Carry-on Luggage

I think, in the case of this article, I must disagree with the New York Times.

Their editorial advocates banning all carry-on luggage from airplane cabins until technology is developed to detect dangerous materials in carry-on luggage. Their editorial purports to examine all the advantages and disadvantages of this type of ban but a lot of things are left out.

Here's a quick summary of the pros and cons according to the Times.

On the plus side -

• Shorter security lines
• Faster boarding of the cabin
• Safer because terrorists won't have their bomb materials with them
• Tougher scrutiny for checked luggage

On the minus side -

• Greater burden on lines for luggage screening and screeners may rush bags through without checking adequately or flights get delayed because of wait for bags
• Out of concern for their laptops and other electronic devices, some people won't fly and the airlines could lose money

Their only compromise solution -

• Have bins on the plane to lock in valuable electronic devices

A few thoughts with regards to their editorial:

1. Their primary reason for banning carry-ons would be because technology can't screen for dangerous items yet and once we can, we can bring stuff on board again. However, hasn't history shown that if you're constantly reactive as opposed to proactive, you will never be ahead on that front? Technology will match the current "threat," but will it be equipped to handle the next one? If you stop things one way, people will just find another. If this is the logic, a "temporary ban" until technology catches up, who can ensure that the ban will ever be lifted?
2. One of the advantages is shorter security lines for travelers. Yes, but since everyone has to now check in a bag, how about longer check-in lines? When I traveled in O'Hare in August, the line to check in was dreadfully long and winding, but the security lines moved fairly well. The only problem was that people were cutting it close for all their flight times since the lines were so long. Sure, the security lines may be shorter, but you're making up for it somewhere else.
3. Faster boarding. Sure, slightly faster, but does that really outweigh security of personal belongings that people value?
4. Terrorists won't have their bomb materials, better scrutiny for checked luggage - that sounds good, but see #1 above.
5. I agree with both of the cons that they list, and because of the hassle of flying, a lot of people already are switching, especially for short trips. Why bother if you have to get to the airport 2 hours earlier and it takes forever to get your bags once you land?
6. Compromise solution - I think it is good, because it answers the concern of important and valuable items getting stolen, getting damaged, etc. by baggage handlers, but are you really going to store every person's digital camera in one of these bins? Seriously?

Now for a couple of thoughts of my own:

When the ideas of banning carry-on baggage first started floating around the time of the liquid ban, I thought of two HUGE reasons why people are hesitant to check their bags. (As someone who 90% of the time traveled with only a carry-on suitcase, it didn't take long to figure out). Why check your bag when you can't trust that it will make it to your destination with you?

Two big reasons - (1) all those stories on the news magazines about things getting stolen from checked luggage and (2) bags get lost all the time! Why would you check your bag when the chances are so high that it won't be there with you?

I noticed that this editorial never once mentioned lost bags. Did they travel in the airports during the liquid ban? Did they notice just how many people did not get their bags when they got off the plane? We stood in LaGuardia at the baggage carousel (well, the mini one) and not only was it 4 rows of people deep, but I listened to all these people talking to the guy working for United talking about how their bags weren't there. They could track down some of them, but they were all coming in on later flights because of the baggage volume. Our systems can't handle the volume of checked baggage we have now, and if we have to check in MORE, it's not going to work! Not to mention that, since things often get lost, all the travel experts tell you to travel with a spare set of clothes so that you don't get stuck at your destination with nothing. Or if you're going to a wedding or something, you don't exactly want to check all your dress clothes. The only answer the editorial seems to have is that the airports can figure it out through the "ingenuity of aviation planners." That's not all that comforting, as it's quite vague...

I think a lot of people who can afford it are going to end up turning to luggage forwarding services. Maybe that's the way to go. Although I'm concerned that they just leave it at the destination like a hotel - what do they do at the destination point? I'm curious in case I ever need to turn to that. But should a ban like this ever go through, the dilemma is then what to do with my digital SLR? No way is that getting checked in, but do I trust someone else to carry it? I will be quite annoyed if I can't have that on my person.

And on the electronics point, it sounded from the introduction to the editorial that they were not in favor of electronics being allowed on the planes. The description of their proposed carry-on was "travel documents, keys, vital medications, reading materials and any other minimal items that are allowed." Who is going to draw that line? Do you include cell phones? Blackberries? PDAs? What if you allow cell phones and not blackberries and someone has a combo one? Do you allow laptops? Digital cameras? If you allow a small digital camera, how do you exclude an SLR (or the bag you need to carry it in)? Handheld video games? iPods? Are electronics "minimal items"? If they are, does it depend on size? Argh, you can tell what items I carry that are important to me... (Seriously, do they intend for the same "ban" to exist on international flights? 15 hours to Asia with NONE of your belongings? That would be a nightmare.)

Anyway, now that I have been thorougly annoyed by this article, I'm going to see what's in the articles I pulled out. Usually I enjoy reading the Times since I ignore all the real "news" articles. For me, this is a travel article. But it's got me really annoyed. I understand the logic and the simplicity behind the idea, but thinking about it realistically, I don't think a carry-on ban can legitimately be proposed unless our baggage handling system is dramatically improved so that we can be sure that items aren't stolen and bags aren't lost as frequently as they are now.