Separate Passengers And Luggage

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.

Blogspot Watch

I’ve gotten a couple emails indicating that Blogspot Watch is showing that blogspot is up when it’s clearly down for maintenance, according to their web site.

I could in theory refine it to account for this, but it would both involve more sophisticated programming, and increase the bandwidth load from the checking, because right now it only looks at headers, rather than the full page. The latter is probably not a real concern, given the millions of hits that they get daily, but it was one of the considerations when I refined the original design, per the suggestion of one of their programmers.

Its basic purpose was only to determine whether or not the server was available, not whether or not all was going well on it. So when there’s a maintenance problem such as today’s (or whatever it is), it’s going to give a false positive. I’d like to do better, but as one emailer suggested, I don’t have time right now to increase the quantity of free ice cream.

Congress Concerned About Diversion From War On Japan

December 12, 1941

WASHINGTON DC (Routers) Despite yesterday’s declaration of war against the US by the German government, some in Congress are concerned about becoming embroiled in a war in Europe, when we are apparently so ill prepared to defeat the duplicitous Japanese, who only five days ago attacked and decimated our Pacific fleet in Hawaii without warning.

Many fear that the US, still mired in the deep economic depression of the past decade, lacks the resources to take on separate foes on three separate continents and two oceans, particularly when it seems so unnecessary, and a diversion from our true enemy.

A former State Department analyst put it in perspective. “It was Japan that attacked Pearl Harbor on Sunday, not Germany. We don’t have positive knowledge that the Germans deliberately attacked the Greer last September, and if they did, is that sufficient to risk our Pacific war effort with our more immediate enemy, the Japanese? After all, they didn’t sink her. And if it’s cause for war now, why not on September 4th?”

Many independent military analysts agree that America is ill prepared to fight a war against Japan, let alone one on multiple fronts. The nation’s aircraft are outdated by those of the enemy, our navy was inadequate to the task even before the loss of so many ships and brave sailors in the Pacific fleet on Sunday, and the armed forces are severely understaffed. Just to gear up to wage war on Japan will require massive rearmament and recruiting of personnel.

Roosevelt Administration officials, however, scoffed at the notion.

A high-ranking undersecretary at the Department of War said that, “America is quite capable of fighting all of our enemies as needed. The factories are already gearing up, and the American people have our full support. Enlistment has never been higher.”

“It’s ludicrous to think that we could ignore a government that has declared us our enemy, and simply wait until he’s become even more powerful to take him on, as we’ll have to do inevitably. This talk of ‘containment’ of Hitler by the Russians is whistling past the graveyard. We must engage him now, and force him into a multiple-front war. We can afford it–he cannot.”

But one high-ranking Senator who oversees the War Department, who wished to remain nameless, pointed out that “…yes, they’re allies of Japan, but Germany is no real threat to us. They have their hands full with the Soviet army right now, and this declaration is simply bluster on their part. Indeed, the President’s precipitate action in declaring open fire on all German and Italian vessels yesterday has unnecessarily widened this war, perhaps far beyond our present capabilities to wage it.”

Off the record, a former War Department analyst put it best:

“Until we’ve got Tojo’s head on a platter, this war won’t be over. Anything that distracts us from that is a victory for the attackers of December 7th.”

(Copyright 2002 by Rand Simberg)

The Cheela Mourn

Robert Forward has died.

He was a brilliant man, a titan in science, technology and science fiction. Probably no single man came up with and fleshed out more concepts that may ultimately result in our visiting other solar systems.

He was the king of anti-matter propulsion, but he also developed concepts for star travel via light sail. In addition, in more mundane matters (relating only to travel in our own solar system), he was a leading light on the care and use of tethers.

I have many (literally) vivid memories of him, particularly of his sartorial oddness. He was a man quite comfortable in a rainbow hued vest amidst a group of gray suits and ties. His ideas stood out in much the same way. I deeply regret that he didn’t have the opportunity to see many of his ideas come to fruition.

Biting Commentary about Infinity…and Beyond!