Not only does this board not represent the general views of the flying public, it doesn't even represent the general views of Flyertalk. I recall reading about an FT sponsored seminar where one of the speakers referred to the people in this forum as nut jobs. Every so often there is a thread started in other forums about leaving electronic devices on. In other forums the consensus is that such people are evil. After the thread is moved here, there is a mass evisceration (to which I contribute).

People in this forum are opinionated but by and large they are driven by data and have a much better command of numeracy than most people in FT or outside of FT. And the numbers say that most existing air safety and border security processes are wrong headed, and often administered by incompetents.

What would tougher security actually mean? What are the benefits? What are the costs? Air travel is the safest form of travel there is, and for individuals it is the least expensive. As a society we should be telling people, if you must travel, please travel by commercial air. It is just. It is humane. Similarly the security screening should be just, humane, and efficient.

It is ironic that the TSA, the same agency that pushed hard on other countries to adopt WBI, shoes off, liquids out, and laptops separate is now moving aggressively, toward allowing the majority of the public to use pre 9/11 security screening. Whether it is precheck per passenger, or blanket grants of precheck to entire terminals for a day, it is happening. The TSA is learning that the unbiased alarm from a WTMD is better than the subjectiveness of a WBI scan.

The only good post 9/11 measure was the secured cockpit door, which, as long as pilots are disciplined, will prevent that scenario and most pre 9/11 scenarios from occurring again.

If you want to start threads advocating a different view, then feel free. I and others will challenge you. If you bring data and logic, you won't have to bring asbestos protection.

Spiff - if you still mourned for loved ones killed after anti-Semitism terrorism, you would be applauding the well managed security measures taken by the Isreali's and El AL in particular.

I would be happy to share my personal experiences of being hijacked and held hostage if you need some consciousness awareness.

Oddly enough it has been a number of decades since EL AL or aircraft operating in and out of Isreal have been targetted, so maybe it is working......

Sorry, I would not. Justice is not served by harassing everyone else.

Go ahead if you like, but I will remain unmoved. Harassing innocent travelers is wrong no matter what incidents have happened in the past. There ARE better solutions.

Or it could be someone's magic rock + specious logic.

Sharing my personal experiences of terrorism come at a cost to me, I will not share if you are going to be unmoved.

If you are open to understanding why Isreal protects its citizens and infrastructure, I would be prepared to share.

Personally if that is your attitude, I am happy for you not to experience the wonders of Isreal, and I sincerley hope your desire for a lack of security does not end up in a tragic experience for you somewhere on your travels

Actually Flyertalkers are a better representation of the real flyers, those who fly most, contribute most revenue, and see everything many time, enough to judge when it is being done wrong. Airport security is wrong in every possible way, mainly because it was born from politics and fear, instead of a calm, rational approach. The "security" personnel are not much different than you'd find at a grocery store or McDonalds, poorly trained and even more poorly supervised. Only those of us who have logged millions of miles can make that judgement.

I've been in places far more dangerous than most, but I don't use that as an excuse to justify approaches to innocent people that make equal animals unequal. I don't feel like sharing the full extent of what I've witnessed or felt, but who cares when crippled, emotional blackmail isn't my cup of tea.

You had me up till your last sentence.

None of us on FT, except a lunatic fringe, desires a "lack of security." Rather, we disagree with the methods and rationales being used in the name of security by TSA. We believe that the current methodology does not actually provide real security, but that it does have a severe negative impact on the cherished rights and freedoms of all Americans and our foreign guests who transit our airports.

Perhaps you may think us foolish for believing that individual rights and personal liberties are more important than mere physical safety - or, in this case, an illusion of physical safety. But those rights and freedoms are the bedrock upon which the United States was founded. Much like the deep, unshakable, absolutely inviolate belief in Israel's right to exist, America's founders had a deep, unshakable, absolutely inviolate belief that personal freedom is more important than physical safety, and that government should always be completely subservient to the will of the people, not the other way around. They believed in this so strongly that they went to war against the most powerful empire on earth and fought for eight years to win the right to create a new form of government whose sole purpose was to safeguard those rights and freedoms. They pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their souls to that task. And for the next two hundred years, Americans have shed blood and suffered in that same cause.

And TSA pisses on all of that sacrifice every time they peep, grope, or interrogate someone as a prerequisite for merely traveling from one place to another by air.

We do want security. But that security must never come at the expense of who we are as a people. I would never expect a Jew to remove his yarmulke or refrain from his prayers to get on a plane; you shouldn't expect Americans to give up our 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendment rights to get on a plane. Those rights and freedoms are an elemental part of our souls; take them away, and you fundamentally change who we are, forever.

I've been in a lot of dangerous situations and I have no desire to attempt mitigation by destruction of civil liberties. I'm sorry you had a bad experience(s). However, destroying everyone's civil liberties (or in the case of Israel, civil rights) for the actions of a few criminals is never acceptable to me, no matter what might personally affect me.

Check out the public comments on TSA's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking about Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) from earlier this year. I don't remember a single comment saying that security ought to be "tougher." Some commenters were okay with security as it is; most commenters wanted changes to make security less intrusive and more reasonable.

Yes.

Personally, I trust fellow passengers as a whole more than I do any employee of the airport, the airlines, or the companies that provide various services at the airport. There is more to that feeling than knowing that most employees don't even walk through a metal detector. The best theory I can offer at the moment for this feeling is that it springs from a sense of solidarity with others who (a) are just trying to travel freely and comfortably and (b) are also being victimized by TSA. I am certain that any given flight will include multiple travelers who are brave and selfless enough to stand up and fight if the situation calls for it. There will be people who won't do that, but they are inconsequential.

Getting from home to an airport is more dangerous than a flight.
Odds of a terrorist event are low while a whole host of other events could put the aircraft in jeopardy.

Found this while trying to determine the danger of an accident while flying from terrorist related events.

http://planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm