportation Security Act is a > legislative bait-and-switch worthy of the sleaziest plaid-jacketed used car > salesman. This is just one part of a very large Congressional confidence > game. Promise what can't be delivered, make the press conference, and then > forget about reality. Because there aren't enough explosive screening > machines (never mind that they may not be reliable), and there aren't enough > dogs to sniff everything, and because hand-searching is nothing more than an > exercise in massaging somebody else's Jockey shorts, airlines can't > effectively screen for explosives. Impossible. Everybody knows this. But > nobody wants to say it. > > Congress in its wisdom allowed a fourth option to "screen" for explosives. > Match all bags on a flight with passengers. That, of course, assumes that > there is no such thing as a suicide terrorist, an assumption that didn't do > much good on 9/11. But Congress and the incompetently managed DOT don't care > about effectiveness, unless it's public relations effectiveness. So, come > Friday, we'll see airlines relying on bag-matching to "screen out" explosives > in luggage. > > Passengers: Standby to Standby. The problem with bag-matching, aside from the > fact it doesn't do diddly to deter explosives, is that it may well materially > constrict the hub and spoke system, reducing the number of flights that can > be handled at a given hub within a given period of time. That means that > airlines may have to cut back the number of flights through the hub. Gee, do > you think they'll cut flights to Lansing, or to Los Angeles? Gee, will > they'll cut flights to Grand Junction, or to Seattle? > > Here's how it gets ugly. The bag match process will require increased lead > times to get passengers in their seats, the luggage on, and the paperwork > reconciled. That can mean the necessity of longer connect times. Ultimately, > flight schedules will need to be revised to spread out connecting banks. > Hence, less flights. (No, Congress, not more delays. Ultimately less flights. > So when Springfield loses some of its air service, Senator Durban can look > himself in the mirror and tell himself why.) > > Then we have the issue of late inbound connecting passengers. Bad weather or > Jane Garvey's bailing-wire ATC system causes a flight to get into O'Hare > late, say 15 minutes before the connecting flight is to depart. The > connecting passengers can make the connection, but it might entail a > substantial delay to get their luggage transferred and verified. So the > airline might have the unpleasant choice, delay the flight, which would > cascade into more delays throughout the airplane's operational day, or simply > not board the late connecting passengers. Obviously, the second option will > inconvenience the least number of passengers. But that's cold comfort to the > folks left at the gate, especially if the later flights are full to their > final destination. > > The unknown in all this is the new Transportation Security Agency, which is > likely made up of FAA retreads. They reportedly have not yet issued a final > rule on whether connecting bags will need to be matched. Indications are that > they will require it (the political pressures, what with the false promises > made by Congress and all, will be enormous.) But the final rule won't be > until Wednesday - less than 48 hours before it goes into effect. > > So, we can look for the possibility of less service, more inconvenience, and > some communities ultimately losing some air service. All because Congress > wanted a PR stunt to show that they're getting tough with airlines. But we > won't be one bit more secure. > > Friday will likely be a media day of cameras rolling, showing beagles > sniffing luggage, the CT screening machines mistaking Mars Bars for C-4, and > the inevitable interviews with inconvenienced passengers, all convinced that > this requirement by Congress is just sooo-great, with the little downside > that their flight was canceled. But it will be a perfect situation for both > Congress and the DOT. The airlines will get all the blame for being unable to > comply with this important security "enhancement." It's a shame that the > airline industry is setting themselves up for this. After all, the higher > costs and constricted capacity sure won't help the bottom line or get > furloughed workers back. > > Proud to be an American, > Jim Hann > Waterski J-41 Captain > STL >