It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Airlines and EU Official Oppose Total Liquid Ban

page: 1
8

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 08:32 PM
link   
European officials and airline officials are opposed to the ban for passengers to carry any form of liquid onto a flight, which was imposed after Britian foiled a plot of some passengers to blow up a US bound airplane with liquid explosives. They are saying that a ban on all liquids is totally unrealistic.
 



www.nzherald.co.nz
"Prohibiting all liquids on board we see as unrealistic," said Francoise Humbert, spokeswoman for the Association of European Airlines.

"People need to have something to travel overnight with them. You might need to travel with medication, liquid medication, so this kind of thing should be allowed," she said, adding small quantities should be permitted.

EU Justice and Security Commissioner Franco Frattini backed the airlines' position.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I believe that the ban of all carry on liquids on commercial flights is just going a little too far. I'm surprised they didn't try to ban all shoes after the shoe bomber incident.

There are risks in everything you do. The governments are trying to seem like they are protecting us by all these new rules and/or laws, but all they are really doing is taking more and more freedoms away from people, and replacing those freedoms with fear of "them". The more freedoms they are taking away, the more the world seems to be turning into a Police State or a Dictatorship (or Big Brother), all for our own good. Hmmm.

[edit on 6/9/06 by Keyhole]




posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Honestly I think the airline should take car of the security, not government. If one company allows liquids and the other doesn't we will see which people choose to use. If one company fails because people couldn't or could bring liquids, then you know what the people wanted. The rules would regulate themselves.

If they all have a ban on liquids and the people want it unbanned, free enterprize allows people to start their own airline and make it have liquid carry on allowable. Thats the benefit of free enterprize. Government shouldnt make rules that a business should follow, especially about security. If the airline doesnt give the security people want, one will because thats where the money will be.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 11:23 PM
link   
The airlines did provide security before the TSA and it was the funniest thing you've ever seen. Minimum wage was standard, no new equipment, no parts for equipment, no maintenance contracts for equipment, etc. Airlines are about money. Anything that eats into that money is going to be cut as low as they can possibly cut it.

As far as the ban goes, it won't last. It's being held right now because this is still an ongoing investigation as far as I know, but give it a month or two and they'll start easing it, and before you know it they'll get rid of it.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 02:16 PM
link   


The airlines did provide security before the TSA and it was the funniest thing you've ever seen. Minimum wage was standard, no new equipment, no parts for equipment, no maintenance contracts for equipment, etc. Airlines are about money. Anything that eats into that money is going to be cut as low as they can possibly cut it.


yes this is true. And If people wanted more security, an airline who saw this would make it and people would travel that airline because they want to be more safe. The other less safe airline will go out of business or change its style. Thats how things were envisioned to happen, not government laws and security.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 11:51 PM
link   
That isn't how it worked. And that isn't how it WOULD work. Because that airline would be spending more money on security, so they'd offer less in flight to save money.

The way it worked was that, for instance we'll say Honolulu, had three checkpoints. Delta and Japan Airlines were responsible for one, American, Continental, and ATA were responsible for another, and United and Northwest were responsible for the third. You'll NEVER have an airline paying more for security than another airline. Haven't you noticed how one airline cuts fares and all the rest immediately follow?



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Haven't you noticed how one airline cuts fares and all the rest immediately follow?


yes and its pretty much mirrors what Im saying. If one lowers fares, the other follow to stay in business. If one raises security and thats what people want, the other will follow if they want to stay in business. If people could realize that they decide the path choices businesses take, thing would run alot smoother for people.

Honestly you must not take many business coarses. Ever heard "The Customer is always right"? Even if you had all the businesses forming a monopoly and screwing people that were very unhappy, you would still have an investor that would look at it like this. "OK 90% of this market is unhappy with the businesses and they all refuse to change. If I come out with it, I will make only half as much profit as the other companies though. But by gaining 90% of the consumer base with my tactic, The other companies profit will plummet and my profit will be made in quanity rather then price of the item".

Once that happens, which it will because there is money to be made doing it, people will get what they want.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 09:11 PM
link   
It's been tried before. It didn't work then, and it won't work now. ESPECIALLY now. To make security better, then they have to add to their fares. They add to their fares, people won't fly them if they can get a lower fare on another airline. Sure "The customer is always right" but the costumer isn't gonna pay an additional $5-10 each way when they can get a better fare. You can say it will work all you want, but I've SEEN them try it, and it didn't work.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
It's been tried before. It didn't work then, and it won't work now. ESPECIALLY now. To make security better, then they have to add to their fares. They add to their fares, people won't fly them if they can get a lower fare on another airline. Sure "The customer is always right" but the costumer isn't gonna pay an additional $5-10 each way when they can get a better fare. You can say it will work all you want, but I've SEEN them try it, and it didn't work.


Thats their choice. If they dont want to pay the 10-15 dollars for better security, thats their choice. They make that decision, and thats the way it is. You get what you pay for.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 11:06 PM
link   
And what do you think is happening to that airline? Which airline is gonna stay in business longer, since you're the great business student? The airline that has $10,000 in expenses and is only taking in $6000 in revenue, or the airline that pays out $5000, and takes in $7000 because people fly it more often for their lower fares.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 11:11 PM
link   
then you see how much people want security. Its peoples choice if they want to take an unsafe airline, not the governments. Plain and simple.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 11:16 PM
link   
You don't get it do you? Airlines are a BUSINESS. They're NOT going to pay an extra $50,000+ a year out of their profits on security if people aren't flying on them. If you are paying out for security, and not taking in the extra fares, you're going to be out of business in no time. Then where is your "super safe air travel"?



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 11:21 AM
link   
You dont get it obviously. If they dont pay the 50,000+ a year for security, they will fail because people want security and wont fly their airline if they dont provide it. If you cut the security to make lower fares, you take a chance. You may get people to buy on lower fares, but then you lose business because no security on their airtravel.

Thats how business works. If you want security, you have to pay more, plain and simple. If I went to an airline with super security, I would expect it to be more costly then an airline with no security. Now if I feel that that extra 20 dollars is worth knowing Im safe, then Ill pay it. If I dont, thats my choice. If enough people dont want to pay 20 dollars extra for security, its their fault for not traveling on a safer airline when the plane blows up.

You get what you pay for. Way I see it, right now your not just paying for your safety, but everyone elses whether you fly or not because the government does it. Maybe I dont want my money going toward making airlines safe, ever think of that? its not the governments job to protect our safe, its their job to protect our rights.

[edit on 9-9-2006 by grimreaper797]



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 11:30 AM
link   
I WORKED in the industry when the airlines were paying for security. I SAW what happened. Your idea would fail in a matter of months. YOU might be willing to pay extra for more security, but 99% of the people travelling want to pay the lowest fare possible to get them there in the fastest time. You just don't understand the attitude of people when it comes to security, and until you understand the industry, and the attitude of people then YOU WON'T GET IT, and there's absolutely no point in continuing this conversation.



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Yes and the point is, if people dont want to pay for security, then dont bother with it. maybe when another plane explodes and another 400 people die they will get the point and start paying for it. Im saying if people wont pay for it, then dont provide it and see how they like it.



new topics

top topics



 
8

log in

join