While US flying Becomes More Painful, El Al Continues Effective Security

Bettnet.com ^ | 8/13/06 | Domenico Bettinelli

[marshmallow]

Posted for those of you who've been caught up in the past week's ridiculous security shemozzle (as I was).

Apparently my daughter's asthma medicine is now considered a national security threat and as a result, was trashed.

Cheers!

[Sender]

The Israelis know how to take care of business. We only know how to take care of political correctness. God help us, it will take another 9/11 to change us.

[Argus]

I wish I'd though of booking El Al for our flight to Europe in three weeks. But no - we're on British Airways, changing planes at Heathrow.

Aw hell.

[DustyMoment]

We have indulged in the sham of airline security since long before 9/11. Recent events haven't changed a thing. Neither the TSA, DHS, nor the Bush Administration are serious about airline security as long as profiling is not part of the security procedures. Making grannies and 4 year-old children take their shoes off while Middle Eastern men between the ages of 17 and 40 walk through the "security" screening untouched, is just BS.

Until we get serious about screening and quit the "Show 'n Tell" method of security screening that makes idiots think they are safe aboard commercial aircraft, we will be attacked and threatened again.

[MarMema]

I am ao sorry about your daughter.

BUMP.

[Capt. Tom]

Something to factor in, is Israeli air traffic is insignificant compared to ours. They don't have a lot of people or airports to deal with. - tom

[Jocko from Canada]

I have experienced, firsthand, what an El Al security check is since I flew from Budapest to Tel Aviv at the end of April 2006. It is a bit disconcerting at first but it is all for the safety of the passengers and crew members. That is why we choose El Al in the first place! It took about 10 minutes, but it seemed like hours, and it was done in an extremely respectful and friendly manner. I enjoyed the flight, touring the country and coming back with El AL to Budapest to continue my holidays. Would fly with them every chance I get. Try them, you will love them!

[MichiganConservative]

I always thought the proper response was "Carry your gun if you've got it." Or maybe handing out knives or batons to passengers as they boarded. After 9/11, everyone knows that the government's lies about "just relax and don't fight back; we'll take care of you" was a bunch of BS. The terrorists would have to know there would be a bunch more flight 93's if the people on board knew it was up to them.

[fortheDeclaration]

We are living in a fantasy world of denial.

The terrorists will be successful if they can get us to alter our lives to meet their threats.

Which is exactly what the P.C. elite are doing for them.

[Argus]

We also have a lot more security personnel than they do. Their procedures are more efficient and sensible. If we adopted them universally, we would see a lot less of the chaos we're witnessing right now at British airports with cancelled flights and travellers trapped for days on end. But that would require inconveniencing some Muslims, so we're stuck with what we have.

[Argus]

What are El Al's fares like, compared to other carriers?

[Gorjus]

I'd do profiling in a heartbeat, if it would be sufficient. The problem with profiling is that it underestimates the evil of the terrorists.

Here's the obvious scenario (not original with me): A team of half a dozen terrorists get together. They find a little old blue-haired grandmother who has a daughter, son-in-law, and granddaughter. They kidnap the family, and before the grandmother's eyes murder the son-in-law. Then they tell her she will either take their weapon on board a plane, or they will murder her daughter and granddaughter. Some of them stay with the daughter/granddaughter to make sure the grandmother doesn't back out.

How do you stop that? You make it clear that the little old blue-haired ladies are no less likely to be searched than obvious terrorists. That way, there is no incentive to find a 'low-risk' mule to carry something on board.

My suggestion would be to use profiling not to decide whom to search, but so that those fitting a terrorist profile are restricted to very few flights. Make such restrictions as requiring no carry on baggage at all for those flights, and make it clear that there would be guards on each.

Then tell those inconvenienced in that way that they need to get on the clerics of their profession and get them to condemn instead of glorify terrorism.

[Who dat?]

Last I checked El Al had something like 36 or 38 planes in their fleet TOTAL

More planes than that take off out of Santa Ana PER HOUR, I’d bet.

Santa Ana is a relatively small and insignificant airport compared to some others like Atlanta or DFW or whatever.

Yes, if you have a tiny fleet of anything it’ll be much easier to protect.


The people that squeal for having to remove their shoes would really kick up sand if they had to undergo a legitimate interrogation prior to boarding.

[theDentist]

You daughter's medicine isn't considered a national security threat. It was not possible for them to confirm what it was, and they decided it best to let you trash it vs taking a chance on your possibly sneaking liquid exposives aboard an airplane. Sorry, but they found that very scenario was going to be used by the terrorists in Britain.



On Sat, I flew and, knowing my meds and such were a potential problem, I put them in my checked luggage. Obviously not everyone had been aware of that resolution, and some require immediate access to the meds. But what else could they do?

[traditional1]

"We also have a lot more security personnel than they do. "

What WE have, thanks to the Democrats, is union-controlled TSA (to buy Union votes with taxdollars), and crying about inspections of EVERY shipping container (by Union Longshoreman, of course).

I believe that because any of these issues are NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES, NO Union thugs or members should be allowed to be hired for them. We don't need ANY special interest security forces whatsoever.

[stylin_geek]

Thanks for the info, so, I may not be able to take my rescue inhaler onboard the airplane? I mention it, because I'm flying to Orlando in less than a week.

[Sender]

Part of effective profiling is not just in looking at ethnicity, it is looking at stress and fear. That blue-haired grandma forced to carry a bomb is going to be a stress meltdown. She is going to show. And she is going to fess up under interviewing. Bomb off, plane safe.

[Spiff]

The people that squeal for having to remove their shoes would really kick up sand if they had to undergo a legitimate interrogation prior to boarding.

We don't need to interrogate everyone, just those who have a high probability of being a threat. And that would be YMMs. Background check them, carefully search them and their belongings, and interrogate them before allowing them to board. Re-evaluate when War on Islamic Terror is over or if Islamic terror strategy changes.

[KarlInOhio]

I thought that the Dems' "you can't professionalize unless you federalize" argument for creating TSA was supposed to get professionals like El Al has. Instead we got a bunch of brain dead unionized civil servants who frisk grandma.

I'm kidding of course. I expected the brain dead civil servants.

[MichiganConservative]

In your scenario, I doubt that the blue-hair who has to blow up a plane or have her family killed is going to act just like she's on just another routine flight. That's where profiling behavior would have to be done. A few minutes of interrogation should identify that her behavior is a bit odd. But, if we think some TSA flunky is going to be able to do that, I think we're mistaken.