Team Me
Active Member
Wow, I can't remember the last time I read a National Post opinion column and found myself in such agreement with it. This is spot-on.
|
|
|
Wow, I can't remember the last time I read a National Post opinion column and found myself in such agreement with it. This is spot-on.
Jayomatic
Active Member
I bet all the American carriers are loving these no carry on restrictions. Considering they are now making an extra $15-$25 per customer for now having to check a bag.
Perhaps this was a scheme to keep the US airline industry alive.
Perhaps this was a scheme to keep the US airline industry alive.
TO City of Light
Active Member
Why is any of this a surprise?
When airport screeners are minimum wage off-the-street hires with a training programme probably equal in length to that of a fast-food burger flipper and a paranoid fear (not unjustified) that they will let a government "security-tester" through, what do you expect?
.
When airport screeners are minimum wage off-the-street hires with a training programme probably equal in length to that of a fast-food burger flipper and a paranoid fear (not unjustified) that they will let a government "security-tester" through, what do you expect?
.
Last edited by a moderator:
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Airport security screeners should be handled by a division of the RCMP. My kids crossing guard works for a division of Toronto Police, same as the parking enforcement guys. Surely thus, airport security should be handled by the RCMP.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
It's not that hard in the GTA to avoid Pearson madness. Flying to New York, Montreal, Ottawa, Halifax or Quebec City? Use Porter from the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport. Flying to Calgary, Cancun, Edmonton, Halifax, Moncton, Orlando, Punta Cana, or Winnipeg? Use WestJet from John C. Munro Hamilton International Airport. You can also fly seasonally to Portugal from Hamilton on SATA International. You can also fly WestJet from Hamilton to Calgary, and then to Hawaii.
For other destinations, drive to Buffalo or Montreal and fly from there, or even better, fly on Porter to Montreal or Halifax, and then switch to any of the international airlines there. When I lived in Fredericton my family and I drove to Halifax and flew to the UK for three weeks. We were amazed at how efficiently the Halifax airport is run, I highly recommend it - IIRC, Halifax airport won an international award for its airport customer service a few years back.
For other destinations, drive to Buffalo or Montreal and fly from there, or even better, fly on Porter to Montreal or Halifax, and then switch to any of the international airlines there. When I lived in Fredericton my family and I drove to Halifax and flew to the UK for three weeks. We were amazed at how efficiently the Halifax airport is run, I highly recommend it - IIRC, Halifax airport won an international award for its airport customer service a few years back.
Last edited:
jn_12
Senior Member
Uh... they don't make minimum wage. They make pretty decent money actually.
I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about.
Second_in_pie
Senior Member
I think this is really 100% a jump on the gun by the US. It really shows how terrorism is winning the war against the west, or the US at least. All it takes is one person attempting to set their undergarments on fire and an entire country is at the brink of being shut down. After 9/11, every little terrorism attempt has resulted in hundreds of restrictions and inconveniences for regular people, many of which are totally unjustified. If you want someone to blame, it's the US, not local security.
I think it's prime time to start moving away from the US as our primary trading partner. Not only are new markets emerging like mad that we could quite, quite easy become major partners with, but having the US take up more than 50% of our foreign trade could become an inconvenience in the future. With the American majority's vocal opposition to large climate change solutions, and the dramatic increase in alienation with the rest of the world through tighter security, borders and inwards thinking development, it could become quite hard to continue trading with them as closely as we do without being alienated by the international community as well.
Irishmonk
Senior Member
The increasing difficulty of air travel is going to be one of the great ongoing narratives of this decade. Think it's bad now? How about when the next terror attempt occurs--and this time it's successful. It may already be possible to surgically implant an explosive device inside a subject's body. How do you spot that with screeners? Combining the unstoppable terror threat with increasing fuel costs the private airline industry is staggered and possibly doomed. The public, meanwhile, is so fed up that the very notion of long distance travel is being changed from an inconvenience to a punishing ordeal to be avoided whenever possible. Businesses may abandon cross border travel altogether--esp. with improving communication and internet technology + the move to simulated environments.
I expect profiling will become a major hot button issue both here and especially in the US. High Speed Rail will also be seriously discussed, especially in the next Ontario and Quebec provincial elections.
I expect profiling will become a major hot button issue both here and especially in the US. High Speed Rail will also be seriously discussed, especially in the next Ontario and Quebec provincial elections.
Second_in_pie
Senior Member
Wow, this could split into maybe 3 or 4 different discussions in 3 different topics!
In response to Irishmonk, I think that air travel will continue to have it's niche. But gone will be the days of taking a plane for three hours for $400. I suspect that with rising fuel costs, the only real air travel will be sparse, regional air travel (in propeller planes due to fuel efficiency and flexibility,) or long-distance, provided by either scramjets (think mach 16,) high-altitude half-rockets, or blimps. High-altitude scramjets being the express Vancouver-Tokyo trips, or even Montreal-Vancouver or Toronto-LA for the upper middle class, and blimps being the economical approach for overseas travel. I think the main driver of a decline of air travel will be oil prices though, because jets really don't have any good alternatives to oil-derived fuels; hydrogen is too complicated to store light enough and in high enough quantities for a jet to use it, electricity doesn't follow the jet principle, and wouldn't be able to sustain long-distance travel in propeller planes, and natural gas and biofuels just aren't powerful enough. However, blimps could run on hydrogen fuel quite well, and are economical at least in the fuel sense. Short distance propeller aircraft could theoretically run on electricity, if efficiency was improved and better batteries were developed.
Unfortunately, these don't really fit Canada. I know that upgrading the Canadian's route might not be that great now, but we should be starting with Quebec-Windsor, Calgary-Edmonton, and the Northwestern, New York, and Empire Corridors. Perhaps as population increases and fuel becomes increasingly expensive, the trans-canada network will be electrified and upgraded, so an Ottawa-Vancouver trip could be around a day. That'd only require tracks around 240 km/h, which is quite doable, and electrification and better trackage would certainly help the midwest economy.
As for borders and businesses, I actually think the only country that'll see that is the US. Again, they're really alienating themselves, and have been for most of their time as a country, exception being between WWI and around the 50s.
Most of the world borders are disappearing, with the EU taking the lead, followed closely by South America and soon to be Latin America in general. As Asia develops further, cross border travel will be better, and travel from Asia to the Western world will be much easier with less worry about unstable regions coming over to spread chaos in the form of terrorists, refugees, or criminals. The UAE is becoming a wonderful bridge between the West and the Middle East, and with a new democratic revolution on the calender in Iran, as well as better governance in Syria, Iraq and Egypt and a resolve to find peace in the Holy land, that region will have less harshness from the western world, especially in the terrorism perspective. The only real place that'll continue to be "bad" and out of it is Africa, which seems only to be getting worse.
In response to Irishmonk, I think that air travel will continue to have it's niche. But gone will be the days of taking a plane for three hours for $400. I suspect that with rising fuel costs, the only real air travel will be sparse, regional air travel (in propeller planes due to fuel efficiency and flexibility,) or long-distance, provided by either scramjets (think mach 16,) high-altitude half-rockets, or blimps. High-altitude scramjets being the express Vancouver-Tokyo trips, or even Montreal-Vancouver or Toronto-LA for the upper middle class, and blimps being the economical approach for overseas travel. I think the main driver of a decline of air travel will be oil prices though, because jets really don't have any good alternatives to oil-derived fuels; hydrogen is too complicated to store light enough and in high enough quantities for a jet to use it, electricity doesn't follow the jet principle, and wouldn't be able to sustain long-distance travel in propeller planes, and natural gas and biofuels just aren't powerful enough. However, blimps could run on hydrogen fuel quite well, and are economical at least in the fuel sense. Short distance propeller aircraft could theoretically run on electricity, if efficiency was improved and better batteries were developed.
Unfortunately, these don't really fit Canada. I know that upgrading the Canadian's route might not be that great now, but we should be starting with Quebec-Windsor, Calgary-Edmonton, and the Northwestern, New York, and Empire Corridors. Perhaps as population increases and fuel becomes increasingly expensive, the trans-canada network will be electrified and upgraded, so an Ottawa-Vancouver trip could be around a day. That'd only require tracks around 240 km/h, which is quite doable, and electrification and better trackage would certainly help the midwest economy.
As for borders and businesses, I actually think the only country that'll see that is the US. Again, they're really alienating themselves, and have been for most of their time as a country, exception being between WWI and around the 50s.
Most of the world borders are disappearing, with the EU taking the lead, followed closely by South America and soon to be Latin America in general. As Asia develops further, cross border travel will be better, and travel from Asia to the Western world will be much easier with less worry about unstable regions coming over to spread chaos in the form of terrorists, refugees, or criminals. The UAE is becoming a wonderful bridge between the West and the Middle East, and with a new democratic revolution on the calender in Iran, as well as better governance in Syria, Iraq and Egypt and a resolve to find peace in the Holy land, that region will have less harshness from the western world, especially in the terrorism perspective. The only real place that'll continue to be "bad" and out of it is Africa, which seems only to be getting worse.
Irishmonk
Senior Member
That's remarkably optimistic. But, yeah, probably could use its own thread.
TO City of Light
Active Member
And the definition of "pretty decent money actually" is.......?
Oh, and yes, your mother wears army boots.
.
BermudaTO37
Active Member
Don't Understand
Well, seeing that I just got off a domestic flight at Pearson this morning and also flew out on Dec 26 on a Domestic flight, I got to the airport extra early only to get through security in 10 minutes. So, luck for me, I was able to get on an earlier flight.
Again this morning, I got to the airport 1 hour before my flight and was through in less than 10 minutes. So, as long as it is not a US bound flight, there are not any delays. That is unless the crew for the AC flight was coming from the US and that caused some delays.
So, if there is any blame to be placed, it lies squarely on the new security measures that have been imposed by the US on any flights that enter or overfly their airspace.
I am quite happy with Pearson, as a regular user (once per month or more). The thing that many people do not seem to value is their time. If you want to spend an 1.5 hours or more on the road to Buffalo with your family or alone, then to fly to your destination and face the same time to go home, then by all means, please do. I think that the 3 hours that you are incurring are woth something. For me, the total time I spend getting to and from Pearson is 20-30 mins (no traffic).
Anyhow, I don't think that this is something that can be blamed on the airport authority. Blame the folks who knew or had all of the information on hand and did nothing with it. The flight had to be cleared prior to departure by Homeland Security. The person was on a list but because of a failure to communicate between each other, this was the result. All I know is that I will try to avoid heading to the US anytime soon.
Well, seeing that I just got off a domestic flight at Pearson this morning and also flew out on Dec 26 on a Domestic flight, I got to the airport extra early only to get through security in 10 minutes. So, luck for me, I was able to get on an earlier flight.
Again this morning, I got to the airport 1 hour before my flight and was through in less than 10 minutes. So, as long as it is not a US bound flight, there are not any delays. That is unless the crew for the AC flight was coming from the US and that caused some delays.
So, if there is any blame to be placed, it lies squarely on the new security measures that have been imposed by the US on any flights that enter or overfly their airspace.
I am quite happy with Pearson, as a regular user (once per month or more). The thing that many people do not seem to value is their time. If you want to spend an 1.5 hours or more on the road to Buffalo with your family or alone, then to fly to your destination and face the same time to go home, then by all means, please do. I think that the 3 hours that you are incurring are woth something. For me, the total time I spend getting to and from Pearson is 20-30 mins (no traffic).
Anyhow, I don't think that this is something that can be blamed on the airport authority. Blame the folks who knew or had all of the information on hand and did nothing with it. The flight had to be cleared prior to departure by Homeland Security. The person was on a list but because of a failure to communicate between each other, this was the result. All I know is that I will try to avoid heading to the US anytime soon.
GregWTravels
Active Member
I flew in from LHR on Dec 26, and out to LHR on Dec 30th. I arrived early, and there were no delays on either end for me either. I think one of the nice things in this whole mess with Pearson is that as there is US pre-clearance, travellers to other countries are separated from the mess caused by any additional checks to US bound travellers.
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
The fundamental problem is that the people behind security (which I guess is Homeland Security in the USA) simply have NO CLUE how to get in front of this problem.
There was a good article making the rounds the other week about how differently they do things in Israel and it's amazing we're almost a decade after 9/11 and all North Americans can do is react to the latest threat instead of adopting obvious measures that work.
We're still taking our shoes off because ONE GUY had a bomb in his shoes. I mean, it's not like there's evidence that Al Qaeda shifted to a shoe-based bombing strategy, writ large. Have they caught ANYONE else trying to smuggle a bomb in their shoes? Why would any potential bomber put something in his shoes since he knows that's one of the places they are looking hardest at?
It's pathetic, frankly, that all they can do is check shoes and have people put their stuff away an hour before landing as if that has anything to do with what "the terrorists" are planning next.
I've been to Israel a couple of times and was aghast when I took my first post-9/11 flight to the USA. I went to the check-in and the counter lady asked me the rote questions: Did you pack your own bag? Has it been in your possession the whole time?
I was used to those questions from El Al except the people asking for THEM aren't the ticket processors - they are trained, world-class security personnel and they aren't listening AT ALL to your answers. They're watching your eyes, they're assessing.
The issue isn't how much the airline check-in lady makes - she's doing a job she wasn't trained or hired to do. If you're not going to put CSIS or FBI or whoever in the airports, if all you're going to do is keep imposing idiotic, arbitrary, reactive measures all you're going to do is a) piss off travelers b) let the terrorists know exactly what they have to get around for next time.
I mean, if he can get his stuff on a plane all a bomber has to do now is make sure he sets it off 61 minutes or more before landing. I guess passengers can look at their watches until then and have a nice sigh of relief as they stow their iPods for the final approach.
Or should I presume that in addition to all these publicly-announced restrictions they're also doing something substantive they're keeping in their back pocket in case Osama gets on a plane? If not, it's looking pretty sad.
I don't think it's the fault of the airports per se but they have to do better. I watched the news the other weekend and the reporters just said the GTAA advises people to get their at least 2-3 hours before their flight. No shit! You just told me some people are in line 4 hours and longer!
About five years ago I missed a flight standing in an insane customs/security line (it must have been an orange alert or something, but it wasn't publicized) and they didn't even prioritize the crowd by who had flights coming up. Everyone just watched their flights go on the board while other people - some of whom were no doubt on later flights - went in front of them. That kind of stuff is unacceptable.
That's enough of a rant, eh?
There was a good article making the rounds the other week about how differently they do things in Israel and it's amazing we're almost a decade after 9/11 and all North Americans can do is react to the latest threat instead of adopting obvious measures that work.
We're still taking our shoes off because ONE GUY had a bomb in his shoes. I mean, it's not like there's evidence that Al Qaeda shifted to a shoe-based bombing strategy, writ large. Have they caught ANYONE else trying to smuggle a bomb in their shoes? Why would any potential bomber put something in his shoes since he knows that's one of the places they are looking hardest at?
It's pathetic, frankly, that all they can do is check shoes and have people put their stuff away an hour before landing as if that has anything to do with what "the terrorists" are planning next.
I've been to Israel a couple of times and was aghast when I took my first post-9/11 flight to the USA. I went to the check-in and the counter lady asked me the rote questions: Did you pack your own bag? Has it been in your possession the whole time?
I was used to those questions from El Al except the people asking for THEM aren't the ticket processors - they are trained, world-class security personnel and they aren't listening AT ALL to your answers. They're watching your eyes, they're assessing.
The issue isn't how much the airline check-in lady makes - she's doing a job she wasn't trained or hired to do. If you're not going to put CSIS or FBI or whoever in the airports, if all you're going to do is keep imposing idiotic, arbitrary, reactive measures all you're going to do is a) piss off travelers b) let the terrorists know exactly what they have to get around for next time.
I mean, if he can get his stuff on a plane all a bomber has to do now is make sure he sets it off 61 minutes or more before landing. I guess passengers can look at their watches until then and have a nice sigh of relief as they stow their iPods for the final approach.
Or should I presume that in addition to all these publicly-announced restrictions they're also doing something substantive they're keeping in their back pocket in case Osama gets on a plane? If not, it's looking pretty sad.
I don't think it's the fault of the airports per se but they have to do better. I watched the news the other weekend and the reporters just said the GTAA advises people to get their at least 2-3 hours before their flight. No shit! You just told me some people are in line 4 hours and longer!
About five years ago I missed a flight standing in an insane customs/security line (it must have been an orange alert or something, but it wasn't publicized) and they didn't even prioritize the crowd by who had flights coming up. Everyone just watched their flights go on the board while other people - some of whom were no doubt on later flights - went in front of them. That kind of stuff is unacceptable.
That's enough of a rant, eh?
Last edited:
waterloowarrior
Senior Member
If only governments put this much effort into keeping you safe from other drivers...
2008 US motor vehicle deaths: 39,800
2008 US Airline Passenger deaths: 0
2008 US motor vehicle deaths: 39,800
2008 US Airline Passenger deaths: 0