Would You Fly On a Plane With NO Security?
 

Came across an interesting article today, and I apologize if this has already been posted:

http://www.american.com/archive/2011...ly-liberty-air

Full-body scanners, invasive pat-downs, harsh carry-on restrictions—has the Transportation Security Administration gone too far? Critics and defenders of the TSA tend to talk past each other, so I propose a new approach to answering the question. Let us imagine there were a major airline that could opt out of all TSA regulations. Call it “Liberty Air.” Liberty Air openly advertises that it takes zero safety precautions when it comes to screening passengers and baggage. Would you fly on this airline?

The upside to Liberty Air’s approach is a far more pleasant airport experience. Liberty Air has no metal detectors, so there are no long lines after you get your ticket. Get to the airport ten minutes before take-off, not two hours. Pack whatever you want in your carry-on, including “dangerous” liquids, disposable razors, a hunting knife, whatever. If you have a laptop, don’t worry about taking it out of its case. Wearing a metal belt buckle? Have a lot of keys? Don’t want your Blackberry to leave your sight? No problem. You won’t have to juggle your boarding pass, your driver’s license, your cell phone, and your laptop. No need to take off your shoes. Don’t feel hassled to collect all your belongings pouring out of the X-ray machine—there is no X-ray machine!

Most important of all, Liberty Air does not do body scans. No machine will take revealing photos of you, nor will X-rays zap you, nor will any uniformed official fondle you in the name of national security.

Not only is Liberty Air more pleasant to fly, it’s also easier on your wallet. Free from paying for security officials and upkeep for expensive equipment, Liberty Air passes the savings on to you. No “September 11 security fee” on your bill. You pay only for the flight, not for the TSA bureaucracy.

Of course, there’s an obvious downside to Liberty Air: it is clearly more vulnerable to a terrorist attack. Does the added risk outweigh the benefits? This is the question everyone should ponder. Would you fly Liberty Air, or would you still choose a TSA-compliant airline?

You can read the rest of the article at the above link - but I know that my answer would be, "Hell, yes! I would fly Liberty Air!"

Thoughts?

Ditto. I would fly Liberty Air in a heartbeat.

No security? Absolutely not. That's anarchy. It depends what you define as reasonable security.

The aircraft and all supply systems should be secured (fuel, catering, maintenance, etc). The flight deck should be secured, with flight crew willing to continue operations even if people in the cabin are under mortal threat. All cargo and checked luggage should be secured.

All carry-on luggage and pax should be secured against any strategic (and not tactical or operational) aircraft risks.

Have fun with that one. :)

Yes, I'll Go Liberty Air
 

but only if they promise not to do any of this:

I feel safer surrounded by people who love liberty than I do in a herd of sheep. I feel more comfortable in a crowd where every man and boy has a pocket knife and every Grannie has a pair of sewing scissors. I am not as afraid of the people my government fears as I am of allowing my government to ban people from flying or monitor citizens' travel. Guns don't distress my as much as banning guns does.

In short, Liberty Air is safer than sharing a flying cattle car with a herd of mindless, bleating sheep. I'll take it.

Me too. Where can I go to buy a ticket?

If you look back, the TSA is always one step BEHIND the terrorists- they react with a change AFTER the terrorists pull something off. This last underpants bomber was actually a success based on the all the expense/trouble he has caused.

I suspect the terorists are already working on ways to overcome the last TSA changes.

People shouldn't be afraid of their government.

Government should be afraid of their people.

As far as government tyrants are concerned, Judge Lynch never sleeps.

ABSOLUTELY. I'm tired of not being able to carry my sidearm half the time I travel.

Yes. Absolutely. Fly internally in new Zealand if you want to experience this. Get your BP from a machine, walk onto the plane. That's it. Nothing else. Did about a half dozen such flights last April. Did not worry me in the least. Looking forward to doing this again in jul/aug of this year.

And I'm not going to sit next to a stranger packing a sidearm. My disgust with TSA (and the American people for tolerating it) is well-known, but I wouldn't touch Liberty Air. I want reasonable, respectful, COMPETENT security, which we don't have now -- not no security at all.

This is like asking which of two motor vehicles you'd prefer to own: one with a breathalyzer interlock, 50-mph speed governor, no distracting radio, and all cell / navigation features disabled... or one with no seatbelts, airbags, bumpers, brake lights, or anti-skid, and a glass gas tank mounted on the roof. The rational choice is somewhere in between.

I think that's going a bit far in the other direction.

I would like pre-9/11 security but with bag matching.

Every flight I take has no security, other than the secure cockpit doors and the crew and passenger attitude.

The TSA certainly does nothing to provide security.

That was one of the outrageous, insulting and ridiculous assertions that Pissy made in his testimony before the TSA Senate oversight committee, that (and yes, I am paraphrasing from memory here) if you gave the flying public two options, one a flight on which everyone boarding had been subjected to intensive screening, and the other on which there was no screening, he was "sure" that "everyone" would take the first option.

He should shut the ____ up and ACTUALLY GIVE US THAT OPTION, instead of testifying before Congress about what he is "sure" we would do in his hypothetical situation!

I would not hestitate to take the scary option, the one that would make Pissy piss himself.

Then do not come to Kentucky (or any of several other states). You may indeed end up sitting next to me in any number of public venues and you will almost certainly be sitting next to someone with a concealed firearm. You will never know it except in the very rare instance in which you will find yourself pleased that you were.

And, yes, I would fly Liberty.

Sure, I'd fly.

Count me in ^

I would have no problem flying Liberty Air.

I would.

Well actually I would bring my own security.

In a heartbeat.

This is true for many other states as well (Tejas, Arizona..).

I would fly Liberty.

An internal flight in New Zealand? Of course I would. Bestest little country ever. :)

A flight just about anywhere else? No, I'd want screening of luggage and intelligent profiling to prevent those just-back-from-Al-Quaida-training-camp from flying. The key word here is intelligent.

First off, this is a pipe dream and we're wasting our time even dreaming about it. TSA 'compliance' isn't there only to protect the passengers & crew onboard a plane.

Second, as a pilot who has done many, many alert tours, scrambles, and patrols in the DC area, I can assure you that such an airline would never get near a populated area without multiple weapons targeted on it:eek:

Also, as an airline pilot I wouldn't give 1/2 an iota of consideration to operating such a flight.

It's a nice dream though.

It's only a pipe dream in the U.S. It's complete reality in many countries.

I've flown out of GA several times in the last 9 years. Refreshing.

That's true. I should've qualified my statements:)

Speaking of pipes, maybe in addition to Liberty Air, we could have Reefer Air, so the medical marijane folks like Montel Williams can take their medicine.

Sure, why not? I've gotten on completely unsecured buses, trains and subways before. I would like my pilots to be armed, but other than that I wouldn't really be worried about it.

Aren't interisland commuter flights in Hawaii 'security-free'? I flew Pacific Wings (granted 4 years ago) but no security at all. Was great.

I also flew security-free in Estonia between Tallinn and Hiiumaa.

OK, I want the seat next to you.

Count me in as a customer.
Every day I go about my business and I can say that fear is the last thing on my mind. I bank where there is no armed guard, I shop at stores that let anyone in, I dine at restaurants surrounded by unknown individuals.

If we let fear take control, then really how can one enjoy life.

As a note, isn't SeaPort Airlines doing just that? NO TSA stupidity.
http://www.seaportair.com/features/

I travel in NYC subway cars with 100+ people on board and nothing to stop anyone from taking a duffel bag full of PETN on board. Why should I be afraid to fly on an airplane with no security?

I would be ok with reasonable security. I would also be ok with BYOS (bring-your-own security, brought to you by Sig Sauer). I'm not ok with "whatever makes me safer" security, and I'm not ok with security theater.

IOW, almost anything would be an improvement over the current system. :)

--Jon

Wow, looks great and their prices really aren't so bad (as low as $150 each way?). It's too bad I don't live in the northwest.

--Jon

I don't object to reasonable procedures and I don't exactly live life on the edge. But, if forced to choose, I would rather go without security than have my nude image taken or have someone put their hands between my legs until they meet resistance. I'm sort of at the point where I think we are all flying without anything other than false security, anyway.

Actually what are the criteria for a flight to be General Aviation? Maximum number of passengers on the plane? Would it be possible to organize a security free flight club (members only) under the GA regime?

If I had only a choice between what we have now and nothing at all, I would opt for nothing at all.

It's a false dichotomy, of course, but an interesting-to-follow thread.

~~ Irish

I'd fly on any plane where I didn't get treated like a convicted criminal for purchasing a plane ticket.

Now with saying that. I am not totally against security, but there needs to be some real survellance done that shows that a particular passenger is up to something, for that passenger to get the enhanced screenings. Because currently the passenger having bought a plane ticket is the only reason TSA/DHS is using for a passenger to submit to the enhanced prison type security screenings currently going on at the airport.

Current TSA/DHS Policy is to treat every single passenger as a terrorist for buying a plane ticket. I don't like that mentality of you the passenger are considered gulity until you prove to us you aren't.

I think the real reason for this is that they don't want to have to do any real survellance work to identify a real terrorist. They just treat every passenger like a terrorist and hope that in the procees they will get lucky and catch the terrorist. Then they, TSA/DHS, can say..."See what we were doing at the airport worked."

Not aboard an airline flight, I won't.

At that shootout in Arizona today someone with a gun apparently returned fire. Five or six dead, 12 wounded. So I'm sure they were pleased.

And yet there are no reliable reports that anyone but the nutball assassin actually shot anyone.

Liberty Air
 

What security conscious people need to realize is that REAL security is run immediately when buying a ticket or reserving a seat or listing as NR before a flight and rerun hours before departure which is why the psngr manifest must be ready before departure to ok.
You are in various data banks depending on which arm of Government is looking at you with EVERYTHING pertinent listed about you, EVERYTHING!
Profiling is done behind the scenes with computers and not advertised.
People without security clearances NEVER get to see these data banks about themselves.;)
Personally I would fly Liberty Air with joy as I would rather DIE on my feet than LIVE on my knees!

What makes my gun more dangerous on a plane than on a bus or at a sporting event? And, yes, I will not have my gun in my possession on a commercial flight. I think it is silly, but it is the law.

As for Arizona, your use of pronouns with indefinite references makes your post hard to understand, so I am not sure what you are talking about. When all of the info comes out, we will see if a CCP holder was involved. Until then, I will reserve judgment.