TheCrackedJack

I'm curious, because you rarely see positive comments around here. Surely all 150+ countries can't be doing a simultaneously right obstructing/horrible job as many of you like to point out.

So, what country do you think America should have modeled there travel security system around? Or is everyone doing a horrible job?

Normally, I would say Japan but I know many find fingerprinting/photographing unacceptable. Although, I found that they did it in an efficient and easy manner.

But can can we inject a little more positive thought in here. What country deserves praise for doing things right?

Spiff

New Zealand is excellent domestically. Unfortunately, internationally, they follow the same asinine restrictions and other stupidity for liquids. The same can be said for Brazil.

gpurcell

Ahem. New Zealand is a dagger pointed at the heart of Antartica. It threatens no one because it is near no one.

TheCrackedJack

Although I haven't had any problems with them myself. I remember seeing lot's of people dissatisfied with the attitudes of the customs/immigrations officers of NZ, especially during MR's.

Maybe they are just isolated incidents though.

Spiff

So what? There's no valid excuse for stupidity, regardless of a country's geographic location.

Japan's "safety/security" sucks. 'Baka' (stupid) is the perfect word to describe a country that has liquid nonsense and disgusting fingerprinting. I've dropped Japan from my list of destinations. Sayonara, Nihon.

Spiff

They've been very nice to me, though I don't go there every week.

wijomas

Although I've had my fair share of incidents with NZ Customs, they're always professional and do their job well. I certainly don't hold anything against them for doing what they're paid to do.

NZ domestic is almost scary with it's lack of security I flew out on a flight from AKL-TUO and they didn't even check boarding passes - the captain(!) came to the gate and yelled out "right, everyone going to Taupo, follow me!"

gpurcell

Arguing that a security regime appropriate for a minor country in a passive and tranquil part of the world is somehow an appropriate model for eveyone else is simply not credible.

Spiff

It's not scary at all. I wish every flight in every country was like that! ^

Spiff

Why not? NZ, for whatever reason, chooses not to harass passengers with stupid, unnecessary "security" policies when they travel domestically. Good for them, bad for every nation on the planet that chooses to harass rather than secure.

gj83

Sansa in Costa Rica was OK compared to the US. they checked ID at ticketing and then just attempted a pat down. Boarding passes are just laminated pieces of paper they collect and reuse for the next flight
No reinforced cockpit doors since the pilots are right in front of you. No "flight attendants for your safety"

What makes planes so special anyway? I can hop on the metros or buses without much ado, but to get on a plane there is a huge rigmarole. Maybe that will change after that guy on Greyhound.

TheCrackedJack

I would think it's the very nature of a plane. If the engine dies on a bus, or something goes wrong or you lose control, you just put on the brakes and pull over. If the engines go on a plane or it loses control, it drops out of the sky and everybody dies in a horrible explosion.

Planes are much more sensitive to problems than other modes of transport and the consequences are much dire if something goes wrong.

Even if you filled a bus to the brim with high explosives, I would think a large jet would still do more damage. Not that that excuses some of the rules that are put into place.

the_nomad

Not that I agree with the reasoning but, here's my assumption:

a) Pretty hard to drive a bus into the White House without being adequately intercepted beforehand

B) Busses aren't loaded with TONS of jet fuel prior to departure and thus less of a traveling bomb

C) Busses don't travel at 500+ MPH and therefore possess much less kenetic energy that would be converted to a destructive form upon impact.

Probably moot since 9/11 was probably ultimately caused by criminal elements within the US government.... now lets all watch "Conspiracy Theory"

GUWonder

Pretty hard or pretty easy, a team of 2-5 terrorists attempting to drive multiple buses onto the White House grounds and into the White House itself is possible without much more needed in the way of anything besides plenty of explosive material in the vehicles and knowing where the physical obstacles are, how many there are, and how to deal with them.

From "secured cockpits" to "secured bus driver seats"?

Concorde69

This is my simple explanation for it:

Trains and buses aren't good candidates to be hijacked very easily. They are easily immobilized, have to (more or less) follow roads and tracks, and cause limited damage if they crash.

Planes on the other hand can be hijacked and taken most anywhere and can cause more damage if they crash, creating a rather large explosion compared to buses or trains and travel at a much higher speed. They cannot be immobilized without killing everyone on board and possibly innocent civilians on the ground as well.

I can list numerous other reasons but those cover the basics of it.

There is certainly something to be said about more security for buses and trains due to the threat of terrorist bombings, etc. Hopefully we can address those issues in the future in an intelligent and productive way which allows society, business and commerce to flourish (in other words the opposite of airport security). Lets hope the TSA doesn't start taking massive dumps all over the rest of public transportation.