SkySista
I might not get 100%, but some is better than none!!
Well, yes, but only if neither you nor your loved ones are on the aircraft containing the x% that slipped under your eagle eye.
It's not about whether someone, anyone, feels suspicious about a pax at the check-in desk. That is just far too loose and variable to be relied upon. Suppose you trusted yourself to pick out 100% of all possible terrorists during the check-in process - would you also trust the person at the next desk, or the next shift, all-day, everyday, always?
Then all the bleating about 'not enough security' will start.
Right on. Now is a good time to bring this up - not when we are analysing wreckage wondering where we went wrong.
I think what is needed is a tougher, more rigorous and effective process that figures who is in the pool and who isn't. I get peeved when I see a family stopped at Mascot so the security gorilla can go through Mum's handbag, or the kiddies backpack, sniffing for explosives. That and the singling out of visiting pollies and dignitaries. Gimme a break. That's so obviously a complete waste of time and diversion of resources away from the real problem areas.
The system is broken. Problem is, until we have a disaster of our own, nobody will look at the system and say it's broken. They'll just say the current measures are working, and are necessary, and the inconvenience of the many is needed to prevent Australia having its own 9/11 type disaster.
I don't believe it, and I don't believe we can rely on the vigilance and alertness of a few good people to protect us. What we need is a better system that knows far more about pax than the present system.
Bugger privacy, give me the security of adequate personal information...
VHCU