Lear 70,
The only place in Europe banning all carry-on luggage is the UK for departures (and therefore transits), and the authorities there have even admitted it's unsustainable. No carry-on rules have changed throughout the rest of Europe as of yet, except a liquid/gel ban for inbound flights to the UK, US, and Israel.
Personally, I don't mind the liquid/gel ban. Bomb-making isn't a fantasy, it's chemistry, and even though I did poorly in that class I know it works for those who paid attention...including those alums from the "U of Tora Bora".
And since most pilots do realize that chemistry works, given their obvious derision and distain for TSA and those who decide what is forbidden, I can only conclude that they believe their aircraft wouldn't be targeted.
Or perhaps the whiners are from the mousse-hair pilot crowd that also bemoans the wearing of uniform hats. For them I suppose, life without their gel and a sculpted melon just isn't worth living?
Yes it's certainly possible that the bad guys would live in hiding for years trying to avoid detection, cover their money trail from prying governments' eyes while transferring and spending funds used to sustain their cells, attempt to coordinate and communicate with whoever they're answering to overseas who approve and manage the operation, etc. etc. etc....all to bring down a CRJ 70 or two.
But the fact is, if the baddies are going to go through all of what it takes to mount and carry out a "successful" homicide/terror operation using up their one shot, they will go for the literal biggest bang for the buck, which means big airplanes carrying lots of people. Targeting an RJ does NOT increase the chances for success if security is even across the board.
You say destroying a CRJ70 would "get the world's attention just fine". How many times last year were an RJ's-worth of shoppers or mosque-attenders blown-up in Baghdad last year? Plenty. Does that get the world's attention for more than a day anymore? Does it get yours? If the baddies were satisfied with killing what they consider a routine handful of people instead of the spectacular, they could go to a crowded shopping center or little league game any day of the week.
I disagree with your definition of terrorism; They do want to kill people...a lot of people. Islamic extremists hunger for bloodletting. The numbers DO matter to them, and the more victims the better. It gets them off. When they behead people they are practically orgasmic. It's why they blow themselves up on crowded buses/trains/shopping plazas and not remoter, less-secure targets...to maximize human damage/suffering because to them that equates to maximizing terror. More death means more publicity from the media, and we all know they are correct in that aspect, unfortunately.
I have to also disagree with your assessment regarding the TSA. Restoring confidence in air travel IS "preventing terror" at it's most basic. It's also only one tactical layer of prevention and defense. The whole idea (in terms of aviation), is to make the chances of success so low that they go elsewhere to try and wreak havoc.
Hijacking worked once 3 times out of 4 on 9-11, but it won't work again given the changes in policy, a willingness for shoot-downs, and the public's awareness that they aren't being taken hostage, they're being murdered and hence will not cooperate. So now the tactics have switched to bombs. The terrorists are combating ever-evolving technology..sniffers and puffers and dogs and screening checked baggage..and looking for chinks in the armor. Banning liquids and gel carry-ons plugs an obvious and long-known chink.
It's a low-probablility that an RJ would be a target if after boarding one (or many from differeing points using different people) while carrying componenents/chemicals for a device, the baddies could all stay airside and transit onto a larger, bigger fish and thereby slaughter hundreds. An RJ would more likely be a conduit than a target itself.
Pilots are supposed to be smart. Frankly, I think the TSA did a good job of targeting the potential threat and not going completely over the top, like banning all carry-on items such as magazines and baby pacifiers.
Maybe they need to issue some of those pacifiers to pilots here?
