@sh76 saidYou write that a private company has to worry about customers. But the new TSA system you propose is that the government still pays for airport security. In that case the company's customer is the government and your problems still remain, with the added cost of corporate profit to the US taxpayers bill.
I never said political pressure does not effect governmental actions. But there's not enough political pressure that comes from daily inconveniences to build the critical mass necessary for change. Sure there's a groundswell of publicity now because of the flat-out insane wait lines. But if the lines were "just" 30-60 minutes longer than normal, probably nobody would have been a ...[text shortened]... hat regulation can you pass that can prevent dangerous products from being made available to people?
@no1marauder saidMan, that Tuesday in September changed the whole world forever for the worse.
Who do you complain to after you're dead because a for profit company considered their bottom line more important than public safety?
For a notorious example, see https://engineeringcommunity.net/2025/05/10/ford-pinto/
There was nothing fundamentally unsafe about air travel before TSA existed. 9/11 was a fluke, an accident, an anomaly. If nothing had changed regarding air safety, the world would not be less safe now.
@wildgrass saidA remarkable and absurd statement. The hijackers exploited the known flaws in the airline security system, ones that existed largely because the agencies responsible for it were profit based corporations.
Man, that Tuesday in September changed the whole world forever for the worse.
There was nothing fundamentally unsafe about air travel before TSA existed. 9/11 was a fluke, an accident, an anomaly. If nothing had changed regarding air safety, the world would not be less safe now.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidIt was always an excessive and unnecessary overreaction. They knew it and acknowledged it at the time but thought it was needed to calm down an anxious public.
A remarkable and absurd statement. The hijackers exploited the known flaws in the airline security system, ones that existed largely because the agencies responsible for it were profit based corporations.
The shoes are just an example. Countries around the world laughed at our insanity. Reid's device was not even functional and would not have downed a plane, but we all had to take our shoes off for 20 years and guess what, they found zero things in shoes. Zero.
9/11 could have been prevented without overhauling airport security at all. Locking the cockpit during flight was a simple solution and completely fixed the problem without the need for TSA.
@wildgrass saidAgain ridiculous.
It was always an excessive and unnecessary overreaction. They knew it and acknowledged it at the time but thought it was needed to calm down an anxious public.
The shoes are just an example. Countries around the world laughed at our insanity. Reid's device was not even functional and would not have downed a plane, but we all had to take our shoes off for 20 years and gue ...[text shortened]... ckpit during flight was a simple solution and completely fixed the problem without the need for TSA.
Pre-911 a hijackers holding a boxcutter to a flight attendant's neck would have caused any crew to unlock the cockpit door. Allowing such potential weapons on board was SOP at the time, however, because the for profit corporations didn't want to alienate workers who carried such tools.
Sure it was a minor annoyance and an overreaction about shoes.
@no1marauder saidThe shoes are just an example. We all knew it was dumb and pointless and no evidence was ever presented that it served any purpose other than inconvenience but we still did it for 20 years, collectively wasting thousands of years of time.
Again ridiculous.
Pre-911 a hijackers holding a boxcutter to a flight attendant's neck would have caused any crew to unlock the cockpit door. Allowing such potential weapons on board was SOP at the time, however, because the for profit corporations didn't want to alienate workers who carried such tools.
Sure it was a minor annoyance and an overreaction about shoes.
TSA flags and checks (the SPOT programs) are also pointless. They caught zero terrorists. The liquid rules, also have no point. We caught the people who were trying to do it even before the rule was in place. Europe doesn't do this. How many metric tons of shampoo have been thrown in that trash over that dumb rule?
If airport security looked more like sporting event or concert security, we would be no less safe, a lot happier and have a lot more time to scroll aimlessly through our phones.
Airports should kick out the TSA, hire private screeners, and ask people to go through normal metal detectors with their laptops in their bags, and all the liquid they desire. The increased risk would be negligible....
https://www.vox.com/2016/5/17/11687014/tsa-against-airport-security
@wildgrass saidYes that plan worked just fine on 9/11/2001.
The shoes are just an example. We all knew it was dumb and pointless and no evidence was ever presented that it served any purpose other than inconvenience but we still did it for 20 years, collectively wasting thousands of years of time.
TSA flags and checks (the SPOT programs) are also pointless. They caught zero terrorists. The liquid rules, also have no point. We ca ...[text shortened]... uld be negligible....[/quote]
https://www.vox.com/2016/5/17/11687014/tsa-against-airport-security
@no1marauder saidThey were caught before the liquid rules were implemented in airport security. Europe has done away with the 100 mL rule because it is unnecessary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plot
Most of the terror in terrorism is just trying to convince you that you're less safe than you really are. It's a trick.
1 edit
@wildgrass saidIf US safety experts determine the rule is unnecessary, then fine.
They were caught before the liquid rules were implemented in airport security. Europe has done away with the 100 mL rule because it is unnecessary.
Most of the terror in terrorism is just trying to convince you that you're less safe than you really are. It's a trick.
Once you have such decisions made based on what is or isn't profitable, then there's an inherent problem.
EU rules don't look much different than ones in the US.https://transport.ec.europa.eu/transport-modes/air/aviation-security/information-air-travellers_en
1 edit
@no1marauder saidIt should be the other way around. Security experts need to explain what the security measures are needed for, and use data and logic to prove it. If they can't do that, then it shouldn't be policy. Just invoking prior terror threats is not a good rationale.
If US safety experts determine the rule is unnecessary, then fine.
Once you have such decisions made based on what is or isn't profitable, then there's an inherent problem.
Most of what TSA does is purely performative. You get the illusion of being more safe.
@wildgrass saidWhat BS. TSA agents are way better trained than private security were and there are a lot more of them as my first link showed. Plus you don't have to be concerned with them cutting corners so the stockholders make a bit more cash.
It should be the other way around. Security experts need to explain what the security measures are needed for, and use data and logic to prove it. If they can't do that, then it shouldn't be policy. Just invoking prior terror threats is not a good rationale.
Most of what TSA does is purely performative. You get the illusion of being more safe.
You feel safer because you are.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidI'm not saying they are not well trained, I'm saying that the safety gained from what they do vs. standard arena security is very small.
What BS. TSA agents are way better trained than private security were and there are a lot more of them as my first link showed. Plus you don't have to be concerned with them cutting corners so the stockholders make a bit more cash.
You feel safer because you are.
There's a real term for it called "security theater".
@no1marauder saidBy the way there have been many cost-benefit analyses done on this. The standard conclusion is that the level of security we have currently at airports is overkill. Attack probabilities would need to be much much higher to justify the cost and time waste caused by the increased protective measures.
What BS. TSA agents are way better trained than private security were and there are a lot more of them as my first link showed. Plus you don't have to be concerned with them cutting corners so the stockholders make a bit more cash.
You feel safer because you are.