There’s one last point I’d like to make on the subject of airline security today. Recently, I’ve heard people making the argument that once you’ve agreed to take a commercial airline flight you’ve consented to be murdered. Does that strike anyone as right?
I only consent to have my knees jammed into my chest, my shoulders crunched together and to be starved, deprived of water and tortured with execrable, inaudible in-flight movies.
If they want me to consent to be murdered they’re going to have to bring those prices down.
I assume that’s snark, Dave?
I’ve heard those who are concerned about additional loss of liberty argue that additional screening measures should not be taken, and the public shouldn’t worry because of the small probability of an event.
And I’ve heard others argue that if one doesn’t want to suffer the loss of liberties……well, don’t fly.
I think both positions are silly.
I’ve had one of my questions from yesterday answered: no, current screening methods cannot detect the explosive. This has lead to discussions about more sophisticated screeners with the attendant issues of X-ray exposure and personal indignities.
I continue to believe this is a bigger issue than some currently suspect. The last thing this economy needs is a blow to the aviation industry. I think its naive to believe that many will not defer air travel (or drive) until this is sorted out. And additional screening hassles will have an attenuating ridership effect.
God forbid these bastards actually bring one or more planes down. Aviation will grind to a halt. And unlike some, I’m not at all convinced this is a low probability event.
The difference between this and the shoe bomber is that taking off your shoes is easy, even if annoying. Disrobing is not so easy.
Why didnt the airline industry fail after 9/11? It only needs to fail if we succumb to fear. I hope we are made of better stuff than that. If we stop flying, more people will drive and total deaths will rise.
Steve
United and American would have failed if the Congress hadn’t exempted them from liability but that wouldn’t have meant that the industry would have failed, only that those airlines would have failed. It’s not succumbing to fear when you bail out two airlines but it is when you adapt your security measures to changing circumstances? I’m not sure I’m following you.
I have yet to hear why the explosive did not explode. That seems crucial in understanding the threat here.
We know the explosive is viable. The sheer simplicity and potential multiplicity of the act compared to 9/11 means its operationally feasible………so if the fuse works, I continue to maintain that people are underestimating the risk here.
Steve –
I don’t know what kind of stuff you are made of, but I don’t think its a bold prediction to say we’d have some mighty barren airports if they managed to take down a few planes.
Did the people in the UK stay at home and cringe while being bombed during WWII? What about when they faced the IRA bombings? Look at the Iraqis, they are back at work even though they still have lots of bombings. Is there something uniquely cowardly about Americans that would make us give up if a couple of bombings were successful?
Dave-Ok, the US airlines are in a perpetual state of near failure. As one of my wife’s fav stock guys says, if the market is open, it is a good day to sell airlines. What I mean is abandonment of air travel. if they succeed, I think we may finally go to an Israeli type set up and then subsidize the airlines since that kind of security will cost a bundle.
The bigger issue here BTW, only starting to be broached by foreign policy guys, is that AQ is able to carry out plans from multiple places. They can leapfrog from country to country.
Steve