add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Passenger only planes
To prevent terrorism, make double-decker passenger-only planes and baggage-only planes | |
To prevent baggage-based bombs and to reduce the amount of security hassle/cost at airports, retrofit passenger planes to take only passengers, adding a second story of seats where the hold is now. Then either send bags on a seperate plane, or just tell people that they need to fedex their luggage to
their destination.
Is this a typical response to terrorist attacks on planes?
http://web.archive....No_20More_20Luggage
[DrCurry, Aug 11 2006]
Clothing Optional Airline
Clothing_20Optional_20Airline
prompted by [calum]'s anno [hippo, Aug 11 2006]
Link for first anno
http://www.humoronl...edneck-airlines.jpg
redneck airlines [Freefall, Aug 11 2006]
[link]
|
| |
I think they should tow trailers, except there would be a long queue of baggage-less aircraft following the trailer across the sky, trying to pass. |
|
| |
Passengers should strip naked at check in and proceed through the oiling tank, where they will be liberally coated in a lubricant appropriate to their ticket class (First Class get baby oil, Steerage get 3-in-1), and then loaded onto trolleys to be piped into the body of the plane so that they can writhe and swim warm through the slippery, shifting mass of flesh for the duration of their journey. Upon landing, a hatch opens and the passengers will fall into a loading trolley, as if fish from a trawler's net. |
|
| |
[calum], you're very disturbing. Or do I mean disturbed? Probably both. |
|
| |
Beat you to it (see link), though I have to say that this is a pretty obvious idea. Croissant anyway. |
|
| |
ldischler: ah, no, it would have been redundant, had I not deleted that idea a loooong time ago. |
|
| |
Ah, I see. I removed the MFD. |
|
| |
How about putting all the luggage in a big net and towing it along behind the plane? |
|
| |
As someone pointed out on the news today, "thank god Richard Reid didn't put that bomb in his pants" |
|
| |
The FAA is authorizing taxi fleets. I love the idea, but since one can pack one of these smaller jets with enough explosives to take down a skyscrapers and they must be easier to hijack I can't imagine how they let those ideas proceed. |
|
| |
Similarly for the airlines plans to make internet and cell service available -- not too useful if you can't take stuff on board. |
|
| |
Good thing for teleconferencing, I guess, which is definitely good for me. |
|
| |
What we need is to use one of them MRI truth telling devices, and ask "do you intend to cause physical harm to the people on this plane or otherwise use this plane to harm others. Are you transporting banned substances?" etc. |
|
| |
Then bring a gun on board, for all I care |
|
| |
Surely a pilot or two would be helpful as well... |
|
| |
// The FAA is authorizing taxi fleets. I love the idea, but since one can pack one of these smaller jets with enough explosives to take down a skyscrapers and they must be easier to hijack I can't imagine how they let those ideas proceed.// |
|
| |
Sky scrapers are pretty tough. A 767 carries a very large amount of aviation fuel; smaller airplanes carry a lot less. The Empire State Building was hit by a bomber (lost in a fog) a few decades back and yet it still stands today. |
|
| |
supercat, I'm thinking of a small jet packed with as much explosive as a truck bomb would have. |
|
| |