Common sense prevails.

[Craig.]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7424844/
I feel its about time this happend. I like the idea of them being left to manage private screeners, Maybe now instead of idiots screening themselves through the x-ray machines, and 50 unnessicary personel just standing around during busy periods, airport security might become a little more streamlined, less militant. And alot better. One crusade of mine is now coming to an end

[beaky]

Would've been much more effective to put that money into Air Marshals and baggage-sniffing equipment, IMHO, not that it would've bought enough of either...

[Hagar]

I've only flown to France & back once since this whole thing started so I have no idea what it's like in the US now. Security at Gatwick was much the same as it's been for many years & I found the security staff pleasant with the usual sense of humour. As usual I made some of them giggle with my antics. I'm sure they're competent & can be tough if the need arises.

I know Craig feels strongly on this subject & he travels more regularly than me these days. I have to say that I found going through immigration at some US airports even before 9/11 quite an intimidating experience. They didn't exactly make me feel welcome which I fortunately found the opposite when I was finally allowed through. I was never keen on the idea of air marshals & nothing I've seen has changed my mind about this. I'm not sure how much difference they make & it would be interesting to see some statistics. Not a lot in my view & they could even make things worse if it came to the crunch.

PS. I heard a snippet on the radio this week about security being relaxed on personal objects in hand baggage, in Europe anyway. Not sure what that was all about or why they came to this decision.

[Craig.]

Hi Doug.
They are going to reallow metal cutlery onto flights. Which is the major change. I think they realised that you cant do any damage with the old knives but a plastic knife when snapped in half actually has a very sharp point on it.

[beaky]

 I was never keen on the idea of air marshals & nothing I've seen has changed my mind about this. I'm not sure how much difference they make & it would be interesting to see some statistics. Not a lot in my view & they could even make things worse if it came to the crunch.

I also don't know the stats, although I've heard a few stories about air marshals effectively and safely dealing with the more typical disruptive passengers. I've heard of  more cases where ordinary passengers, untrained and caught up in the heat of the moment, dealt with such passengers, often with needless injury and even death.  But my opinion is based more on thinking how things might've shaken down differently on 9/11/01 had there been armed agents aboard those four flights. I can't see how they could've possibly made things worse in that situation. Even the outcome of the passenger uprising aboard Flight 93, which led to the loss of  all aboard, was more favorable than the hijackers' planned outcome, which would've no doubt killed many more people. I think it's safe to assume those hijackers had the same intention as the other three teams: wreak as much death and destruction as possible. It is extremely  unlikely that any negotiation would've been possible, so what else could be done?  It may have been dumb luck that Flight 93 came down in a sparsely-populated area, but... I dunno, I guess in light of what happened that day, I just think that putting up a fight is the choice that makes the most sense to me, to deny the hijackers the satisfaction, if nothing else. If it ever happens to me, I'll damn sure not sit there writing farewell notes- I'll fight.
 Then there's the El Al safety record since they started putting armed security aboard every (?) flight- worth considering in assessing the need for such security. If I'm not mistaken, El Al's agents are not anonymous- makes for an unpleasant reminder of  the random savagery of terrorism, but it also makes a damn good deterrent.

[Hagar]

Hi Rotty. We had a similar discussion on this subject in this forum some time ago & we'll have to agree to disagree on that. I go along with the original BALPA official view on this although I'm not sure if they ever changed it. I never liked the idea of guns aboard an aircraft, whether official or unofficial. The fact that these people & not the captain are effectively in charge of the aircraft worries me. I still can't see how a couple of guys with firearms, however good they might be, could do anything about a situation involving an unknown number of determined terrorists with hostages in the packed cabin of an airliner.

[Craig.]

Acceptable losses Doug. Thats the theory they work on, if a few passengers die in a firefight on board its preferable to hundreds or perhaps thousands on the ground. EL AL's security starts at the entrance to their check-in lines. Every airline/ security company needs to look at how they conduct their security and copy it. They dont even need air marshals.

[Hagar]

I can see that point in Rotty's argument Craig but if they did just happen to pull it off & save the aircraft I can imagine the fuss & compensation claims. I really don't know the answer but one thing I do know, having an armed air marshal on board would make me far more nervous than the risk of a terrorist. These people aren't stupid & I'm quite sure they're prepared for that anyway. They're not afraid of dying for their cause. At the first sign of trouble they would probably blow themselves to smithereens & the complete aircraft with them.

OK, that might save something like 9/11 happening but they've done that once. The whole world now has to take measures against it for ever more & air travel will never be the same. It served its purpose & I somehow doubt they will repeat it.

[Craig.]

I am not saying i like air marshals. Quite the opposite. Its safe to say we have done this argument/ discussion to death in the past:)

[beaky]

All very good points, but if I'd have been aboard one of the 9/11 flights I'd have liked a gun... not that it was needed by the passenger/resisters aboard Fl. 93, bless their souls. As was the case with the hijackers (whose weaponry was pretty limited), fighting spirit (including that willingness to die) often makes all the difference, guns or no guns. All it took to thwart their plan (hitting their target) was for enough people to get out of their seats and try to stop them. Too bad that only happened on one flight- I guess the others still held some hope that this was an ordinary "take us to such-and-such" hijacking; I don't know.
 And yes, the guns on planes debate could easily go on forever, so I'll make this my last comment on this...

[Craig.]

You do know they flooded the front compartment with mace they managed to get onboard. It was reported passengers couldn't breath when they got near there.