Actually, the way to begin is by getting the federal government out of the process altogether, and allow the airlines themslelves to have full and absolute discretion over: - who gets to work for them, and who doesn't; - who's allowed to carry a weapon on board, and who isn't; - who's allowed on board at all, and who isn't; - and who gets intensively searched, and who doesn't.
Suppose for a moment that came to pass, and you were in charge of an airline. Would you screen passengers for weapons before boarding? If so, would it be more or less stringent than current requirements? Would you search everyone, certain types of people, or just random folks?
TIA.
But like I said, I'm not an expert.
And what if suspected terrorists had just been arrested in the same area?
This "touching" incident is alleged to have occurred on October 26th at Portland International Airport, just a couple of weeks after several suspected terrorists were arrested in Portland. I'd say screeners were showing due diligence and being thorough in their duties. The husband could have smoothed things over with his wife by explaining the need for screeners to be thorough. Instead he acted in the "infantile" manner that he's known for.
I'd give that some thought AFTER I armed the pilots.