News Airplane security... - Page 2

**AustinChief** · 12-29-2009, 06:40 PM

I have been following the recent debate regarding the new screening machines available to be used in airports and came up with an interesting idea...

If an individual airline (say American Airlines) installed the most advanced backscatter imaging devices and you simply had to walk through them to get onto the plane... would it bother you? Would you choose a different airline or possibly would you choose AA over other airlines ... KNOWING that they had 1000% higher security?

Brock · 12-29-2009, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinChief

It is run by the TSA... this is a "what if..." an airline decided to enact their own supplemental procedures...

If you still have to run the gauntlet of uniformed power-mad reeruns at the gate, how does this help?

**AustinChief** · 12-29-2009, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock

If you still have to run the gauntlet of uniformed power-mad reeruns at the gate, how does this help?

It doesn't "help" with that problem.. It is simply a question to see if it bothers people... if it is a non-issue, a hinderance or a help...

In a perfect world... I would see two lines... one slow, ass backward line for the people who want to go through a metal detector, get swabbed and patted down... and another line where people simply walk through an imaging machine. That would be the most secure solution and would give everyone the options they require.

Chiefnj2 · 12-29-2009, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock

If you still have to run the gauntlet of uniformed power-mad reeruns at the gate, how does this help?

Exactly, it looks like it would just add another half hour of waiting in line.

How about walking a bomb sniffing dog up and down the aisle while I'm waiting for the TSA agents to make a 90 year old lady in a wheelchair take off her shoes and remove her underwire bra.

kstater · 12-29-2009, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinChief

It doesn't "help" with that problem.. It is simply a question to see if it bothers people... if it is a non-issue, a hinderance or a help...

In a perfect world... I would see two lines... one slow, ass backward line for the people who want to go through a metal detector, get swabbed and patted down... and another line where people simply walk through an imaging machine. That would be the most secure solution and would give everyone the options they require.

I'm sure you know, it takes slightly longer than walking through, but, I didn't see the big deal about going through it. Had I not been completely hung over and not realized I hadn't gotten a quarter out, it would have been faster, but, it's not a major deal. You don't see your "naked" self, the viewer of the image doesn't see the real image of the "naked" person, so it's not that big of deal.

**luv** · 12-29-2009, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinChief

It doesn't "help" with that problem.. It is simply a question to see if it bothers people... if it is a non-issue, a hinderance or a help...

In a perfect world... I would see two lines... one slow, ass backward line for the people who want to go through a metal detector, get swabbed and patted down... and another line where people simply walk through an imaging machine. That would be the most secure solution and would give everyone the options they require.

Wouldn't matter to me, I guess. Would just slow down with having a second security check. Seems redundant.

**AustinChief** · 12-29-2009, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luv

Wouldn't matter to me, I guess. Would just slow down with having a second security check. Seems redundant.

The "slow down" is about 10 seconds per person...

The question remains.. would that effect your decision on which airline to fly? Remember, that by flying this airline... you are decreasing the odds of there being a bomb on board by a significant amount...

For me, I want this to eventually be an option that replaces the outdated , slow and ridiculous security checkpoints that we have now... but the only way I see this being fast-tracked is to get private industry involved... the TSA won't do it properly on their own.

Brock · 12-29-2009, 07:53 PM

Yes, by all means, replace the ridiculous, time-wasting foolishness we're having to deal with now. However, you're barking up the wrong tree if you think the average air traveler worries about a bomb on the plane.

teedubya · 12-29-2009, 08:03 PM

if its my time to go, it's my time to go... I never worry about some Jihad towelhead trying to bomb my plane. In fact, the more people worry about it, the more likely it is to occur.

I don't waste time on negative what-ifs... this type of mentality has this country in a downward spiral as it is.

KCUnited · 12-29-2009, 09:05 PM

I could see myself choosing that airline for an international flight.

rageeumr · 12-29-2009, 09:18 PM

A few months back I got through security at KCI using my wife's boarding pass. Then the person at the gate allowed me on the plane using my boarding pass (which hadn't been initialed by the security screener).

That was pretty alarming... so I'm pretty much in favor of any additional screening.

Although I got my karma a few weeks ago when I tried to carry a self-inflating air mattress onto a plane. They didn't appreciate the battery pack wired to a motor.

Consistent1 · 07-20-2013, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GloryDayz

What do you get when you put 50 women "of alternative life style" and 50 TSA agents in a room?

It's a trick question because I think the answer is 50?

Imon Yourside · 07-20-2013, 12:32 AM

Create your own Nigerian scam letter @ http://www.scamgen.com/

Ace Gunner · 07-20-2013, 06:45 AM

I'd fire all those knuckleheads at TSA and put one armed specialist on every flight.

and, I'd start teaching the public how to assist your specialist in case of flight emergency.

07-20-2013, 07:06 AM

DON'T QUOTE THE SPAM, ASSHOLES. I have to delete it.

**2112** · 07-20-2013, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phobia

DON'T QUOTE THE SPAM, ASSHOLES. I have to delete it.

Reported for a personal attack on innocent posters

View Poll Results: If an individual airline installed higher security devices...
I wouldn't care either way.	19	35.85%
I would choose the higher security as long as the price and service was competitive	23	43.40%
NO WAY would I fly on a plane where some employee got to look at a white outline of my junk!	6	11.32%
I would love it... Only if the in-flight movie was a continual loop of Gaz's image from his walkthrough.	5	9.43%
Voters: 53. You may not vote on this poll

12-29-2009, 06:40 PM
AustinChief Administrator Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Austin Casino cash: $-524998	Airplane security... I have been following the recent debate regarding the new screening machines available to be used in airports and came up with an interesting idea... If an individual airline (say American Airlines) installed the most advanced backscatter imaging devices and you simply had to walk through them to get onto the plane... would it bother you? Would you choose a different airline or possibly would you choose AA over other airlines ... KNOWING that they had 1000% higher security?
Posts: 19,999

12-29-2009, 07:53 PM	#22
Brock Say hello to my little friend Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Larryville Casino cash: $9598422	Yes, by all means, replace the ridiculous, time-wasting foolishness we're having to deal with now. However, you're barking up the wrong tree if you think the average air traveler worries about a bomb on the plane.
Posts: 47,314

12-29-2009, 08:03 PM	#23
teedubya Most Valuable Poster Join Date: Oct 2003 Casino cash: $9003042	if its my time to go, it's my time to go... I never worry about some Jihad towelhead trying to bomb my plane. In fact, the more people worry about it, the more likely it is to occur. I don't waste time on negative what-ifs... this type of mentality has this country in a downward spiral as it is.
Posts: 36,828

12-29-2009, 09:05 PM	#24
KCUnited Cheat Death Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Land of Drincoln Casino cash: $-1401756	I could see myself choosing that airline for an international flight.
Posts: 36,849

12-29-2009, 09:18 PM	#25
rageeumr Veteran Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: St. Louis :( Casino cash: $9989900	A few months back I got through security at KCI using my wife's boarding pass. Then the person at the gate allowed me on the plane using my boarding pass (which hadn't been initialed by the security screener). That was pretty alarming... so I'm pretty much in favor of any additional screening. Although I got my karma a few weeks ago when I tried to carry a self-inflating air mattress onto a plane. They didn't appreciate the battery pack wired to a motor.
Posts: 2,313

07-20-2013, 12:32 AM	#27
Imon Yourside WhatUneed2Hear Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: AllSoulsMatter Casino cash: $-826819	Create your own Nigerian scam letter @ http://www.scamgen.com/ Attached Thumbnails __________________ "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour" Peter 5:8 "Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay" Isaiah 29:16 "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me." Revelation 3:20
Posts: 47,465

07-20-2013, 06:45 AM	#28
Ace Gunner First Overall Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: kcmo Casino cash: $10007271	I'd fire all those knuckleheads at TSA and put one armed specialist on every flight. and, I'd start teaching the public how to assist your specialist in case of flight emergency. __________________ The Greatest
Posts: 10,580

07-20-2013, 07:06 AM	#29
Phobia Guest Casino cash: $	DON'T QUOTE THE SPAM, ASSHOLES. I have to delete it.
Posts: n/a