4 ms·

I don't think airport security and avoiding bombs on planes is an entirely "commercial" interest.

qznc 13y ago
Selling expensive equipment to the government is a commercial interest. Increasing responsibilities/work of the TSA (arguably) is a commercial interest as well.
prawn 13y ago
A strongly commercial interest, at least. No one's going to fly if the planes aren't safe, for one thing. See the other reply which has already covered the boon in selling expensive detection equipment. Once that's in place, do you think lobbyists and TSA-employee unions are going to be excited about winding them down? No terrorist is sitting there thinking "Hell yes, we've stifled their freedom! We've won!" I can't imagine any of the airport shops cried when people were forced by policy to throw away bottled water and other drinks before entering waiting lounges. Longer security lines increase thirst and hunger too. Board a plane with an infant and liquids are a non-issue - milk/formula, pre-boiled water, medication, etc. I've read that you can be asked to taste products you're carrying, but never had this happen. Always wondered if someone planning to asplode a plane is really going to be deterred by needing to drink a toxic substance. (Martyrdom for their infant would be a matter for the strength of their belief.)
prof_hobart 13y ago
Other forms of transport, such as trains, don't have even a tiny fraction of the level of security that planes have, and if anything are a more effective terror target than a bomb on a plane (I would say that the terrorists got far more publicity out of the 7/7 bombings in London than they did out of Lockerbie) - I strolled around two of the busiest stations in London for a couple of hours on Saturday, and saw a single sniffer dog occasionally checking out someone's bag, and even that was far more than I normally see. Yet we don't see train bombs on a regular basis. So why would planes be vastly different if the level of security was ramped down?
- mgpetkov 13y ago
  I was wandering the same and came to conclusion that these security measures are not for our safety but the safety of our ruling elite. How often can you see a prime minister in a subway? But they often take commercial flights. And they never face such humiliating checks as we do. P.S Is there anybody who can explain me why 5x100ml bottles are safer than one 0.5l?
  - prof_hobart 13y ago
    I'm not sure that's even the case. The richest/most powerful will travel by private jet anyway, and many of the next tier of politicians/businessmen regularly travel by train (in first class of course) in the UK.
  - prawn 13y ago
    Safety of their commercial investments. As has been said, the top tier fly privately.

qznc 13y ago

Selling expensive equipment to the government is a commercial interest. Increasing responsibilities/work of the TSA (arguably) is a commercial interest as well.

prawn 13y ago

A strongly commercial interest, at least. No one's going to fly if the planes aren't safe, for one thing. See the other reply which has already covered the boon in selling expensive detection equipment. Once that's in place, do you think lobbyists and TSA-employee unions are going to be excited about winding them down? No terrorist is sitting there thinking "Hell yes, we've stifled their freedom! We've won!" I can't imagine any of the airport shops cried when people were forced by policy to throw away bottled water and other drinks before entering waiting lounges. Longer security lines increase thirst and hunger too. Board a plane with an infant and liquids are a non-issue - milk/formula, pre-boiled water, medication, etc. I've read that you can be asked to taste products you're carrying, but never had this happen. Always wondered if someone planning to asplode a plane is really going to be deterred by needing to drink a toxic substance. (Martyrdom for their infant would be a matter for the strength of their belief.)

prof_hobart 13y ago

Other forms of transport, such as trains, don't have even a tiny fraction of the level of security that planes have, and if anything are a more effective terror target than a bomb on a plane (I would say that the terrorists got far more publicity out of the 7/7 bombings in London than they did out of Lockerbie) - I strolled around two of the busiest stations in London for a couple of hours on Saturday, and saw a single sniffer dog occasionally checking out someone's bag, and even that was far more than I normally see. Yet we don't see train bombs on a regular basis. So why would planes be vastly different if the level of security was ramped down?

mgpetkov 13y ago
I was wandering the same and came to conclusion that these security measures are not for our safety but the safety of our ruling elite. How often can you see a prime minister in a subway? But they often take commercial flights. And they never face such humiliating checks as we do. P.S Is there anybody who can explain me why 5x100ml bottles are safer than one 0.5l?
- prof_hobart 13y ago
  I'm not sure that's even the case. The richest/most powerful will travel by private jet anyway, and many of the next tier of politicians/businessmen regularly travel by train (in first class of course) in the UK.
- prawn 13y ago
  Safety of their commercial investments. As has been said, the top tier fly privately.