Do you feel any safer now than you did when the events of 9/11/01 occurred?

MHaifa1913 · Sep 18, 2003

Originally posted by spejic
There is a big difference between El Al and airlines in the United States. The first is heavily subsidized by the Israeli government (just as almost all airlines outside the US are). They can afford to give up seats to guards and fit expensive equipment because they don't have to make a profit. Private airlines are not a profitable business, and are always on the bring of losing money. To ask them to do these things will have a massive impact on the airline business - prices would skyrocket and the number of flights will plummet.
Click to expand...

Actually in June, the Israeli government sold its 97% stake in El Al airlines. The company is now on the Tel-Aviv 100 and trades just like any other airline. The other 3% is owned by the Jewish Agency, thus the government has no real power over El Al.

bostonsoccermdl · Sep 18, 2003

Originally posted by spejic

I guarantee that not one life will be saved by this, if it is ever installed.
Click to expand...

I dont know about that, but I think we are barking up the wrong tree. All this $$ spent on a program like this will "blow up" up in our face when a smuggled laptop filled with explosive or a privately purchased suicide cesna makes its mark....

In other words, the money could be better spent..

Garcia · Sep 18, 2003

Originally posted by spejic
> So you don't agree with spending money to
> protect commercial aircraft flights?

No, I don't agree with your absurdist reductionism arguments. Just because I don't agree that particular saftey measures have to be taken does not mean that no safty measures have to be taken. Saftey takes resources, and at some point it costs more than the benefit it provides. The saftey measures we already impose are close to that tipping point for most airlines.
Click to expand...

From what I have heard from airline circles, the value quoted that the airlines determined a single passenger is "worth" is around a quarter on a million dollars.

That means, in a typical incident where a person dies, that would be worth about that amount. Thus, all measures to secure the passenger shouldn't go past that level.

It is a cost / value analysis thing.

I don't know how they can calculate lost revenue, the investigative costs and the following ad campaign to regain their share and possible price cuts needed to bring back business, but I guess it is the amount they are willing to "pay" for your security.

I feel 99.999999% safe when flying and know all the odds when compared to daily dangers around the house, but should the aim be for 100%?

I tend to feel like those who say that al qaeda took their best shot and got even more than they expected. It is even in that video where bin laden was watching the 9/11 footage. He too was even surprised that it went to that extreme. While I may not be as brash to say, "Bring it on!" but I do say that they got lucky.

No matter how many times we are saved from an attack, we may never hear of it, while they only have to get lucky once. In being lucky, they actually do their homework. I expect the US to do theirs, too.

That is the heart of this debate.

bmurphyfl · Sep 19, 2003

I voted yes but it isn't related to any changes in protection methods or wars waged since 9/11 that leave me feeling more secure.

I simply came to the realization that the odds are tiny that I'd ever be hurt or killed by a terrorist attack.

I travel a lot for business but there are thousands and thousands of flights each day in America and on the worse day of hijacking ever, only four of them were hijacked. And when I'm not travelling, I live in friggin' VT. The only target of value in VT is a nuclear power plant which is 90 miles to the SE of me; away from the prevailing winds of my town. I'm about as safe from a terrorist attack as anybody could be.

Nope, I'm not gonna die from a terrorist attack. I'll probably have a stroke somewhere around 2053 and die shortly thereafter. It's easy to forget this when you get constantly bombarded by terror on the news but it's true (and comforting).

Murf