Skip

The Solution?...Fly Naked

December 28, 2001 8:33 PM   Subscribe

The Solution?...Fly Naked
So you can sneak a bomb in your shoe. The only solution is to fly naked. You can't bring anything on board; it all has to be shipped separately on cargo jet. There has to be an air marshall on every flight -- no in plain clothes (because nobody's in clothes) but sitting in front of the cockpit, heavily armed and ready. It's getting that ridiculous. What can we do?
posted by riley370 (23 comments total)

 
I guess flying naked is different than Naked Flying? Would only the beautiful people fly? Who gets to clean the upholstry?
posted by Mack Twain at 9:05 PM on December 28, 2001


Not much. Good intelligence abroad, good security domestically. The shocking next thing is probably a bomb surgically inserted into a suicide attacker's body. (See 7th paragraph of this article) Not that the attacker is going to be very comfortable physically while it's in him, but not like he's going to notice after a while.
posted by sillygwailo at 9:05 PM on December 28, 2001


"Network of Trust", also know as "Know Your Customer" when referring specifically to businesses. People are going to need trusted references when flying.

Seriously, air carriers need to ask *why* someone is travelling. There needs to be a nominated trustworthy party at the destination, or sponsoring the journey. Have a look at your local laws to see who can witness official documents. My mother, being a teacher at a major university, can witness official documents, such as a will. Why shouldn't travellers need someone of similar standing to say, "Yes I know this person." ?

A real network of trust needs to be built so that everyone walking onto a plane is known by some other means than the ID they happen to have in their pocket. Heck, I had to get an additional form of ID to purchase my first mobile phone.
posted by krisjohn at 9:07 PM on December 28, 2001


Fly unconscious. Knock passengers out at the gate. Move bodies like so much cargo. Clothing optional.
posted by pekar wood at 9:17 PM on December 28, 2001


I agree. Do what they did to Mr.T everytime they wanted him to fly.
posted by lostbyanecho at 10:31 PM on December 28, 2001


Fly unconscious. Knock passengers out at the gate.

You know, I'd actually be for that. Especially for transatlantic and longer flights.
posted by kindall at 10:45 PM on December 28, 2001


Thinking of this? Or, this?. Many people have dirty minds this week!
posted by rschram at 11:16 PM on December 28, 2001


needs to be a nominated trustworthy party at the destination, or sponsoring the journey.

so no more traveling for pleasure than, like, say, you and the boyfriend want to head off to Vegas for the weekend, though you know noone there who can vouch for you?

you wouldn't stop would-be terrorists that way. you'd only keep them from using planes to do their dastardly deeds. Ted Kaczynski, Eric Rudolph, Tim McVeigh and Clayton Lee Waagner didn't need to fly to do what they did.
posted by tolkhan at 11:22 PM on December 28, 2001


Tolkhan is on to a very important point -- so we tighten security at the airports to unbearable levels, the next people who want to attack us are going to start targeting our railways. Then our roadways. Then they'll go the route of the Palestinian terrorists and walk into pizza parlours and shopping malls and nightclubs with C4 strapped to their chests. If people want to evoke terror, they'll do it wherever opportunity to create mass casualty exists, and the only way to stop it isn't to screen people on the spot, but to find these organisations, find the cells, and disband them before they can do anything else.
posted by Dreama at 1:15 AM on December 29, 2001


there are sanitary issues related to naked air travel

posted by quonsar at 1:38 AM on December 29, 2001


Introduce that and I'm becoming a Swedish Netball Team groupie.
posted by RobertLoch at 2:14 AM on December 29, 2001


Seriously, air carriers need to ask *why* someone is travelling. There needs to be a nominated trustworthy party at the destination, or sponsoring the journey.

Screw that in a major way. My reasons for flying, if I have any, are nobody's business, including the airline. This scenario reminds me of a WWII movie in which everywhere you turn, Nazis are asking you for your papers and interrogating you about why you're moving in that direction.

Anyway, do you really think that the 9/11 terrorists couldn't have beaten that system, couldn't have arranged sponsors and references?

And on what basis are we going to decide the worthiness of a journey, or a sponsor, or a reference? Is United suddenly going to be deemed capable of judging a person's travel purpose acceptable? Or, perish the thought, would it be government agents making that determination? That's all we need.
posted by bingo at 2:48 AM on December 29, 2001


What do we do? Just whatever we can. But don't get stupid about it.

Planes have been blown up before, and the recent troubles are little more than what's gone on before. People seem to think that the entire world and Western society is changing because of September 11th.. I assure you it isn't.

Then again, this type of hype and speculation is what always surrounds major disasters. Have ships sunk after the Titanic? Yes. Will more buildings be knocked down by planes? Probably. Even though tires were blowing up on Ford SUVs, did people stop buying Ford SUVs? No.

Air travel may be refined or made more secure in coming times, but we'll soon forget about all this nonsense, and the world will continue on its way.
posted by wackybrit at 4:04 AM on December 29, 2001


Considering all the health risks to flying, perhaps we should travel by land or sea, whenever possible! "Why It's Still Stuffy On Your Plane: A new report says that not only is the air bad on board, we can't even tell how bad."
posted by Carol Anne at 5:34 AM on December 29, 2001


I hate flying, personally. Traveling in the sky is neat, but the actual mechanics of it utterly suck. If you're not 6ft+ yourself, ask your 6ft 2" friend how his legs feel after 5 hours in coach.

What we need are Supersonic Trains. Sure, they'd be terrorist targets too, but at least you could put a damn snack bar in it. If I'm going to die a horrible death, can't I at least do it without aching knees and a spasming back?
posted by rusty at 8:55 AM on December 29, 2001


Air travel may be refined or made more secure in coming times, but we'll soon forget about all this nonsense, and the world will continue on its way.

I pray you are right, wackybrit.
posted by briank at 9:11 AM on December 29, 2001


Even now, airline security is a joke. You're getting the illusion of security, the impression that things are being done to protect your safety, but it's exactly the same now as it was before September 11, the same as it has always been, really - if someone is sufficiently determined to crash a plane, they'll find a way. Air travel (like most things in life) is never going to be 100% safe. No matter how much security is ratcheted up, no matter what safety features the airplane has, when you get on an airplane, you have a 1 in [large number] chance that you're going to die.

Happy New Year, everybody!
posted by RylandDotNet at 9:21 AM on December 29, 2001


Amen, Rusty. Here's to horrible yet luxurious deaths.
posted by D at 9:21 AM on December 29, 2001


ask your 6ft 2" friend how his legs feel after 5 hours in coach.

Fly American, which is advertising "More Room" in its coach cabins. I did that over Christmas and three out of four of my flights had that precious few inches of extra legroom, enough to actually stretch my legs out under the seat in front of me. It was practically luxurious. My final flight (DFW-SEA, four hours) had only the usual amount of legroom and it was back into hell -- I'm 6' 3". Still, having enough room on three out of four flights sure beats not having it on any of them. On the cramped flight, which was also late leaving, they gave us all lunch bags with a big sandwich, chips, cookies, granola, and a drink, even though there was no lunch scheduled for the flight. I'm not sure whether they fed us because the flight was late or because it was cramped, but it was highly appreciated.

(Price for round-trip from Seattle to Columbus, Ohio: $280. Last year the same flight was $450. I'd like to thank my fellow Americans for being afraid to fly after 9/11.)

If I'm going to die a horrible death, can't I at least do it without aching knees and a spasming back?

If you feel that way, American's definitely for you. They are obviously somewhat more of a terrorist target than, say, Continental or Northwest (terrorists apparently love attacking things called "American" or "United"), but you will probably die in comfort. I didn't mind the slight extra risk.
posted by kindall at 9:22 AM on December 29, 2001


If you must take a long flight, get up and walk around as often as possible. "SINGAPORE (AP) - A 28-year-old British woman died during a flight from Singapore to London last week, Singapore Airlines said Monday. Singapore's Straits Times newspaper reported that the woman may have died from deep vein thrombosis, in which blood clots form in the legs."
posted by Carol Anne at 11:10 AM on December 29, 2001


Kindall said: (Price for round-trip from Seattle to Columbus, Ohio: $280. Last year the same flight was $450. I'd like to thank my fellow Americans for being afraid to fly after 9/11.)

Haha, right on. Although, to be honest, I don't think transatlantic flights have fallen as much as everyone thought they would. Then again, I've never seen the American travel industry advertising on British TV appealing for us to go to the US before.. so something's definitely up.

It's not really the cost of flights that's ever annoyed me before though. After all, it's a one-off. But it's the price of hotels. $100 a night to stay in NYC!? No way!! Just a week in a hotel is more than the flight.

Think I'll stick with Canada or the mid-west thank you.
posted by wackybrit at 11:14 PM on December 29, 2001


$100 a night to stay in NYC!?

Damn, where'd you find a room that cheap in New York???
posted by kindall at 9:00 AM on December 30, 2001


Manhattan Hotel
39th and 9th
posted by riley370 at 5:21 PM on December 30, 2001


« Older Commentary on the state of morning TV?   |   Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post