Security: USA vs Europe

[Rockhound]

Have just returned from a week's trip out of JFK to ATH via Switzerland. What a welcome break from the paranoia of US security was the more relaxed procedures at the three European airports we passed through. No pax teetering on one leg trying to put their shoes and boots on, with not a single chair in sight. No admonition from the flt attendant not to congregate in the aisle near the washrooms.
I guess the Americans cannot bring themselves to admit that the deliberate crashing of the three aircraft into the WTC and Pentagon on 9/11 had very little to do with whatever instruments the hijackers managed to bring on board.
Rockhound

[outnumbered]

I'm just glad the guy with the explosive shoes on that Boston flight wasn't wearing explosive underpants.

The security guys are soooo literal, can you imagine the scenes now ?

[spiney]

If the 9/11 Hijackings had nothing to do with the 'tools' the hijackers managed to get on board, what did it have to do with? I doubt they managed to overwhelm the aircrew with threats or a spot of harsh language...

I'm no fan of the the current security arrangements, which I think are not particularly well conducted, either in the US or anywhere else that I've been really... But as a European I can imagine what any European countries response to anything similar to 9/11 having happened over here would be, and I doubt it would be very different to the response of the Americans. What would you have them do? The real problems are the queues and the limited resources available to process passengers, rather than the specifics of what checks are applied and how.

In South Korea for example, they're all hot to trot for shoe checking... so shoes have to come off and go through the X-Ray Machine. Passengers get a pair of slippers and you're reunited with your Bally's on the other side... works fine... Just about being organised really and treating the passengers like customers rather than cattle...

[skydriller]

Spiney,

If the 9/11 Hijackings had nothing to do with the 'tools' the hijackers managed to get on board, what did it have to do with? I doubt they managed to overwhelm the aircrew with threats or a spot of harsh language...

If you do a search of these forums I think you will find that what Rockhound says is basicly correct....

Prior to 9/11 the standard response to any Hijack was for ALL crews to co-operate fully and let the Hijackers do what they wanted, as past experience showed this led to the best outcome for all concerned. You could have hijacked an aeroplane with virtually anything - and infact this did happen. The 9/11 hijackers knew this which is why they chose stuff that was, at the time, freely allowed onboard in order to take control from the crew. Nobody believed (or wanted to believe) that someone would use an aeroplane as a weapon.

The post 9/11 "Security" that we now see is just so much window dressing....and you have fallen for it.

[Byrna]

The real cause of 9/11 was LACK of security period. It would not have happened at all if the airlines weren't so cheap in paying for proper and rigourous security procedures and scanning equipment, if airports enforced this policy and if governments took the initiative to pass laws BEFORE all this happened (for once - something today's PATHETIC little leaders don't know anything about - the only thing they seem to know is how to get votes).

So the security we see today, while sometimes emphasizing the wrong thing and annoying travelers for the wrong reasons, is a result of this reaction to its complete lack thereof before 9/11! Look at airlines like EL AL - their security was second to none (due to regional circumstances leaving them no choice) - and other airlines could have followed in their tracks long BEFORE 2001/9/11 happened for the terrorism threats to airlines began 30 years ago - in the 1970's!

Of course, this doesn't mean that security measures today should not be modified and fine-tuned.

John

[spiney]

The 'security' we have today may well be so much 'window-dressing', but it's the biggest display that the travelling public is prepared to put up with either in terms of cost or time. If either go up significantly the travelling public will either choose not to fly or fly much less frequently.

I certainly travel much less often to the US than I used to - 1 1/2 hours to get through US Immigration, broken lap-tops and surly security staff, I can frankly do without...

El Al may well have the most comprehensive Airline Security on the planet, but I bet you the wished they didn't have to do it - and I don't see many Airlines queuing up to emulate them 'cos it won't sell very many seats.

Airlines sell a product in a pretty tough market. Margins are thin are profits are hard won. In terms of security we have what we're prepared to pay for - no more, no less...