ForumGarden

The gov't should not be performing airport security. Airlines are private industry and should handle their own security. Some would relax the current standards while others would be more stringent. People could choose their own level of security versus wait time.

SnoozeControl wrote: Who does the security for El Al? They're the best in the world, from what I've read.I think it's the Israeli gov't.



[added] If airlines did their own security in the US, they could profile if they wanted to. If a Muslim didn't like their treatment at Southwest, they could fly United.

I think if airlines did their own security, would they be held liable if an unthinkable event occurred? Stating lack of security as the reason for it?

chonsigirl wrote: I think if airlines did their own security, would they be held liable if an unthinkable event occurred? Stating lack of security as the reason for it?
Is a bus company liable for an attack on the bus? I'm sure somebody would sue, but so what? Shouldn't they be responsible for the safety of their passengers? They wouldn't be held to the unrealistic standards that Homeland Security have. Private enterprise can refuse service to anyone.

I sure as hell wouldnt want an independent corporate business to be in charge of the safety and well being of the entire population of the United States of America.

Its not "their" passengers anymore than the civilians are citizens of the United States of America, and others for that matter...

Hard enough to get a baggage handler to show up for work and you want them to employ people with insufficient social and management skills on an overwhelming majority?

Pandemonium 2006!

SnoozeControl wrote: I can assure you that describes quite a few federal employees I know.


Maybe so..

but im willing to bet military personnel trained to handle such environments efficiently out number most people in the average world significantly.

I mean youre talking about an entire new emphasis on a college degree course in order to fill those positions effectively..

might as well hire employees strictly out of police academy, that in which would effect the need for more police officers around the country.

chonsigirl wrote: I think if airlines did their own security, would they be held liable if an unthinkable event occurred? Stating lack of security as the reason for it?


If airlines handled their own security, which I'm sure they don't want to . . .

Can you imagine if the next terrorist attack occurred on a Delta flight -- who would want to fly Delta ever again? They'd probably be put out of business.

cherandbuster wrote: If airlines handled their own security, which I'm sure they don't want to . . .



Can you imagine if the next terrorist attack occurred on a Delta flight -- who would want to fly Delta ever again? They'd probably be put out of business.Exactly my point. Giving them responsibility for their passengers will tighten, not loosen security. The airlines will be so paranoid of being sued, everything would be squeezed through a hepafilter before it would go onboard.



Now the responsibility has been taken by the gov't, which you can't sue. There's no incentive to really do a good job. Nobody pushes for improvement until the next attack.

Diuretic wrote: The airlines can shift their liability by using insurance. Then they can do a slap dash job of security.Only financial liability. Each airline would gain its own separate reputation for security, just as each has its own rep for service.

Diuretic wrote: But how do we establish its security reputation?

Do we count the number of successul hijacks?

The number of attempted but defeated hijacks?

The number of successful bombings?

The number of thwarted bombings?

I mean we're not talking seat length comparisons here.



I don't think security can be left to market forces. Some things have to be regulated and security is one of them. Just like air safety, that has to be regulated as well.



I'd be taking the train if it was the case that security was left to the airlines themselves.
Yaaaaayyy!! :yh_clap



That's the market forces for ya. If they don't keep us safe, people won't fly! No passengers, no profits; no profits, no business. I don't know about the UK, but here the airlines are private industry. I don't see the feds frisking people as they enter the cinema, patrolling the malls, or riding taxis undercover. Why should airlines be different? The US gov't is subsidizing the passenger train system as it is. I'd think it would be in their best interest to get people to ride rather than fly.

Diuretic wrote: Um - how many have to die to prove the point?The deaths on 9/11 didn't happen because the terrorists slipped past security. The politicians took over security as a political move to show action and save their political asses; nothing more. They certainly didn't improve a bad situation, only attached a bureaucracy to it.

I worry about the concept of the airlines taking over the responsibility of security as sometimes that weigh the pros and cons and decide which is going to cost the least money..that is big companies in regards to our safety..

It was brought to my attention during a law class the way a car manufacturer....... handled the fact there was a fault with its cars that was causing accidents and deaths..

said company weighed up the cost of a recall versus the cost of being sued by those who were hurt or families suing of those who lost lives.. they decided it was cheaper to pay em off than it was to recall and refit..



thats what we mean to most of these companies we are just numbers and statistics..

and from where lm sitting the Goverment and ruling parties of this world are no better, we are numbers and statistics..I shudder to think how many lives in this world are lost each day because or hate,greed, anger,ignorance, xenaphobia, racism, and even good old fachioned...not my problem.. *god that list could go on and on and on*

what happened to all the good we were screaming to have done i years gone by..

Its like the song recently released over here, it is a good song and the lyrics are so true I wish l was a punk rocker with flowers in my hair in 77 and 69 revolution was in hte air, but l was born to late into a world that doesnt care, ohh l wish l was a punk rocker with flowers in my hair!

BAA (British Airport Authority) is a private company here in the UK.

I actually have some sympathy for them, because they were given 5 hours notice of the security level being raised to critical last week by the Government.

They brought in all available staff to deal with the situation and recieved NO assistance whatsoever from the government.

The staff that they employ have to go through the various vetting procedures for things like criminal records etc, so they (BAA) just couldn`t bring anyone in at such short notice.

The media here in the UK have torn them to sheds, but Heathrow is the biggest and busiest airport here with thousands upon thousands of passengers passing through it each day, plus August is an extremely busy time for all airports here due to the fact that the majority of the UK`s population take their vacation in August.

The government should have deployed the army to help, but they didn`t and the reputation of a very good company, plus the loss in revenue may never ever be recovered.

10,000 items of luggage went missing, and whilst that is traumatic for the people whose luggage was mis-placed, it is a drop in the ocean compared to the actual number of people and their luggage that DID arrive safely at their destination.....all those missing suitcases have NOW been reunited with their respective owners

We have a great British habit here in the UK of "putting the boot in when someone is on the floor "....and the media just hype up the situation without actually saying " hey Tony Blair where are our solidiers/military police and WHY didn`t you help the airport authorities."?

He (Tony Blair and his cronnies ) are quite willing to sit back and let a British company take the rap and suffer the financial losses.

Both BAA and the British government SHOULD have had procedures in place previously for situations such as terrorists threats at airports on this scale and both should have been involved and co-operated in orchestrating such procedures....not leave it soley to BAA.



Issie x

Diuretic wrote: Blair is losing it. Labour should boot him no while they have a chance. I think the Tories will walk the next one in.


The policies that he started out with have fallen by the wayside and the promises he made have been forgotten or pushed to the bottom of the list of his priorities, with foreign agendas taking over his life.

One point I would like to make......even before 9/11, we (UK) in comparison to the rest of Europe have always had and implemented the strictest security levels at airports.

Whilst one breach of security is unacceptable and I`m not defending the situation, I get hacked off with the media hyping up the incident/situation and never no mention of the millions of passengers that have passed through the UK`s airports and arrived safely to all corners of the globe.

Despite the regulations about what you can/cannot take in hand luggage being plastered in every form of media and frankly you would have had to live on the moon not to have known.....People were still turning up at airports with items that are forbidden.

Sorry, but some people just don`t help either themselves or the situation.

Issie x