Either I misinterpreted the sense of the comment/s prior, or the user changed their tune. If the former, I apologise. My sense of the comment was that the user was being petulant because he has to get screened and the ground-staff don't. This seems to be apparent also in AIPA's submission/s, from my perspective, in the 104 page report. It is my view that crew are public facing, and if the public are expected to be put through the ringer, then the public might want to see the crew put through the ringer too - else, the public may ask questions and start forming the opinion that if crew do not need to be screened entering sterile areas, why should they?
On the matter of screening ground-staff outside of the sterile areas -
without breaking into intrinsic detail, screening isn't going to help at all. Not unless the screening occurs at entry points to every aircraft, up top AND down below. A metal detector and X-ray check at the door MAY mitigate a tiny fraction of infringements. But that check then gets blown out of the water (rendered useless) once we're on the other side.
Based on historical occurrences and present threat levels, I just think money would be better spend on the dog & handler solution and giving increased jurisdiction for them that extends to airplanes, up and down, if it doesn't already. This to me would better meet requirements and act as an adequate deterrent for those harbouring ill intent.
Some dirty big German Shepherds and a few Beagles should do the trick.