Security Costs too High
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: DUBLIN
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the security cost is paid by central government then that comes from UK tax payers. Correct me if I am wrong but at present the cost is collected from all passengers when they purchase a ticket. So if central
government were to pay for security non UK tax payers travelling to and from are the winners. Surely the best policy is continue to collect security tax from passengers and allocate it to a central body responsible for security at all UK airports and come up with a sensible security policy.
government were to pay for security non UK tax payers travelling to and from are the winners. Surely the best policy is continue to collect security tax from passengers and allocate it to a central body responsible for security at all UK airports and come up with a sensible security policy.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLIPPER 33
Yes, you do understand correctly, and your point over non UK tax payers who fly being the only winners is spot on.
As for the central body overseeing security, there already is, and that is seen by the majority of posters here as the crux of the problem.
I doubt if there is a workable alternative, neither airlines, nor airport authorities, as private buisness are party too, nor would they be able to be party to the same level of informarion from the Security services, be that M15, or Police as the current body is.
Yes, you do understand correctly, and your point over non UK tax payers who fly being the only winners is spot on.
As for the central body overseeing security, there already is, and that is seen by the majority of posters here as the crux of the problem.
I doubt if there is a workable alternative, neither airlines, nor airport authorities, as private buisness are party too, nor would they be able to be party to the same level of informarion from the Security services, be that M15, or Police as the current body is.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Technically the general public benefit as well, because having an aircraft come crashing down and causing death and disruption on the ground would be costly in all respects. After all, if air travellers en masse declared that they were happy with a lower standard of security to trade off convenience and cost to them against risk, should the general public be made to foot the bill for something that costs more?
