No Security
 

If TSA dismantled the whole apparatus of airport security erected after 9/11, I suppose it would make everyone here happy. But I wonder what kind of economic impact it would have on the airlines. Right now, security theater is keeping the airlines afloat by persuading people not so enamored of flying that it is safe to fly. But would enough of those with a weak attachment to aviation simply bail out to put all the airlines in bankruptcy? I think we could really contemplate dismantling TSA if there is no economic impact. After all, the people who complain most about TSA are already convinced they are on the safest travel mode. No person like that is going to stop flying just because a plane here or there explodes.

Normally, when someone prattles on like this I'd ask them if they have the numbers to back up their post (e.g. how many people actually would stop flying if TSA were destroyed vs. how many more people would take to the skies if TSA were destroyed).

However:

1) I know I won't get an answer to this question.

2) No one here seems to want security to go away, many want TSA to go away so the original question is pretty vacuous.

There was nothing wrong with checkpoint security on 9/11. Given the single-percent positive comments on TSA news articles, I doubt the airlines would go bankrupt due to fallen traffic if security was being run by the private sector, with oversight by the DOT or FAA.

EDIT: Spiff and I were posting at the same time:

I can tell you first hand that my friends and relatives in Europe would start visiting the States again if the TSA went away, even more so if CPB quit acting like thugs. All in all I would expect a net increase in air travel. An interesting thing to ponder...

I don't think it is a question of security or no security. The question is how much security is needed for the given threat.

I am not convinced that TSA has done the background to answer that question based on the growing presence of TSA I see in our lives.

The next question is who should be responsible for security. I believe that TSA should be an oversight agency to provide security requirements and to monitor and inspect the airport/airline security collaboration.

actually from the people i have been talking to, the main reason there not flying is TSA and they have told the airlines that. Now they will drive then fly as the BS, hassle and harassements not worth it. That or if its a major deal a client with charter a private plane where they dont have to deal with TSA.

Well, personally I'd keep the armored cockpit doors, policy of not cooperating with hijackers, and federal flight-deck officer program. I'm also a fan of ETD, but that technology was being used pre-TSA, so it wouldn't be subject to dismantling anyway.

Would the economic impact be greater than the bloated cost of maintaining TSA security theater?

Driving a car is much more dangerous than flying on a commercial aircraft by almost any measure, even accounting for terrorist events.

If a fully-loaded widebody crashed every month with 100% fatalities, it would still be a fraction of domestic road fatalities (< 20%). Let alone fatalities from completely preventable causes like smoking. Yet people keep driving in spite of the lack of security measures, many people continue to not wear seatbelts while driving, and a non-trivial fraction of the population chooses to keep smoking.

Nice hyperbole. :rolleyes: Nobody wants to see a plane explode periodically "here or there." The question is whether the money, hassle, and rights-erosion that is TSA is actually preventing aviation incidents. And whether the same benefit, if any, could be achieved with drastically less visible security, less spending, less hassle, etc.

For example, what if we reverted to pre-9/11 security (except for exceptions I mentioned), took all the extra money that was being spent on TSA, and gave it to the FBI to conduct law-enforcement investigations (respecting constitutional limits and using "quaint" :rolleyes: concepts like search warrants) and the CIA to conduct intelligence gathering (while respecting the rights and privacy of US citizens)? Could we achieve the same or even better level of "security" as TSA provides? While harassing only criminals instead of millions of innocent Americans?

I definitely WANT security. I just want efficiently provided security. We have security now (cockpit doors, screening, x-ray) and we need more (screening everybody, cargo).

What people here complain about is that 1: we pay (in pecuniary and non-pecuniary terms) too much for what we get and 2: we are not getting enough of what we actually need, and 3: we are getting too much of things we don't need (ergo point 1).

I can't provide statistics, but from a very personal perspective, the TSA has made me decide to avoid the US and US carriers whenever possible. I no longer connect through the US when going to Canada or Japan, for example, and only go there when business takes me, not for vacations. Many people in my circles feel the same way. In fact, we have become more and more interested in vacations and conferences in Europe and Asia.

For the visitor, the TSA is one of the first things you experience in the US, and the last. Makes a big mark.

Why is it that the TSA apologists always (okay, ALMOST always) seem to want to cast things in a "TSA or no security whatsoever," light, when that is explicitly ***NOT*** what those of us opposed to TSA want? I mean, we STATE OUTRIGHT that we want REAL security, as opposed to the security theater that is all TSA could EVER provide (and it STILL can't manage to do a good job of even that, as evidenced by their own test results!), and still TSA's cheering section insists that what we're demanding is a complete lack of any security, whether real or imagined.

When we say to you over and over and over again, "Black. Black. Black.", and you persist in replying, "So, white then?", what I get from that exchange is that you aren't really interested in discussing the ACTUAL issue. There's certainly room for differences in opinion - it'd be pretty boring if there wasn't! - but stop trying to claim that we're saying something we're explicitly NOT. It's dishonest, and shows a marked lack of respect.

That's why it's seldom worth the electrons to respond to such drivel. @:-)

Why must it be all or nothing? Why can't airport security be like in other countries? (at least the parts not contaminated by TSA) By that I am referring to the parts that include common sense, professionalism, polite interaction, and real security measures, not those put on for show to reassure an impressionable public.

No one country has managed to work out everything to be the 'right' way; again, nothing is that black and white. But when there are more 'wrongs' than 'rights', it is time to reevaluate.

I'd prefer "no security" over security theatre and hassles with no appreciable difference. Armored cockpit doors, air marshalls on all flights and scanning all checked and behavioral profiling would work better than the present farce.

Are you willing to pay additional taxes/fees for marshals on ALL flights? I'm already paying $40-45 on itineraries to the east coast just in taxes. I don't want to pay $50-60 just for more marshals on board.

You could get rid of the useless TSA screeners and cut some other useless expenses in the security theatre and that would absorb a lot of the cost.

Given the perceived level of threat, why would air marshals even be needed? Again like I say, you aren't the audience for the security theater. It is people who'd never think of chasing airline miles. Now, another slant would be "how much security theater could we buy at a very insignificant expenditure?" Lets say we cut the budget for this 95 percent. Could we possibly keep all the casual flyers going just because it looks like we have security? This is what security theater means to me. A lot of activity with no real purpose except to convince the credulous to keep flying.