I'm not about to jump into this debate with the same enthusiasim asPaul but being forced to check baggage for a one day trip to NYC is a pain. It added exactly two hours and 44 minutes to my trip. Had to check in earlier and then stand around waiting for baggage. Not such a long wait at JFK but a real pain in San Jose on the return.
This has to be having an impact on carriers' revenue and tourism - especially to and from the UK. I'm the first to want to fly safe - but toothpaste, deoderant and saving creme in small quantities... come on. This does nothing to increase my sense of security - in fact it worsened it. With moves like this I really wonder if anyone has a real handle on airline security. At what price does this false sense of security come?
Finally there is the implementation. On the red eye out of San Jose there was no opportunity to buy fluids beyond security - and plenty of signs at the closed vendor stalls indicated you couldn't take liquid on the plane. It was the complete opposite at JFK, making me wonder if this wasn't more security theatre than anything.
Col. Larson said it best in The WSJ...
"Foiling suicide passengers will require a new approach to security: psychological profiling; better identity verification systems; better technology to detect bombs in the cargo hold (not all of this cargo is checked luggage). The key is to invest in research and development, instead of rolling out systems that don't work but inspire unrealistic expectations. We've seen enough of that since 9/11. We may remain vulnerable for a good while, but this is a fact of life. Knee-jerk reactions to last week's headlines will make us no more secure. In fact, they will make us less secure by squandering valuable resources that could be put to better use."
