Commercial airline security after 9/11

[Anymouse]

Only read about half the posts. Fearless Tower sums up my thoughts nicely though.

I did want to mention something that has been done that I feel definitely degrades airline security. Prior to 9/11, passengers could freely carry pocket knives, tools, etc. Since those privileges have been revoked, we, the passengers, have had our ability to defend ourselves as well as our aircraft and our fellow passengers, removed.

If you think about it, there have been very few successful hijackings since 9/11. That is due to the mindset change since that day. When a flight is threatened, passengers are typically the ones that "resolve" the issue. The shoe and underwear bombers are good examples. Having something other than a plastic spoon to use as a weapon could probably have come in handy in those and other cases.

 

[James331]

Only read about half the posts. Fearless Tower sums up my thoughts nicely though.

I did want to mention something that has been done that I feel definitely degrades airline security. Prior to 9/11, passengers could freely carry pocket knives, tools, etc. Since those privileges have been revoked, we, the passengers, have had our ability to defend ourselves as well as our aircraft and our fellow passengers, removed.

If you think about it, there have been very few successful hijackings since 9/11. That is due to the mindset change since that day. When a flight is threatened, passengers are typically the ones that "resolve" the issue. The shoe and underwear bombers are good examples. Having something other than a plastic spoon to use as a weapon could probably have come in handy in those and other cases.

A nice ballpoint pen will do a bit more damage than a small pocket knife if you put some muscle into it

 

[FlySince9]

Drop the PC.. stop strip searching the 90 year old women in wheel chairs because they packed hairspray in their carry-on... Concentrate on known age-groups and nationalities and effect a more sophisticated method of maintaining and making use of no-fly lists...

 

[FloridaPilot]

I'm sorry you were traumatized, I'm also sorry that in that vulnerable time the government took advantage of you with it's a sales pitch for "security"

Little bit of a satire but true

Frankly we can no longer call ourselves the land of the free and the home of the brave, our freedoms have been cut for "the children"' and "9/11" and we are not brave enough to tell the government NO, as we allowed emotions based on the actions of a few mad men to change our country, in that way the terrorists won, we allowed them to tell us how to live our lives.

This country is her constitution, any man who would trade some freedoms for a little illusion of safety, well that sorry SOB deserves nether.

Not traumatized at all, it actually made me a better person because of it. It's really not what happens to you that matter it's what you do with what happens to you. I realized that everyday I wake up it has value and even if I'm having a bad day I know that those people who passed that day would love to trade places with me.

I agree, our freedoms are slowly being taken away from us no matter who is in office. We are too busy fighting each other with labels to realize what is going on.

 

[unsafervguy]

Guessing does a huge disservice. This one is full of prejudices, and has clearly never heard of a SIDA badge. Those might SUCK, but you're not going to get through the fence without someone looking at you and your record.[/QUOTE

Yep never heard of a sida badge. I've only had one for 28 years. to bad there are a lot of cases of sida badge holders getting arrested for warrants, some even handcuffed on airport property. Some how I doubt they have been checked as through as flight crews, and don't even get me started on TSA

here is one nice and close to home for you:
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-tsa-security-lapse-20150609-story.html

here is another one close to home for you:
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/20...-with-ghost-guns-was-san-jose-airport-worker/
Bob

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

It certainly does improve security.
To what extent nobody knows, as it's more of a deterrent than a "catch trying to board".

Just like placing one security guard in a mall somewhere nominally improves security there. But the question is - is the slight improvement worth the price. I. The case of the TSA that is $8.1 billion per year, plus the invasions of privacy, plus the people killed on roads due to displacement to driving.

When people have evaluated the tradeoffs in he case of the TSA, it appears it is about 100 less cost effective per life saved than many other possible uses of those dollars.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

But ok, I'll run with your idea.
So instead of having 100 folks to shoot at in a plane, he's got 300 to shoot at standing in line with their hands full at a TSA line??

This is another big problem with our pre-screening approach and the TSA. The TSA lines are very attractive targets for attacks - as was recently demonstrated in Europe.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

In my opinion if the government had taken charge of things back then when the industry failed to and demanded strengthened doors, 9-11 could not have happened as it did. But then, that would have been overreach, right? Nope. Instead, we did end up with overreach after 9-11 in the form of the TSA, TFRs, etc.

The history of airline security in the US is interesting in this regard. The government tried initially to take charge with the metal detectors, and then the questions about who packed your bags.

The airlines have always had a fairly cosy relationship with the regulators, and for example, are now exempt from bearing the full costs of the liability of their operations in the event of an attack. So just like other industries, say savings and loans or mortgage companies, which have been spared from bearing the cost of the liability of their operations by the government, they will tend to ignore those costs. In the case of airlines, that means not taking security seriously as their problem.

I believe in the long run, in order to return some sanity to airline security, it will be necessary to privatize this risk, the rules to be applied to deal with the risks, and the screeners.

The government will always err on the side of increased and costly surveillance, both because it let's them say they "did something" and because it increases the size of their tax spending and employees.

We have a website about this - http://www.realairlinesecurity.org .