Why don’t we have a 10 MPH speed limit? Because the risk of saving time by traveling at more deadly speeds is acceptable. What is my proposed solution to all of this? Instead of having Kip Hawley decide that a 1 quart plastic bag will make us safe, we have insurance actuaries make decisions based on real risk. We’ll never catch all the terrorists but even if they do take down a plane or 2, it’s still magnitudes safer than driving. Eventually once the terrorists realize they are unable to make us fill our pants every time we travel, they’ll move on to something else.

What is more dangerous, a 6oz tube of hair gel or driving 65 MPH? I’m sure an actuary could tell us. It’s very clear Kip could not.

Since we have fixed the cockpit door problem and eliminated our Hollywood movie view of terrorists, I believe sufficient security would be what they have instituted at many amusement parks. A quick trip through the magnetometer and a 5 second search of your bag for contraband. I am sure the parks insurance companies find this to be sufficient and I trust them. I’m sure the airlines insurance companies could come up with similar guidelines.

Simple answer: They can’t! If they can’t do it in Iraq, they sure as heck can’t do it here. And the U.S. Sheeple are giving up their rights and freedoms for something that can never truly be promissed by the government.

Would these be the individuals with a high school diploma or GED and no prior security experience that TSA was practically begging to recruit as screeners in radio ads? The ones who show very little sign of being able to think for themselves? (“Sorry, sir, you have to put that 1 oz tube of lip balm in a quart bag or I’ll have no way of knowing if it’s less than a quart.”)

Yeah, I see lots of people at security checkpoints who sacrificed a career at Google or Merill-Lynch to be screeners.

Michael – Logan Airport – Boston

Aha. Now we’re getting somewhere.

The fact is, Michael, that the Kip Hawley is an idiot incident and those of its ilk pretty much sum up your organization’s problem: its screeners can’t seem to evaluate distasteful-but-non-threat situations in a detached manner (the hallmark of a real professional, by the way). It reeks of hall monitors looking for some excuse to use what little power they’ve been given.

As for the subject at hand, pies: a pie could very well constitute a real threat, especially if it has a weapon baked into it. But you guys have X-ray machines, right? Well, how did Logan do last time DHS tried to put weapons and explosives through security? You don’t get to count the times your management let you know ahead of time that a test was about to happen. (I know, you can’t say. SSI. Don’t worry, the terrorists will figure it out for themselves or find another airport through wich to enter.)

I don’t think anyone here is trying to say that security at airports should be done away with. TSA’s foibles deserve to be in the news. As a taxpayer, I’d like to know if I’m getting my money’s worth, and I’m not going to tolerate the government I’m paying for saying “just trust us, you’re secure.” As a frequent flyer I’d like to know if I’m going to have to take matters into my own hands when some yahoo on a plane tries to use something that you people missed because TSA was too busy defending Kip Hawley’s honor.

–Po

You know nothing about the TSA other than how you feel that it inconveniences you.

A lot of what happens when a large spread out organization has to adjust to a change be it sudden or planned is confusion.

Try to get the word out to 50,000 people about a sudden change in policy in any organization and you will see that no matter how well you plan or disseminate those changes there will be inconsistancies as the organization adjusts. Do this on the fly for something that should be implemented for security purposes immediately and you’ll see what I’m defending here.

The end result is that you get people who cry over not taking a pie on a plane and people like you who pick up the cause of that pie.

It’s not that there are 50,000 non dedicated people out there it’s that there are people who whine and moan and feel victimized, because they were not able to bring a pie on their flight.

That kind of crap should not be in the news but sadly it is thanks to people like you.

The TSA does not collectively wake up each day and decide that since it’s Tuesday they will make everyone take their shoes off. They react to direct threats that would behoove that everyone on a flight should have their shoes inspected.

I personally prefer flying on planes that receive as much scrutiny as possible, and again I tell you that the ultimate solution is to not allow carry on items. Is the public going to stand for that?

I would have to say that the condition of airline security is now better since 911. Be realistic the next time you are crossing a checkpoint and look at the individuals doing the job. Try to recall what it was like before. You now have a common language,and a more dedicated, trained person doing the job. I know you see it.

It’s a new and evolving organization and there are going to be growing pains, starts, and stops and a few mishaps.

Aside from pissing on the troops who are working for your safety you seem to be fairly intelligent. I think you should start being a little more honest about what you see and look at things in a larger scope.

Airline security is a big problem, and the smooth flow of passengers, cargo etc. affects all of us at all times..look at the macro of things for just a minute. It’s getting better as the organization grows.

Michael – Logan Airport – Boston

As for the rest of your comment, you completely missed the point. First, everything I said is fully backed up by fact. Second, I never suggested getting rid of airport security; rather, I suggested actually GETTING some airport security.

The people in the TSA do a job every day that has a direct affect on millions of lives. Yes it is a pain to have to adjust to the latest threat etc. but isn’t it good that they are adjusting so your plane is more secure?

Honestly, I do think it’s better to fly on something that is checked V something that is not.

There is no perfect system, and there never will be, but unless you want to totally give up “carry on” items on your flight there is no alternative than to examine what you carry and ban the items that are a potential threat even if it “looks” like a pie.

Are you that simple to suggest that airline security is not neccessary? Do you not recall airline incidents long before 911? Do you feel that the private/profit sector will always maintain a high level of threat adjustment no matter the cost?

Do you recall the types of screeners we had pre 911? The amount of training, and retraining they received?

Again I have to reiterate that you are a shortsighted jackass, who does not understand anything except your own inconveniences.

You get the picture.

–Po