GDIW

Complaining or protesting to airline or airport personnel only causes an individual to be further harassed. Seeing as our constitutional rights have been removed at airports the only recourse wihtout imprisonment is to stop flying.

It seems that the majority of the masses have done just that. Airports and airplanes are fairly empty and this is after the airlines cancelled about 30% of their flights.

The government controls at airports are simply to convince americans that searching is an acceptable way of life. It creates no security.

mikey1003

My guess: The Airlines already wanted out of the security business so they used 9-11 as an excuse to get the government to take over.

It will backfire because PAX will decrease as hassels increase.

Jon Gegenheimer

I guess I'm the only one in full support of categorically increased airport security. Airport security is like capital and equity markets-- private incentives generate a publically harmful externality whose implications are not socially acceptable. That's why the government has taken (is taking) over. Of course governments aren't perfect at much of anything, especially federal ones. The key is that governments do not have a competing profit interest forcing them to underspend in this particular arena. While it is true that throwing money at this problem won't solve it, state organizations have access to immediate information vis-a-vis security threats...and the cash doesn't hurt, either.

I am sorry that so many of you have been inconvenienced by long security lines. But that undergoing extensive security protocols is boring, a pain, and sometimes costly doesn't speak to the importance (or lack thereof) of these procedures. Speaking about this issue in general terms does little to further dialogue and, eventually, improvement. We have to talk about specific measures being taken and evaluate them individually.

Does anyone believe that we should be able to board aircraft with sharp objects? If the answer is "no," then there is no alternative to security checks. Insofar as security has become more thorough and discriminating, we are safer.

Does anyone think that it's okay for bags to be planed without being scanned for explosive materials? If the answer is "no," there is no alternative to more extensive and time-consuming screening. While it's true that detection equipment is imperfect, it is also undeniable that more scrutinizing baggage inspection cannot worsten a flight's security position.

In more general terms, we are safer on flights because:

1. Security personnel are more alert. I am not saying that there haven't been problems with staff falling asleep or whatever the case may be. But these things happened before 9/11 and the federal takeover, too, but we didn't hear about them because the airline industry context was completely different. It is idiotic to suggest that matters have gotten worse in terms of professionalism and ability of security personnel based on anecdotal evidence since we don't have an accurate picture of the previous period's security orientation. The upshot is that heightened public awareness coupled with the federal government's political interest in our security has resulted in more vigilant airport personnel.

2. Passengers are more vigilant. Anyone who wishes to dispute this claim doesn't deserve a response.

3. The national guard presence at airports means that, should something similar to 9/11 happen, aviation can be brought to a more orderly wind-down. I don't think it is unreasonable to have a pseudo-military presence at sites whose failures can cost lives.


4. Institutional procedures are stricter. It's a pain to have to show your I.D. every 5 minutes, but there is some logic to attempting to prevent those who have no business in airports from being there. Random checkpoints are inconvenient but make it more difficult to access a jet with dangerous materials.

I readily concede that security is not perfect. But you have to balance the inconvenience of the procedures with the umbrella which they construct. Their existence not only addresses specific security threats by double- and triple-checking pax for weapons, but the general sense of vigilance is also important. While security is not perfect, one cannot persuasively illustrate that it is easier to hijack an American jet today than it was on 9/10. I'm sorry if the procedures that engender this situation are a pain in the neck. But (1) I would rather have a largely inconvenience system than a similarly dangerous one and (2) the solution is not to revert to pre-9/11 strategies but to invest in greater capital that allows airports to do things more smoothly. Are we really so high-maintenance that we prefer convenience to security which may save lives?

SameerUCLA

You're not the only one, John. I have no problem with the increased security as long as it is:

1. INTELLIGENT. The complaints made by previous posters about the 'three questions' is legit; they've become like car alarms - everyone ignores them and nods stupidly. That having been said, measures like the random searches and bag scanning for explosives are NOT unreasonable and, I would imagine, DO deter some terrorist activities.

2. FAIR. I'm not going to ignite the racial profiling thing here, and I'm sick and tired of hearing the 'anecdotes' of white/black/brown/yellow/elite/nonelite people complaining that they're being profiled. Anecdotes don't sway me - show me real data showing a trend and I'll believe you. That having been said, I think there needs to be some kind of a 'frequent-flyer' exemption to some of the searches, if you submit to a background check. I'm active duty military and we are all exempt - FFs should be too, if they submit to a similar background check.

3. FAST. Guess what? Security takes more time now. So you need to hire more screeners and put in more lanes! Simple as that. And also - no offense to older FTers, but some old folks work SLOW. Younger people work FASTER. There's nothing more frustrating than being at a small airport with ONE lane and a slow old guy doing the screening.

In contrast, Atlanta probably had several hundred people in line for security today. The lines were well-organized with employees directing traffic and telling the once-a-year idiots to put their wallets/keys/electronics away (as well as lots of signs to the same effect), and young energetic folks making sure everything moved smoothly. There were 20+ lanes open. You know what? I cleared security behind 300-400 people in under 10 minutes. That's pretty darn good, and the screeners were taking their time with each bag. THAT'S the way it should be.


Increased security needs to be intelligent - that's all I ask - and it can work.

- Sameer

richard

I think this is a very intelligent response, so I want to answer you specifically.



Last time I checked, the capital and equity markets weren't run by the government. Are you saying that the government has taken over the financial markets? This doesn't make any sense.


Since you are using economic terms of art, how about this fact: In economic terms, the government has now made airport security a government-run monopoly.

In Economics 101 we learn that monopolies do not usually serve the consumer in the best way.

Look at the other government-run monopolies: our court system, our schools, the post office, I could go on and on. None are particularly well-run, economic, or effective.

Actually, the airlines have the MOST economic incentive for airline security, just as they have the most incentive not to have a crash. It is very bad business, extremely costly, and can bankrupt an airline. The security we were getting pre 9/11 was the security that "FAA regulations" mandated.

By the government seizing this monopoly power, we assure ourselves that it will not get better, it will always be completely arbitrary and unreasonable, because nobody will be accountable . That is how the government sets things up -- nobody to take the blame, everybody just "following FAA regulations" and hassleing us and violating our rights.


Well, air freight and mail goes on the planes and is not scanned for explosives. Neither is luggage on connecting flights.

X-raying bags does not assure that they do have explosives in them. Scanners are imperfect and can be easily beat.

I do not mind going on a plane with imperfect security. It is all imperfect and there is no way to scan all bags and check everything.

I believe it is perfectly fine to board a plane with sharp objects. If all pax have them, we can all protect ourselves instead of relying upon some "sky marshall".

9/11 happened as we all know because the terrorists took advantage of "FAA regulations" (or at least policy) that stressed non-resistance and cooperation. That is all over and we are safer BECAUSE OF THAT, not because we can't bring a small pocketknife on board.

I am not against some reasonable security.

Here are my concrete proposals:

1. anyone can take a knife or sharp object aboard any flight.

2. get the government OUT of the airport security monopoly. If an airline won't search all pax bags, let that be public knowledge and let that airline's customers determine if it is worth the risk.

3. Cut out the mickey mouse "security questions."

I could go on and on ... but nobody has asked me. Nobody has asked anyone. I am not sure that Congress can even subject us individually to "FAA regulations", unless interstate commerce is involved and it is not always involved (as in intrastate flights.)


I don't know how idiotic this is. Frequent pax observe things and build a fairly good representation of reality. I am sure people working are more vigilant at security checkpoints. But that could have happened without a government monopoly takeover. It was happening already.

Right, but this has nothing to do with government. (See above.)

Yes it is, it is completely unreasonable, abhorrent and irreprehensible.

All failures in all walks of life can cost lives. Every traffic intersection is a hazard. Every factory can produce deaths and maim people. Every ladder, every lawnmore, every electric outlet.

Come on, now, having the military telling civilians what to do is something only done during wartime.

We are not at war -- that is a fiction, a lie. There are some people who want to cause mayhem and harm, they are criminals and we need to defend ourselves. But we *each* need to defend ourselves, not turn over our personal safety to soldiers telling us what to do.


No, there is no logic to this. It is pure inconvenience and a travesty. I should be able to have a meeting at the airport, but I can't even if my visitors agreed to go through the "screening." That is ridiculous.

There is nothing special about a jet. There are a hundred ways that someone bent on mayhem can have their way without setting foot near the airport.

This whole ID business is abhorrent and hogwash. Terrorists can give their real ID and don't care because they'll die anyway. And they can easily obtain a falsified ID. You can make sure every citizen has a fraud-resistant identity card, profile every citizen's movements, and do random searches of citizens.

I do not want to live that way in a country that will do this to its citizens.



[This message has been edited by richard (edited 02-24-2002).]

JWH

And the conservative republicans complain that the Democrats want "big government"?
Remember who is in charge here. This administration has more contempt for the average citizen than any in history. Examples: This "security" crap, which could just as easily expand into areas other than air travel, Cheney's refusal to release information about formation of public policy, the overall secrecy philosophy of the administration re the war and the freedom of information act, and Bush's illegal barring of access to the records of his governorship in Texas. His gubernatorial records have been illegally removed from the Texas State Archives and placed in his Daddy's library where they are "exempt" from Texas' open records law.
If you folks really want to maintain your freedoms, think long and hard about who is running this country and what they are doing. It' scary as hell. It wasn't Bill Clinton who stated "There ought to be limits to freedom." It was sonny boy Bush.

[This message has been edited by JWH (edited 02-24-2002).]

[This message has been edited by JWH (edited 02-24-2002).]

Jon Gegenheimer

A formidable response, indeed. I, too, will answer your specific arguments.

You claim that

>>Last time I checked, the capital and equity markets weren't run by the government. Are you saying that the government has taken over the financial markets? This doesn't make any sense.<<

And added that

>>Since you are using economic terms of art, how about this fact: In economic terms, the government has now made airport security a government-run monopoly.

In Economics 101 we learn that monopolies do not usually serve the consumer in the best way.

Look at the other government-run monopolies: our court system, our schools, the post office, I could go on and on. None are particularly well-run, economic, or effective.

Actually, the airlines have the MOST economic incentive for airline security, just as they have the most incentive not to have a crash. It is very bad business, extremely costly, and can bankrupt an airline. The security we were getting pre 9/11 was the security that "FAA regulations" mandated.

By the government seizing this monopoly power, we assure ourselves that it will not get better, it will always be completely arbitrary and unreasonable, because nobody will be accountable . That is how the government sets things up -- nobody to take the blame, everybody just "following FAA regulations" and hassleing us and violating our rights.<<

I agree that monopolies are neither efficient nor consumer-friendly. The fundamental incompatibility of monopoly and efficiency, etc. derives from lack of competition. However,

1. The airport security market was at best oligopolistic before the federal takeover. Airlines didn't compete outright to provide the best security to their customers. When was the last time you saw an airline advertisement that "our security screeners are the best in the industry"? The reason you don't see such ads is that it was no secret that the security personnel were uneducated, underpaid, and unqualified; we just didn’t believe that something like 9/11 would happen in the U.S. The implication of this observation is that government monopolization of security is functionally equivalent to the pre-existing orientation since the latter was no more or less characterized by competition as the former.

2. Whether or not airlines have a market-based incentive to beef-up security on their own without state compulsion would require moor extensive econometric analysis than we can provide in such a forum. It may well have been in, e.g., United's financial interest to fund then advertise superior security at ORD. The question is whether the fare increase or services cut that would permit security enhancements would deter more pax than the heightened security would attract.

I think that most of us pre-9/11 flew with the general assumption that hijackings happen in the Middle East, not the United States. We were clearing security checkpoints, there were policemen around, and we generally felt safe. Thus the airlines may well have determined that the increase in pax resulting from unilateral, voluntary security enhancement would have been less dramatic than the reduction in pax resulting from higher fares and service cuts.

This analysis suggests that there was no market-based incentive for increased security pre-9/11. One must then question whether or not 9/11-inspired, possibly legitimate paranoia re: security has injected a market-based incentive where one previously did not exist. It seems undeniable that many pax would now rather pay more for a ticket on a safe plane.

But this doesn't imply that the market-based incentive to enhance security will actually result in a security enhancement. Airlines would have to balance cost-cutting efforts that allow lower fares against the need for expensive, enhanced security. There is some equilibrium in which the number of pax gained from increased security just equals the number of pax lost from higher fares and/or service cuts. But airlines can "cheat" this point by allocating resources toward convincing the public that security enhancements are in place without spending the money to improve security. Of course, if a plane goes down because security sucks, people will react and revenue will decline. But the key is that airlines have an equally powerful incentive to provide adequate security *as cheaply as possible*. The negative externality arises because firms calculate the financial losses resulting from security problems and base their actions on that analysis. But the overall social cost of a security problem isn't limited to corporate revenue losses but adds to them the unquantifiable value of lives lost. Thus privatized risk results in a social spread that can only be corrected by a party with an equal interest in airline revenue and social welfare. In any market economy, one state function is to compel firms to internalize those externalities or to subvert them outright.

Although this arrangement might not be as efficient, it is undeniably more objective. This is why the clumsy state runs the courts.

At the same time, there are arguments supporting an efficiency gain from federal takeover of airport security. Nobody will dispute that the government legitimately monopolizes the application of destructive force. Some have argued that it is more efficient to give the security role to the same body that will be responsible for punishing transgressors. The research in this area is obviously sketchy since the empirical data are only a few weeks old at this point.

As to your claim that the government subverts accountability and thus precludes effectiveness and improvement, realize (1) that this is not an aversion to enhanced state responsibility as much as it is an objection to the relationship between governments and governed, and (2) that government's raison d'etre is to protect citizens. These observations combined yield a powerful argument in favor of intervention: It's the government's job, not private enterprise's, to protect people and it is our responsibility as democratically activist citizens to hold the government accountable when it fails to do its job.

As to your final claim regarding rights violations, I submit that there is no constitutional or otherwise right to uninhibited, convenient, efficient air travel.

You claim:

>>Well, air freight and mail goes on the planes and is not scanned for explosives. Neither is luggage on connecting flights.

X-raying bags does not assure that they do have explosives in them. Scanners are imperfect and can be easily beat.

I do not mind going on a plane with imperfect security. It is all imperfect and there is no way to scan all bags and check everything.<<

1. You are only repeating an argument that my original post sufficiently addressed. My argument is not that baggage screening is perfect. My claim is merely that the imperfection of a system doesn't have a thing to do with improvement from one period to the next. It is true that cruise missiles aren't perfectly accurate, but their comparative accuracy (vis-à-vis older weapons) justifies their use. Similarly, imperfect baggage screening doesn't imply that baggage screening in general does not enhance overall security.

2. Your arguments do not support reversion to pre-9/11 protocols. Rather, the imperfections and loopholes you identify support tightening-up procedures and increasing baggage scrutiny.

Don't forget that these loopholes are residual elements of the pre-9/11 security arrangement in which the airlines ran the show. There is no reason to believe that reversion to that situation would correct these problems. I will mention the issue of security and innovation at the end of this post.

3. None of us minds boarding an imperfectly secured plane simply because there is no such thing as a perfectly secured jet. That doesn't mean that we should complain about what security exists, however, merely because we are high-maintenance and don’t want to be bothered by having to take our shoes off.

I take particular issue with your reckless assumption that

>>I believe it is perfectly fine to board a plane with sharp objects. If all pax have them, we can all protect ourselves instead of relying upon some "sky marshall".

9/11 happened as we all know because the terrorists took advantage of "FAA regulations" (or at least policy) that stressed non-resistance and cooperation. That is all over and we are safer BECAUSE OF THAT, not because we can't bring a small pocketknife on board. <<

1. Sky-marshals are trained to use deadly force to protect innocent pax. I firmly believe that elite security personnel armed with semiautomatic weapons are a more formidable combatant than grandma with her tweezers in 32C.

2. The logical extension of your argument is that we should require all pax to carry weapons onboard to ensure a high probability of defeating hijackers. Of course this is ludicrous. Note that your argument doesn't work unless a sufficiently large number of people carry sharp objects on planes to defeat aggressors. As 9/11 showed us, people don't do this naturally and would therefore require compulsion.

3. You claim to explicitly prefer a scenario in which weapons are arbitrarily carried onboard to a situation in which only official, trained security personnel are permitted weapons. The security outcome in the former scenario is variable and unpredictable at absolute best. The latter scenario implies (1) difficulty for terrorists to get weapons onboard and (2) a counteracting force should security checks fail.

Finally, you advance a few concrete proposals which I have already addressed. However, you did not answer my analysis that suggests an overall more secure aviation orientation.

In the end, I am not in favor of wholesale government control of airport security because it precludes innovation that improves our procedures and, in the end, makes us more secure. But the airlines won't undertake such projects on their own, and neither will private security firms who no longer have a place in the market. The solution I propose is this:

Government operation of onboard security (sky-marshals) and an increasingly assertive FAA. Checkpoints should be conducted by 3rd party firms in contract with the federal government. U.S. military forces should support the 3rd-party firms and oversee the process. The prominence of Argenbright, etc. allowed airlines to redirect accountability for 9/11 to those with whom they had contracted at absurdly low prices. The airlines didn't want to pay the firms enough to hire good employees. The result was poor security with no precise target for blame: Argenbright blames the airlines for not paying them enough to hire good workers, and the airlines blame Argenbright for not adequately training staff. The government has the liquid assets requisite to outsourcing airport security to reputable, dependable firms, and is democratically accountable should those firms fail. The firms themselves remain accountable to the market. The key is that the government won't hire the cheapest firms, but the best firms. This the procedure through which this market operates is innovation, reputation, experience, and excellence, not cheapness. This, I think, is the key to good security provided by efficient, innovative private corporations overseen by the government whose fundamental interest is pax security.

Whether or not this scenario actually arises will depend on what we tell the government it needs to do to make us happy. While this is the optimal arrangement, I still hold that wholesale federal operation of airport security is preferable to airline operation via 3rd parties. The former scenario implies greater accountability and is not conditioned by the market-based incentive to under-calculate risk by excluding social outcomes from the figures.

I will end with your beginning criticism re: financial firms. You are of course correct to observe that the government doesn't run international finance. But the state does regulate the hell out of it by imposing capital adequacy standards and capital controls that prevent firms from engaging in deals that are too risky. We have seen financial crisis after financial crisis result from insufficient maintenance of liquid assets. The government doesn't run the show, but it does establish the context in which capital mobility operates. This is what I'm supporting for the airlines. More practically, even if Credit Suisse goes broke, the government is a lender of last resort. But there's no such thing as such a lender when 350 people die because Argenbright is incompetent.

I'm sure that this post will stimulate debate. Unfortunately I will not take part in future discussion on this issue because my beliefs are rather unshakeable on this issue and I have lots of other stuff to do.

kanebear

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif As if Gore or Clinton would've done any different after Sept 11th... please spare the pablum.

Jon Gegenheimer

I apologize for disregarding about half of what you said. I don't know how I missed your responses to my arguments in favor of an overall safer security position. I will address them now.

To my claim that security personnel are more alert post-federal takeover, you responded:

>>I don't know how idiotic this is. Frequent pax observe things and build a fairly good representation of reality. I am sure people working are more vigilant at security checkpoints. But that could have happened without a government monopoly takeover. It was happening already.<<

I agree that frequent pax are observant in general. Lord knows that we even observe weird things that nobody else cares about (just read the trip reports). And you are also correct to imply that 9/11, not the federal government, encouraged increased vigilance. But you haven't addressed my argument. I claim that we have only anecdotal evidence re: the current level of vigilance of airport screeners, and almost no evidence of their vigilance pre-9/11 because pax in general were not as watchful. We didn't hear about screeners falling asleep, etc. so often before 9/11. But, as a matter of scientific inquiry, we cannot conclude that security personnel are now worse merely because we hear more complaints because we can never know the extent to which increased complaints derive from increasing pax vigilance rather than increasing transgression by security staff.

To my claim re: the national guard, you responded:

>>Yes it is, it is completely unreasonable, abhorrent and irreprehensible.

All failures in all walks of life can cost lives. Every traffic intersection is a hazard. Every factory can produce deaths and maim people. Every ladder, every lawnmore, every electric outlet.<<

Granted, there are failures and potential deaths around every corner. Deaths in factories occur accidentally. Deaths on highways occur either accidentally or when people drink, speed, etc. As a result, we license law enforcement to stop us if they're suspicious and even to take us to jail if we represent a threat. Hijackings occur intentionally. Now take the premise that the government's job is to protect us from external aggression. Death at a factory isn't aggressive, so the government isn't involved. Death on the highway is sometimes the result of aggressive behavior, so the state has limited involvement. Hijackings are aggressive by nature, so the government is obligated to protect us.

You also claimed that

>>Come on, now, having the military telling civilians what to do is something only done during wartime.

We are not at war -- that is a fiction, a lie. There are some people who want to cause mayhem and harm, they are criminals and we need to defend ourselves. But we *each* need to defend ourselves, not turn over our personal safety to soldiers telling us what to do.<<

Wrong. The national guard tells us what to do when there are floods, hurricanes, riots, etc. Their function is to blend the policing authority of the ordinary police departments with military expertise should more extreme force be necessary.

Moreover, whether or not we are at war is one of the most hotly debated issues in international relations academia. It is true that our state is combating what's left of another state. In that sense, we are formally at war. It is also true that our state is fighting a sub-state, transnational aggressor. Whether or not this implies war is up to the academy. I think it does...some disagree...it's irrelevant since the national guard doesn't act exclusively during war.

More generally, the government (and all of its agencies, including the police and all branches of the military) legitimately monopolizes the use of force. As long as it's a state-sponsored agency telling you what to do, they're allowed to do so.

Regarding I.D. checks, you claim:

>>No, there is no logic to this. It is pure inconvenience and a travesty. I should be able to have a meeting at the airport, but I can't even if my visitors agreed to go through the "screening." That is ridiculous.<<

"Travesty" is a big word-- as though you have some legitimate moral claim to an airport meeting. You have no right to convenience at airports. Take your meeting elsewhere. The bottom line is that security of a jet is more important than having a meeting in the President's Club instead of somewhere else. You will probably respond that:

>>There is nothing special about a jet. There are a hundred ways that someone bent on mayhem can have their way without setting foot near the airport.<<

But this bites my previous argument that the imperfection of security speaks to the need to increase security in general and does not constitute a sufficient objection to security in general. The point isn't that we're well-off, but that we're better-off than we were.

Then you opine that:

>>This whole ID business is abhorrent and hogwash. Terrorists can give their real ID and don't care because they'll die anyway. And they can easily obtain a falsified ID. You can make sure every citizen has a fraud-resistant identity card, profile every citizen's movements, and do random searches of citizens.<<

The point of the I.D. checks isn't to ensure that someone named Osama bin Laden doesn't get on a plane. It's to ensure that the only people past security are those who have a good reason to be there. Sure, anyone can buy a ticket and clear security. But the point is that these restrictions make it more difficult to scope-out security protocols, provide logistical support to terrorist operations, etc. Moreover, 9/11 proved, if nothing else, that we cannot predict methods of terror. In the face of this unpredictability it makes more sense not to permit those who have only unofficial (i.e., non-transportation) reasons for clearing security to do so.

Finally, I will very briefly address JWH's political harangue.

I'm about as small-government neo-libertarian as one can get. I have already addressed "this security crap." Anyone who thinks that anybody has a right to Cheney's private meeting records needs to visit (or re-visit) law school. And I don't know what "gubernatorial records" are. I don't want this to be a republican vs. democrat thing because it really isn't. Those in power have always done sketchy things for one reason or another. This has nothing to do with democratic failure in my opinion. Clinton lied in court and could very well have been sent to jail. In my view that's more objectionable an offense than wanting to increase security, even if it means that you have to flash your I.D. And G.B. claimed that freedom has to be limited because it does. Whoever thinks that freedom can be absolute needs to go back to introductory philosophy. More importantly, I’m not sure how on earth you guys have derived a philosophically-backed “right” or “freedom” vis-à-vis uninhibited air transportation. Is it “unjust” that you have to flash your I.D. and take off your shoes? Do you have a “right” not to have to wait in line? Common.

Okay, this is it from me. I promise.

Jakester

Today's Chgo Trib had a column by Bob Greene regarding airport security.
He told the story of an 86 year old man having to remove his shoes etc since the screeners thought he was suspicious. Why?
They found a pointy metal object in his pocket. They passed it around (to 8-9 different screeners) trying to see how deadly this object could be.
The man? Former Gen Joe Foss. Where was he going? To West Point to speak to the cadets.
The object of suspicion? His Medal of Honor given to him by Pres Roosevelt for shooting down 20+ planes in WWII.
A Congressional Medal of Honor as a potential new weapon. Where are we going with this?

mdtony

Here's the reality. There are more Aunt Bessies and Uncle Bobs and Grandpa Joes and Grandma Susies out there than there are folks who travel a lot. Congressmen know this. They want to make sure they keep on getting elected.

So who do you think they'll pander to? The 10 percent of folks who fly a lot, or the 90 percent of folks who don't?

wormwood

For a laugh and an excellent take on this see Barbara Ehrenreich's essay (written years ago, pre 9/11) at:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/19...y.airport.html

A great writer with an acid tongue (wonder why I like her?!)

[This message has been edited by wormwood (edited 02-24-2002).]

Raven 1

Sanity and common sense are the first casualities of the mantra of "SECURITY" for the great American Chicken! Aunt Jenny flies twice a decade and is interviewed by the "liberal" tv media and her mutterings on not being upset over mindless delays are taken as "the voice of Americans". BULL!!
Let the twits afraid of flying ... stay at home in the closet and maybe the mean world with all its RISKS will not find them. Thank god they were not paid heed to during the "Äge of Exploration", the "New World" would never have been discovered, after all the world is flat and ships will fall off!
Americans have turned into sniveling twits afraid of their own shadows!

mapsmith

Question for all who are very frequent fliers. (I'm casual)

If our "Constitutional Rights" are being eroded. (Specifically the Amendment in the Bill of Rights that protects us from "Unreasonable Search and Seizure") How come no one has yet filed suit against either the airlines, security companies, or the government for these violations.

BTW, FAA being part of the Executive Branch cannot unilaterally void one of the Amendments of the Bill of Rights. That takes an Act of Congress AND approval of the Legislatures of the States.


It seems to me that a "Gate Screen" by the airline AFTER a thorough screening by the TSA at the security screen is an Unreasonable Search. This is screaming for a lawsuit. B747's example where he was selected for a Gate Screen then had the computer determine he needed yet another screening by the same Gate Agent is a perfect example. (If only he were a US Citizen)

Any lawyers out there want to become famous and earn the everlasting gratitude of all Flyers????

AS Flyer

You guys sound like a broken record. How many threads on here need to be devoted to people whining about their rights being violated?

When you buy an airline ticket you are agreeing to a contract. Everyone seems to remember that when they feel their contractual rights have been violated. Everyone conveniently forgets when the airlines invoke their right to enforce their side of the contract. The airlines are permitted to ask any security question of you they deem appropriate. They are permitted to search your person or belongings that you are carrying with you if they so desire. Airlines are not public utilities. Flying is not your "right". It's a business like any other and they reserve the right to refuse service to anyone just as you reserve the right to take your business elsewhere if you don't like the way they treat you. There is always Amtrak, cruise ships or your car if you find the current security procedures a violation of your civil rights. I, for one, as a VERY frequent flier, am glad to see that the airlines and the government are more aware of whats going on underneath their noses. My hope is that they fine tune these security procedures and soon we can all travel, once again, without the hassles we are currently enduring. Until then, I will be patient and plan accordingly, giving myself ample time to get through security. If current procedures were violating anyones rights you can be sure that there would be a group of lawyers all over it already. I've yet to hear of any broad scope lawsuits in this regard. There have been several very specific incidents of violations but not as broad and general as you all seem to imply. Please correct me if I'm wrong.