Posted on 09/22/2001 2:17:47 PM PDT by cc2k
Yesterday, I heard a reporter on one of the Atlanta radio stations doing live reports throughout the afternoon as he was going through security and getting on a plane to travel for the weekend.
His checked baggage was thoroughly searched. He also saw two uniformed U.S. soldiers have their duffel bags thoroughly searched. He went through the security check point, and had his carry on items searched, swabbed down and tested.
After going through all this security, he said "I feel my flight will be much safer after going through all this security."
I have some questions:
I hope that we can agree that the people who participated in the attacks on September 11th were highly motivated. They were dedicated to their task. They were so dedicated to their task that they were willing to give their own lives to the cause.
Any other people in their organization who are equally motivated will have the determination to find any weaknesses in our airport security to exploit in the future.
A security system can't be designed that has no weaknesses. Today's security isn't even close. Again, I'm prepared to give some examples if you disagree.
So, given these facts, how exactly are flights safer because well intentioned passengers with no weapons are delayed and searched at the security checkpoints and have their checked bags opened and searched in detail? If you fly on a airline flight, how is the flight safer because you have been searched, probed, screened and interviewed for "security." I don't understand how this helps.
I won't feel safe unless there's at least one firearm on the plane and it's not in the hands of a terrorist.
I also posted a thread last week "Who is ultimately responsible for national defense? (We the people)" to discuss how our culture has been damanged. We need to reinforce or re-establish the culture of liberty, self defense and national defense. If we can reclaim that culture, we won't be vulnerable to this in the future.
Having said all that, these new security measures will harm all businesses that depend on travel for customers (hotels, rental cars), as well as all businesses who send employees on business travel who now lose additional productivity while their employees undergo the baggage searches, strip searches and anal probes.
Also, the new security measures eliminate a large segment of airline travel in this country. For example, business travellers from the Atlanta area used to be able to drive to the airport, park at the airport about 30 minutes before takeoff and get on planes to Knoxville, TN, to Charlotte, NC, to Savanah, GA or to many other destinations in the Southeast. After a flight of 45 minutes to an hour, they were at their destinations.
Now, a trip to any of those locations isn't worth the time to take a plane. You can't park near the airport because the terminal parking has closed and all those cars are in the other lots. So, where you could get to the airport in 30 minutes before, you now need an hour or more to drive to an off site lot and ride a shuttle or train to the airport. You need to arrive 2 hours early in order to pass through security, where you used to be able to do it in 30 minutes or so. So, you have 3 to 4 hours plus the flight time. Knoxville and Nashville can be reached from the northern parts of Metro Atlanta in 4 hours or less. Charlotte, NC is also 4 hours or less from Metro Atlanta.
There was a lot of airline traffic between Atlanta and these cities. The security measures will make that traffic absolutely unnecessary. It'll be quicker to drive, and you don't have to put up with the abuse.
It has basically become impossible to make 2 business flights in a single day. I used to be able to hop on a plane in the morning and go to Roanoke, VA, do 6 to 8 useful hours of work in Roanoke, then catch a late flight back to Atlanta. That can't be done any more. If I have to make a two day trip, I'll drive. It's 450 miles there, but If I have to make it a two day trip anyway, I'd rather have the flexibility of driving myself.
My guess is that business travel on airlines will be completely eliminated for trips under 400 or 500 mes. This will kill a lot of flights.
I'm not in the airline business (except as a passenger), but these flights seem to be extremely profitable for the airlines. A round trip ticket to Roanoke, Virginia from Atlanta used to run me about $900-$1,000. These shorter flights are bigtime business flights, not tourists. Tourists travelling these short distances tend to drive. The result is that the airlines made big bucks on the short hop business flights. These are the flights that will be most affected by the new security regs.
So do away with checking altogether. Maybe hire some psychics to determine who's ok and who's not.Not a bad idea, actually. It wouldn't hurt business nearly as much as what we're doing now. And it would probably be just as effective at combatting terrorism.
Actually, the only thing that will really combat terrorism is passengers willing to defend their plane and take out the terrorists. If we can get to that point, there will be no terrorist attacks. They will be defeated.
Check the threads I linked in my response to FGRobinson.
Update: I heard Sean Hannity on Hannity and Colmes last night say that he felt safer because all of his bags were searched. I thought he had more brains than that. We need to ask him what kind of dangerous things he was carrying in his bags.
That must be if you drive real slow and make a couple of pit stops. I'm in Nashville, and at 73mph on cruise control I can be in Metro Et-lanta in exactly 3 hours non-stop.
The premise of your post IS correct. If the airlines are to preserve this short-haul business, they're going to have to find a way to perform security clearances faster - and the only way to do this is MORE SCREENERS. More screening points. Gonna cost money.
Michael
When I first heard of the attack, my thought was: "they had inside help," i.e., baggage handlers, food service people, perhaps even security drones.
It also seemed plausible to me that--if they had used guns--the guns would have been pre-positioned. I also thought it possible/credible that the hijackers came through the airport perimiter fence and gained entry up the stairs on the end of the jetway. I couldn't believe they'd risk the normal airport security...as leaky as it is.
Turns out I was (mostly) wrong...but these avenues of attack are--to my knowledge--still open.
--Boris
I don't buy it. Sounds like a feel-good story planted for the purpose of making the would-you-like-fries-with-that grade "security" people look good.
If they had someone on the inside who was able to leave knives for the terrorists, then they would have left guns instead of knives. When was the last time you heard of a bank robber demanding fifty cents for the parking meter?
In for a penny, in for a pound. It makes no sense at all that they'd have someone on the inside -- able to get "things" around the security points -- and only use them for box-cutter knives.
and the only way to do this is MORE SCREENERS. More screening points. Gonna cost money.Either that, or we could stop treating all passengers as if they were criminals.
The best security I've heard is the speach given by the pilot that Tony Snow quoted on Fox News Sunday. The pilot told all the passengers that if there was a hijacker on the plane, they should throw things at the hijacker, cover him with a blanket and wrestle him to the floor. The pilot told the passengers that there would be one hijacker, maybe with a few helpers, and there were over 200 other people on the plane to take the hijacker(s) down. He then told the passengers to introduce themselves to the people in the seats next to them, tell them your name, where you're from and what you do. The passengers on this jet applauded the anouncement and did what the pilot said, introducing themselves to their neighbors on the flight.
If every flight started this way, there would be no hijackings. Armed sky marshalls might be nice, too, but mainly they would be there to keep the passengers from killing the hijackers before they can get a fair trial. There's no need for many of the so called "security" measures at the airports. They don't do anything but give people a false sense of security and safety.
I'm bumping another thread your way that discusses how cultural problems in the United States have given hijackers an opportunity to commit these acts. By fixing the cultural problem, we can deny the opportunity and these things won't happen. The pilot Tony Snow was talking about is taking a step in the right direction.
---max
Me eithor..that is why I will not be taking a planned trip to see a new grandson in Oct.
I will wait for the sky marshalls....and I will still look for "foreign" passengers BEFORE I get on a plane
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.