Poll: two flights NY to DC, with and without security
 

Let's do a simple poll.

Suppose two flights from NY to DC. Identical except:

Plane 1. WITH. Today's security
Plane 2. WITHOUT. Walk on like in the 70's without security.

(made without third option as many think security 2001 not effective)

Which would you take. One word only please. With or Without



WITH

WITHOUT

Objection. The question ignores the most likely answer a respondent would make.

Assuming my objection will be sustained, I vote Option 3: security as of 10 Sept 2001.

Neither.

Plane 3. Security based on realistically managed risk and mitigation (and not the TSA's current version).

Without.

However, with the third option noted by the others, I'd vote that.

False Choice: "Choose between no security and intrusive security."

The poll is flawed.

Without. I'll take my chances, thank you very much.

Having said that, it would probably be not feasible, because airlines would have to protect their assets (and a$$es). I would settle for security administered by a particular airline that would have to balance reasonable security and losing too many passengers to less stringent competitors. No federal involvement.

On second thought, why would I want to fly from one hellhole to another?

Flawed poll is flawed.

I'd take the 3rd choice - 9/10/2001 security.

WITHOUT (no question)

Note that you can ask the moderators to create an actual FT poll

Your city pair presents a remarkable opportunity to actually try this thought experiment. Put US or DL or AA in a separate non-sterile terminal for this flight and follow the revenue.

A friend of mine who supports nude-o-scans and patdowns thought he was being really creative by coming up with this thought experiment. I explained to him that given the choice, Americans will ALWAYS choose the FASTER method regardless of safety. Commute via car vs. commute via train. 1 minute nude-scan with risk of cancer vs. safe 10 minute patdown. His SECURE airline would go out of business within a year faced with competition from an INSECURE airline. He agreed I was right and then resorted to the favorite: "you don't have a right to fly, if you don't like it, take the bus"

Absolutely no question: back to the 70s dude, and not just on air security -- let's bring back Queen, the Who, the Stones, and SuperTramp, let's bring back casual, unprotected sex, 99c breakfasts, decriminalised marijuana, Jimmy Carter, the TEE, the Hippy Trail, and vinyl LPs. Bring it all back.

+1, except Carter :p

If we have 1970s security, can we also have 1970s stewardesses with miniskirts and go-go boots? :D


http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c2...7/036ba765.jpg

Option 3, but I also agree that the airlines would take actions to secure their planes and wouldn't spend the money on NoS, shoe carnivals, etc.

without

without

(concur that the preference would be the median of security as it existed on September 10, 2001)

^:D

I agree that the poll is flawed. I'd choose neither flight. Instead, a blend of Israeli security, with security from 9/10/2001.

I would take the flight that gets my far away from your feeble minded TSA-like thought process? This is just another way of asking the TSA favorite: do you want to fly today or not?

I don't understand why folks are giving the OP such a hard time. I also didn't see an option for "none of the above" or "create your own answer."

It seems to me that walking on the plane without any security at all would be kind of scary. I'll go with with.

Does that mean SeaPort Airlines is off the table for you?

No lines. No rubber gloves. No need to take your shoes off. Simply arrive 15 minutes before your flight, board and go. It's air travel the way it should be - fast and hassle-free.
IT'S ABOUT TIME

Gee, what a shock...

Never heard of them. Where do they fly?

Click on the link that was provided. There's a map right there.

Wirelessly posted (Motorola DynaTAC: BlackBerry9630/5.0.0.624 Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/104)

A while back essxjay posted a trip report, but I can't do a decent search from my phone.

Sounds great, but did they really have to draw their route map in the shape of a swastika?

You are correct sir.

Seriously? :rolleyes:

Well, I don't know if they *had* to draw it that way, though they certainly did draw it that way.

False Dichotomy/Strawman.

WITHOUT

Having a grasp of mathematics, I would say without. I do far more dangerous things every day.

Nonetheless, I agree with other posters that even a minuscule risk can be made substantially smaller by pre 9/11 style security. Pre 9/11 security was there to benefit the airlines, not the passengers, and I think that is fair.

I don't think that's good analysis. The math is based on current security measures. We don't know what the math would look like with no security. @:-)

WITHOUT


if the missing option of pre 9/11/01 was available I could go for that. Either is better than the current process of virtual disrobing and/or groping, deshoeing, dewatering and delousing and the rest of the BS.

I think we can get pretty close. You can extrapolate all the successful attempts on currently unprotected assets to potential attempts on air travel, then factor in the total number of historic attacks overall (USS Cole, et al.)

I just love when people use big words.

Oh, Without.

Without.

Without.

really?
 

WITH


ppl in this forum cannot answer a simple question... no ones going to take ur what ever "right" away if u answer with a simple with or without... its just a question.. :)

And I have often said, "offer air travel with realistic security, Let's say 01/01/2001 style." Then if you are afraid to fly like that......."well, take the bus!"