United Airlines... suck my anatomy.

Yeah, that’s a good point. The thing is, air travel is critically important to the operation of our economy. If that system collapses, it will have a severe knock-on effect on the economy in general. I suspect that the same can’t be said about travel agents (you can buy your ticket directly from an airline or off the web) or luggage manufacturers (they’re not completely reliant on air travel for their business, and you could always use that old carpet bag that you grandmother had).

The hotel industry is dispersed among so many different players, I suspect it would be very difficult to completely collapse it. And unlike the airline industry, entire cities aren’t dominated by single hotel companies. Hotel companies are not run as tightly integrated systems like the airlines. Closing one Holiday Inn does not have a significant effect on the operations of any other. If one or several or even half of the hotels go out of business, there will still be rooms to be had. But if you can’t fly, how will you get to your hotel in Hawaii? Or you meeting in London?

Helping out the airlines will also help out the hotel, travel agent and luggage manufacture industries. As long as the airlines (most of them, anyway) stay in business, people will eventually begin flying again. In fact, load factors (% of seats filled) have been rising since the end of September and it’s not completely due to capacity reductions.

**
Yes, manhattan, well-said. And here’s a chilling thought: It is conceivable that what occurred on Sept. 11 could be done without any weapons. Get six or eight burly men, honed to a Special Forces level of hand-to-hand combat/martial arts, and why couldn’t they break some necks and overtake a jet?

How in the hell do you prevent that?

I do understand where labradorian is coming from, though. Leaving airport security in the domain of individual airlines, an ultra-competitive industry that serves a populace who are very convenience-driven when it comes to that industry, was and is a rather shitty idea.

The idea that airline/airport security should not be a governmental function is ludicrous to me. And you may recall my history here as an advocate for a smaller federal role in government. (You could make an argument that individual states could handle it. But it would have to be a requirement that they have procedures in place in all 50 states.)

When it comes to flying, safety considerations should not be motivated by what the flyer wants, or by expense. Only by what’s needed.

Our country absolutely needs a viable air industry. That’s why I had no real problems with the post-September 11 governmental bailout.

It’s the same logic that says make airport and airline security tight, uniform, and a function of government (read: some existing or new branch of law enforcement). A governmental function that everyone - flyers and nonflyers - pays for, again, because of the necessity of having air service.

In fairness to labradorian, I can understand his (her?) security rant. Simply put, I think that we in Canada have endured a lot more airport security than most places I’ve been to, even before the events of September 11 (in spite of the information in Kamandi’s CBC news link).

I’m speaking from experience. I was both a Canadian Airlines Gold member as well as an Air Canada Elite member (each is the highest class of frequent flyer you can get), and I was in and out of airports in Canada, Europe, the US, and Australia. At times, it felt like I was living in airports and aircraft. And out of all of them, the only ones where I ever had to deal with overly officious security staff and procedures were Canadian airports.

My “home” airport, if you will, is Pearson in Toronto. At Pearson, as at all Canadian airports serving scheduled airlines, you cannot go to the gate unless you have a valid boarding pass. If you’re not going on a flight, you cannot accompany friends or family to their gate, you cannot go with your daughter and her new baby, you cannot help Granny in her wheelchair. (The airline will supply a staff member to help, however.) Unless you hold a valid boarding pass, you have never, in my memory, been allowed to the gate at a Canadian airport.

They will stop you for the smallest things at Canadian airport security checkpoints. I’ve been stopped more times than I can count for searches caused by metal objects I’ve either forgotten to put in the tray or that I don’t think of–usually things like candy (the foil on a roll of Life Savers), or my belt buckle (“Sir, would you remove your belt and walk through again please?”). Having to turn on your cellphone or laptop computer has become common in the last few years, and you’d better have an explanation for any unusual objects–I’ve seen flute cases opened and each part examined, and medical equipment questioned.

And yes, a few years ago, I saw them confiscate a box cutter from the man in front of me at the checkpoint.

Once inside the secure area, you cannot walk out again. Well, you can if you follow the signs to the baggage claim and exit that way, but there are no clearly marked exits from the gate area as there are in places like DFW and Chicago. At Pearson, even domestic baggage claim is a secure area, with doors and guards to make sure that people exit only; they do not enter. (In fairness though, the secure baggage area doesn’t exist in all Canadian airports.)

Under certain circumstances at Pearson airport, you cannot even go to areas of the concourse unless you hold a valid boarding pass for a flight leaving from that area. I was stopped once after clearing the security checkpoint and heading for the end of the concourse because my flight was not leaving from that end of the concourse. I said that I wanted to go to the newsstand down at that end to get a newspaper, and was only allowed to once I had pointed out that the newsstand at this end of the concourse was closed.

And all this was in place before September 11!

Contrast this with what I’ve experienced in the United States and domestic terminals in Australia. Anybody can go through the security checkpoints, ticketed passenger or not. They can move anywhere once past the security checkpoint. And they can leave the secure area at any time through clearly marked exits.

While I don’t necessarily agree with labradorian’s rant (as a very frequent flyer, I appreciated the ease with which I could move through non-Canadian airports), I can understand it and thought I should add some of my experiences with Canadian airport security. In Canada, even before September 11, flying was a test of patience and of remaining calm with security procedures; elsewhere it wasn’t nearly as strenuous. And I (and perhaps labradorian too) often wondered why.

You raise many good points as well. My uneasiness with this help stems from the fact that a few of these airlines weren’t exactly stable before 9/11, unlike Southwest which had a sound business plan and isn’t seeing the effects of 9/11 to the extent that others are. The airlines that didn’t before, probably won’t after the bailout either.

I don’t see the entire industry going out the window, simply because of supply and demand. Since the demand will always be there, if the current companies can’t manage to stay afloat, then someone else will step in and take them over, more than likely with a business plan along the lines of Southwest. Of course, god forbid we all have to fly Microsoft Airlines, but I think that the danger of the whole industry ceasing to exist is not going to happen. Someone will step in before we all have to take boats to Europe.

But they are still taking 288 million from the bailout, and might take some of the 10 billion in loans http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/011003/n03259234_2.html

As of Sept. 30, the airline had $1.5 billion in cash on hand. It has received $144 million from the government in direct aid as part of the $15 billion airline bailout and expects to receive another $144 million.

It will use loan guarantees, too, if they are a cost-effective tool, should traffic remain sluggish.