The Senate has, unusually, bowed to reality, and extended the deadline to have baggage-checking equipment in place at airports.

I'll bet this won't be the last time. This part of the legislation (like most of the airport security legislation hastily rushed through last fall) is severely flawed. Even if the equipment were in place, it would only give a false sense of security, and dramatically increase delays and costs. My understanding is that the state of the art of the machinery still provides a high number of false positives (inconvenient). I don't know if they also provide false negatives (deadly), but if so, it would be as bad as the passenger-screening system.

I was thinking about this coming back from Hawaii. We had an opportunity to get an earlier flight out of Honolulu, but we'd already checked our bags. Accordingly, we had to stay with the flight that our bags were checked on. Just one more example of how we're being inconvenienced by conventional thinking in airline security policies.

It made the notion of separating baggage and passengers more and more appealing, as suggested by Richard Wainwright a few months ago (look for the message titled "Airline Security" dated April 25, 2002).

I started giving it some thought, and it's not obvious to me that such a system would be worse than the current paradigm (luggage and passenger on the same airplane), and it might actually be better, and even cheaper.

We already have an infrastructure for moving passengers in place (the airlines). We also have in place an infrastructure for moving cargo, same day if necessary (Fedex, UPS and their competitors). Why not allow both to specialize on what they each do best?

Taking the luggage off the planes would have the effect of removing any risk of baggage bombs. They could only be slipped aboard carry-ons, and there would be no more need to match luggage and passengers. The luggage would be carried on cargo aircraft, where the only risk is to the crew (a risk that cargo crews already carry).

Potential objections are, of course, increased costs and decreased convenience. But I'm not sure that it's true. The current system of schlepping your heavy bags to the airport, standing in line to check them, and standing in another line to wrestle them off the carousel and into your car isn't particular convenient. I'd prefer to have it picked up at my home, and delivered to my destination.

Would it increase costs? Probably, but not as much as one might think, and probably one of the effects would be to do more carry on, and more efficient packing. The current model of baggage charge bundled with the ticket isn't necessarily the only or best one.

Since I avoid checking when I can, I subsidize the people who have two (or any) heavy bags, because we both pay the same fare, or more precisely (since probably no two people pay the same fare, given the arcane pricing schemes airlines use) there's no relationship between my fare and how much luggage I have (unless I exceed allowable numbers of bags or weight). Restoring that relationship would make for a more efficient market.

A different model might be to have a price for a passenger ticket, which includes your carry on, but have a separate fee for luggage. That way, only those who actually have luggage will have to pay for it.

The passenger tickets would now be cheaper, since they don't have to cover the costs of the luggage handling infrastructure, and the aircraft can either fly lighter, saving fuel, or more efficiently, perhaps by putting in a separate sleeper or steerage class in what's currently the luggage compartment. It might also allow the passenger fleet size to be reduced as a result.

The luggage would be handled by either an existing cargo operator, like Fedex, or a new entrant specialized for that market, or the airline itself with a separate aircraft fleet. You could either drop off your luggage at the airport, and pick it up at your destination airport, or for an additional fee it could be picked up at your house and dropped at your destination. If you can pack a couple days ahead of time, you'll save money--the price will go up for overnight or same day, just as it does for package delivery.

I don't know exactly how the industry would restructure, but I'll bet it would, and it would solve the luggage bomb problem once and for all. I would be very interested to see the industry response if the FAA were to put out an NPRM (Notification of Proposed Rule Making) stating that as of, say, January 1, 2004, no passenger aircraft would any longer be allowed to carry luggage, other than carry on.

Some good ideas there, especially about pricing. I sound a cautionary note here and here.

Jay, you bring up some interesting points in your links. A few points of varying degrees of relevance. By putting luggage on a seperate plane, you can incrase the number of people you put on the plane. Might require tearing out the inside of the plane and replacing it with a seating pattern for more people (and the infrastructure to handle the extra people). An airline might go into door to door service. Ie, pick you and your luggage up at your door and drop you and your luggage off at your destination.

Second, no luggage loading might reduce plane turnaround time. It seems significant in some cases (when the plane is waiting on baggage to show), but probably not that big a savings for the average flight.

Third, while space at airports is very sparse, many airports have nearby secondary airports. If it is possible to use some of these other airports for moving passenger baggage, then this may make passenger and cargo seperation more effective economically. If different airports can't be used, then this makes the crowding at the airport (runway and gates) worse though the baggage plane might not need a full blown gate.

The additional workers is a serious problem. It looks to me like pilots and the more skilled technicians are particularly hard to come by. Perhaps, labor won't be such a serious problem in the future.

How much do airlines save in insurance by seperating passengers and their baggage? Note that baggage seperation wouldn't have prevented the 9-11 attacks. So we are looking at only a partial savings.

I'm of two minds about this proposal.

I tend travel with lots of stuff. For example when I went to the 1995 Worldcon in Glasgow I took two suitcases, a small crate filled with art and a larger than most camera bag. I of checked everything but the camera bag -- it's much smaller than most carryon luggage and I won't trust the airlines with valuable equipment.

I'd be willing to embrace the system Rand highlights -- even to paying for all the stuff I take. Trust me, it would be lots easier traveling with such a system than the current one.

My concern? For years now I've seen people carry on amounts of luggage that should have been checked. Some inconsiderate people charge onto the plane first and take all available carry on space. All too often I'm left with little or no space for a coat and a much smaller camera bag. This proposal could make that all the worse. Address this issue and I'm completely in favor.

Airlines already have procedures for gatechecking oversized carry-ons. They just need to be more rigorous in enforcing them. Making people pay extra for gaming the system would help.

The main thing is to make clear to everyone what the rules are, so they're not surprised at the gate. Also, the aircraft could possibly be reconfigured to allow more and larger carry ons.

Two quick points. Speeding up turnaround times for an airplane would save incredible amounts of money for an airline. I remember reading that an airplane can use up to a third(exact percentage may be wrong but it is pretty substantial) of its fuel while on the ground. This is one of the reasons Southwest can afford such low prices as they focus on turning a plane faster than anyone else.(Yeah I know you guys hate Southwest, but from a business stand point they are pretty incredible)

Second, why do you need the airlines to do this? Do you think that a hotel chain or chains could use this as a perk to its clients, just to avoid the hassel of checking a bag, or even worse the loss of the bag. The fear of losing a bag is the reason you have so many people bringing everything they can in as a carry-on, if you have it in your possession the airline can't screw it up. The bag sitting in your room when you check in would be pretty appealing to both business travellers and tourists. It doesn't even need to be overnight shipping, since most people know that they are taking a vacation a couple days in advance and could plan accordingly. The hotel could get a volume discount with FedEx or UPS build the service into the price of the hotel room, treating it just like a continental breakfast or gym. Everyone pays for it but a small percentage view it as such an indispensible perk that they base purchasing decisions on its availiblity. I would not be suprised to see someone try this in the tourist industry, especially in a big resort town like Las Vegas or Orlando. Especially when people start hearing about security staff going through their luggage by hand because the scanner told them to and we have the inevitable 'Dateline' expose on theft from baggage.

You don't need the airlines to do it. As I said, it could be done by a totally separate entity. The point is that it probably won't happen, and you won't get the security benefits, until you don't allow the airlines to any longer check luggage on their passenger flights.

As long as airlines continue to mix checked luggage with passengers, we'll continue to be at risk from bombs, and the costs will only increase, even with third-party luggage handling, because the airlines will continue to bear the costs of their own bag-checking infrastructure.

I'd be happy to let the market determine exactly how it's handled, as long as that rule is followed. Of course, Southwest or Jet Blue could be leaders and institute the policy on their own. That might give further impetus to the FAA initiating an NPRM.