Tonight on 60 Minutes Andy Rooney blasted the delays and headaches caused by ineffectual and incompetent airport security saying that "flying just isn’t fun anymore". He went on to say that even infrequent flyers (IMHO the only ones who can possibly be impressed by and approve of the current system) would eventually stop flying if things don’t change.

All was not good with his Op-Ed piece however when he (seriously?) suggested that subcutaneous biometric chips be implanted in people to make security more efficient.

Well, he got half of it right anyway. And for the mainstream press that’s a big improvement.

Moderators, move this to Omni if you must but the topic strikes me as appropriate for MilesBuzz


[This message has been edited by anrkitec (edited 02-10-2002).]

Unfortunately, and maybe I'm the only one who thinks this, he didn't mention that these security companies were all going to be out of a job in a few months.

Since the government is taking over, what's the incentive for these companies to spend money on training or better staff? Employees who know they're getting fired or laid off are typically not the most motivated folks.

d

If they were doing their jobs properly, they wouldn't have anything to worry about. Question - How do you spell airport security in the US?
Answer - Morons!


------------------

dupe

[This message has been edited by Rssrsvp (edited 02-11-2002).]

Come on folks. The security companies are not entirely at fault. We (via OUR government) have put this whole sham in place. Most of the silly, high hassle-low value procedures are not their fault.

Of course, our esteemed government officials were quick to point fingers (along with many Americans who had no experience with which to know better) at the Private Security System Run by the (gasp) AIRLINES (more gasps). The clear implication was that legions of hijackers would do all sorts of bad things to airlplanes if we didn't Federalize the entire airport security system.

Anybody else catch the questioning of the CIA Director by Congress last week? One congressman asked him [paraphrasing here],

"If John Walker Lynde could find the Taliban so easily and Actually Meet With OSAMA BIN LADEN, why the hell couldn't the CIA similarly infiltrate the Terrorist networks?"

In true bureaucratic style, the CIA Director smiled coyly and told the congressman that he couldn't reveal the details there in front of everybody but to rest assured, Mr. Congressman, we Have infiltrated the Taliban. The Congressman appeared to roll his eyes at this load of crap coming from the CIA Director.

Not even the rabid supporters of federalizing airport security actually demonstrated any links between the current airport security setup and the events of September 11. If the hijackers used knives and boxcutters, the FAA explicitly allowed those items. No other hijacking, actuall or attempted, could be blamed on the private screeners. Even better, no one has told us how the new improved system will increase our safety. Even El Al let a guy carry a gun in his carry-on to New York a couple weeks ago. And, aren't they the best?

What are you talking about? The government is taking over screening at all airports in a couple months. Period. It doesn't make a difference at this point if the screeners catch 110% of contraband or 0%, they're going to lose their jobs and the companies they work for are out. Some of them may get rehired by the gov't, but that's beside the point.

If your boss comes in and tells you that you're getting axed, how motivated would you be do anything? Or if you're the boss, tell your employees they're getting fired and see how motivated they are.

Same things with the companies. Why would you expect Argenbright to invest millions of dollars retraining all of their employees when they're losing their contracts in a few months? They've probably said the hell with it, and they'll take their chances with a few thousand dollar fine versus a guarantee million dollar training program.

Maybe I'm crazy, but it doesn't seem like the screeners or the companies have anything to motivate them to do a great job, unless you consider rude pax calling them names motivating.

d

By the way, as of 9/11/01 it was NOT illegal to carry box cutters in your carry-on. So what exactly did the airport security companies do wrong?

Isn't it just plain convenient (and duplicitous on the part of those who continue to perpetuate the above myth) that we're blaming the airport security companies for a combination of failures by airlines (cockpit entry policy before 9/11), by the intelligence community and by the government at large (failure of imagination -- that some people would actually use commercial airplanes as missiles)?

Oh, come on now. The security companies have made some major mistakes, such as not denying employment to felons, allowing people to carry things that were not permitted with them after the attacks, and so on. They've screwed up big time. Yes, the things that were used to hijack the planes were permitted, so you can blame them for that, but you sure as hell can blame them for all the other mistakes they've made.

As for the intelligence community, if I told you on September 10 that terrorists would hijack planes and use them as guided missiles, you'd have laughed at me and called the men in the white coats to commit me to a mental hospital.

Finally, when it comes to the airlines, you can't blame them for following procedure that worked in the past. You let the hijacker take the plane to some place, land, and negotiate from there. You figured he'd hold the hostages and want to free some of his terrorist colleagues and so on. They negotiate, and either they surrender or the plane is stormed by commandos. In any case, the airlines were told to not fight back.

There is really nobody to blame for the attacks. They were inconceivable.

Now, if you say, well, we should have gone after bin Laden before it came to this, you're right. But nobody really cared.

Perhaps, but we should learn from the past. Now we know that we need to be a little more creative/imaginative in our defenses, because they're pretty creative in their offensives.

d

Personally, the only advice I would take from Mr. Rooney is what not to do.

What do you mean? The airport screeners aren't all losing their jobs. They'll just be government employees now.

An awful lot of screeners at SFO are losing their jobs. They can't become federal employees unless they become naturalized U.S. citizens, and they can't do that without forfeiting their right to own property in their home country. (Dual citizenship isn't an option.)

Finding The Bad Guys
http://cbsnews.cbs.com/now/story/0,1...2-412,00.shtml

Video clip available (requires Real Player)

EPS: Many US citizens have dual citizenship and most countries allow foreigners to own property.

The INS has put on the fast track all airport screeners who want to continue working their jobs.

There is no way the US government can replace all of the current workforce. They are going to be fored to rehire the bulk of them and at higher wages and benefits.

If you think you will be safer 6 months from now, I have some waterfront property in New Mexico that I would like to sell you.