Isreal is a country that experiences terrorist attacks as often as on a weekly basis. El Al's security procedures have effectively stopped all attack on the airline. I don't see how anyone could conclude that they are only providing a minute level of additional safety.

So then why suggest it in the first place if it's not even an option? That's part of what I object to about your debating methods. You offer an extreme example which isn't even a real option in order to prove a separate point. It's confusing and unfair.

As to the degree of security El Al's system provides, as Israel's airline, they have obviously provided an enormously greater amount of security than an American style system would have provided. As to the degree of security such a system would provide here, it could not be justified in an identical form economically or constitutionally. If it were workable here, however, it's not clear to me that the extra degree of security provided by that system would be what you could call minute.

As I've pointed out before, al Qaida declared war on the US, and until hostilities cease, extraordinary measures are called for, after which, these revolting security practices can be discontinued. I for one will give the TSA the benefit of the doubt, although I admit that I am in the minority. That's just the way it goes.

Security checks play a minor role in the economic damage airlines are experiencing right now. People aren't flying for lots of reasons, among them fear, stupid, expensive rules, a bad economy and yes, there is probably a "hassle factor" involved.

But if the airlines are smart, which we all know they mostly aren't, they'll try to strike a balance between security and convenience, because if there is another hijacking, God forbid, there is no doubt in my mind that the weaker airlines will go belly up as a result, independent of any Hassle Factor. (That sounds like a television program - starring David Duchovny and Linda Hassle...) http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...orum/smile.gif

If it were an inside job the weapons would already be on the plane.

It was there to catch what the initial screeners miseed.

Their planes are safe, their country is a war zone. However, I would never fly El Al despite their safety record because their security measures are too intrusive for my taste. Still, number of El Al hijackings since 11 Sept: 0.

US Airlines' security measures, now that passengers will never allow another hijacking are just as effective by this metric. Dropping random harassment will not negatively affect security. Number of US airlines hijackings since 11 Sept: 0.



------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

I completely disagree. We are not at war and trying to justify these un-American Gestapo tactics currently used by the TSA by saying that "extraordinary measures for extraordinary times" are justified is ludicrous. Until Congress declares War, we are not justified in using "extraordinary measures", especially not against our own citizens. The TSA lost all credibility and respect the moment they started acting like thugs.

And I must also disagree with your point that the "hassle factor" is playing a minor role in the economic hardships that US airlines are experiencing. Even if the estimated 3.8 billion dollars per year that the airlines are losing to the "hassle factor" is overestimated by a factor of two, that would still leave nearly 2 billion dollars worth of losses to the airlines. These losses persist because we insist upon making airline travel a miserable, intrusive experience. Hardly a minor role in the overall loss picture. The nearly-criminal thing is that we, the US, are accomplishing the terrorists' mission for them with these un-American and economically suicidal measures.



------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

Well, we are at war, if not technically, then effectively. That's the reality. You can also deny the sun will rise tomorrow, to the same effect.

Your statistics about losses of 3.8 billion to the "hassle factor" was provided from a single source, the airline industry group, hardly an uninterested group. I have seen that statistic nowhere else, and I don't believe it. They are losing money hand over fist because people are afraid of flying, and also because of excessive executive pay, rigid union work rules, an incomprehensible fare structure, and a bad economy. Those are facts I can back up from multiple, credible sources, not the airline industry lobby group alone.

Losses to "hassle factor" are way overblown. They can blame no one but themselves for their losses.

Arguably the most American thing our American government can do is protect American lives. We need security for that.

I believe random gate screenings should only go away when they stop finding things that the people up front missed.

There isn't any way the airplane can be safer if the people up front are the only line of defense in their current configuration. Every time that the random gate agents found something in all the highly publicized stories and all the noes we never heard about, they found something that was missed up front.

Remove them without getting better up front, and you have less security.

You also get the cattle line back to be the first to board the plane.

Possible, but not as likely as the weapons being somewhere in the terminal.

The easiest way to get a weapon planted inside of the terminal is to find a low-paid worker with access and trick them into doing it for you. You'd want a low-paid worker as they'd be more likely to want to earn a few bucks and would be less likely to report it. The airline employees with access to the interior of the airplane have pensions, benefits, good wages, etc. that they'd be less inclided to risk for a few hundred bucks.

The tactic would be to find a low-paid contract employee and offer him a couple hundred bucks for planting a box of "pot" inside of the terminal. He'd be told that an acomplice would pick it up and carry it to wherever it's being smuggled. A person who wouldn't knowingly help a hijacker might be willing to help a pot smuggler if it meant a some bucks in his own pocket.

There are some contract employees with access to the aircraft cabins but the timing is more difficult, there are fewer places to hide the box and they don't really have the run of the airplanes as a janitor does of the terminal.

The chief defense to this type of attack is educating the ID holders, thorough background checks, frequent monitoring of likely hiding places in the terminal and aircraft and monitoring the ID swipes of employees looking for accesses that don't match the employees work pattern. The TSA has increased efforts in all areas.

The gate checks were put in place as a short-term measure while more permanant precautions could be implimented.

Are you really stupid enough to think that it's that simple?

The enemy has proven that they are very good planners and aren't afraid to spend many months training for a major attack. If we leave any holes, they will find a way to resist a passenger rebellion.

I'm not a lawyer or even close to that area of expertise, but the discussion connecting the security checks and the Constitution seem doubtful at best. Once you buy a ticket, as we all know, we agree to the terms and conditions on said ticket. We also know that this includes the possibility of a random security inspection. Why is this any different than random drug screening at work locations or a random point of inspection that police erect at certain junctions on a weekend night to catch possible DUI's?

Hey, I'm more willing to accept this than to stupidly accept every edict the TSA spills forth.

If we waste all our resources on plugging the most improbable attack possibilities, we expose ourselves elsewhere. Stupidity aside all around, we do not have unlimited resources, though the TSA seems to act like we do.

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

[This message has been edited by Spiff (edited 09-21-2002).]

The stuff being found at the gate can no longer be used to hijack a plane, yet we persist in celebrating these nail file confiscations via random gate harassment.

I will be throwing a party the day these un-American screenings die the death they have so richly deserved since their inception.



------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

I have unhappily accepted that the current Supreme Court would probably uphold these random harassments of passengers. However, I still maintain that these random searches are decidedly un-American.

I absolutely hate random checkpoints of motorists and random drug screening in the workplace as well. The ends do not justify the means. This is not to say I am opposed to police pulling over suspected drunk (or reckless) drivers, nor am I opposed to drug tests being administered to those in the workplace who have exhibited some behavior that constitutes probable cause for such a test.



------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

Are you really stupid enough to think that it's that simple?

Nail files are specifically PERMITTED. See http://www.tsa.gov/trav_consumers/permitted_items.shtm

Yes, they are. I used them as an example of items that were once thought to be "dangerous".

"we persist in celebrating these Metal scissors with pointed tips confiscations via random gate harassment."

Better now?

Also, like I said... I question the TSA's credibility and common sense and I think that just believing everything the TSA says is even stupider than relying on the passengers to prevent another hijacking. Furthermore, I restate my other comment: it's stupid to think we have endless resources and can afford to keep trying to plug the smallest and most improbable of holes.

As far as I am concerned, the probability of the passengers not stopping another hijacking is extremely low. So low that I am willing to drop these asinine (stupid) random harassments at both the gate and at the checkpoints.

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

[This message has been edited by Spiff (edited 09-22-2002).]