Choices, choices.

[andrewducker]

[Poll #1420486]

(Assuming that this was legal, airports allowed it, etc. and it cut half an hour of queuing off of your time)

Comments

[andrewducker]

Personally, I'm gambling that they don't add _much_ security, and the chances of me being on a flight that's blown up is going to be pretty close to zero.

[ashfae.livejournal.com]

Those checks provide some security, but I still might choose to take the risk depending on where I was going to/from.

[wychwood]

I think there's substantially too much security, but I quite like basic x-rays and similar - I don't expect complex multi-chemical bomb-making on the plane, but there's enough cases of a nutter with a gun that I think it probably makes sense to retain some control over what goes onto the plane.

On the other hand, the risk of that happening is still pretty tiny, and you'd nearly always be safe to make that call.

[dapperscavenger.livejournal.com]

I don't mind making the choice to compromise my own safety - after all, the risk is quite low, imo - but I'm not sure I could make the choice to risk other people's safety. You know?

[communicator.livejournal.com]

I don't disagree with X-Rays but I'd choose an airline that let you carry OMG shampoo

Because you LOVE it when people nitpick about missing options from your polls ;)

[aliiis.livejournal.com]

(x) I still wouldn't fly (if I could avoid it) because I'm worried about climate change AND it's no fun

Really, though, I'm about half way decided. Maybe for 25% less... I'm not convinced that those checks do much, but then I guess if there were such an airline then it would be the obvious choice if you wanted to hijack a plane/just stab lots of people up for some reason/whatever, so then the chances of that happening might be quite elevated from what they are now?

Anyway, hope your waiting in (in the lovely sunshine!) experience wasn't too long or gruelling, that's never fun.

[robhu.livejournal.com]

If there are people who want to attack 'an' airline, and your airline is the only one (because of being lowcost) that does not have these security checks then it's far far more likely to be targetted than any other. So ISTM that not doing the checks increases your risk far more than would be the case if all the airlines didn't do these checks.

The checks keep out the loons...

[zornhau.livejournal.com]

I suspect there are more loons than terrorists.

[woodpijn.livejournal.com]

I might even pay more, assuming such airlines were common enough not to be the one single flight that all the terrorists get on, as robhu and aliiis have mentioned.

Seems a bit inconsistent having all the checks on planes and not on trains and (especially) tubes.

[anton-p-nym.livejournal.com]

Some checks are worthwhile, like x-raying luggage and verifying ID/passports, but most of the shoe-sniffing and nail-file grabbing and bottle-leering stuff they're doing these days is "Masterpiece Security Theatre" and I would willingly forego them in the name of expedited boarding and a little human dignity.

-- Steve must disclose that he doesn't fly, mostly for reasons of cost but in part because of the security crap.

[seph-hazard.livejournal.com]

As others have said, they *do* add some security, but I'd take the theoretical airline like a shot (NPI) anyway!

[johncoxon.livejournal.com]

I think that establishing a low-security airline would make anyone wanting to blow a plane up choose that airline to do so, and so I'm not sure... wouldn't it make those planes more likely to be targets?

[martling.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't fly an airline that removed *all* the checks, but I would happily fly one that merely scaled them back to pre-2001 levels of paranoia.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

What woodpijn, autopope, and johncoxon said. I think most people I know believe correctly that security is very inconsistent (and point to El Al as an example of how airlines ACTUALLY worried about terrorism work well), and thus would like to support a less-security airline just to show it's possible. Once it exists, market pressure may make other airlines/regulations more sensible too.

However, there's obviously the problem that many potential terrorists are unimaginative too, so if there's just a few unprotected flights, they may be targets, and obviously some security serves a purpose, if it's enough to stop lone crazies.

[heron61.livejournal.com]

I'd gladly fly such an airlines in the UK or any other nation with reasonable attitudes towards firearms. In the US, I wouldn't be worried about the terrorists 1/10th as much as I would worry about the gun-nuts who would board carrying concealed weapons.

[cheekbones3.livejournal.com]

Ten percent is nowt. Give a decent discount and I'll think about it!

[khbrown.livejournal.com]

I don't fly, but perhaps the answer is yes and no depending on the duration of the flight, where it is departing from and going to and so on.