Rewarding Failure

[ZENSMACK89]

When you reward for failure and give them this…

http://www.thetravelinsider.info/2003/0328.htm

Almost before the dust had settled after 9/11, US airlines were given an outright gift of $5 billion in cash by the US government. Profitable airlines were given gifts as well as unprofitable ones. Airlines did not have to show or prove anything to receive their share of the handout. Some airlines even estimated their losses, as a result of 9/11, were less than the unasked for gift they received!

And now, like a drug addict who has developed a taste for heroin, the airlines are asking for more. Their latest request was for $9 billion, then they adjusted it to $4 billion, and it currently looks like they might get perhaps $3 billion.

This is how they pay you back…

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2007-10-17-airport-security_N.htm

Most fake bombs missed by screeners
By Thomas Frank, USA TODAY
10-17-2007
WASHINGTON — Security screeners at two of the nation's busiest airports failed to find fake bombs hidden on undercover agents posing as passengers in more than 60% of tests last year, according to a classified report obtained by USA TODAY.

Screeners at Los Angeles International Airport missed about 75% of simulated explosives and bomb parts that Transportation Security Administration testers hid under their clothes or in carry-on bags at checkpoints, the TSA report shows.

[gumboot]

Um... given that Airlines don't run the security screening at airports, how are these two articles at all related?

-Gumboot

[Puppycow]

Um... given that Airlines don't run the security screening at airports, how are these two articles at all related?

-Gumboot

Rarely hath an OP been so quickly, pithily and utterly smacked down. :D

[Crossbow]

Um... given that Airlines don't run the security screening at airports, how are these two articles at all related?

-Gumboot

Thanks much 'gumboot'!

:)

I was thinking about the same thing.

[ZENSMACK89]

Um... given that Airlines don't run the security screening at airports, how are these two articles at all related?

-Gumboot

http://www.washprofile.org/en/node/2126


US airports make up a critical national infrastructure, worth several hundred billion dollars. Despite this, most financial resources allocated by the government for aviation security goes to airlines and not the airports themselves.

[ZENSMACK89]

Sept. 11 Families Settle Negligence Suit

By STEPHEN MANNING
Associated Press Writer

The lawsuit filed 2003 included a long list of airlines, plane-maker Boeing Co. and security firms.

A spokesman for American Airlines, whose plane crashed into the Pentagon, said the company is "committed to working with families toward settlement."

[jsiv]

http://www.washprofile.org/en/node/2126


US airports make up a critical national infrastructure, worth several hundred billion dollars. Despite this, most financial resources allocated by the government for aviation security goes to airlines and not the airports themselves.


Since "aviation security" and airport screening are not synonyms, I guess your rant is really that the government isn't spending enough money on the TSA?

Seriously, what does this have to do with airlines, or Boeing? You're not making any sense.

[Beerina]

Um... given that Airlines don't run the security screening at airports, how are these two articles at all related?

-Gumboot

Rarely hath an OP been so quickly, pithily and utterly smacked down. :D


Indeed. Wasn't it the statist movement who argued security was too sensitive to be left in the hands of lazy, evil capitalists, and that only Big Government could handle it?

Of course, neither side is particularly good at sweating the details when hiring near-minimum-wage employees to do vital services. The takeover by government was nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction, of course, and was stated as much by many, many people at the time.

Perhaps give it back to evil capitalists, with monetary rewards for keeping the % let through very low. Nah, that'd be the logical thing to do. How about at least give bonuses to government employees who keep the % low. Nah, that'll piss off the government employee unions.

You get the government you vote for.

[Darth Rotor]

Perhaps give it back to evil capitalists, with monetary rewards for keeping the % let through very low. Nah, that'd be the logical thing to do. How about at least give bonuses to government employees who keep the % low. Nah, that'll piss off the government employee unions.

There's a concept. The standard is what, a 1 % miss rate. A .0-1% miss rate? A .0001% How many misses are you willing to accept in this performance based contract that you write?

What do you do when seventy airlines blow up in one year, and yet the security companies meet the target, or beat it? Do you declare success?

Care to guess how many flights take off and land on a given day? ;)

DR

[Crossbow]

http://www.washprofile.org/en/node/2126


US airports make up a critical national infrastructure, worth several hundred billion dollars. Despite this, most financial resources allocated by the government for aviation security goes to airlines and not the airports themselves.

Umm, passenger screening is done by the TSA (Transportation Security Administration). Which is part of the federal government.

The airlines do not do this job.

[KoihimeNakamura]

And the money was due to bankruptcy following the decline in business after the Sept. 11 attacks.

[ZENSMACK89]

Who get's the money?

http://www.washprofile.org/en/node/2126

US airports make up a critical national infrastructure, worth several hundred billion dollars. Despite this, most financial resources allocated by the government for aviation security goes to airlines and not the airports themselves.

Who also needed protection from liability?

KEN FEINBERG'S 9/11 VICTIMS' FUND RULES VERSUS CANTOR FITZGERALD'S CRITIQUE OF THE RULES:
What Did Congress Intend To Be "Full Compensation"?

The Fund began as a proposal to protect airlines involved in the hijackings that day from lawsuits. It quickly transmogrified into a massive offer to the victims of the attack (or more precisely, their families): agree not to sue the airlines, the owners of the WTC, the City of New York, etc., and the government will give you "full" compensation. (Families who reject the deal may sue, but only under some onerous conditions.

So if the airlines have nothing to do with security like some people claim then why did they need to be protected? And as for the families who held out on the Compensation package who have they been trying to sue and who has settled with some of them just recently?

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/334194_exercise04.html

9/11 victims' families settle with airlines
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON -- Five families who lost relatives in the 2001 terrorist attacks have settled with the airline industry, saying their negligence lawsuit yielded new information about security lapses, attorneys said Wednesday.

The families refused money from the Victim Compensation Fund, which was created by Congress to protect airlines from a barrage of litigation, so they could pursue the lawsuit and highlight airport security failures.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/03/AR2007100301354.html

Families Settle Claims In Attack on Pentagon
By Dan Morse
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 4, 2007; Page B01

Tim Wagner, spokesman for American Airlines, confirmed that the company had settled the case but declined to discuss specifics.

[WildCat]

How about at least give bonuses to government employees who keep the % low. Nah, that'll piss off the government employee unions.
I remember a big part of the debate over the creation of the TSA was whether or not they would be allowed to unionize. The Bush admin. wanted to keep them from being allowed to unionize, this was opposed by the Dems. I don't remember how it ended up.

[WildCat]

BTW, Zensmack believes that the US government and its agents perpetrated the 9/11 attacks, that al Qaeda doesn't really exist (it's a creation of the CIA so that we can invade the middle east for that sweet sweet oil), and well you get the picture. So here he is arguing that the airlines should be responsible for failuire to protect from terrorists he doesn't believe even existed.

If that makes no sense to any of you, welcome to 9/11 truther land!

[Darat]

Perhaps the employees at the airports are just good at their jobs....

Burt: That one looks a bit suspicious, go and have a look Joan
Joan walks over and quickly pats the suspicious passenger down and walks back to Burt
Burt: Nothing eh?
Joan: Nah - just another one of those fake bombs, 3rd one this week.

[jsiv]

So if the airlines have nothing to do with security like some people claim then why did they need to be protected? And as for the families who held out on the Compensation package who have they been trying to sue and who has settled with some of them just recently?


Because there are other aspects to aviation security than the passenger screening at the airport.

Are you aware that your trip (and various security issues) don't end when you walk through the TSA metal detector? It is, after all, not a transporter.

[ZENSMACK89]

Perhaps the employees at the airports are just good at their jobs....

Burt: That one looks a bit suspicious, go and have a look Joan
Joan walks over and quickly pats the suspicious passenger down and walks back to Burt
Burt: Nothing eh?
Joan: Nah - just another one of those fake bombs, 3rd one this week.
Do you need a real bomb to hijack a plane?

[ZENSMACK89]

Because there are other aspects to aviation security than the passenger screening at the airport.

Are you aware that your trip (and various security issues) don't end when you walk through the TSA metal detector? It is, after all, not a transporter.
Does that mean airlines and the airline industry as a whole who receive government money and bailouts have absolutely nothing to do with security like some here are trying to imply?

[ZENSMACK89]

BTW, Zensmack believes that the US government and its agents perpetrated the 9/11 attacks, that al Qaeda doesn't really exist (it's a creation of the CIA so that we can invade the middle east for that sweet sweet oil), and well you get the picture. So here he is arguing that the airlines should be responsible for failuire to protect from terrorists he doesn't believe even existed.

If that makes no sense to any of you, welcome to 9/11 truther land!
Actually I believe there hasn't been a real investigation into 9/11 and a lot of the reason for that is to cover-up accountabilities and liabilities. Some people would like to endorse the government version of events as the complete truth and will endlessly apologize and make excuses for the biggest security failure in the history of the US. Then one of the results of that is we still get no airline security. Thanks for all your hard work.

[jsiv]

Does that mean airlines and the airline industry as a whole who receive government money and bailouts have absolutely nothing to do with security like some here are trying to imply?


No, only that they have nothing to do with the security scanners at the airport, which is what the article in your first post was about. That is all we've been trying to tell you.


I have no idea why you're trying to link this to the airlines. Do you hate airplanes or something?

[WildCat]

Do you need a real bomb to hijack a plane?
Nope, you just need to say you have one. Doesn't even have to be a fake bomb. At least pre-9/11. Passengers aren't likely to cooperate with terrorists any more no matter how they're armed.

[WildCat]

Actually I believe there hasn't been a real investigation into 9/11 and a lot of the reason for that is to cover-up accountabilities and liabilities. Some people would like to endorse the government version of events as the complete truth and will endlessly apologize and make excuses for the biggest security failure in the history of the US. Then one of the results of that is we still get no airline security. Thanks for all your hard work.
Did AA77 hit the Pentagon, yes or no?

[ZENSMACK89]

Nope, you just need to say you have one. Doesn't even have to be a fake bomb. At least pre-9/11. Passengers aren't likely to cooperate with terrorists any more no matter how they're armed.
So why are they testing to see if fake bombs get through?

[ZENSMACK89]

Did AA77 hit the Pentagon, yes or no?
I'm waiting for the real investigation to make a determination on that. An investigation that isn't political (remember where we are right now Wildcat?) and includes accountability.

[ZENSMACK89]

No, only that they have nothing to do with the security scanners at the airport, which is what the article in your first post was about. That is all we've been trying to tell you.


I have no idea why you're trying to link this to the airlines. Do you hate airplanes or something?
I don't have to reach very far to link airlines and airports. In fact they're already linked in relation to my op.

[jsiv]

So why are they testing to see if fake bombs get through?


Why assume that the only possible motive for bringing a bomb on board would be to hijack the plane?


I don't have to reach very far to link airlines and airports. In fact they're already linked in relation to my op.


Only in your head. The government runs the airport security, not the airlines. This makes your original point wrong and not worthy of any further discussion.

If there is some other specific aviation security issue you'd like to discuss, then fine, let's hear it. Otherwise...

[ZENSMACK89]

Why assume that the only possible motive for bringing a bomb on board would be to hijack the plane?

Oh brother. Why would it have to be the only reason? Is it excluded because you say so?

Only in your head. The government runs the airport security, not the airlines. This makes your original point wrong and not worthy of any further discussion.If there is some other specific aviation security issue you'd like to discuss, then fine, let's hear it. Otherwise...

I proved who is responsible and held responsible should a breach occur. Now if you have something other then your baseless bare assertions and nonsense then let’s hear it. Otherwise...

shhhhhhhh

[Beerina]

There's a concept. The standard is what, a 1 % miss rate. A .0-1% miss rate? A .0001% How many misses are you willing to accept in this performance based contract that you write?

Well, how about we start with the trivial "a little better than 60% failure, thanks."

[Skibum]

Does that mean airlines and the airline industry as a whole who receive government money and bailouts have absolutely nothing to do with security like some here are trying to imply?


Sure they do, IIRC some of the bailout money was earmarked to pay for upgrading cockpit doors.

[jsiv]

I proved who is responsible and held responsible should a breach occur. Now if you have something other then your baseless bare assertions and nonsense then let’s hear it. Otherwise...

shhhhhhhh


Nope, you were trying to convince us that the money given to the airlines (for security measures) is wasted because airport screeners (that are part of a government agency and are unaffiliated with the airlines) failed to detect simulated bombs. That is the claim made by you in the original post.

Any legal issues involving the airlines and 9/11 are completely unrelated to this, and are more about possible security shortcomings on the planes themselves and the airline's anti-terrorism routines.

[Beerina]

BTW, Zensmack believes that the US government and its agents perpetrated the 9/11 attacks, that al Qaeda doesn't really exist (it's a creation of the CIA so that we can invade the middle east for that sweet sweet oil)

Because, you know, Bush and other Texas oilmen, and the oilmen of Saudi Arabia, all earn tons of money when Iraq oil floods the market. :rolleyes:

At least "invade Iraq to cause instability and fears on the market, driving prices up, making Texas and Saudi oil more profitable" is plausible. But "getting your hands on Iraq oil" is retarded bad planning in the extreme, from an world oilman conspiracy point of view.

[jsiv]

How come there aren't more conspiracy theories about Norway? I feel left out.

We're in Iraq hunting for oil too, you know.

[WildCat]

How come there aren't more conspiracy theories about Norway?
Because Norway has a rep for clean government. Doesn't make a good base for a conspiracy story.

On the other side of the coin, the City of Chicago wants to build a 4,000-position casino...

[ZENSMACK89]

Nope, you were trying to convince us that the money given to the airlines (for security measures) is wasted because airport screeners (that are part of a government agency and are unaffiliated with the airlines) failed to detect simulated bombs. That is the claim made by you in the original post.

Any legal issues involving the airlines and 9/11 are completely unrelated to this, and are more about possible security shortcomings on the planes themselves and the airline's anti-terrorism routines.

Wrong the OP speaks for itself never mind you claiming what I'm trying to convince anyone of. Is everything just because you say so? It was claimed here that airlines have nothing to do with security. That's false. And to say that legal issues involving the airlines and 9/11 are completely unrelated is another asinine bare assertion.

[Alareth]

You're not making any sense.


That would be his standard M.O.

[ZENSMACK89]

Sure they do, IIRC some of the bailout money was earmarked to pay for upgrading cockpit doors.
Well thats a relief that the pilots will be safe in case the plane gets blown up.

[Skibum]

Well thats a relief that the pilots will be safe in case the plane gets blown up.Huh?

[Segnosaur]

It was claimed here that airlines have nothing to do with security.

Uhhh... no.

The claim was not that airlines had nothing to do with security, but that airlines had nothing to do with the basic screening of passengers at the airports themselves (the type of screening that is often unsuccessful in tests.)

The money that is given to airlines for 'security' does still get used to enhance security on flights... I'm not sure of all the associated costs, but some of the areas where money gets spent are:
- Improved cockpit doors (as already pointed out by another poster)
- Training of airline personnel
- IT infrastructure used to screen passengers and/or communicate with government authorities

[Alareth]

Well thats a relief that the pilots will be safe in case the plane gets blown up.


Are you incapable of grasping the simple concept that the TSA making an error in not finding the bombs is 100% unrelated to the security procedures maintained by individual airlines.

FINDING BOMBS IS NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AIRLINES. IT IS THE JOB OF THE TSA.

[ZENSMACK89]

Are you incapable of grasping the simple concept that the TSA making an error in not finding the bombs is 100% unrelated to the security procedures maintained by individual airlines.

FINDING BOMBS IS NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AIRLINES. IT IS THE JOB OF THE TSA.
They still share the responsibility. If what you are trying claim were true it could be said that only the private companies that handled airport security on 9/11 were the only ones liable. The TSA doesn't completely shield airports or airlines from responsibilities. In fact some airlines are being sued by people claiming discrimination who were TSA screened and not permitted to fly post 9/11.

[KoihimeNakamura]

hey still share the responsibility. If what you are trying claim were true it could be said that only the private companies that handled airport security on 9/11 were the only ones liable. The TSA doesn't completely shield airports or airlines from responsibilities. In fact some airlines are being sued by people claiming discrimination who were TSA screened and not permitted to fly post 9/11.

1. No, they don't.
2. Yes, it's true.
3. They're going to fail because it's the TSA who maintains the no-fly list.

[Darat]

Do you need a real bomb to hijack a plane?

(Psst... why did you highlight my name when you quoted my post? ETA: Oh I see you didn't just a glitch in my browser.)

My point was more about the ludicrous opening post statements.

[Alareth]

They still share the responsibility. If what you are trying claim were true it could be said that only the private companies that handled airport security on 9/11 were the only ones liable. The TSA doesn't completely shield airports or airlines from responsibilities. In fact some airlines are being sued by people claiming discrimination who were TSA screened and not permitted to fly post 9/11.


Again, the specific incident in your OP regarding the fake bombs, was a failure by the TSA and is completely irrelevant to the security procedures or passenger screening done by the individual airlines.

You are trying to link two things that have no bearing on each other.

The fact that the fake bombs got through the TSA is a serious issue that may be worth further discussion here. The money given to the airlines is a distinctly seperate and unrelated subject.

[Darat]

...snip...

The fact that the fake bombs got through the TSA is a serious issue that may be worth further discussion here.

...snip...

I agree, my view is that this again supports my opinion that most of the increased security since the events of 9/11 are more about giving the appearance of increased security whilst not instigating changes of security that would effectively and significantly reduce possible security breaches.

[ZENSMACK89]

Again, the specific incident in your OP regarding the fake bombs, was a failure by the TSA and is completely irrelevant to the security procedures or passenger screening done by the individual airlines.

You are trying to link two things that have no bearing on each other.

The fact that the fake bombs got through the TSA is a serious issue that may be worth further discussion here. The money given to the airlines is a distinctly seperate and unrelated subject.

No it's not. The bailouts and the move of the TSA taking over security all came out of 9/11 where the airlines failed because they hired security based on the lowest bidder. I haven't even gone into ranting about why federal money shouldn't be paying for security the airlines should be paying for.

The point is it's not safer and there is no incentive for anyone to do better.

[ZENSMACK89]

1. No, they don't.
2. Yes, it's true.
3. They're going to fail because it's the TSA who maintains the no-fly list.
Yes they do. Newark Airport in NJ is owned by the Port Authority of NY/NJ as is the WTC. Flight 93 came out of Newark Airport where different parts of airport security were either handled by or hired by the Port Authority not the Airlines. Still Airlines were sued and had to settle with victims families.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Yes, because they didn't expect many people to care about the differences. Anyway, that's not really evidence they are responsible.