I'll believe that the Governments and airports are serious about security when I see some kind of realisation that until the huge gaps in the "security fence" around operating passenger aircraft are closed, there is no effective security. Pantomimes with searching little old ladies and 2-year old children, confiscating pilots' sandwiches and engineers' tools, stealing Iphones, and so on, notwithstanding.
Using the huge gaps (cargo, duty-free stocks, maintenance facilities, to name but 3 of them) any reasonably well-organised and intelligent group can arrange either for a device to be on board whenever it chooses, to explode whenever it chooses, and/or for a group to be on board an aircraft of their choice, at a time of their choice, equipped with their choice of weapons and tools.
The measures needed to close the gaps are commercially and/or politically unpalatable, or so the operators, airports and Governments believe. This belief will change when a high-profile act is successful, as it did in the USA on 9/11.
Until that moment, let's all go on pretending. We don't actually want proper security, do we, when we realise that ticket costs would double at least, and revenue passenger kilometers would halve at least. The era of flying frequently and cheaply would end. Think of all those Airbus 380s, scrapped due to lack of demand.
But flying would then be safe.
The "successes" to date have been against groups of morons, or a single moron. But let no-one think that terrorist groups are all morons and cannot organise. From the complex planning and preparation in the early '70s by Palestinian groups in a number of hijacks, to 9/11, it has been shown that terrorists can be as clever as anyone else. I watched one of those take place, on the ramp at Dubai, and was involved with the aftermath of that.
Security is not "strict" now, nor has it ever been. Do not confuse the theatre in terminals' airside accesses with security.
Last edited by Capot; 24th Mar 2013 at 17:24.