Air travel: safety versus humiliation

[thir]

The security measurements become increasingly more invading to our privacy, up to the point where, if all are implemented, we simply do not have any. Every single thing in luggage scrutinized, our very bodies scrutinized by handling and x-ray where we might as well be naked.

Three new articles about this problem:


Baggage: Comments from staff on content of luggage:

TSA To Passenger: “Get Your Freak On Girl”

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/tsa-to-p...#ixzz1bsepWhiJ

Your person:

TSA Denies Asking Passenger To Remove Adult Diaper

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/update-t...#ixzz1bsfEJtwH

Staff:

Unconstitutional TSA Bill Could Shut Down Texas’ Airports

"The practical import of the bill is that it would threaten criminal prosecution of Transportation Security Administration personnel who carry out the security procedures required under federal statutes and TSA regulations passed to implement those statutes."

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/unconsti...#ixzz1bsffNJ1y


What is reasonable in terms of safety? Just how dangerous is air travel now?

What is reasonable in terms of privacy? Just how far can you go in invading other people?

What about the situation of the staff?

There is a clear commercial interest in fuelling nervousness about travelling - what is the impact of that?

In my own opinion, it has all gone completely crazy, and the situation for staff and passengers alike has become unbearable and is utterly out of proportion ot the actual risk . I fly between UK and DK on a regular basis, and I would not dream of doing it there was a ferry! And that is without the denuding x-ray idiocy, the long-term effect if which I do not think anyone knows.

[ksst]

I think it's pretty clear none of this is making us safer. Some things that might make us safer without tormenting passengers are things they do in Israel, which is understandably extremely concerned with security measures that actually work. This is just from memory of an article I read a long time ago.

1. The have bomb proof boxes at the airport, that is each room is a separate bomb proof compartment. The airport is divided into lots of these box/rooms. If a bomb does go off, the damage it can inflict is limited. If a bomb is discovered, it can quickly be placed in it's own room and the whole airport doesn't need to be evacuated.

2. Professional profilers ask a few questions of each person and most importantly listen/watch how they are answered by each passenger. This is not a distracted airport employee asking if you packed your bag yourself, this a person trained in detecting potential terrorist behaviors/ reading body language. They claim this really does work.

There may have been some others, but none of them had to do with feeling your privates or looking at near- naked body scans of everyone.

A friend of mine was hustled off to the extra security room after he tried to defend an old man who was having his cane taken away, after which the elderly gent could barely stand up. My friend has decided never to fly again, and he travels all the time- now he drives.

[Thorne]

My friend has decided never to fly again, and he travels all the time- now he drives.

This is the main way to affect what's happening. Stop flying. The airlines will eventually realize that they are losing business over this and they will force the government to back down. Personally, I haven't been on a plane in over 20 years, and right now I would rather spend three days driving than waste a day trying to get through airports. Unless it's a matter of life or death I'm not interested in getting on another plane. And let's face facts, flying is certainly safer than driving, even WITH the terrorists!

[lucy]

Yep, I guess not flying is the way to go if you don't want to put up with all the hassle.

And let's face facts, flying is certainly safer than driving, even WITH the terrorists!

Is this really true? I thought it was only safer when you compared distances, but not when comparing time of exposure?
Either way, I'll stick to riding my bicycle

[leo9]

This is the main way to affect what's happening. Stop flying.

Alas, not an option for those of us who live on an island off the coast of Europe, not unless you want to drive down to the Channel Tunnel and back up. (In US terms, something like going from Washington to New York via Florida.) Ten years ago there were still excellent car and passenger ferries from ports all up and down the English Channel, but these days they only carry freight. Maybe in another ten years, when airlines have finally had to pay a realistic price for their fuel, the ferries will be an alternative again.

[Thorne]

Alas, not an option for those of us who live on an island off the coast of Europe

Yeah, I can see that you wouldn't have a lot of choice, there. Still, it's not quite the same problem when you fly the shuttle between Washington and NY. And in reality, in such a situation, how much time is really being saved? Having to arrive at the airport early, going through an invasive "security" procedure, delays at takeoff, delays in landing, it's almost FASTER to drive.

If you don't have a choice, naturally you're going to have to fly. If you DO have a choice, you may be better off with an alternative means of travel.

[js207]

Maybe in another ten years, when airlines have finally had to pay a realistic price for their fuel, the ferries will be an alternative again.

In what way do you think the current airline fuel prices are not realistic? You might also have to rethink your belief in that being an unfair advantage over ferries once you know that UK ships run on 'duty-free' fuel - and that airline travel is actually heavily taxed already, just not via the fuel. Indeed, the government's take is pretty substantial: on many journeys, they pocket more money in tax than the airline itself receives!