LessO2

Can you please elaborate on why "pre-9/11 security was clearly not adequate?"

LoganTSO

Well, they were all run by different companies, and the main weapon the hijackers used were boxcutters, there was differing standards on boxcutters being prohibited items or not.

At least from what I can recall, I need to dig out my copy of the 9/11 Commission Report.

LessO2

No, there's a key component to CollegeFlyer's belief that is missing, and I'm hoping he/she will mention it in his/her reply.

EsquireFlyer

Because if security had been adequate, 9/11 wouldn't have happened?

Numerous individuals, some of whom were already under observation by law enforcement agencies for suspicious conduct, were able to board airplanes with sufficiently dangerous weapons to successfully hijack the planes and crash them. And the flights departed from different airports, meaning that it wasn't just one security screener sleeping on the job, or one checkpoint that was improperly managed.

As for what specifically was wrong, LoganTSO's analysis sounds correct: safety standards were both too low and too varying/decentralized. Maybe other aspects were flawed, to; I don't pretend to be an expert and be able to prove exactly what was wrong. But it seems obvious to me, even as a lay person, that no air transportation security system can reasonably be called "adequate" if it allows multiple deadly and destructive armed hijackings to occur--the #1 threat that air transportation security is supposed to prevent.

LessO2

Here are some facts:

• The private security folks were working under the guidelines that were dictated by the FAA. In other words, they were doing what The G told them to do.
• Boxcutters were not prohibited items at the time
• A couple (might be a few) of the bad guys, you can Google for the surveillance video from IAD, were given secondaries.
• An overwhelming majority of TSA checkpoints are still using the same x-ray equipment the private screeners used.

I'll repeat my first point: The private security folks were working under the guidelines that were dictated by the FAA. In other words, they were doing what The G told them to do.

I'll pose my question again: How were the private screeners inadequate?

EsquireFlyer

And I'll post my answer again:

LessO2

Well, that answer was after your first edit at 11:16 a.m. (the same time as my post), and I noticed a second edit at 11:20 a.m., so I didn't see those responses when I made my response.

Again, private screeners did what they were told to do.

The inadequacy feel squarely on The Government's shoulders, not the private screeners.

EsquireFlyer

I changed some minor wording in the edits (e.g. "no air transportation security system can be called adequate if..." became "no air transportation security system can reasonably be called adequate if..."; "even as a bystander" became "even as a lay person", etc.).

But the text of that third paragraph ("As for what specifically was wrong, LoganTSO's answer sounds correct...deadly and destructive armed hijackings...etc.") was definitely there in the original version of the post. I guess it's not a big deal whether you saw it the first time, though, as long as I have now answered the question you repeated, as to why I think it was "clear" that pre-9/11 security was inadequate.--i.e., I think the disaster speaks for itself.

EsquireFlyer

And as I said, I don't know for sure what was wrong with the old system, whether it was the government at fault, private companies at fault, or communication between the government and the private companies. But clearly something about the system was seriously defective, and I would not be at all comfortable if air transportation security system today was exactly as it was pre-9/11. Something had to be fixed/tightened/improved.

Now, I think the TSA has gone ridiculously overboard, which I've also mentioned. But the proper level of security is clearly something above what was in place on 9/10/2001.

(Sorry for posting this as a separate post. I wanted to edit my post right above this, but because of the comment I received above, I wish to leave no confusion as to what was in my prior post and what I have now added.)

EsquireFlyer

If you read my posts, whether in our discussion or my original post to which you responded (and also commented "there's a key component to CollegeFlyer's belief that is missing"), I never said that the private screeners personally were inadequate. What I said was that "pre-9/11 security was clearly not adequate."

So, it looks like the reason you thought a "key component of CollegeFlyer's belief" was missing from my post is because the component you had in mind was not actually part of my belief.

EsquireFlyer

It looks like the price of CLEAR just jumped to $199 today!

I was looking at my CLEAR account just yesterday afternoon, thinking about renewing at that $128 price, and got as far as entering my credit card information. CLEAR had said that prices "would rise" in the fall, but not when or by how much, and there had been no further news for a few months. So I decided to just wait to renew when my membership expires in November.

Lo and behold, today the price suddenly jumped to $199 for new members, with old members getting a "discounted" renewal price of $159 per year.

There are now bigger discounts for buying a bunch of years at once--for example, 40% off if you buy 10 years--but who knows if CLEAR, or for that matter, TSA, will still be around in 10 years?

Oh well, now that the price hike has kicked in, I guess I really will wait until exactly 45 days after my membership lapses to renew it. I'm not flying through any CLEAR airports in those intervening 45 days anyway. But--I wonder if CLEAR will just add a year to my membership starting from the expiration date, not the renewal date, if the renewal date comes later? In effect, that would "charge" me for the 45 days I didn't renew and didn't use CLEAR, but theoretically "could have" used CLEAR.

Anyone have experience on how the 2nd year is added on if you renew after expiration?

Spiff

Wow, now one can Clearly be separated from even more of their money. Such a bargain.

Global_Hi_Flyer

Classic case of "bring 'em in for free and then jack the renewal prices".

EsquireFlyer

My 2nd year would have already been renewed for free if I had kept my Hyatt Plat status, but I don't actually stay at Hyatts much and got demoted to Gold!

My Hyatt Plat was from from a UA/Hyatt promo to begin with.

PhlyingRPh

if you don't renew your membership, they probably sell your private information