Should We Have "Passenger-Only" flights?

Question

Terrorists are testing ways to get explosives into luggage...cheese, blue ice, batteries, cell phone chargers...things they can detonate from the cabin...the
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20070725/D8QJB4K80.html
Why not just have "passenger only" flights with the inconvenience of waiting for your luggage to arrive later or trailed by a cargo-only plane?
Costs would be substantially less, and people actually might learn to travel very light!
Would you go for this option?

Luggage can be consolidated...passengers cannot

Answer 1

I like the concept, but I don't think it would be cost efficient. Yes you could reduce the number of security checkpoint (and staff) , but you now have the extra cost of an entire plane travelling only with luggage. And who is to say that "terrorists" couldn't blow up a plane with luggage only on it when the plane is at the airport- causing disruptions anyway.

Also, the excess fuel consumption and pollution produced would not be worth it.

Answer 2

If it is not too long to wait for my luggage and significantly cheaper - i think yes.

It will mean : Less waiting, no more changeovers with luggage going to Bejing, China while i`m due at Canberra, Australia.

However, the downside is that people depending on medicines can no longer use those flights, as you are not allowed to carry anything.

Airlines need to make sure there is enough food and drink present, and should offer reading materials etc. as you cannot bring your own.

Answer 3

Not Possible. First plane tickets would cost twice the amount because now you are flying yourself in one plane and your luggage in another? No not possible, it would cost to much money and the sky is a very crowded place there is no room for more planes with people luggages. Also airlines make ALOT of money on cargo they put under the planes also, so not only would it cost double to fly airlines would go out of business. your idea is creative but not possible at all.

Answer 4

Having "Passenger-Only" flights would probably be impractical and expensive.

A compromise solution is "no cabin baggage". A couple of airlines are looking at trials. Think about what you take on board: supplies and entertainment. With a greater range of supplies at reasonable prices and increased entertainment the need for cabin baggage would be reduced, and there would be more room on board.

The downside would be medications and supplies for infants. A change to the pharmacutical dispensing regulations would allow small quantities of medications dispenced in specially sealed containers that could be taken on board. The main meds would be checked in. Infant supplies could be carried by the airlines in all that extra space that would have been occupied by cabin baggage.

No electronics to be carried on board. On-board entertainment systems are getting better. A greater range of on-board reading material could be made available. On-board telephones are increasingly available.

Before you iPod addicts or Crackberry dependents kick up a fuss, smokers can live without a cigarette for the duration of the flight. Its not going to be easy but give it a try.

I take my computer onboard but would give it up if it was the law.

Children's toys should also be banned. Terrorists have already used them for bombs. Besides, try taking your kid to the Doctors. They usually have the crappiest toys in the waiting room yet every kid forgets that expensive toy they brought and wants to play with the ones in the waiting room. Airlines could carry a range of non-annoying toys in all the extra space.

Answer 5

The only problem with this is that practicality is not the goal of travelers. People get insanely frustrated when they have to wait just 5 minutes for their luggage to get to the terminal - a delay of 20-30 minutes for the baggage flight would aggravate people who didn't see the benefits of it

Answer 6

I think the main problem is that air travel is very international now. And we cannot make this rule on foreign airlines, except to completely ban foreign carriers. Airport security in foreign countries also out of US control. I was recently on an international flight on a US carrier, departing the foreign county, and entering the US. Security was just a simple scan. Shoes were on, and there was a sign about liquid restriction for flights going to the US, but security did not open any bags to check for liquids. It was like they just didn't care.

Answer 7

One of the fastest-growing new businesses is the company that sends your luggage ahead, so it is waiting for you at the hotel. More and more frquent travelers are sending their bags a day ahead. They save time checking in, they save time by not waiting for their bags and they move more easily around town without having to schlepp bags. They can go from the airport direct to a meeting.

It's not terribly expensive and those who do a lot of travel find it is worth it.

Answer 8

terrorists testing new ways to blow up sh*t is nuthing new and no it's not cheaper to have a plane with luggage because your using two planes now not one how will that keep cost down??what we need is more security in airports and better people to check bags new x-rays not them old ones that most airports have i am from NYC i trust me security in airports is the most we need and maybe a better id system in place to know who is who getting on planes work with Interpol and people like that

Answer 9

That is ridiculous. The airlines can't keep track of baggage as it is. Who do you think is gonna pay the cost for these extra planes? Not the airlines believe that.

Answer 10

Well I myself do not like wating for my luggage but it would be cheaper and it would possibly save lives. Good question