One of my favorite pastimes is the airport. Any time I wanted to I could go
sit within comfortable distance of any commercial airplane arriving/leaving
the eastcoast.
There are times when I was questioned by some poor guy making some minimal
wage to drive around in a car asking people like me to leave. But that is as
far as it goes. The airport is very lax in security.
I can remember seeing the president arrive and you do not get to hang around
too long then.
I remember not long ago driving to the airport and paying to park under the
terminal. Years ago they blocked off the underground parking and you could
only park outside.
The only cars allowed to sit under the terminal now are Livery
Vehicles.(probably not now)
For more than 35 years I have been through that same airport. It is ironic
that the service industry is allowed into that secure space. I bet you they
do not go through a proper security check. Or how many of them may have
aided in the recent attack. Who knows..
People do not want to pay but when they have no other choice...they pay
anyway.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "NT System Admin Issues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 4:14 PM
Subject: RE: Airport security (was: The idiocy continues!)
> >> If anything these airports need to be privatized and
> >> the security force needs to be trained and made to
> >> do their jobs. It's that simple.
>
> And what job were they supposed to be doing that they didn't?
>
>
> If you took a poll last week about airplane/airport security, would there
> have been the same level of outcry?
>
>
> There is often a tendency to over-react in situations like this and
suggest
> that every process in the equation is broken. I am not suggesting that
> airport security is stellar and could not be improved. However, to my
> knowledge, there was no particular breach of security that was taken
> advantage of, for this event.
>
> If anything, having an Air Marshall (or two) on board might have had a
> positive impact. Likewise, denying access to the cockpit would be a good
> idea.
>
> The problem is that everyone wants to be secure, but they don't want to
> spend any time or money to do it.
>
>
>
>
> - ASB
>
>
>
> - ASB
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kent Neff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 1:33 PM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: Re: Airport security (was: The idiocy continues!)
>
>
> Ya gotta be kidding. Most of the airports are "managed" by local
> governments and they can't get it right. What makes you think the Feds
are
> able to do it. Where I live (Atlanta), the General Manager is a politcal
> crony of the Mayor and is an incompetent clown at best. If anything these
> airports need to be privatized and the security force needs to be trained
> and made to do their jobs. It's that simple. I work around the airport
so
> I see it all the time.
>
> My 2 cents.
>
> Regards,
>
> Kent Neff
>
>
> >From: Benjamin Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: "NT System Admin Issues"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: "NT System Admin Issues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: Airport security (was: The idiocy continues!)
> >Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 13:13:46 -0400 (EDT)
> >
> >On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Phillips, Glen wrote:
> > > I've noticed that in amongst all the criticism of poor security at
> > > Boston airport, no-one has suggested paying the people who operate the
> > > metal detector screens and x-ray machines a bit more than what they
> > > currently get (which is reported as on a par with someone who flips
> > > burgers in a diner).
> >
> > I have seen mentioned several times that the people supposedly
guarding
> >air-travel security are minimum wage workers who have not been trained.
> >Many are calling for the government to take over airport security.
> >
> > Myself, I think that makes sense. One of the functions of government
is
> >to protect the people, i.e., to establish and maintain a police force.
The
> >government already patrols roads, trains, and general property. To me,
it
> >makes sense to extend that same protection to air travel.
> >
> >--
> >Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >| The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do
not
>
> >|
> >| necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity
or
>
> >|
> >| organization. All information is provided without warranty of any
kind.
>
> >|
>
> http://www.sunbelt-software.com/ntsysadmin_list_charter.htm
>
http://www.sunbelt-software.com/ntsysadmin_list_charter.htm
