Checkboard, I dislike corporate wankwords as much as the next guy and if that's how I came across then I guess that's my fault. The point which I am trying to make is that what some percieve as gaping holes in security are a deliberate graduated response based on a localised risk context. Do you really think that the same level of security is required at a regional airport with a couple of turbo prop RPT flts a day or even a week, as what is required for one of the major 11 airports around the country?
On one hand we have pilots saying ASICs, fences, screening etc is all too much, then others who say that the lower standards for certain airports make security a joke. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I believe the graduated response to be appropriate. Anyone who thinks that their local airport has major flaws in security can contact the OTS. I am sure they will gladly take your opinion on board and start pushing for increased security at the lower end of town. But as has been said before, it won't be the government that pays for it.