threat of a bomb in a fake tablet

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Impossible on the per concourse... Too many flights dump into a common area on an intermediate stop. Would be a nightmare, and can you imagine someone with a cross airline connection.

It strikes me that one can restructure flow in the concourses, just like was done for the TSA screening checkpoints. It would take some time. One of the big attractions of such a system for airlines on easier flow concourses might be the better and simplified flow. It could be a competitive advantage.

A person making a cross airline connection might have to go through one checkpoint for an airline that requires it versus none for an airline that didn't. That doesn't seem much worse than the current TSA system where everyone has to go through; hardly strikes me as a "nightmare". And most passengers aren't dealing with cross airline connections anyway.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Here's my analogy. We have an empty bathtub that sits dormant for years. You measure the water level daily. It's always zero. On September 11, I turn both spigots on, but I also pull the stopper out. On September 12 you measure the water level. Still zero. You then conclude that my pulling the stopper out had no effect on the water level because it's the same that it has been for years with no change.

In terms of that analogy, the problem is we don't know what pulling the stopper out corresponds to. Was it the introduction of the TSA mass screenings, was it the fact that terrorists are no longer able to arrange this type of attack due to other factors, or was it the fact that people now will fight back and knowing this the terrorists think their odds of succeeding are too low?

Given the enormous costs of maintaining the TSA, in money, time, invasion of privacy, and collateral deaths on the highways, it is important to figure out whether it works. What evidence is there that it does? I'm happy to look at the data, but none has been presented here.

The TSA's failures to find weapons argues pretty strongly that it probably doesn't work very well, so to keep such an expensive program, it seems rational to ask that there be some evidence that mass screenings work. Where's the data?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Well... You go for it!!

Thanks. I'm all for people who want that type of screening to be able to choose to undergo it and use an airline that agrees with their desires. I just don't like everyone being forced by the federal government through the TSA to make the same choice.

Seems like it might be an interesting poll actually to find out what people would choose. IIRC, about 50% of the traveling public believes the TSA is an annoyance but that they do some good. And about 50% think they don't really do much and could be reduced or eliminated.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

9/11 showed that airline security is also national security. Most of the people killed were never on the affected airliners. The largest economic damages had nothing to do with the airlines or passengers.

There's no way to limit the damage to the lower-security flights only to the airlines and passengers who choose those flights.

That's a very good point. The airlines should be responsible for insuring against other possible losses created by their operations. Presently they are insulated from most of this liability by the “Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act” (ATSSA) passed right after the 9/11 attacks.

Repealing that aspect of the ATSSA would transfer the costs of the risks of commercial airline flight onto the companies making a profit from it and indirectly to the people who use such flights. It would also require the airlines to take seriously the risks of their operations, both possible terrorists attacks and other potential risks. Such risks, which amount to perhaps 10s of billions of dollars of property damage and payouts for lives lost, both passengers and those on the ground, can be insured.

One of the advantages of such a system is that the tradeoff between security and convenience can then take into account the rationally assessed risks of having more or less security on airline flights, whatever form that might take (screening, armed crew, etc.)

I don't see any reason that other US citizens, many of whom don't fly, should be forced to subsidize the operations of a profit making business like commercial airlines. Do you believe there is a good reason for forcing those people to pay for the convenience of others?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Many aspects from this discussion, especially the damages caused by terrorist attacks, are covered in the book "Terror, Security, and Money" https://www.amazon.com/Terror-Secur...731&sr=1-1&keywords=terror+security+and+money" .

I'm not connected with the authors or the book in any way, and though I found it a somewhat dry read, it does cover much of this sort of analysis.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Trained security are taught to not go overboard, to subdue, and what is lawful and not. Picking out some passengers to do impromptu security is really dumb. The guys that would volunteer may not know the limits, etc.

I think this is a very good point. I've actually read some posts where people who think they are "tough guys" are bragging about how they "pounded" some person on the airplane for a violation of the rules.

I've often wondered if under the appropriate laws of self defense the "pounded" person would have a cause of action against the volunteer enforcers. If the enforcers did the same thing to a person on the street for violating some law about drunkeness in public or disturbing the peace, they would often be guilty of felonious assault, and depending on the exact circumstance, the person being "pounded" might well be justified in using lethal force to defend themselves.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

The direct losses (life and property) from the 9/11 attacks was over $100 Billion. Add in the economic losses and estimates are in the $2 Trillion range. Make airlines fully responsible would mean that we would have no airlines. No insurance company could cover such liability and, if airlines operated without insurance and suffered a similar loss, they would simply go bankrupt leaving us in the same situation we are in now where the government and taxpayers are ultimately responsible.

Well, going to the other part of that post, if the airlines and their insurance companies can't figure out a way to pay for the actual properly amortized costs of the risk, then I think one can make a pretty good argument maybe there shouldn't be people in that business.

I think that more likely than them going out of business would be that they would need to work with their insurance companies to adopt appropriate policies to convince the insurers that they aren't going to experience that kind of loss.

But even if the airlines cannot economically justify their activities, what would that imply? Other forms of transportation that are more economic, maybe trains?

I see no reason US citizens, especially those who don't even fly, should be forced to subsidize a profit making industry. If that is really what is going on, the airlines are then engaged in a bunch of corporate welfare, similar to bank bailouts.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

You will NEVER see any factual, valid data regarding deterrent or anything else unless you are actively employed in that arena.

I believe that even when classified Senate oversight committees have asked to see the proof these things work, there has been nothing.

There is no reason a court could not order a review in camera or some other independent agency could review and report.

I think the notion that we have secret government agencies running around violating people's privacy and spending large amounts of money secretly and we should all just put up with it is really dangerous.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

I agree that the money is obscene and could be used for other things, but this is the new reality. .

Of course some facts are public knowledge, like the number of attacks before and after 2001 as well as the failure rates of the TSA in catching contraband. Those argue fairly strongly that TSA mass screenings don't prevent terrorist attacks.

Given those facts, as well as the costs of the TSA, I think it rather reasonable for citizens to ask that the TSA produce proof of effectiveness, by a classified independent review if needed, or be replaced by a privatized system.