3 ms·
> In this day and age it's just not thinkable to let people enter a plane without a security check. Few would suggest that. But the security measure that were
by mcherm 11y ago
> In this day and age it's just not thinkable to let people enter a plane without a security check.
Few would suggest that. But the security measure that were in place in the US prior to 9-11 took far less time and cost much less, and in my opinion provided a similar level of security.
> And it's not that checks are less thorough around [any European airport ].
Really? Do they require you to remove shoes and belts, plus all items (even scraps of paper) from your pockets? Do they require you to stand motionless, hands raised for 1-2 mins to be scanned by a millimeter wave or backscatter x-ray machine or submit to a 15 min careful patdown and swabbing?
> It really just seems to be a funding issue.
I disagree -- I think it is largely an issue of what security measures they choose to utilize.
- dragonwriter 11y ago> > And it's not that checks are less thorough around [any European airport ]. > Really? Do they require you to remove shoes and belts, plus all items (even scraps of paper) from your pockets? Do they require you to stand motionless, hands raised for 1-2 mins to be scanned by a millimeter wave or backscatter x-ray machine or submit to a 15 min careful patdown and swabbing? "Intrusive" is not the same thing as "thorough". You are describing how intrusive the US measures are. How thorough the measures are depends on their effectiveness at actually detecting what they set out to detect (all the information that has come out about the tests of the US system in that regard have shown that, while intrusive, it is absolutely not thorough.)