Originally Posted by thegeneral
...Does Continental have an intelligence service? Do they have agents infiltrating terrorist cells? I don't think that having worked for an airline makes you necessarily better at doing security. No doubt the airlines do hire consultants at some point. People without aviation backgrounds can become plenty familiar with the ins and outs and airline security policies. Would you make the same expectation of the airline's IT staff? Should you have to have been a pilot to manage their website?
Right now you're seeing a knee jerk reaction from everyone until they have more details about the security threat worked out. Word has it that someone with unlimited airport access was in on the London plot, so for right now they're trying to work things out. Travel became quite difficult after 9/11, but it went back to normal. You will probably see the same thing here. They very well may ban either liquids and gels or electronics. You need both to make a bomb apparently, so they don't need to ban both. Then again, I haven't worked for an airline so why should I have an opinion? Right?
In any case, why is this in the CO OP forum and not the security forum?
What an incredible oversimplification. The aviation infrastructure is a highly complex environment. Find me anyone in TSA management with a degree in Aviation Management. I doubt you would find more than a small sprinke, none of whom are in positions to drive policy. People with a "security/law enforcement only" background aren't going to know the first thing about securing an airport. Where did I say in my post someone needed to work for an airline?? No where. I stated that aviation security professionals must have an 'aviation background'.
The intelligence services can feed information to the aviation people, but it should be aviation people and only the aviation people who decide how to protect aviation infrastructure - not politically minded dimwits like Chertoff or Hawley who lack the background to understand the nuances of airport and airline operations. Their focus on 'checkpoint only' security is both equally laughable and dangerous. This is why security policy was always the domain of the FAA - and the correct approach post 9/11 was to toughen up the FAA's enforcement ability and standards, not create a new money blowing bureacracy.
A kneejerk reaction? Certainly. Necessary with the proper planning and infrastructure in place? Not at all.
The moderators will decide where threads belong, thanks.