PDR
Ah, the self-important aircrew come out spouting the usual rubbish about things they know little or nothing about...
You don't happen to work in the "security" industry do you? Or perhaps you are one of the old BAA security bods who are all 007 wannabes looking for that illusive "sleeper" hidden amongst the masses?
And then this dross is trotted out...
If a pilot can take fluids airside then two pilots can take two bottles of a binary explosive airside. Once airside they can hand them to groundstaff (say, during their walk-around) who could place them in an aeroplane that neither pilot would be flying on.
I don't need fluids to do any of that, I can merely hand them if I desired a compromised battery from a mobile phone, or perhaps an aircraft fire axe, or some metal cutlery from first class.....but using your logic, what about the policeman..."under duress" armed with an assault rifle? Or perhaps the rogue fire fighter in charge of the 30 tonne fire truck! Goodness me, there are threats everywhere! safer to shut everything down, and not apply ANY common sense or risk assessments.
And yes PDR, those of us who are subject to this dross are almost unanimous in our "arrogant" attitude towards those who impose poorly thought through and poorly implemented rules on the basis of flawed logic that flies in the face of industry best practice.
It's not arrogant to question the motives and competency of those who make decisions, it is in fact an essential element to what makes aviation incredibly safe, after all, every 6 months I have to prove I am competent, are those who make these rules up (often reactively) held to the same standards? Or is it merely easier to call pilots arrogant for asking questions? Or worse.