Subject:
|
Re: More on Airport security.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 15 Oct 2001 09:15:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
813 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Horst Lehner writes:
>
> > The current service being provided (air
> > travel) benefits the passengers and is already paid for by them (generally).
> > The proposed service (enhanced security) does not only benefit the • passengers
> > and the airlines, so why should they have to carry the full cost of it?
>
> The enhanced security is only necessary BECAUSE they fly. Security would be
> enhanced even better if they didn't fly, but banning air traffic as a whole
> seems a bit too far fetched ...
No, in this case it is necessary because terrorists are threatening to use the
planes as bombs. Otherwise the extra security would've been put in place before
Sep 11.
> > Are you saying the average Joe Groundbound is entitled to this extra service
> > for free?
>
> We are not talking an extra service.
But that's what's being proposed!
> We are talking the idea that someone
> who creates a risk (the airlines in this case),
I disagree. See above.
> and makes money from that,
> should also carry the risk.
I'm not saying the airlines and passengers shouldn't contribute at all - the
enhanced security *does* benefit them more than others, as the percentage of
airline passengers affected by an attack such as 11 Sep is greater than the
percentage of the general population affected (directly). However, I don't
agree they should have to shoulder the entire burden.
> What would you think if some company decides to build an atomic energy plant
> near your house, maximizing its profit (or the cost of electricity for its
> customers) through lowest possible security measures. Would you, then, be
> willing to pay them for the "extra service" of making their plant more
> secure?
Well, I probably wouldn't worry about it until someone broke in & threatened to
blow up the plant. Compare that attitude with most peoples attitude of
air(port) security before Sep 11.
> Or wouldn't you actually think that the consumers of their
> electricity should pay for that?
I would expect the consumers to pay what the plant asks them to pay. If the
plant considers basic security to be essential to running the plant, then yes,
the consumer should pay for that.
If it's decided after the first bomb threat that all such plants need extra
security, I don't think the consumers should have to pay the entire cost of
that extra security, and I'd be happy for my taxes to contribute.
> Now apply this same principle to air traffic.
See above
ROSCO
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: More on Airport security.
|
| (...) The enhanced security is only necessary BECAUSE they fly. Security would be enhanced even better if they didn't fly, but banning air traffic as a whole seems a bit too far fetched ... (...) We are not talking an extra service. We are talking (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
74 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
