Infants Can't Fly On Planes in the US

Remove all ads!

OK, so this is not a joke, yet its funny anyways.

CNN

 

I don't know... any one of these babies could be a Stewie Griffin waiting to happen!

It's pretty sad when an infant is prevented from flying on that basis. Surely a visual inspection could be performed when the passenger's name comes up on the flight manifest.

 

Never underestimate the stupidity of the people who run the government.
In a way you are right this is funny in the how stupid can people be manner, and adding an age listing to the list of names I think would hardly compromise anyones personal identity while solving this problem.

 

Don't you mean "misunderestimate" them?

 

In fairness it's not the government that are making these descisions but the petty bureaucratic jobs-worths who are incapable of thinking for themselves, nevermind acting on that thought.

They probably get a kick out of it.

 

Um, Is common sense being thrown out after 9/11?

 

@Gnarf:
Naw, I think we lost that somewhere in 2004.

Seriously though, I'm guessing they are trying to indirectly stop the wives of terrorists via naming conventions: father -> child (-> mother), but even that's quite a bit of a stretch. The People want assurances that their plane won't be hijacked, but it's simply impossible to guarantee. So the airlines have to find some 'security measure' that at least looks like it makes sense, so that the average flier can rest secure in the knowledge that they're 'safe'.

Bunch of wimps. One isolated incident (or five, if you want to count them individually) four years ago, and people are still demanding unreasonable things. Just suck it up, get on the plane, and take your chances like you've always done. The probability of a hijacking has not increased appreciably, so what's the big fuss? If my plane got hijacked, I know I'd try to take them down myself. I also know that nobody would help and I'd get killed, but at least then I wouldn't have to worry about it anymore!

 

Gnarf, sadly, the problem with common sense is that it's increasingly uncommon.

If you've got nothing to lose by acting, then why not act? Worst thing that could happen is that you'd die - which would happen anyway.

A big reason why I think the 9/11/01 hijackers were so successful is that until then, plane crews and passengers thought that if they just did what they were told, they would survive. I don't think the same logic would apply now; in fact, the downed 9/11/01 plane was prevented from hitting its target because the passengers were made aware of what had happened at the WTC and Pentagon and took action.

Easy to say, harder to do. But in that situation, I don't think too many people would sit there and accept it any more. If you're dead anyway, you may as well go down fighting; you're more likely to die from deep-vein thrombosis than a terrorist airplane hijacker.

 

@NonSequitur:
I'm glad you agree with my methods and would probably do the same thing, but I think you missed my point. Most people would just sit there wondering, "Isn't anyone going to do something?" Nobody wants to make the initial charge, because the people in front are the ones who get shot. Sure they'll gladly follow behind a convenient meat-shield, but almost nobody's got the balls nowadays to act knowing they'll get hurt or killed for total strangers (excepting of course our brave fighting men and women ).

There's no nobility in the U.S. anymore, just 'enlightened self-interest'. Nobody gives a s*** about anybody else, and that's why even today a hijacker on a plane would have about a 25% chance of meeting no resistance whatsoever. "If you're dead anyway, why rock the boat? If somebody else wants to die so I can live, great! But I don't want to die." When you think about it from that person's point of view, if they do something, they're dead for sure. But if they just wait, maybe somebody else will make the sacrifice for them, and they can live!

These are the kind of people that make us such an object of scorn across the globe, and rightly so. If we can't instill even the tiniest bit of fire into these shriveled-up souls, then how the heck do we have the nerve to call ourselves a country?
[/rant]

 

@ Felinoid,

True, I'd hardly be charging a bloke armed with a gun. That said, it's a lot harder to smuggle a firearm on board than, for instance, a box-cutter. Unless the guy with the box cutter has moves like Royce Gracie, he's not going to be able to take out half a dozen people easily.

As for your lament about enlightened self-interest, well, the US is far from alone, mate. You should see how the mentally ill, the homeless, immigrants and asylum seekers get treated over here - people couldn't give a toss unless it's someone they know. I work in the heart of Australia's second-biggest city, and nobody seems to give a rat's about anyone or anything but themselves. Hell, they don't even look where they're going and then have the gall to be rude when they shirt-front you.

But back on-topic - there are much better, quieter and more effective methods of passenger-screening than this. It's not the airline's fault that people are so ****-scared of their own shadows that someone with an incidentally similar name gets banned from flying. It is their fault if they allow themselves to succumb to the same hysteria. As you said in another thread - a person (singular) can be smart, intelligent or inspirational, but people (plural) are stupid.

 

Actually, when I finally had somewhere to fly to, 9/11 didn't even cross my mind...

 

And neither should it have - well, not for long, at least. An attack on airlines is expected now, and that's probably the best reason I can think of as to why there wouldn't be a repeat incident.

Well, that and security upgrades. Paranoia has its incidental advantages, I suppose...

 

I've sat near infants and toddlers on flights. They should be banned.

On a related note (at least in my mind), I was trying to seat my family together on a flight, most people are very generous in offering their seat to keep a family together -- but this one guy was just a heel. So, I put my 5-year-old son next to him (the wife and daughter were across the aisle from the seat). Within minutes he was offering to trade seats with me.

 

Felinoid:

Speak for YOURSELF, friend, before you go making grandiose statements about the American populace in general. Painting everyone here as shriveled up souls is a bit silly -- and quite a stretch -- many of us wouldn't be appreciated being lumped into your "category". There are quite plenty of us that still have the fighting spirit.

 

These kinds generalizations are discouraged. If you have questions check the sticky at the top of the forum page (rules).

 

I really came into the topic hoping that infants in general had been banned from being on planes because of the annoyance. Thanks for letting me down .

 

Infants are really annoying on airlines...

What really grinds my gears is the people who are paranoid about being on a plane that might get hijacked but, at the same time, complain about the precautions taken to PREVENT that from ever happening. Some people just can't be pleased.

 

@Spellbound & Chandos:
I have to admit I overexagerrated a bit, but it was only to make a point. You'll notice that it was almost 20 hours before anyone commented on that particular hyperbole. Think about how many American SPers saw my argumentative post in that 20 hours and didn't even bother to reply.

Let's say for the sake of argument that three US SPers saw it and didn't say anything. That means that 60% of the US SPers who saw it didn't risk saying anything even though they had nothing to lose by a simple comment like Spellbound's. I consider the people on SP to be (on average) more courageous than the average person, so it follows that even more than 60% of regular people wouldn't reply, believing that someone else would do it for them.

This is what I'm talking about. The majority of us Americans (yep, I live here too) wouldn't be bothered to stand up for themselves, and that just saddens me. As for the two of you: Spellbound I commend for defending her honor as an American; and Chandos I commend for doing his job well and without prejudice. I wish there were more like you, and I can only hope that such an attitude will sweep across our once noble land, so that we can be proud again of everything that our country does. (And we won't have to hear stories like this one again. )

 

Felinoid, sometimes people rant (which is what I thought you were/are doing). Not addressing your particular rant does not mean I don't care about the subject, or that I am unwilling to take action. On the contrary, I always sit in the aisle, pay attention to passengers boarding the plane and scan the occupants at various times during a flight -- I was like that before 2001. At 6'3" and over 200 pounds I like to think I could delay someone a bit. Your comments were simply not worth replying to -- lack of response to an absurd comment does not equate to lack of courage.

You're wrong. Before 9/11, the rule was to not cause problems for the terrorist. They would take hostages, receive some payment and then everyone would go home. Anyone making waves during a hostage act was usually killed. Nobody (except Clancy) imagined a scenario like what unfolded that day. When passengers realized the event was not a hostage situation, action WAS taken. The term 'let's roll' has significant meaning to many people.

 

@T2Bruno:
I'm sure your vigilance is an asset to everyone on that particular plane (I too acted and thought the same way before 2001 as I do now), but how many other people do you see doing likewise? And lack of response to such an (admittedly) absurd comment doesn't equate to lack of courage, but it could signal lack of outrage and conviction, which in turn implies at least partial agreement with the sentiment.

How do you think I have so many posts in just over two months? When I see something like my rant, I run the BS flag up the pole faster than you can say "What the heck were they thinking?" IMHO, some things simply cannot be allowed to pass unchallenged.

That would be me. I never understood why someone should be allowed to inconvenience so many other people just because they had a weapon. While my combat skills might not be up to the level of the average soldier's, to not even try to take the hijacker down is just anathema to me. I've never been one for inaction, and I imagine that has colored my views a little, but I stand for who I am and I expect others to do the same.

I respect the Zapolsky family a little bit more than I do Ingrid Sanden for this very reason. The Zapolsky family demanded the airline recognize their right to be allowed on the plane, and they got it. The article only says that Sanden was stopped, and having no further information on it I can only assume that she had to reapply (or something similar) in order to get another flight out. However, I cannot know for sure, so she gets the benefit of the doubt.

EDIT: Does anyone know what exactly happened for her?

[ August 19, 2005, 22:39: Message edited by: Felinoid ]