Hey JS, two examples is generous.

Thanks, MT, I appreciate your sympathy. Tell you what--you take my old cigar cutter, and I'll take your choice of: a full wine bottle, a laptop computer, or a heavy, expensive, upper class-type shoe unconfiscated by the demotic guys at security, and we'll go at it in an airline aisle. Let's see how much use you make of the cigar cutter.

Likewise.

I lost some friends, but at least they didn't have to confront your smug piety, and I don't intend to introduce them further into our conversation.
Thanks again. Me, too. I'm particularly sorry that I'm put out to an obviously idiotic point. I'm put out that my government figures that I'm dumb enough to believe that if they're inconveniencing me and making me stand in some long lines, they are also making me safe. If they were inconveniencing me to some point, I could take it. It's the insult that they think I'm stupid enough, or that the person behind me in line is stupid enough to believe that taking away nail clippers, cigar cutters, and other objects that couldn't be made into a weapon more potent than bare hands will actually do diddly to affect some future event. That's what gets me down.


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


[This message has been edited by SFJoe (edited 12-02-2001).]

Sorry to single you out, MT, I've been away from FT for a few days and I'm working in order.

Frankly, I think that flyers themselves will deal with a 9/11-style threat adequately next time. As I mentioned, my laptop, the F bottle of wine, the nasty Chilean merlot, each of those will likely suffice to deal with box cutters, cigar cutters, or the rest. I'm hoping that my government can protect me from things I can't fight, like the bomb in checked luggage. In the meantime, jerking me around with pseudosecurity measures to give me the illusion that they're on the case--that gets me down.


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

Exactly, robvberg. No one trains for a year to die for their beliefs if they figure there is an 80% chance that they will just go to jail for a long time from airport security instead.

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

Careful, Tony. :-)


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

I may be a wee bit cynical here, but I don't think we are going to get the rules changed. We will get better personnel in there who are a hell of a lot more competent. For those of you who think that government employees will be a pain in the butt, I suggest you do what I did today, which is walk through the Reagan building in DC. The security there is handled by federales, and they were very polite and very efficient.

I really don't mind the rules. It's the wait that I mind, and I think that the combination of adding space for security screening and the more competent employees will help a lot.

SF Joe-

I had another, more caustic answer to your answer but I this stuff is important and I want to treat it as such.

Bottom lise is, I don't buy your argument, which seems to be that since they can't stop everything that could be a threat, they are foolish to stop things such as your cigar cutter. And I sure don't buy the case for relying on Bruno across the aisle to jump up and stop a hijacking. Many of the Brunos I've seen don't know what is meant by "Put your seat in the upright position".

In a nutshell, you and I disagree. We all know that, thanks to the ineffective actions/inactions of our leaders in the past, we have a poor security system. Current leaders are and I hope will continue to try to improve it.

I vote that we all give them the most support we can-if they want me to go to the airport 3 hours early, that's ok, even if I have to wait around for 2.5 hours of that. I can handle that, read a book, take a breath, hope for the future. How about you give up the cigar cutter with a little less indignation?

They're making mistakes, and they will make many more. But hopefully they won't make the mistake of doing nothing, which is the mistake they made that led to 9/11. No system will ever be 100% safe, and any attempt to improve safety will necessarily take away some comfort from innocent bystanders.

At the heart of our disagreement is that I will welcome that, while it seems you'll still be annoyed.



[This message has been edited by Mountain Trader (edited 12-05-2001).]

Ahh Baloney.

Bringing up widows and orphans is a red herring and frankly disrespectful as hell. In case you didn't notice, the REASON there are 5000 affected families is because the Government had THIRTY YEARS of knowledge and experience and countless opportunities to get it right. And they didn't. They failed miserably.

They ABSOLUTELY knew what had to be done before 9/11 and THEY STILL DIDN'T GET IT RIGHT! Not once, but FOUR TIMES (at least)!

They'll simply not get it right on their own. They've PROVEN this. How many hearings on airport security? How many conferences? How much congressional testimony? All of which they ignored, pooh-poohed, or tabled for lunch.

You have confidence they'll get it right now? I don't. Especially if we all go quietly along with the stupider ideas instead of acting cranky as all hell and FORCING them to FINALLY get it right.

Going quietly along got a lot of people killed. Let's not repeat that horrific mistake on our part. We have a responsibility to hold them accountable and to make them do it smart, and right. Anything less and we are doing a disservice to them, to ourselves, and to the families of the lost.

Regards,
-Bouncer-

Bouncer-

I'm with you-hold them accountable.

Start with Norm Mineta, current Secretary of Transportation. Twenty-One years on the House Transportation Committee, 94-00 as Chairman. Get him out. Tomorrow.

Then go to the committees on Intelligence, National Security and Terrorism. Debrief these guys, log it in, then change them all. Will it help? I hope so but we can't do worse than 9/11.

And this is not political-I don't care if they are left wing, right wing or turkey wing. If management of my company failed me this badly, they'd be gone by lunch. Our country deserves the same. And that's the real way to pay homage to the widows and orphans.

Within that, I think it's shortsighted to say that since a system is not 100% safe, we shouldn't do what we can, even if our encounter at the airport today seems more form over substance. They need to change to both the people and the procedures, and I don't think complaining while they do gets us any closer to our common goal.



[This message has been edited by Mountain Trader (edited 12-05-2001).]

MountainTrader,

I see your point, but honestly, I think you're making an assumption that they have some sort of a plan to go to. With respect I don't think that's the case. I think it's a combination of CYA and throwing money at the problem. Add in a very flaky system of bannings designed to increase confidence or at least distract people from more serious issues. That's the plan so far apparently.

I use an example in another post that I'll repeat to you by way of explanation.

We confiscate nail clippers from pilots in the concourse as a security issue. We then turn around and give these same pilots a fire ax in the cockpit. I'm not saying remove the fire ax, I'm saying that if he/she is properly ID'd and logged through then confiscating clippers is, well, just plain silly. And silliness when it comes to securing aircraft concerns me. it really should concern all of us. As FFer's we're statisticaly at way more risk than the avg ground-pounder.

Regards,
-Bouncer-

Dangerous and flawed reasoning:

Question: So just where do you draw the line? Hey, why not put an armed government agent in everyone's home. Just thing of all the victims of domestic violence that we could save. It's worth a little inconvienience, isn't it? Think of the Children! Etc, etc.... Or what about this, why not have an armed marshal sitting behind each and every passenger with a gun to the back of their head for the entire duration of the flight? Sure it's uncomfortable and a bother but hey, isn't it worth it to make sure we are all safe? Why stop at three hour delays at the airport? Why not go for five or 10? Who cares if what we have right now is bringing the industry and the economy to its knees, especially in the business travel sector where no one has time to spend six hours a day a airports. Why not have citizens submit travel permit papers 30 days in advance of travel so that authorities can do background checks and get your fingerprints. That would probably speed things up slightly at the airport. Would that make you feel safer? Let's just get government approval before we travel. After all, government knows best. And soon the baggage screeners will be Federal, so we can all breathe a sigh of relief and concentrate on other areas of concern. HA HA.. By the way, last time I checked, the FBI, CIA, NSA, FAA, INS, and Customs were all Federal Employees and they didn't stop this from happening. I'm not blaming them, I'm just saying that making screeners Federal doesn't make anything better, and I beleive in this case it will make things worse. Worse not in terms of just safety and security, but also in terms of quality, and passenger service.

_Quote______________________________________
Hey, why not put an armed government agent in everyone's home. Just thing of all the victims of domestic violence that we could save. It's worth a little inconvienience, isn't it? Think of the Children! Etc, etc.... Or what about this, why not have an armed marshal sitting behind each and every passenger with a gun to the back of their head for the entire duration of the flight? Sure it's uncomfortable and a bother but hey, isn't it worth it to make sure we are all safe? Why stop at three hour delays at the airport? Why not go for five or 10? Who cares if what we have right now is bringing the industry and the economy to its knees, especially in the business travel sector where no one has time to spend six hours a day a airports. Why not have citizens submit travel permit papers 30 days in advance of travel so that authorities can do background checks and get your fingerprints. That would probably speed things up slightly at the airport. Would that make you feel safer? Let's just get government approval before we travel. After all, government knows best.
___________________________________________


This is the first time I've posted with a quote from another post - so I hope it works. I agree with the above that all the extra "security measures" that are really infringements on our 4th amendment rights at a minimum are useless at best. I do have a serious problem with thinking an armed government agent would be a comfort or able to protect anyone. I can't think of any government run agency that works better than a public person or company.

I agree that the sole reason a plane will not be used as a weapon again is because the passengers will not allow it. Even the pilots are mentioning that they not only agree with this, but are counting on it. The only thing that taking away sharp objects or weapons from these same passengers does is to limit how effective each can be. Thank god some of you can use your allowed - hand, legs, arms and feet to protect yourselves, but I could sure use an equalizer! If all passengers that wanted to be armed were armed I think the good will out weigh the bad and the bad element would not want to risk doing anything criminal when the result would certainly be futile.

I think the american peoples freedoms have been so infringed by these searches that passenger are more afraid of the treatment at the airports than they are of flying. I totally resent being treated like a criminal because someone else once was on 9/11.

I'm sure many of you will now pick this apart and complain. I have tried to make my opinions clear because I feel if we all sit back and say nothing the media's search for those that agree "anything to feel safer" is the correct public opinion will win.

My sympathies to those of you that have to subject yourselves to these unlawful searches and seizures.

Here's a link that might be of interest to some of you. http://www.projectsafeskies.org/

Edited to accent the beginning of this to show it more clearly as a quote - I guess I still haven't figured out how that works.



[This message has been edited by GDIW (edited 12-07-2001).]

Nope. They are foolish to stop things which are no more dangerous than bare hands. Frankly, I think there is a decent argument that if every Bruno had a small knife, he'd be more effective and wouldn't get into the cabin anyway. But leaving that aside, I think there is no good reason for taking away things that actually aren't good weapons.

Quote:

---

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">

And I sure don't buy the case for relying on Bruno across the aisle to jump up and stop a hijacking. Many of the Brunos I've seen don't know what is meant by "Put your seat in the upright position".

---

Never a Bruno around when you need one.

Quote:

---

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
I vote that we all give them the most support we can-if they want me to go to the airport 3 hours early, that's ok, even if I have to wait around for 2.5 hours of that. I can handle that, read a book, take a breath, hope for the future. How about you give up the cigar cutter with a little less indignation?

---

Nope. This one works fine for occasional vacation travel, but it doesn't work as a long-term solution for this economy, nor for the weak airlines. I frequently take multiple flights during a day, and the day isn't long enough to chill 3 hours before each one. My employer doesn't shell out the bucks for me to read books in airports, either.

Quote:

---

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
They're making mistakes, and they will make many more. But hopefully they won't make the mistake of doing nothing, which is the mistake they made that led to 9/11. No system will ever be 100% safe, and any attempt to improve safety will necessarily take away some comfort from innocent bystanders.

At the heart of our disagreement is that I will welcome that, while it seems you'll still be annoyed.

---

Nope, again. I don't welcome inconvenience for its own sake. It doesn't make me feel better that they've found some irrelevant variables to control. The security folks should be concentrating on things that actually matter, not on BS feelgoods. If the lines are too long, hire some more screeners and buy some more machines. But I don't have a few hundred extra hours a year to spend in airports, and neither do most FFs, I suspect.


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

It is pretty difficult to train "common sense", but it needs to be a requirement for a screening job. Perhaps consistency as well as more traning for the security inspector? Why can one have a metal fork but only a plastic knife? Why can't I have the midget nail clipper file, but I can keep the American Flag Pin on my coat? During the "extra random" search one is required to empty the pockets after beeping (pocket change only) and then ordered to return the change to the pocket. The wand is again run down the back and inside of the same leg. The security matron then demands to know exactly what that noise is . . .gee, perhaps the coins one was just ordered to put back into the pocket? We had an additional search by United Personnel several weeks ago @ Pittsburgh and had a very professional and complete search . . .however, the airline SECURITY PERSONNEL @ SNA were rather unreasonable and unknowledgeable.