<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Plato90s:
An English friend of mine got incredibly upset when I told him that these "security improvements" were a huge hassle and added little to security. He felt that I was being incredibly foolish and short-sighted in talking about how much it would cost both flyers and airlines to have huge delays at checkpoints.
But that's the truth. If people are too inconvenienced, they won't fly. If it costs $100M to put an armed air marshal on every flight using a jet, and the increased security delays cost airlines over $200M, which solution is the right one?
The "whining" is the voice of flyers who make the economy work. We do worse damage to ourselves by wasting everyone's time doing these useless security checks.
</font>
The "whining" that I alluded to is the collective voice of a lot of FTer comments and not something that any single individual said.
I hate the idea of anything that causes the loss of economic activity/productivity. And long lines at security certainly contribute to that. Then again, the attacks on the WTC will cost about $100 billion dollars, so I am all for anything that is prevention oriented. The CIA and FBI are convinced that there will be another terrorist attack on American soil. If attacking an airplane is an option, the terrorists will attack an airplane. However, with the new mindset of pilots and pax and the increased security measures in place, I agree that the next attack is unlikely to be directed at an airplane or airport. But that's only because security has been increased. Taking away nail clippers and corkscrews may seem pointless, but at least it forces the security screeners to be extra diligent in reviewing the xrays and metal detectors for other concealed weapons.
There is no doubt that having armed air marshals on board every flight would be one of the better remedies, but security is a process and a series of steps, not any single restriction. What's the point of having an armed air marshal on board if the security checks are so lax that I can bring a gun or a knife on the plane? Before the incidents, I could usually carry my Gerber multi-tool/knife onboard in the USA. The knife was always discovered when I traveled overseas. Now, I make sure that I don't have it on my carryon because I know that they are not permitting a whole slew of items. As much as folks don't like the longer lines at security and the focus on mundane, everyday items, the measures still act as a deterrent imho.
Still, I am hopeful that once the airports get more people trained and hired and travelers get used to the routine, the security process will be more streamlined and there will be less people inconvenienced. But we are only one month into these measures. If our tolerance for inconvenience is zippo after one month, what will it be like in two years? For all we know, the next attack may not be for a while.