So the prospect of crew families being held hostage is simplistic is it?
No, it isn't simplistic, which is why there is less chance of success for the bad guys by using this method.
Easier just to get a job airside? Not in the UK. Thats like saying it's easier to get a job in a bank and rob it than to hold the managers family hostage. Odd then, the IRA didn't do it that way isn't it? Not to mention numerous not so nice other people.
Well, in the states, the only employees that are routinely screened for weapons are aircrew, which, you must admit, is a bit ironic when you consider that we are the only employees that don't need a weapon to take over an airplane.
It's doubly ironic when you consider the reason behind screening aircrews, which was the mass murder of a planeload of people, committed by a RAMPER......... (PSA 1771...... 12/7/87) Prior to that incident, we were treated the same as all the other employees.
Can you see the irony? Does anyone see the logic? Does it still make sense?
As I've posted in the past, I would have a lot less heartburn if ALL employees were screened, since at least that would show that they are at least making a valid attempt at securing the airside. When you let most employees in the back door, what is the point of screening the least likely risks?