Posted on 02/07/2005 2:47:08 PM PST by visagoth
Same goes for taking out a mall, or a Wal-Mart, or a church, or a concert, or a sporting event. No reason to single out an airport terminal for special restrictions, unless it involves potential access to aircraft.
Sounds like an airport restriction; if it was an airline restriction they wouldn't let you print it in the first place.
Good point; I agree. There are, however, forms of aircraft-targeted terrorism other than hijacking.
Fingerprint-based Criminal History Records Checks, as well as significant background checks, all pre-employment.
And this brings a smile to my face everytime I think about it.
Exactly. There are 2 things that have improved airline security:
1. Reinforced cockpit doors.
2. Determination of passengers and crew to fight back.
Everything else is window dressing.
Easy cure for this whole deal, and it's what the writer proposes at the end of the article, with one clarification: simply check ID's at the gate, just for passengers with Internet boarding passes.
Agreed. Running luggage and boarders past explosive detection machines is probably worthwhile, and not much of an affront to customer dignity. Whether the passenger or luggage owner is identified accurately is largely irrelevant for this.
Expect most aircraft-targeted terrorism in the future to originate outside the aircraft. Weapons will probably be small ground launched missles or machine guns.
no question about that.
If I'm running the terrorists, the first next hit, I hit you in the same place I hit you years before....to make a statement.
Yep. Hijacking is now extremely difficult, bordering on impossible, due to (in order of importance) the new "fight back at all costs" mentality, reinforced cockpit doors, and (at least somewhat) enhanced checkpoint security. The threat of explosives in checked luggage is essentially gone, since checked bags are now universally screened for this, greatly reducing the probability of a successful attack and increasing the likelihood of getting caught. The threat of a bomb in a carry-on has been reduced, and this shrinking weakness will be gone before long.
That leaves attacks from outside the aircraft as the most significant threat. On the negative side, there are no real defenses against such an attack in place. Perimeter security is not good, and is very difficult (nearly impossible) and prohibitively expensive to improve substantially. Aircraft do not yet have defensive measures, and changing that will take money (not to mention a decision to do so). On the positive side, shoulder-fired missiles do not have a high success rate in bringing down airliners. Attacks have happened (mostly in Africa), and they sometimes bring down the plane, but more frequently the plane lands safely, albeit with one pissed-off pilot and a bunch of passengers who need to change their pants.
Don't knock it. It caught Ted Kennedy didn't it ?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.