Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Liberty Air is a fictional airline that has opted out of the TSA security regulations. Liberty Air openly advertises that it takes zero safety precautions when it comes to screening passengers and baggage.
The upside to Liberty Air’s approach is a far more pleasant airport experience. Liberty Air has no metal detectors, so there are no long lines after you get your ticket. Get to the airport ten minutes before take-off, not two hours. Pack whatever you want in your carry-on, including “dangerous” liquids, disposable razors, a hunting knife, whatever.
Also no body scans, X-ray machines, or TSA Gropers. You get the idea.
The price is now much cheaper because there is no overhead from all of the security requirements.
This is Checkpoint #1 - Would you choose to fly Liberty Air?
Let's say that Liberty Air checks IDs against a government database in order to prevent people on a terrorist watch list from boarding. Of course that means costs will rise slightly.
This is Checkpoint #2 - For those of you previously wary of Liberty Air, would you fly it now?
How about if they decide to ban guns and knives from their flights. Now costs are higher because scanners/metal detectors are required.
This is Checkpoint #3 - Would you fly Liberty Air?
At what Checkpoint would you fly Liberty Air? - or is it still too unsafe to fly at all?
1- If allowed, would Liberty Air fly outside of FAA rules and regulations? Take off and land at will?
2- Would it afford people to smoke if they wanted to?
3- How about carrying anything and everything that is currently prohibited, including inflammable liquids, fireworks and guns?
Someone like Richard Reid will definitely like it. For the rest, I don't think these ideas of Liberty Air sound appealing, and especially if I were sending off a dear one, I would definitely not go for it.
Just because TSA and the overall security process has gone overboard shouldn't mean that we should go overboard in the other direction. There is always a middle ground. I'm pretty sure people will pay more for more safety and security.
Airlines managing their own security is precisely what is needed. As for whether I would fly with "Liberty Air", it all depends on their safety history. I don't even have that much against groping and body scans, but I have something against it when it's done by government thugs who need not to worry of decline in customers and thus need not to worry about civility. Security should be in the hands of airlines and/or airports and people should be allowed to choose what risks they want to take.
Airlines managing their own security is precisely what is needed.
I have thought about that as a possibility in the past. However, Two questions...
1- How do you propose that can happen? At the gate?
2- Should airlines also establish their own safety rules and regulations?
1- If allowed, would Liberty Air fly outside of FAA rules and regulations? Take off and land at will?
2- Would it afford people to smoke if they wanted to?
3- How about carrying anything and everything that is currently prohibited, including inflammable liquids, fireworks and guns?
Someone like Richard Reid will definitely like it. For the rest, I don't think these ideas of Liberty Air sound appealing, and especially if I were sending off a dear one, I would definitely not go for it.
Just because TSA and the overall security process has gone overboard shouldn't mean that we should go overboard in the other direction. There is always a middle ground. I'm pretty sure people will pay more for more safety and security.
#1 - I would think they would have to coordinate with FAA flight rules just from a safety standpoint.
#2 - Good question - my hunch is to say no since the smoking issue is not a TSA security issue.
#3 - Prohibited items are OK for Checkpoints 1 & 2 - not for Checkpoint 3
Your last paragraph is the point. What is the balance that the citizens (and not government entities) want.
Airlines managing their own security is precisely what is needed. As for whether I would fly with "Liberty Air", it all depends on their safety history. I don't even have that much against groping and body scans, but I have something against it when it's done by government thugs who need not to worry of decline in customers and thus need not to worry about civility. Security should be in the hands of airlines and/or airports and people should be allowed to choose what risks they want to take.
Government operates outside of the free market. So they can give crappy service and stay in business. The paying customer has no recourse.
#1 - I would think they would have to coordinate with FAA flight rules just from a safety standpoint.
#2 - Good question - my hunch is to say no since the smoking issue is not a TSA security issue.
#3 - Prohibited items are OK for Checkpoints 1 & 2 - not for Checkpoint 3
Your last paragraph is the point. What is the balance that the citizens (and not government entities) want.
In other words, there is no true liberty. Restrictions will have to be a part and parcel of life. So, we can rewind back in time to when security was less restrictive. Then we experienced a debacle, tightened it. The process continues to where it was.
By then, Liberty Airline would go the way Pan Am did. With liberty, I expect full liberties and personal responsibilities. It isn't possible now, is it? We still depend on government rules and regulations, we still have to deal with check points because, technically, there is no such thing as "liberty". And one must definitely give up the second amendment rights too.
I'd fly on an airlines with less restrictions than we have now.
The premise of the thread is misleading though, because to fly in the United States with anything larger than an ultra light you have to meet FAA guidelines, and for large commercial flights that means TSA screenings.
Really I don't care about metal detectors, taking off my shoes, or any of that jazz. Hell I don't care if someone gets their jollies by looking at computer generated images of nude me, none of that bothers me.
The only thing that I think should be changed from todays travel restrictions is that the airlines should be allowed to screen themselves, and that you should be able to accompany your loved ones to the boarding gate if you've passed through security also.
I have thought about that as a possibility in the past. However, Two questions...
1- How do you propose that can happen? At the gate?
2- Should airlines also establish their own safety rules and regulations?
To both questions the answer is whatever they feel necessary to protect their property and their customers. I don't see it very unlikely that some, many or all airlines would choose to cooperate under an umbrella safety organization. And don't forget that airports would have a say in these matters too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC
Government operates outside of the free market. So they can give crappy service and stay in business. The paying customer has no recourse.
Yes. Airlines should use their own gropers if they choose to do gropes, not government thugs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
