After 9-11, I was happy that Bush was the first President in the last 20+ years who had the guts to stop asking the airlines and airports to improve security that the FBI had proven time and again was lacking. President Bush went ahead and wrote an executive order detailing new powers and responsibilities of the FAA and airports and airlines everywhere. He just did it. It was about time! Clinton and his father sat around while the FBI would run 90% of their test agents with hidden weapons and explosives through airport security.
In any case, one of the few things that I am happy with Bush with is the needed increased travel security.
HOWEVER, I was watching my local news tonight, and they ran a story on how the Bush administration is singling out SeaTac and Boeing Field's control towers here in the Seattle area and attempting to sell control over them to unmentioned private companies.
These are the two most important control towers in the entire northwest, so why do we want security to get lax there? A company would care about the bottom line and cutting costs. Now, before you contend that many other control towers are privately owned, I would like to point out that that is not necessarily a warrant for making these the same, and certainly not after 9-11. I have no idea what the benefits of this proposal are, or why the Bush admin. would take such interest in two specific control towers way out here in the Northwest. I do know this, however, if those control towers leave federal control to be sold off to come coorporation, I will no longer feel as safe flying out of SeaTac, or living anywhere within the radius of Boeing Field (where there are hundreds of planes coming and going all the time with no passengers to notice strange behavior from the pilot.)
[/rant]
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
It's just normal government business. The gov't has been on a kick recently to reduce the number of federal employees by contracting out EVERYTHING. They've been doing it with the support staff on bases for years. I personally think it's short-sighted and doesn't work, but the powers that be contend that the governement has certain things it must do itself and everything else should be contracted.
They probaby picked those towers as a test case because they are important enough to really BE a test case.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
On the subject of airline security, what are the security people doing when they swab my electronics with a little wet thing on a stick? I have a vague idea it's something to do with explosives, but the connection between explosives and little swab things is beyond me. Anyone know?
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I'm a small, blonde, white, 18 year old female; and apparently, I look just like a terrorist. I flew to California and back recently adn both times I was checked by security. The first time they asked me to point out my bag and then proceded to check it. The second time I walked through the metal detector thing, didn't beep or anything, when I was halfway through it the elady took me to the side and ran the hand held metal detector over me, twice! Posted by Duragon C. Mikado (Member # 2815) on :
So the reason for this is to reduce the Federal payroll? That is utterly ridiculous.
Adam613, given the lessons learned from 9-11, control towers probably control the greatest aspect of security at airports now. Before the terrorists could fly the plane anywhere and crash it, but now we know if we catch that happening Bush has already said the plane will be shot down. Terrorists know this means they would have to take over the plane immediately close to take off and landing periods, and crash it near the airport.
We should not be curtailing the most important aspect of airport security to save a few tax payer dollars. It seems pointless to have airport security at all if the eyes on planes landing and taking off aren't very vigilant.
My message to the federal government: save money elsewhere, this is too important a security risk!
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
blacwolve, don't feel bad. My son got wanded everywhere he flew last summer, 2002. He was 14 yrs old at the time. Tell me what kind of threat a 14 yr old kid poses?
::waves at Adam::
**Ela**
Posted by Duragon C. Mikado (Member # 2815) on :
I think the sticky thing is for drugs hidden in electronics.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Could be. But more likely to detect the nitrogen compounds associated with explosives
Posted by Duragon C. Mikado (Member # 2815) on :
quote:Even now, with the much more tense situation, a commercial airliner will not be shot down without proof that it has been hijacked.
But this is EXACTLY what President Bush said would happen from now on if a plane is discovered off of its flight plan and does not sufficiently respond to queries or attempts at communication.
quote:Who came up with the implication that privately-run control towers are somehow going to be less secure than the ones run by the FAA? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. First of all, all air traffic controllers (public or private) come from the same places: the military, and 14 FAA-accredited schools across the country. They all get similar training, and they all have to follow the same rules.
Perhaps you are not aware of the present situation. Here at SeaTac and Boeing Field, the issue at stake is that the private company that will soon take over has already given half the controllers layoff notices, claiming that they do not need nearly as many controllers in these two specific twoers as the federal government required. The FAA was running the tower with more than were required, because they are concerned about safety and are going that extra step, the coorporation will NOT. Coorporations ARE keen about reducing numbers of employees, and will always seek to meet the absolute minimum standards. If you lived here in this area you would probably have a much better feel for the controversy this is causing, and that people are not merely overreacting and making generalizations about what is going on.
[ August 13, 2003, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: Duragon C. Mikado ]
Posted by JaneX (Member # 2026) on :
quote:him: "have you ever had surgery on your back? do you have pins in your spine?" me: "no..." him: "is there something in your shirt that is metal?" me: "um, not that I know of..." him: "have you ever been abducted by aliens?"
I wonder if he watches the X-Files?
~Jane~
Posted by Duragon C. Mikado (Member # 2815) on :
You also fail to consider Boeing Field. Those planes are much easier to commandeer without people noticing them since sometimes there is only a pilot or a small crew. SOme of the planes are new being delivered, some a are cargo and freight. If we reduce the amount of controllers watching Boeing Field I guarantee you a hijacking will occur there in less than a year. That many planes come and go all the time with so few people on board, changing crews and pilots so frequently.
LOL, you think the FAA would be the one to make shooting down airliners "easier" or not? I guess you learned nothing from Iraq. Congress didn't delcare war, Bush did, ON HIS OWN. Congress's little resoltuion to grant force to Bush to "disarm" Iraq is not what Bush invoked when he planned the full scale invasion and destruction of Iraq's government. The executive acts on his ALL the time. Look at Clinton and HIS military escapades! Perhaps you forgot the military is organised so that the President is the commander in chief and any order he gives is to be obeyed. I remember reading an article about 9-11 and Bush was talking about how the order to shoot down any straying airliners then and from now on was the hardest order he ever gave the military. That is a standing order right now. The FAA has nothing to do with commanding the military.
[ August 14, 2003, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: Duragon C. Mikado ]
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)