AA 3rd degree at FRA---normal? legal?

"Elan Remford" wrote in message
news:PLZMc.5287$zf3.3493@trndny03...
Given the recent climate,

Which recent climate ?
Sept 11th was nearly 3 years ago.

GET OVER IT !

(Not meant as a insensitive comment to those who lost loved ones during the
incidents).

To someone like me who has not traveled less than 120K flight miles per year
for the last decade and has thus spent a significant amount of aggregate
time abiding by procedures in place? I accept them as efforts to protect my
safety and support them wholeheartedly.

You, on the other hand, seem to need reminding that watching the television
program "Airline" is not an actual substitute for frequently flying,
although come now... fess up... we've seen you on there at least once
haven't we? Perhaps the one who pulls up to the curb 2 minutes before
departure only to treat the agent with an episode of "do you know who you're
talking to?" when you're placed on the next flight to Des Moines which
leaves in eight hours.

"Binyamin Dissen" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 02:11:59 GMT "Elan Remford"
wrote:

:Given the recent climate, I find it absolutely AMAZING that ANYONE would
:question ANY measures taken to enhance flight security.

The issue is whether the measures, in fact, do anything to enhance flight
security.

To someone like you, who maybe flies once or twice a year, and does not
have a
clue as to how security should work, it may not be much of an
inconvenience.

To those who fly more frequently, and see how others do security in a much
better way, it is quite annoying.

--
Binyamin Dissen
http://www.dissensoftware.com

Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.

I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.

To someone like me who has not traveled less than 120K flight miles per year
for the last decade and has thus spent a significant amount of aggregate
time abiding by procedures in place? I accept them as efforts to protect my
safety and support them wholeheartedly.

You, on the other hand, seem to need reminding that watching the television
program "Airline" is not an actual substitute for frequently flying,
although come now... fess up... we've seen you on there at least once
haven't we? Perhaps the one who pulls up to the curb 2 minutes before
departure only to treat the agent with an episode of "do you know who you're
talking to?" when you're placed on the next flight to Des Moines which
leaves in eight hours.

"Binyamin Dissen" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 02:11:59 GMT "Elan Remford"
wrote:

:Given the recent climate, I find it absolutely AMAZING that ANYONE would
:question ANY measures taken to enhance flight security.

The issue is whether the measures, in fact, do anything to enhance flight
security.

To someone like you, who maybe flies once or twice a year, and does not
have a
clue as to how security should work, it may not be much of an
inconvenience.

To those who fly more frequently, and see how others do security in a much
better way, it is quite annoying.

--
Binyamin Dissen
http://www.dissensoftware.com

Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.

I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.

The recent climate is every day SINCE then when terrorist *******s
discovered the huge payoff potential of hijacking and other aircraft-related
targeting.

Let's strike a deal that will work for everyone, especially since you feel
that the time of a "climate" has long since passed. I propose each and
every flight departs subject to current security measures, except yours,
which may leave with none at all.

The outcome should leave EVERYONE feeling deeply satisfied.

"Miss L. Toe" wrote in message
...

"Elan Remford" wrote in message
news:PLZMc.5287$zf3.3493@trndny03...
Given the recent climate,

Which recent climate ?
Sept 11th was nearly 3 years ago.

GET OVER IT !

(Not meant as a insensitive comment to those who lost loved ones during
the
incidents).

The recent climate is every day SINCE then when terrorist *******s
discovered the huge payoff potential of hijacking and other aircraft-related
targeting.

Let's strike a deal that will work for everyone, especially since you feel
that the time of a "climate" has long since passed. I propose each and
every flight departs subject to current security measures, except yours,
which may leave with none at all.

The outcome should leave EVERYONE feeling deeply satisfied.

"Miss L. Toe" wrote in message
...

"Elan Remford" wrote in message
news:PLZMc.5287$zf3.3493@trndny03...
Given the recent climate,

Which recent climate ?
Sept 11th was nearly 3 years ago.

GET OVER IT !

(Not meant as a insensitive comment to those who lost loved ones during
the
incidents).

"Elan Remford" wrote in message
news:Hj6Nc.9082$3k3.4348@trndny02...
The recent climate is every day SINCE then when terrorist *******s
discovered the huge payoff potential of hijacking and other
aircraft-related
targeting.


Which was a long long time before 11 Sept 2001.


Let's strike a deal that will work for everyone, especially since you feel
that the time of a "climate" has long since passed. I propose each and
every flight departs subject to current security measures, except yours,
which may leave with none at all.


Sounds good to me, a securly locked cockpit door should stop most things.

The outcome should leave EVERYONE feeling deeply satisfied.


So I can leave my laptop in my hand luggage, not remove my shoes for the
security scan, not have a stupid SSSS occasionally on my boarding card(pre
warning me of extra checks and giving me time to dump anything I shouldnt
have). Like I do in Europe.


"Miss L. Toe" wrote in message
...

"Elan Remford" wrote in message
news:PLZMc.5287$zf3.3493@trndny03...
Given the recent climate,

Which recent climate ?
Sept 11th was nearly 3 years ago.

GET OVER IT !

(Not meant as a insensitive comment to those who lost loved ones during
the
incidents).

"Elan Remford" wrote in message
news:Hj6Nc.9082$3k3.4348@trndny02...
The recent climate is every day SINCE then when terrorist *******s
discovered the huge payoff potential of hijacking and other
aircraft-related
targeting.


Which was a long long time before 11 Sept 2001.


Let's strike a deal that will work for everyone, especially since you feel
that the time of a "climate" has long since passed. I propose each and
every flight departs subject to current security measures, except yours,
which may leave with none at all.


Sounds good to me, a securly locked cockpit door should stop most things.

The outcome should leave EVERYONE feeling deeply satisfied.


So I can leave my laptop in my hand luggage, not remove my shoes for the
security scan, not have a stupid SSSS occasionally on my boarding card(pre
warning me of extra checks and giving me time to dump anything I shouldnt
have). Like I do in Europe.


"Miss L. Toe" wrote in message
...

"Elan Remford" wrote in message
news:PLZMc.5287$zf3.3493@trndny03...
Given the recent climate,

Which recent climate ?
Sept 11th was nearly 3 years ago.

GET OVER IT !

(Not meant as a insensitive comment to those who lost loved ones during
the
incidents).

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 11:53:21 GMT "Elan Remford"
wrote:

:To someone like me who has not traveled less than 120K flight miles per year
:for the last decade and has thus spent a significant amount of aggregate
:time abiding by procedures in place? I accept them as efforts to protect my
:safety and support them wholeheartedly.

Sarcasm Sure you do. /Sarcasm

If you did even a small percentage of the flying that you claim, you would
recognize that most of the measures do not provide security and those that do
provide security could be done much better.

:You, on the other hand, seem to need reminding that watching the television
:program "Airline" is not an actual substitute for frequently flying,

Never saw the show. Sorry.

:although come now... fess up... we've seen you on there at least once
:haven't we? Perhaps the one who pulls up to the curb 2 minutes before
:departure only to treat the agent with an episode of "do you know who you're
:talking to?" when you're placed on the next flight to Des Moines which
:leaves in eight hours.

Since 9/11, one pretty much be there 30 minutes before.

Yes, pre-9/11 I would frequently arrive 5-15 minutes before departure - as I
find little use hanging around airports when I could be either spending time
on business or with family.

:"Binyamin Dissen" wrote in message
. ..
: On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 02:11:59 GMT "Elan Remford"
: wrote:

: :Given the recent climate, I find it absolutely AMAZING that ANYONE would
: :question ANY measures taken to enhance flight security.

: The issue is whether the measures, in fact, do anything to enhance flight
: security.

: To someone like you, who maybe flies once or twice a year, and does not
:have a
: clue as to how security should work, it may not be much of an
:inconvenience.

: To those who fly more frequently, and see how others do security in a much
: better way, it is quite annoying.

--
Binyamin Dissen
http://www.dissensoftware.com

Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.

I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.

No, I'd suggest you stop your wining, choose another means of travel if a
given vendor's service doesn't suit you, or volunteer to spend 30 minutes in
a locked room with someone willing to teach you what having your rights
violated REALLY means.

E.

"RPG" wrote in message
...
"Elan Remford" wrote in
news:PLZMc.5287$zf3.3493@trndny03:

Given the recent climate, I find it absolutely AMAZING that ANYONE
would question ANY measures taken to enhance flight security. Time
and time again, it seems the only "unfair" procedures are those that
happen to a given passenger who would rather not take the time. No
amount of perceived "unfairness" outweighs the goal of safe travel.
Period.

What punishment would you propose for anyone who dares question anything
and thereby misuses their freedom? Three years in a cage at Guantanamo
without trial? Torture and rape at Abu Ghraib? Four more years of the
Cheney-Ashcroft-Rumsfeld-Bush administration? The possibilities are
endless.

No, I'd suggest you stop your wining, choose another means of travel if a
given vendor's service doesn't suit you, or volunteer to spend 30 minutes in
a locked room with someone willing to teach you what having your rights
violated REALLY means.

E.

"RPG" wrote in message
...
"Elan Remford" wrote in
news:PLZMc.5287$zf3.3493@trndny03:

Given the recent climate, I find it absolutely AMAZING that ANYONE
would question ANY measures taken to enhance flight security. Time
and time again, it seems the only "unfair" procedures are those that
happen to a given passenger who would rather not take the time. No
amount of perceived "unfairness" outweighs the goal of safe travel.
Period.

What punishment would you propose for anyone who dares question anything
and thereby misuses their freedom? Three years in a cage at Guantanamo
without trial? Torture and rape at Abu Ghraib? Four more years of the
Cheney-Ashcroft-Rumsfeld-Bush administration? The possibilities are
endless.