> Podge wrote:

>> I thought this was a good TV item: "Alleged hijacker raises questions
>> about NZ airport security":
>>
>> http://www.tv3.co.nz/News/Story/tabid/209/articleID/45630/cat/41/Default.aspx I
>> think that today's events prove that all baggage should be properly
>> screened before it's taken on any commercial aircraft, no matter how
>> small the plane is. People talk about the costs versus the benefits of
>> doing this, but how do you put a price on a human life? Sure, today,
>> nobody was seriously hurt, but it could have been a lot different.
>> Somebody said that a person could try and hijack a bus, so do you want to
>> screen all the luggage that goes on to a bus? But in my humble opinion,
>> aircraft security is a little more important than bus security because
>> there's probably less chance of surviving an aircraft crash than there is
>> a bus crash.
>>
>> Podge

> ...

>
> "Roger Dewhurst" wave.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:fonpdq$djb$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...

>> Podge wrote:

>>> I thought this was a good TV item: "Alleged hijacker raises questions
>>> about NZ airport security":
>>>
>>> http://www.tv3.co.nz/News/Story/tabid/209/articleID/45630/cat/41/Default.aspx
>>> I think that today's events prove that all baggage should be properly
>>> screened before it's taken on any commercial aircraft, no matter how
>>> small the plane is. People talk about the costs versus the benefits
>>> of doing this, but how do you put a price on a human life? Sure,
>>> today, nobody was seriously hurt, but it could have been a lot
>>> different. Somebody said that a person could try and hijack a bus, so
>>> do you want to screen all the luggage that goes on to a bus? But in
>>> my humble opinion, aircraft security is a little more important than
>>> bus security because there's probably less chance of surviving an
>>> aircraft crash than there is a bus crash.
>>> ...

> Podge wrote:

>>
>> "Roger Dewhurst" wave.co.nz> wrote in message
>> news:fonpdq$djb$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...

>>> Podge wrote:

>>>> I thought this was a good TV item: "Alleged hijacker raises questions
>>>> about NZ airport security":
>>>>
>>>> http://www.tv3.co.nz/News/Story/tabid/209/articleID/45630/cat/41/Default.aspx I
>>>> think that today's events prove that all baggage should be properly
>>>> screened before it's taken on any commercial aircraft, no matter how
>>>> small the plane is. People talk about the costs versus the benefits of
>>>> doing this, but how do you put a price on a human life? Sure, today,
>>>> nobody was seriously hurt, but it could have been a lot different.
>>>> Somebody said that a person could try and hijack a bus, so do you want
>>>> to screen all the luggage that goes on to a bus? But in my humble
>>>> opinion, aircraft security is a little more important than bus security
>>>> because there's probably less chance of surviving an aircraft crash ...

> Podge wrote:

>>
>> "Roger Dewhurst" wave.co.nz> wrote in message
>> news:fonpdq$djb$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...

>>> Podge wrote:

>>>> I thought this was a good TV item: "Alleged hijacker raises questions...

>
> "Sylvia Else" wrote in message
> news:47af8ff0$0$26468$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

>> Podge wrote:

>>>
>>> "Roger Dewhurst" wave.co.nz> wrote in message
>>> news:fonpdq$djb$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...

>>>> Podge wrote:

>>>>> I thought this was a good TV item: "Alleged hijacker raises
>>>>> questions about NZ airport security":
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.tv3.co.nz/News/Story/tabid/209/articleID/45630/cat/41/Default.aspx
>>>>> I think that today's events prove that all baggage should be
>>>>> properly screened before it's taken on any commercial aircraft, no
>>>>> matter how small the plane is. People talk about the costs versus
>>>>> the benefits of doing this, but how do you put a price on a human
>>>>> life? Sure, today, nobody was seriously hurt, but it could have
>>>>> been a lot different. Somebody said that a person could try and
>>>>> hijack a bus, so do you want to screen all the luggage that goes on ...

> Your primary premise here appears to be that screening of baggage for the
> certain domestic flights is necessary. Passengers may be accepting the
> extra cost because they've been duped into thinking it represents an
> worthwhile increase in safety, despite the lack of evidence.
>
> Does NZ also screen baggage on trains and buses? If a bomb goes off near
> to you, it makes little difference whether you're up in the air at the
> time.
>
> In any case, I wouldn't have thought that small passenger aircraft in NZ
> made a very attractive terrorist target.
>

>
> "Sylvia Else" wrote in message
> news:47af9bfd$0$4437$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>

>> Your primary premise here appears to be that screening of baggage for the
>> certain domestic flights is necessary. Passengers may be accepting the
>> extra cost because they've been duped into thinking it represents an
>> worthwhile increase in safety, despite the lack of evidence.
>>
>> Does NZ also screen baggage on trains and buses? If a bomb goes off near
>> to you, it makes little difference whether you're up in the air at the
>> time.
>>
>> In any case, I wouldn't have thought that small passenger aircraft in NZ
>> made a very attractive terrorist target.
>>

>
> At present there is screening of domestic passengers and their baggage
> on New Zealand aircraft of 90 seats or above: ...

> Podge wrote:

>> When you talk about the lack of evidence for a worthwhile increase in
>> safety, how can you compile statistics, for example, of the number of
>> would-be terrorists who, knowing the security measures in force, decided
>> not to turn up at the airports? After all, it is the deterrent effect of
>> such measures that is the important thing. So the screening measures may,
>> in fact, have been a resounding success compared with what might have
>> happened without such measures.

>
> There's still no evidence. It's all speculation.

>
> "Sylvia Else" wrote in message
> news:47afeeb3$0$4437$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

>> Podge wrote:

>

>>> When you talk about the lack of evidence for a worthwhile increase in
>>> safety, how can you compile statistics, for example, of the number of
>>> would-be terrorists who, knowing the security measures in force,
>>> decided not to turn up at the airports? After all, it is the
>>> deterrent effect of such measures that is the important thing. So the
>>> screening measures may, in fact, have been a resounding success
>>> compared with what might have happened without such measures.

>>
>> There's still no evidence. It's all speculation.

>
> Although you can't gather evidence on the deterrent effect of airport
> security, the peace of mind of travellers and the need to meet best
> international practices are compelling reasons for most airlines to
> screen baggage and people. However, airlines would, no doubt, have ...

>
> "Roger Dewhurst" wave.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:fonpdq$djb$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...

>> Podge wrote:

>>> I thought this was a good TV item: "Alleged hijacker raises questions
>>> about NZ airport security":
>>>
>>> http://www.tv3.co.nz/News/Story/tabid/209/articleID/45630/cat/41/Default.aspx
>>> I think that today's events prove that all baggage should be properly
>>> screened before it's taken on any commercial aircraft, no matter how
>>> small the plane is. People talk about the costs versus the benefits
>>> of doing this, but how do you put a price on a human life? Sure,
>>> today, nobody was seriously hurt, but it could have been a lot
>>> different. Somebody said that a person could try and hijack a bus, so
>>> do you want to screen all the luggage that goes on to a bus? But in
>>> my humble opinion, aircraft security is a little more important than
>>> bus security because there's probably less chance of surviving an
>>> aircraft crash than there is a bus crash.
>>> ...