It's all a show, nothing more.13/f/taiwan wrote:
so screening all those passengers wouldn't really make a significant difference if terrorist wanted to pull something?
Poll
TSA Screening to see ya naked
| Accept fate and proceed through body scanner | 22% | 22% - 12 | ||||
| Opt out for pat down | 26% | 26% - 14 | ||||
| Express discontent and proceed through scanner | 5% | 5% - 3 | ||||
| Opt out for pat down after making self hard. | 22% | 22% - 12 | ||||
| Leave the airport sans screening, take ship down under | 5% | 5% - 3 | ||||
| Other | 5% | 5% - 3 | ||||
| FU Brinson | 11% | 11% - 6 | ||||
| Total: 53 | ||||||
bill mahr had that show politically incorrect and a few months before 9/11 they were talking about security screening and said its nothing more than window dressing. i do disagree a little bit since i firmly believe it will stop lazy terrorists.SenorToenails wrote:
It's all a show, nothing more.13/f/taiwan wrote:
so screening all those passengers wouldn't really make a significant difference if terrorist wanted to pull something?
see i wouldn't mind going through the hassle of being searched inside out IF the the airline industry was a completely private industry and didn't receive federal funding/tax payer money.
You know what I dont understand, is why all the interest in striking airliners... Why doesnt Al CIAeda just send an operative through mexico and set an IED on some tracks in Texas and blow up a train hauling a shit ton of chlorine or something. That would really fuck shit up and they could easily pull it off.
wat? if you mean bailouts then thats one thing. but we dont get taxpayer money.13/f/taiwan wrote:
see i wouldn't mind going through the hassle of being searched inside out IF the the airline industry was a completely private industry and didn't receive federal funding/tax payer money.
yeah i mean bailouts.
most airlines never had a bail out13/f/taiwan wrote:
yeah i mean bailouts.
If it were the private industry that required the security, then that would be different. In that case, there could be competitors on the market that didn't require such ridiculous security.13/f/taiwan wrote:
see i wouldn't mind going through the hassle of being searched inside out IF the the airline industry was a completely private industry and didn't receive federal funding/tax payer money.
well... until a terror attack occurs again.SenorToenails wrote:
If it were the private industry that required the security, then that would be different. In that case, there could be competitors on the market that didn't require such ridiculous security.13/f/taiwan wrote:
see i wouldn't mind going through the hassle of being searched inside out IF the the airline industry was a completely private industry and didn't receive federal funding/tax payer money.
I support the privatization of airline security and letting the market determine the methods and such, but honestly, we'd be very likely to see the back and forth levels of security from them just like we see with government regulated policies. The reason for this is that consumers are just as knee-jerk reactionary as politicians can be.
every airline have a security line? you mad?
Elaborate.11 Bravo wrote:
every airline have a security line? you mad?
there aint enough room for that many checkpointsTurquoise wrote:
Elaborate.11 Bravo wrote:
every airline have a security line? you mad?
Well, I was thinking more along the lines of having a private service per airport. In areas where there are multiple airports within driving distance, there could be competing security policies.11 Bravo wrote:
there aint enough room for that many checkpointsTurquoise wrote:
Elaborate.11 Bravo wrote:
every airline have a security line? you mad?
and which airline pays for what? for who? signs the contract? enforces the contract?Turquoise wrote:
Well, I was thinking more along the lines of having a private service per airport. In areas where there are multiple airports within driving distance, there could be competing security policies.11 Bravo wrote:
there aint enough room for that many checkpointsTurquoise wrote:
Elaborate.
I'd imagine the contractual agreements would be similar to things like landing fees.11 Bravo wrote:
and which airline pays for what? for who? signs the contract? enforces the contract?Turquoise wrote:
Well, I was thinking more along the lines of having a private service per airport. In areas where there are multiple airports within driving distance, there could be competing security policies.11 Bravo wrote:
there aint enough room for that many checkpoints
If an airline wants to use a certain airport, it would have to agree to deal with that airport's policies.
but thats not privatized by the airlines. govt runs the airport.Turquoise wrote:
I'd imagine the contractual agreements would be similar to things like landing fees.11 Bravo wrote:
and which airline pays for what? for who? signs the contract? enforces the contract?Turquoise wrote:
Well, I was thinking more along the lines of having a private service per airport. In areas where there are multiple airports within driving distance, there could be competing security policies.
If an airline wants to use a certain airport, it would have to agree to deal with that airport's policies.
What do you think would happen if it was instead run by corporations? This is an honest question, since I'd like to hear your take on this. You're a pilot, right?11 Bravo wrote:
but thats not privatized by the airlines. govt runs the airport.Turquoise wrote:
I'd imagine the contractual agreements would be similar to things like landing fees.11 Bravo wrote:
and which airline pays for what? for who? signs the contract? enforces the contract?
If an airline wants to use a certain airport, it would have to agree to deal with that airport's policies.
You're right. Let's all be hyper-afraid of terror attacks involving planes since they are so frequent among all flights worldwide, and even more of a threat domestically!Turquoise wrote:
well... until a terror attack occurs again.SenorToenails wrote:
If it were the private industry that required the security, then that would be different. In that case, there could be competitors on the market that didn't require such ridiculous security.13/f/taiwan wrote:
see i wouldn't mind going through the hassle of being searched inside out IF the the airline industry was a completely private industry and didn't receive federal funding/tax payer money.
I support the privatization of airline security and letting the market determine the methods and such, but honestly, we'd be very likely to see the back and forth levels of security from them just like we see with government regulated policies. The reason for this is that consumers are just as knee-jerk reactionary as politicians can be.
Consumers are like that. No one ever said that the general public was rational.SenorToenails wrote:
You're right. Let's all be hyper-afraid of terror attacks involving planes since they are so frequent among all flights worldwide, and even more of a threat domestically!Turquoise wrote:
well... until a terror attack occurs again.SenorToenails wrote:
If it were the private industry that required the security, then that would be different. In that case, there could be competitors on the market that didn't require such ridiculous security.
I support the privatization of airline security and letting the market determine the methods and such, but honestly, we'd be very likely to see the back and forth levels of security from them just like we see with government regulated policies. The reason for this is that consumers are just as knee-jerk reactionary as politicians can be.
what happens if a company that owns atlanta goes bankrupt? close atlanta? lol no chance.Turquoise wrote:
What do you think would happen if it was instead run by corporations? This is an honest question, since I'd like to hear your take on this. You're a pilot, right?11 Bravo wrote:
but thats not privatized by the airlines. govt runs the airport.Turquoise wrote:
I'd imagine the contractual agreements would be similar to things like landing fees.
If an airline wants to use a certain airport, it would have to agree to deal with that airport's policies.
I'd imagine a competitor would buy them up for a good price. Granted, I realize the interim would be hell.11 Bravo wrote:
what happens if a company that owns atlanta goes bankrupt? close atlanta? lol no chance.Turquoise wrote:
What do you think would happen if it was instead run by corporations? This is an honest question, since I'd like to hear your take on this. You're a pilot, right?11 Bravo wrote:
but thats not privatized by the airlines. govt runs the airport.
I'm just throwing some ideas out there, since people apparently dislike the current system -- some of whom dislike the government's involvement in security in general.
I was poking at this:Turquoise wrote:
Consumers are like that. No one ever said that the general public was rational.
Yes, the general populace is fickle (we all are)...but why must we all assume that flying carries a signicant chance of terrorism?Turquoise wrote:
well... until a terror attack occurs again.
Well, I agree that it doesn't. However, doing the math reveals that, with the volume of flights that occur annually, there is bound to be another hijacking in the near future.SenorToenails wrote:
I was poking at this:Turquoise wrote:
Consumers are like that. No one ever said that the general public was rational.Yes, the general populace is fickle (we all are)...but why must we all assume that flying carries a signicant chance of terrorism?Turquoise wrote:
well... until a terror attack occurs again.
I seriously doubt anything as complicated as 9/11 will occur again, but a bombing on a plane or a hijacking certainly isn't out of the question.
Basically, it's just a matter of odds. The chances of you being on a hijacked flight are infinitesimal, but all it takes is one hijacking for the public to call for more security.
go back to contractors for security like before 9/11.....just stricter oversightTurquoise wrote:
I'd imagine a competitor would buy them up for a good price. Granted, I realize the interim would be hell.11 Bravo wrote:
what happens if a company that owns atlanta goes bankrupt? close atlanta? lol no chance.Turquoise wrote:
What do you think would happen if it was instead run by corporations? This is an honest question, since I'd like to hear your take on this. You're a pilot, right?
I'm just throwing some ideas out there, since people apparently dislike the current system -- some of whom dislike the government's involvement in security in general.
If an area like Buffalo, NY can support TWO airports, I doubt Atlanta would have any trouble making money. But are we now saying that companies that own airports are too important to fail (and should thus be state-run)? We already trust critical parts of infrastructure to companies. National Grid, National Fuel, Iberdrola, Constellation Energy...all these are private companies that provide the area I live in with energy (electricity and gas)...and I don't hear cries of 'what happens when National Grid goes bankrupt...does that mean Buffalo goes dark???' That's just lunacy.11 Bravo wrote:
what happens if a company that owns atlanta goes bankrupt? close atlanta? lol no chance.