more on Survey on putting electronics in checked airline baggage

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net>
Date: August 15, 2006 10:02:14 AM EDT
To: Edward Almasy <ealmasy () axisdata com>, Lauren Weinstein  
<lauren () vortex com>
Cc: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net>, Dave Farber  
<dave () farber net>
Subject: Re: [IP] more on Survey on putting electronics in checked  
airline baggage

> From: Edward Almasy <ealmasy () axisdata com>
> Date: August 15, 2006 9:34:20 AM EDT
> To: Lauren Weinstein <lauren () vortex com>
> Cc: David Farber <dave () farber net>
> Subject: Re: [IP] Survey on putting electronics in checked airline  
> baggage
>
> On Aug 11, 2006, at 10:53 AM, Lauren Weinstein wrote:
> > I'm conducting a little unscientific survey on whether or not airline
> > passengers are willing to place their expensive or important
> > electronic equipment in airline checked baggage (whether "locked" or
> > not, but on most flights unlocked will be required), and how this
> > would affect their flying patterns.
>
>    It may be interesting to note that as of Sunday,
>    when I was flying home from Rochester, Northwest
>    was still specifically instructing passengers at
>    checkin to *not* put computer equipment, cameras,
>    etc in checked baggage, presumably because of the
>    likelihood of damage or theft.  (They explicitly
>    disclaim liability for damage or loss on those items
>    and many others in their Contract of Carriage.)

A group of us were discussing the possible ramifications of this new  
(although now discontinued) policy.  We decided it couldn't work  
because:

1) Although people can be lemmings and allow the gov't to run over  
them, they do get upset when you take away their iPods & game boys.

2) We thought 80+% (we thought it was 84%, but couldn't find a cite)  
of airline revenue is business travel.  And business travelers are  
_not_ going to give up their laptops.

3) The resulting suits of people suing the airlines over damaged /  
stolen equipment they were _forced_ to check would hurt the airlines  
even more than they are already hurting.

4) The gov't might be forced to actually screen the screeners.  Or  
worse, allow prosecutions of TSA employees who steal things.  This  
would be disastrous to our currently infallible administration.

5) People will just drive, fly, take boats, video conference, or even  
just plain not go places, which would probably be the death knell for  
the already "beleaguered" industry.

Etc., etc.

--
TTFN,
patrick


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/