No Ride list for Amtrak, seriously?

[John_Mace]

@RaftPeople

That’s a pretty interesting list.

I am definitely not taking Amtrak to Pakistan anymore.

Or, based on the list for 2003, better not take Amtrak to:

Israel
Columbia
Philippines
Serbia
Iraq
Saudi Arabia
Russia
Morocco
Afghanistan
India
Sweden
Palestine
Turkey
Pakistan

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Mr_Smashy

And for all the derision in the snarkosphere, how many successful terrorist attacks have been launched since 2001 (not counting inside jobs I guess, like the Ft Hood whackjob)? And on Sept 12, how many would people have guessed would have happened, over the next 10 years?

What post-9/11 airport security measures would actually have prevented the 9/11 hijackings?

@Mr_Smashy

Hmmm, a quasi-government operation. No competition in that modality. The most subsidized, least-efficient form of mass transit, by passenger mile.

Not so much.

@wmfellows

Actually, given the stagnation of tourism flights into the USA - I certainly actively avoid - I would say that it has in fact damaged air travel.

What stagnation? Tourism to the US has exceeded pre-9/11 numbers (or did until the financial crisis).

[Raskolnikov]

@Mr_Smashy

Hmmm, a quasi-government operation. No competition in that modality. The most subsidized, least-efficient form of mass transit, by passenger mile.

Shocking, I know

the roads and bridges are a “quasi-government operation” as well considering they’re highly, and I do mean highly, subsidized, or should I say, socialized, by the US government.

if you really paid for the true cost of the roads and bridges gas would be like 15$/ gallon.

the US government socializes the roads and bridges by a ratio of 64:1 to the railroad industry. If the government came even close to socializing the rail industry to even half of what they do for roads we would have by far the best rail system in the world and less traffic congestion, more options for travel, and an option when gas skyrockets, now we just have to pay whatever the price is for gas.

now that I re-read you post it must be simply a wind-up, the most subsidized? rail? seriously? not even close.

Least efficient by passenger mile? rail is the most efficient by passenger mile.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

What post-9/11 airport security measures would actually have prevented the 9/11 hijackings?

All that’s really changed is that airline passengers are now alert to the possibility, and can now be expected to physically act in response to any attempts. That’s why 9/11 couldn’t happen again, and it’s the *only *reason. Small blades like boxcutters won’t work anymore, which is good because you can still get them on board. Nothing TSA has done has made an identifiable difference in actual security.

[G-SE]

@Omar_Little

The TSA has cost the airlines billions of dollars, and it’s not really that much more secure.

You got a cite for that? Specifically one showing any decline in revenue due to security measures?

[Raskolnikov]

@G-SE

You got a cite for that? Specifically one showing any decline in revenue due to security measures?

I thought I read that profits were way up, first time in many years, due mostly to bag fees.

[D_Odds]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

What post-9/11 airport security measures would actually have prevented the 9/11 hijackings?

The smartest one that they did. The one that the airlines were reluctant to do prior to 9/11 (unnecessary costs, you know).

They reinforced the pilot cabin doors, like El Al has done for ages.

[just_some_guy5]

Just another brilliant idea from Senator Schumer - somehow not surprising. I’m not sure how this would be implemented but I have to assume it’s an entirely separate process from the one in which they currently check your ticket after the train has left the station. Honestly, are we concerned that a terrorist will steer the train into a sky scraper?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@D_Odds

The smartest one that they did. The one that the airlines were reluctant to do prior to 9/11 (unnecessary costs, you know).

They reinforced the pilot cabin doors, like El Al has done for ages.

Right, but we’re talking about airport security measures, as specified in my post. I agree there were ways that in-flight security could be increased (and was).

[joebuck20]

@Omar_Little

I don’t remember when they instituted the boarding pass requirement for gate access, but it was before 9/11, sometime in the 90’s. It was definitely a security measure. Reducing the number of people that have access to the plane’s boarding area is a component of security.

I believe they had implement the boarding pass requirement for international terminals before 9/11. But up until the attacks, pretty much anyone could walk into the domestic terminals (provided they went through the metal detectors first, of course).

I myself flew about three weeks prior to 9/11 (a domestic flight) and I recall having my parents meet me at the gate when I arrived.

[suranyi]

@joebuck20

I believe they had implement the boarding pass requirement for international terminals before 9/11. But up until the attacks, pretty much anyone could walk into the domestic terminals (provided they went through the metal detectors first, of course).

I myself flew about three weeks prior to 9/11 (a domestic flight) and I recall having my parents meet me at the gate when I arrived.

Right: You needed a boarding pass to get to the International gates at most airports, including SFO, for many years. But to get to the domestic gates you didn’t need to show anything right until 9/11.

[Peremensoe]

@just_some_guy5

I’m not sure how this would be implemented but I have to assume it’s an entirely separate process from the one in which they currently check your ticket after the train has left the station.

It would involve hiring a bunch of people to work at presently unstaffed stations. Hey, a jobs program!

[Mekhazzio]

@Mr_Smashy

And for all the derision in the snarkosphere, how many successful terrorist attacks have been launched since 2001?

And how many successful terrorist attacks were launched before 2001? Buying tiger repellent doesn’t become a smart investment just because you don’t see any tigers.

[Hbns]

@Mekhazzio

And how many successful terrorist attacks were launched before 2001? Buying tiger repellent doesn’t become a smart investment just because you don’t see any tigers.

Pan Am Flight 103 better known as the Lockerbie bombing.
Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing.
World Trade Center Bombing.

[Gray_Ghost]

@G-SE

You got a cite for that? Specifically one showing any decline in revenue due to security measures?

You may find interesting the following study by an affiliate of MIT. In particular, note the drop in profits after 9/11. I have no idea how they normalized the graph for inflation, and I don’t think that increased security was entirely to blame for the drop, but still, are you saying that the increase in security has helped airline profits? Data is (are?) not the plural of anecdote; still, most of the people in my close network will do anything rather than fly to a destination now, especially after the scanners/TSA groping started. That includes driving, teleconferencing, or simply foregoing the trip. Or, spring for a jet card, and bypass the whole airline hassle.

Moreover, please list the bombs and plots that the increased security have detected. Further, please show how and why TSA style screening for Amtrak will prevent a 9/11 style catastrophe. Trains run over thousands of miles of mostly unguarded track. It is not that difficult to disable track sufficiently to cause a derailment.

If there is going to be another bombed airliner, and there will be, unless AQ/Libya’s networks are totally defunct, it’ll be through one or more of the ground crew being suborned. You know, the ones that don’t go through screening. Unless they’re complete idiots (and they may be, e.g. Richard Reid & Umar Abdulmutallab) they’re not going to bring the thing through the front door. Security theater is designed to cover TPTB’s asses when one of their planes blows up. Which is why you won’t see it go away, even if the U.S. leaves the MidEast entirely.

[Una_Persson]

@Omar_Little

I don’t remember when they instituted the boarding pass requirement for gate access, but it was before 9/11, sometime in the 90’s. It was definitely a security measure. Reducing the number of people that have access to the plane’s boarding area is a component of security.

It was an airport-by-airport thing. I could walk right up to the door of the jetway with no pass until September 12, 2001, in this city, as well as most airports I traveled to.

[Frank]

@Hbns

Pan Am Flight 103 better known as the Lockerbie bombing.
Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing.
World Trade Center Bombing.

Exactly none of them would have been caught by a no-fly list, nor by passenger inspection. In fact, with the possible exception of Lockerbie, there is nothing preventing similar attacks as the latter two from happening again tomorrow. Unless perhaps we put Ryder out of business.

[Steve_MB]

@Mr_Smashy

And on Sept 12, how many would people have guessed would have happened, over the next 10 years?

Zero – a number representing both:

1. The number of 9-11 type attacks since the hijack-response paradigm shifted from “let the clown have his soapbox and free ride to Cuba” to “bastard wants to kill us anyway; might as well try using his head for a pinata”, and

2. The government’s contribution toward this outcome.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Gray_Ghost

If there is going to be another bombed airliner, and there will be, unless AQ/Libya’s networks are totally defunct, it’ll be through one or more of the ground crew being suborned. You know, the ones that don’t go through screening. Unless they’re complete idiots (and they may be, e.g. Richard Reid & Umar Abdulmutallab) they’re not going to bring the thing through the front door. Security theater is designed to cover TPTB’s asses when one of their planes blows up. Which is why you won’t see it go away, even if the U.S. leaves the MidEast entirely.

That article is a little one-sided. Yes, airport workers are exempt from security screening, but the background check is pretty thorough. They interviewed a dozen of my nearest and dearest when I applied for a terminal-side job at Orlando International in 2006.

[Gray_Ghost]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

That article is a little one-sided. Yes, airport workers are exempt from security screening, but the background check is pretty thorough. They interviewed a dozen of my nearest and dearest when I applied for a terminal-side job at Orlando International in 2006.

Which is why ground crew workers would never be involved in a dope smuggling ring. Granted, that was for cargo aviation, not airline passenger aviation. And, as the article noted, the AA baggage handler case was from 1999.

Oh, wait. Maybe there are baggage handling drug smuggling rings operating after 9/11.

My point isn’t that I care about dope. I don’t. However, how hard would it be for a terrorist group to substitute a bomb for one of the dope parcels? I seriously doubt the members of the above rings were opening any of the packages to see if they were dope or not. Or how hard would it really be to suborn a couple of the handlers? I’d probably carry a bomb on the plane, if you threatened to saw off the heads of my children. All I’m saying is, the next serious attempt to blow up an airliner probably isn’t going to start with trying to walk the bomb through passenger screening.

As far as one-sided ness, Patrick Smith’s “Ask the Pilot” column is really the only reason to ever go to salon.com, IMHO. He usually bends over backwards to explain and excuse the screw-ups of his industry. in a manner to where I find myself sympathizing with the airline after he does it.