Can someone explain to my why carry-on baggage from Canada -> USA flights are banned?

[Asher]

There's no ****ing way this makes any sense.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/743292#article

Carry-on bags all but banned
Lines ease up, security clamps down at Pearson

Almost no carry-on baggage is allowed on flights from Canada to the U.S., Transport Canada announced this afternoon as holiday travellers continue to cope with long delays at Pearson International Airport.

Patrick Charette, a Transport Canada spokesman, said the change is effective immediately.

U.S.-bound fliers will only be able to bring aboard the following: medical devices, small purses, cameras, laptop computers, canes, walkers, diaper bags, musical instruments and bags containing "life-sustaining items."

The tightening of restrictions comes a day after travellers at Pearson, Canada's busiest airport, faced massive line-ups with waits of up to eight hours, delayed and cancelled flights and mass confusion over what frazzled fliers were supposed to do to get through customs and security.

Most industry officials are blaming the problems on new security rules put in place after a failed bombing attempt of a Detroit-bound Northwest Airlines flight on Christmas Day. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, 23, of Nigeria is accused of trying to ignite explosives hidden in his trousers.

On Sunday morning, as the chaos started to unfold on Pearson's busiest day, the carry-on rule allowed only one bag. Later in the day travellers were told it was best if they had no carry-on and that large carry-on bags wouldn't be allowed; only diaper bags, purses and other small items would get through.

At Pearson today, as long lineups seemed to be ease, tired and frustrated passengers were trying hard to take it all in stride.

Many praised the orderliness of Air Canada's process of checking for American flights. But one woman said the lines are the worst she's seen during her family's annual Christmas trek to Canada.

"This is probably five times the lines we've ever experienced," said Christin Grand, who was travelling home to Atlanta with her three children and husband.

"We're going to be pushed through because of our three kids ... hopefully ... my infant is six months," she said while her husband tried to calm another crying child.

"We come up every Christmas and never experienced lines like this. We usually show up an hour and fifteen minutes before our flight and we're two plus hours before and it's still crazy."

Passengers also face body patdowns at customs. Extra RCMP officers have been called in to help with security and customs screening.

Still, officials say things are running more smoothly today as Air Canada is consolidating some flights to ease the crunch.

But don't expect the extra security measures to be lifted soon.

Trish Krale of the Greater Toronto Airports Authority says she doesn't expect the measures to be lifted "for at least several days."

There have been lengthy lineups at the airport since the failed attack Friday. An Al Qaeda group has claimed responsibility for the attempt.

The attempted terrorist attack prompted authorities to add new layers of security on top of measures adopted after the Sept. 11 attacks.

An Air Canada sales and service agent says the wait to check in baggage and passengers is about a half-hour.

"We are getting the people checked in on time" said Lincoln Sivasanmugam, but he could not say what was happening once travellers got inside to U.S. customs.

"We keep on moving but the hiccup is inside," he said.

While some passengers knew about the new security rules, others had to stop and re-pack their bags or even buy new luggage at the airport.

Air Canada is also being held to strict landing times by U.S. airports.

In order to meet those deadlines, flights must leave exactly on time or be cancelled.

"If we miss the slot time there is no point in us leaving ... you gotta be there on time. If not, they don't want us," said Sivasanmugam as he called passengers for their flights.

[Kuciwalker]

Some of these things are going to have to be rolled back.

[Asher]

My brother's flying out to Maui on Delta Airlines (via Salt Lake City) on the 30th. Poor guy. Due to the layovers it's basically a full day of flying, and he's not allowed to bring a carry-on bag...he's going to be bored out of his ****ing mind. And buying lots of books at airport kiosks, I'd bet. Who knows what he'd do with those after? Throw them out?

[Asher]

The latest articles are stating you can't even ****ing bring a book on the ****ing plane.

A BOOK.

You can only bring books you buy past security.

I've no words on the intense stupidity here.

Here's a good article:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/airport-restrictions-denounced-as-security-theatre/article1413679/

Airport restrictions denounced as 'security theatre'
Beef up intelligence, keep terrorists from ever reaching airports, industry tells government: ‘Airports are not a good last line of defence'

When an attempt to set a transatlantic jetliner aflame above Detroit was foiled on Friday, an old debate was reignited on the ground.

The airline industry and experts who study it have been locking horns for years with the U.S. government agency in charge of transportation security over how best to tackle the problem of terrorism in the air.

As restrictions on U.S.-bound international flights have escalated to unprecedented heights – passengers are forbidden to hold anything on their laps or to leave their seats during the last hour in the air – many experts believe regulators have taken a backward approach to the issue. They argue that pouring money into additional preboarding inconveniences – including the kind of invasive searches that may have prevented the Detroit incident – will never eliminate the risk that a terrorist will bring down an airplane.

“We really need to consider the alternative path, which is spending those billions on intelligence work and basic police work directed at places and individuals who would do harm to the [airline] industry,” said Robert Mann, an aviation consultant based in Port Washington, N.Y.

“There was a tip from the father of the individual who is alleged to have put together the Detroit plot. We did nothing. And we could have kept the individual far, far away from the airport,” he said, adding: “Frankly, airports are not a good last line of defence.”

Bruce Schneier is a security consultant and author who has become a well-known critic of the airport screening measures put in place by the U.S. Transportation Security Administration since Sept. 11, 2001. He has waged an ongoing campaign of small-scale stunts – including the creation and successful use of fake boarding passes – to illustrate his arguments. They centre around the notion that policy makers wrongly prioritize reactive, visible measures that appear to increase security in airports – such as repeatedly checking identification or limiting passenger movement during the last hour of flight – over less visible measures, like beefing up foreign intelligence, that would be more effective in stopping terrorism.

“Right now we are engaged in this huge show, this huge piece of security theatre,” he said. “We're engaging in magical thinking in that by defending against what the terrorist happened to do last time, we think we'll make ourselves secure. It's like saying the terrorist wore a green shirt, so no more green shirts,” he said in an interview.

“These measures are only effective if we happen to guess what the next terrorists are planning. If we concentrate airport security on screening shoes and confiscating liquids, and the terrorists hide explosives in their brassiere and use solids, we've wasted our money,” Mr. Schneier wrote in a recent self-published essay. “It's not the target and the tactics of the last attack that are important, but the next attack.”

The goal of air travel security in the future, the experts agree, should be to prevent terrorists from ever reaching the airport.

“We need to fight them not at the airport, not in an aircraft, but in places where these would-be harm-doers are developing their ideas and fermenting their plans,” Mr. Mann said. “We're focused on fighting the last battle, not the next one,” he said, adding: “It seems like we can only go in two directions here.”

In the long term, continuing on the same course that began in the wake of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, is simply not feasible for the industry or its customers, they argue.

“If we strip-search passengers, if we ask them not to carry anything on [to the aircraft], it would increase safety. But the question we need to ask is would that extra level of safety be desirable,” said Bijan Vasigh, a professor of economics and finance at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach, Fla., and managing director of Aviation Consulting Group.

“If everyone goes naked, there is no risk. But it is not desirable. The margin of improvement … is not as beneficial as the margin of cost.”

Airlines have already paid significantly for the passenger inconveniences and delays caused by the onset of new security regulations since 2001. Mr. Mann said the industry has been charting a dramatic surge in the use of private jets and smaller aircraft as companies opt for more convenient, reliable and less time-consuming modes of travel.

An increase in security restrictions at large airports is predicted to further deepen the pain commercial airlines are feeling.

“What it will do for sure is deter travel,” Mr. Mann said.

[Jon Miller]

I bet Israel is still much much safer despite having less silly rules.

It is just idiocy.

JM

[Kuciwalker]

BUT THEY'RE RACIST AGAINST MUSLIMS SO WE CAN'T BE LIKE THEM

[fed1943]

Not allowed to take hand badges? But that's a fundamental right.

[Cort Haus]

The trrists are winning.

[Dauphin]

But thankfully the spelling Nazis are losing.

[MOBIUS]

The problem with Intelligence (the sort of thing that would have stopped this latest guy dead in his tracks, cos his dad told the intelligence services about him!), is that it happens behind the scenes. All the politicians want to show their voters that they're in charge by scaring the **** out of them.

The number of people in the US supporting what is being done in Afghanistan probably jumped by a few percent because of this attack.

[SpencerH]

Actually his dad notified the embassy of his concerns. The embassy is controlled by the state department not by any intelligence agency. Whether the info was passed up to intel people working at the embassy is unknown but unlikely. Its also unlikely that the info was 'red-flagged' in any way, so no other intel people outside of the embassy would have known about it (as I understand it there are 500K people on the list he was on).

[KrazyHorse]

Some of these things are going to have to be rolled back.

Really? 5 years later and I'm still taking off my shoes every time I get on a plane.

[-Jrabbit]

Most of the stupid security measures we put up with started as knee-jerk reactions to a single incident. One guy smuggles a bomb on board in his shoe >> every air traveler in the world has to take off their shoes.

Now we enter a world where travelers won't be allowed to pee in the final hour of a flight -- again, all because of one guy. Which is a tacit admission that all the other procedures -- magnetometers, x-rays, liquid/gel restrictions, etc -- are basically ineffectual.

I used to enjoy flying.

[KrazyHorse]

I'm going to urinate in the aisle if they ever tell me I can't get up to use the bathroom.

****ing morons.

[Jon Miller]

Israel doesn't have many of these measures, but seems to be much safer and the measures they do have are more effective (but still annoying, and if you are 'flagged' you could easily spend 4-8 hours in security).

JM