These People Make my Head Hurt

[HoreTore]

I don't see why on earth my personal freedoms should be restricted by the hysteria of the paranoid.

Airprt "security" should be confined to the loonie bin where belongs. There is no justification for one of the largest wastes of money ever concieved in the history of man.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I don't see why on earth my personal freedoms should be restricted by the hysteria of the paranoid.

Airprt "security" should be confined to the loonie bin where belongs. There is no justification for one of the largest wastes of money ever concieved in the history of man.

When I was but a wee garsoon, every third semi-nut or political quixotic was hijacking aircraft to make a statement. Ended up generating a lot of "take me to Cuba" jokes and the beginnings of airport security and police/military intervention teams. Until the hijackers learned it wasn't going to get them much of anything, it continued. Security made it tougher and coordinated responses among governments made it more and more pointless -- so mostly it stopped.

September 11th changed the game, since the hijackers no longer needed to get anywhere -- just use the plane itself as a weapon. Secuirty matters, and a set of effective practices to make such efforts a waste of resources needed(s) to be put in place. Horetore, you can make a good argument that the current set of protocols is a bad set -- even arguably the worst possible mix of responses -- but suggesting that all security efforts are bollocks goes too far the other way.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I think people forget that several recent hijacking or other terrorist attempts have involved people who did not look arab, and dressed in the same style of clothing as everyone else.

While double-checking these folks may be prudent, perhaps even assigning a sky marshal if we're so concerned, it's going to be unlikely that the traditional muslim garb people are the terrorists. More likely, they would be the folks jumping on the guy dressed in jeans who was threatening the other passengers. Maybe if that happened people would realize there's a difference between Muslims and terrorists.

[Strike For The South]

Tsk...for how long have we known each other now?

You need to get up pretty early in the morning to get in the child-molesting priest reference before me. I needed only eight posts this thread.

Bah, I know you always have the old catholic joke in the back pocket

rookie mistake on my part

[Askthepizzaguy]

Bah, I know you always have the old catholic joke in the back pocket

rookie mistake on my part

Is that a catholic joke in your pocket or are you just happy to see Louis?

[HoreTore]

When I was but a wee garsoon, every third semi-nut or political quixotic was hijacking aircraft to make a statement. Ended up generating a lot of "take me to Cuba" jokes and the beginnings of airport security and police/military intervention teams. Until the hijackers learned it wasn't going to get them much of anything, it continued. Security made it tougher and coordinated responses among governments made it more and more pointless -- so mostly it stopped.

September 11th changed the game, since the hijackers no longer needed to get anywhere -- just use the plane itself as a weapon. Secuirty matters, and a set of effective practices to make such efforts a waste of resources needed(s) to be put in place. Horetore, you can make a good argument that the current set of protocols is a bad set -- even arguably the worst possible mix of responses -- but suggesting that all security efforts are bollocks goes too far the other way.

Airport security is complete nonsense.

I'm not arguing for disbanding the police force.

[Fragony]

Airport security is complete nonsense.

Oh. Why.

[HoreTore]

Oh. Why.

Because it makes noone any safer, and it costs so many billions it makes my brain hurt.

[Viking]

Who assumed that? Everyone is obliged to alter their behavior to a certain extent when traveling by air these days. There are a lot of things I wear in everyday life that I might not choose to wear when getting on an airplane, like shoes with laces.

The thing is that their robes are completely harmless, as far as I know. The only reason they should not wear that sort of attire is due to islamophobic sentiments ('muslim looking guy' = terrorist), which is wrong. So, if they are not interested in provocating - then they have done nothing wrong. But even if they are looking to provocate, then it is still wrong that what they are doing actually should lead to a provocation. A person openly saying bad things about a dictator in a dictatorship knows well that his words will provocate, but that does not justify the reaction of those who become provocated. Et cetera.

What I really don’t understand is why they insist in wearing these clothes, as there is no signification whatsoever. Just cloths, it is not imposed/required by the Curran, not sacred, not holly, nothing like e.g. the various clothing on the Catholic Church.

So, we're come to the point were we have to justify what sort of clothes we are wearing: "If you don't have a good reason for wearing those clothes, then don't wear them all". Sounds fine for some sorts of clothes, but clothes that has not been demonstrated to mean much else other than "I belong to this faith" - now that is hindering freedom of expression. As per above, a pretty twisted perspective.

[Fragony]

Because it makes noone any safer, and it costs so many billions it makes my brain hurt.

It does make people safer, being able to bring explosives on a plane then again doesn't. Also comes in handy for human and drug weapon traffickers. You seem to be confusing how things should be and how they are again.

[HoreTore]

It does make people safer, being able to bring explosives on a plane then again doesn't. Also comes in handy for human and drug weapon traffickers. You seem to be confusing how things should be and how they are again.

No, they don't make people safer, simply because they don't stop explosives going through security.

There have been plenty of tests on the security controls, and they never catch all of them. Considering the insane number of people going through security every day, you would need to stop 100% of them. Not close to 100, not 99.9999, you need 100.

And since the success rate of the checks are around 7/10, it's about as useful as licking your finger and pointing to the sky.

Even if it was 100%, it's still waaaaaaay too expensive to be justified in a cost/benefit analysis. People stand for 30 minutes at the checkpoint. Time is money. Let's say the average wage is 20 bucks an hour. That means standing in line for 30 minutes doing nothing costs 10 dollars. Now, multiply that number with the number of passengers since 2001. The figure is mind-blowing. And since we don't have access to a pot with infinite money, perhaps we can take a look at what else we could buy for that amount, which would save a lot more lives. Aids medicine in Africa is what, 100 bucks per person per year? That's the cost of forcing 10 people through security.




I have a brilliant idea!

Drugs kill people. A lot of people. And ruin the lives of many, many more. Drugs are smuggled in cars and trailers through our borders. Why don't we detain and check every car and trailer that passes through our borders for 30 minutes? It would be a pain for smugglers, wouldn't it? This is just so S-M-R-T, I mean S-M-A-R-T!!

[Fragony]

No, they don't make people safer, simply because they don't stop explosives going through security.

There have been plenty of tests on the security controls, and they never catch all of them.

Yes they do, they have dogs for that, can't stop all but can stop most. Expensive yes, but it's the passenger that pays for it not the tax-payer, ask them if they want to pay a little extra for that.

perhaps we can take a look at what else we could buy for that amount, which would save a lot more lives.

What do you suggest?

[Brenus]

“So, we're come to the point were we have to justify what sort of clothes we are wearing: "If you don't have a good reason for wearing those clothes, then don't wear them all".”
Well, in another debate, some suggest that women wearing some “slut” clothing are partially responsible for their rape…

You don’t have to justify what clothes you wear but you have to be aware of the result and the symbol of some clothes.
When I was younger and in the army, I choose to wear my uniform or not, depending of what I wanted to do (achieve) and who I would meet.
If you wear “afghan” fashion clothing you want to spread a political message, not a religious one, as there is not compulsory requirements for an Imam, contrary to Catholic Priest.
They made their point and, yes, blow a way “the nation of the Free” self assume notion defended by some even on this forum.

I spend a lot of time to explain that some clothes are more than clothes and are a political statements. And I see nothing wrong in this. However, when someone decided to play on “oh, it is only a piece of clothing” button I think it is pure hypocrisy.
The passengers didn’t react on the fact the Imams were Muslim but on the Clothing they choose to wear.
Well, they shouldn’t. Shouldn’t they?

[Viking]

“So, we're come to the point were we have to justify what sort of clothes we are wearing: "If you don't have a good reason for wearing those clothes, then don't wear them all".”

You don’t have to justify what clothes you wear but you have to be aware of the result and the symbol of some clothes.
When I was younger and in the army, I choose to wear my uniform or not, depending of what I wanted to do (achieve) and who I would meet.
If you wear “afghan” fashion clothing you want to spread a political message, not a religious one, as there is not compulsory requirements for an Imam, contrary to Catholic Priest.
They made their point and, yes, blow a way “the nation of the Free” self assume notion defended by some even on this forum.

I spend a lot of time to explain that some clothes are more than clothes and are a political statements. And I see nothing wrong in this. However, when someone decided to play on “oh, it is only a piece of clothing” button I think it is pure hypocrisy.
The passengers didn’t react on the fact the Imams were Muslim but on the Clothing they choose to wear.
Well, they shouldn’t. Shouldn’t they?

And what does these clothes represent? "I think OBL was a great guy"? I don't know what 'Afghan fashion clothing' is, and I doubt that too many of the passengers knew it either. At best they could realise the imams were muslims, but it wouldn't surprise me if sikhs also managed to get that label.

What really happened here is 'clothing indicates Muslim, which indicates potentential terrorist'.

[HoreTore]

Yes they do, they have dogs for that, can't stop all but can stop most. Expensive yes, but it's the passenger that pays for it not the tax-payer, ask them if they want to pay a little extra for that.

This is getting tedious....

No frags, they don't. They've failed in every test I have ever seen. The typical way to do it, is by sending 10 guys in with various items. Usually, they stop 6-7 of them, that means 3-4 terrorists get through at every test.

And this is before we factor in types of explosives etc that outsmarts the security checks.

A few links of failures for your enjoyment, frags, google can provide you with many more:

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...d.main/771587/

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...st-in-Slovakia

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archive...r_airport.html

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-01-28/u...bombs?_s=PM:US

This is quite simply the biggest waste of money the world has ever seen.

[drone]

September 11th changed the game, since the hijackers no longer needed to get anywhere -- just use the plane itself as a weapon. Secuirty matters, and a set of effective practices to make such efforts a waste of resources needed(s) to be put in place. Horetore, you can make a good argument that the current set of protocols is a bad set -- even arguably the worst possible mix of responses -- but suggesting that all security efforts are bollocks goes too far the other way.

The passengers are the best security now against hijackers. That method of attack has been closed.

What you see in US airport terminals is theater. The screening process has been absorbed into the war on drugs, the full body X-ray scans are both a handout to connected individuals and a potential health risk to both passengers and screeners, and the screeners themselves are either incompetent, criminal, or overworked/underpaid (mainly this). The terminals are the greatest target point at the moment, large crowds of people packed into serpentine lines prior to screening, created by the process itself.

[Fragony]

"This is quite simply the biggest waste of money the world has ever seen."

Can think of better candidates for that award, but it isn't free no. But it's necesary, not in the least because other countries won't like it if we don't check stuff.

[HoreTore]

"This is quite simply the biggest waste of money the world has ever seen."

Can think of better candidates for that award, but it isn't free no. But it's necesary, not in the least because other countries won't like it if we don't check stuff.

First off, no circular reasoning, frags.

And no, there is no bigger waste. The billions you claim immigration costs annually is dwarfed by what this scheme costs. And to top it off, it does nothing to make us "safer". There simply is no benefit to this stupidity.

[Fragony]

First off, no circular reasoning, frags.

And no, there is no bigger waste. The billions you claim immigration costs annually is dwarfed by what this scheme costs. And to top it off, it does nothing to make us "safer". There simply is no benefit to this stupidity.

No circularity, your argument only makes sense in a reality that doesn't exist. It's not possible to scratch airport security. Why are you complaining anyway passenger pays

[HoreTore]

No circularity, your argument only makes sense in a reality that doesn't exist. It's not possible to scratch airport security. Why are you complaining anyway passenger pays

It's "not possible" to stop immigration or scrap the welfare state either, but I still hear complainin'.

And no, it's not the passanger that pays. The passanger pays for the security personell and such, yes, but that's only a small part of what this costs. The biggest amount, the lost labour, is paid for by anyone who purchases products sold by companies who uses planes as transportation. This means every company, and so unless you're a hermit living in a cave eating plants, you pay for it.

[Brenus]

“And what does these clothes represent? "I think OBL was a great guy"?”.
Yeap. Sort of.
That means you support the Talibans and their view on Islam, and you count the US victims without acknowledging that the Talibans and others extremists killed more Muslims than all “imperialists” and infidels…
That means you are against the US policy (and you can be) but you support a specific kind of regime and values.
Again, as much as I know, these Imams were not Afghan or Kurds (or Navajo) so they made a choice that was political.

“I don't know what 'Afghan fashion clothing' is”: Come on, you don’t watch the news? Looks a little bit like the Navajo or Apache clothes.

“I doubt that too many of the passengers knew it either”: I would say that the fact they were frighten by it would make your assumption wrong… Perhaps they watch News.

“'clothing indicates Muslim, which indicates potentential terrorist'” My point, indeed. The choice of these clothes was done in order to create this reaction…

Except of course that there is no Muslim Clothing.

So the choice to wear clothes that every body would identify as Muslim thanks to a country very well covered by Media so easily recognisable was done on purpose in order to create the incident.
And they were right to do so as it proves that the US land of the Free is not what it supposed to be.
They played victimisation and succeeded.
Let’s make it simple. If they had worn Moroccan Clergy Clothes, nobody would have notice. As there is nothing noticeable…

[Viking]

Say what? Should Afghan imams be barred from flying ,because by being Afghan they must support, or, shall we say, did support Osama bin Laden?

I am sure the passengers that would get scared of these imams would even manage to become scared by copts



Or the Sikhs. Both should of course know that they look like devout muslims, which means that they are probably terrorists.

No, I do not think pepople would think 'Afghanistan' upon seing those people, that is way too specific for the average person.

[PanzerJaeger]

What a bunch of nonsense. As long as it conforms with law of the land, people should be free to wear whatever they want to on airline without discrimination.

Yes, they should, and indeed, they were! In fact, they were given the very next flight out in what I'm sure were upgraded seats. If these people were barred from ever flying again, I'd be right there with you, but what I object to is the asinine Civil Rights references. If you dress up like Osama bin Laden in the days after his death and try to pass through US airport security, you should expect some issues. (And yes, it was all dress up. I have friends at the U of M, where one of these fellows teaches Arabic, and apparently he dresses in jeans and a polo normally.) I do not think they should have been thrown off the plane, if the story as it is being told is accurate, but I'm not prepared to crown them Civil Rights heroes either. 'Situationally unaware dolts' seems more appropriate.

Of course, maybe these people on their way to a grand conference on "Islamaphobia" and with CAIR and the national press on speed dial (and, in fact, a cleverly packaged and sound-bite-shortened Rosa Parks analogy) knew exactly what they were talking about. Rosa Parks was looking for trouble too on that fateful day in 1955. However, one could certainly argue her grievances went far beyond getting bumped from a flight. In any event, now they get to have their press conference on what a terrible, racist country this is with much more media attention.

Keep in mind that certain people, especially in the worlds of NPOs and acedemia, thrive on social disharmony. Attention, respect, grants, tenure, board memberships, publishing deals, speaking gigs, and all sorts of other trappings are now associated with becoming a Civil Rights victim-hero in this country.

You act as though people in tradiational islamic attire are highjacking planes daily and the only way to stop them is by profiling.

Daily? Nein. Enough to be a serious concern? I think so, although they've moved from trying to hijack planes to simply trying to blow them up mid-flight. And yes, it would be stupid not to profile them.

Yes it is racism and anti-islamic crap. That is the very essence of the situation.

Racism is an irrational hatred or intolerance of another race. I don't think this has anything to do with hatred, intolerance, or these people's race. It was based on justified, if not well thought out, security concerns, considering the current environment.

"I can promise you the captain didn't throw those people off because of the way they were dressed. There's more to the story,” Ray said.

Ray said ultimately, it’s the captain’s call. “The captain operates in an environment that's always changing. It's dynamic. You can't fly an airplane by committee,” he said.

Ray said last week, every pilot in the country received e-mail briefings from their airlines warning them to be on high alert because of Osama Bin Laden’s death. He said that may have played in a part in Friday’s decision.

"We don't know if he had a message from air traffic control. We don't know if he got a message from his corporate security people to take these people off. We don't have all the answers."

The imams were headed to Charlotte for a weekend conference on "islamophobia" - the fear of Islam.

They were put on another flight and arrived a few hours later.

Anyway, I'm with Captain Ray. This is all just too convenient. The pilot had to have flown with traditionally dressed Muslims in the ~10 years since 9/11, and why would he go ahead and taxi out only to turn around?

Edit: And the plot thickens.

Early reports indicated their removal was ordered by the aircraft's pilot. On Friday, Transportation Security Administration spokesman Jon Allen had told the Commercial Appeal of Memphis that the men "were screened and cleared to fly" by the agency. But later, one of the passengers told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that "he spoke to the pilot after landing in Charlotte and the pilot told him that TSA requested the plane return to the terminal."

An airline spokesman said the incident was under investigation. The two clerics were put on aircraft that departed later. It turned out the clerics were headed to a weekend conference on "Islamophobia" in Charlotte.

"The irony of their going to a convention on Islamophobia when this happened is not lost," said aviation consultant Robert Mann.

Mann said he sensed that security was heightened as he boarded flights last week at Kennedy International Airport and at Miami International Airport. "I suspect there were advisories of some sort that related to the changed state of balance," he said. "It is always an interesting dynamic, how that is interpreted by individuals and carriers. You rarely get the full story on these incidents, given the security sensitivities."

[Louis VI the Fat]

Me and fifteen friends have booked our summer holiday to America! We have four guys on each plane. Everything was paid for with a single credit card. We only booked one way tickets. We shall be flying to NY on September 11th, the tenth anniversary. We shall be dressed as the Belgian football team.

Do you think there won't be any problems or does the US discriminate against Belgian footbal players?


That is, perhaps this case is not so much about discrimination of Muslim passangers. Who incidentally appear to be able to fly to, from and in America by the millions. But against peopl who make all the alarm bells go off. Who sometimes, quite possibly, were deliberately out to make the alarms go off.



What I would like to know, is what these two men wear in their daily lives. I think that they wear pretty standard attire to work, and that they put on 'the cleric costume' and 'the South Asian outfit' to make a political statement, to provoke a reaction. To look 'Muslim'.

Maybe people aren't stupid, maybe the passengers aren't stupid, maybe they noticed that there was something 'off' about these two men, that they were 'testing the system' for some reason or another. Maybe the people surmised that these two were using their flight to make a political statemement, and maybe they were exactly right about that too.

The next terrorist attack is not going to be by four guys, cleanly shaven, Western clothes. This was the last attack, and everybody is keeping an eye out for that. What people were afraid of, in this week of intense coverage of attacks on US planes through OBL's death, Obama's remembrance at Ground Zero, AQ's promise of retaliation, is some terrorist / Muslim / confused soul getting carried away, trying to make a political statement.
Like, say, two guys dressing up in religious attire to board a plane, with Lord knows what in mind. I think the people on board correctly figured out these two had a political statement in mind, albeit that they had no means to tell that this statement was not a terror attack but their Islamophobia congress.

[gaelic cowboy]

When I was but a wee garsoon, every third semi-nut or political quixotic was hijacking aircraft to make a statement. Ended up generating a lot of "take me to Cuba" jokes and the beginnings of airport security and police/military intervention teams. Until the hijackers learned it wasn't going to get them much of anything, it continued. Security made it tougher and coordinated responses among governments made it more and more pointless -- so mostly it stopped.

September 11th changed the game, since the hijackers no longer needed to get anywhere -- just use the plane itself as a weapon. Secuirty matters, and a set of effective practices to make such efforts a waste of resources needed(s) to be put in place. Horetore, you can make a good argument that the current set of protocols is a bad set -- even arguably the worst possible mix of responses -- but suggesting that all security efforts are bollocks goes too far the other way.

Oh for the days of this

[Hax]

What is religious attire in Islamic context? The djelabba or djelebbiya? Is it the turban or the fez? What constitutes Islamic clothing and what differentiates it from Arab clothing?

I don't think we should mix up male Arab clothing and Islamic clothing. I feel it might only give even more rise to the general concept of "Arab = Muslim", which is not only unfair, but also kind of racist.

The next carefully prepared terrorist attack is not going to be by four guys, cleanly shaven, Western clothes.

I made my own adjustments. I think that any organisation defined as being radically Islamic will take precautions and probably won't go on board wearing a djelabiyya and a turban. Let's not be silly. Maybe that a single Muslim who is sick of the perceived discrimination will cause a scene, but a carefully orchestrated attack? I don't think so.

AQ's promise of retaliation, is some terrorist / Muslim / confused soul getting carried away, trying to make a political statement.

I may presume too much here, but I think al-Qaeda isn't really going to do that much anymore.

Of course, maybe these people on their way to a grand conference on "Islamaphobia" and with CAIR and the national press on speed dial know exactly what they are talking about.

Wait, are you accusing the US press of being pro-Muslim or something? Eh..okay.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I made my own adjustments. I think that any organisation defined as being radically Islamic will take precautions and probably won't go on board wearing a djelabiyya and a turban. Let's not be silly.

I do not think that the next AQ plot will involve the exact same configuration as last time, the one that will make all alarm bells go off. Everybody knows terrorists go out of their way to look ordinary, therefore the clever terrorist will try to not look etc etc.
Plus AQ doesn't repeat itself. More worryingly, it is not AQ in the first place that one should've been afraid of last week. The danger was the individual losing his cool in the intense events of last week. One or two ordinary guys, who want to make a political statement.

AQ's promise of retaliation, is some terrorist / Muslim / confused soul getting carried away, trying to make a political statement.

I may presume too much here, but I think al-Qaeda isn't really going to do that much anymore.

Sorry, sloppy interpunction by me.
The point is indeed that it is probably not AQ one should've been wary about last week. But rather the threat of one or two guys trying to make some sort of political statement. Remember that congresswoman, Griffords, who got shot by one guy who may / may not have been driven by the intesity of the political climate? That sort of thing, that is what I would be wary about on a plane the first 24 hours after a commemorative service at Ground Zero. This is how it reads properly:
What people were afraid of, in this week of intense coverage of attacks on US planes through OBL's death, Obama's remembrance at Ground Zero, AQ's promise of retaliation, is some terrorist / Muslim / confused soul getting carried away, trying to make a political statement.

One does not board an Israeli plane wearing a Panzerjager t-shirt. Yes, you;ve got your freedom of speech. But you know this is going to take at least a few hours of explaining in some swelteringly hot office. Likewise, one knows that to board a US plane last week in Islamic garb is going to be a hassle. You realise full well you will be checked. And will be double-checked. Therefore, the average Muslim simply wears standard clothes, shows his passport, gets on the plane like everybody else, and no problem. Two guys who dress up for the occasion - well, they understand they will face a lot of hassle. What's more, the other passengers know that these two understand this, so the passengers - probably correcty! - surmise these two are in it to make a political statement.

What statement, they don't know. Maybe they seek to provoke. Maybe they go to a congress and want to create a buzz. Maybe they want to hope to commit suicide-by-fbi. Maybe they want to wait for take-off and shout 'Hail Osama!' and storm the cockpit. Maybe they want to....whatever, why shuold the passengers wait and see just what exactly they have in mind? Me I'm not going to take my chances. These guys are in the same plane with me to possibly make some sort of political statement, and I'm not going to take my chances. Either they leave or I leave. Considering these guys did not make the effort, I say let them leave.

[Reenk Roink]

Hope these two guys get even more press attention for their message against Islamophobia and other racism or racialized bigotry that still exists against Muslim now. Also, that captain deservedly is going to look like the he was (though the poor airline is going to take an image hit and we don't need that with our economy).

[Louis VI the Fat]

A third cleric was barred from flying to the conference.

So apparantly, during a week of heightened tension and intense security measures, 200 Imams decide to fly across America, dressed in head-to-toe Islamic garb, to see (try?) if they will face anti-terror measures. Three got denied from flying.

Whatever else one may think of this, these are not ordinary people going about their daily business. These were activists in action, trying to see if they would (could?) find themselves discriminated against.

At least three Muslim clergymen were denied access to flights bound for Charlotte over the weekend. They were trying to attend the annual meeting of the North American Imams Federation. The airlines are saying little about why the men were not allowed to fly.

Imam Al-Amin Abdul Latif spoke to WFAE by cell phone while driving home to New York from Charlotte. He had to drive because Friday morning at the La Guardia airport, American Airlines refused to let him on the plane.

He came to Charlotte for a conference of Muslim clergy. The main topic was how to address Islamophobia.

Latif and other Muslim imams who attended the Charlotte conference feel like discrimination against them is growing. The recent killing of Osama Bin Laden may have added to the scrutiny for about 200 imams travelling to Charlotte last weekend.
http://www.wfae.org/wfae/1_87_316.cf...isplay&id=7297

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Denied cleric, three weeks ago at rally:




http://www.aljazeerah.info/News/2011...09,%202011.htm

[Fragony]

It's "not possible" to stop immigration or scrap the welfare state either, but I still hear complainin'.

And no, it's not the passanger that pays. The passanger pays for the security personell and such, yes, but that's only a small part of what this costs. The biggest amount, the lost labour, is paid for by anyone who purchases products sold by companies who uses planes as transportation. This means every company, and so unless you're a hermit living in a cave eating plants, you pay for it.

They hardly ship bulk in passenger planes, way too heavy. Long distance transportation goes by sea