Khross wrote:
Funny thing about that "inconvenience" ...
A company who's name I'm not at liberty to mention now charters flights for all of its business travels because of that "inconvenience." This includes small charter aircraft (Piper Malibu for example) and executive aircraft (King Air 3xx for example) and small jets (Cessna Citation). Hiring a pilot and chartering an aircraft for a single passenger is pretty expensive, generally more than the cost of a plane ticket. The 4 hours of airport time lost to security measures, however, means they save money--to the tune 1.3 billion dollars last year.
And the rest of our research indicates that private aviation would be flourishing and saving the country money, provided our President and Congress hadn't ***** about GM and Chrysler using the cheaper alternative to get their people to Washington last Spring.
4 hours of lost airport time? Is that per passanger per airport visit (i.e. 8 hours for a round trip?)
Where are these people going to the airport? I've never seen anything approaching a 4 hour security delay.
Mookhow wrote:
I apologize for my vagueness. When I said "no hassle at all", what I was trying to say sarcastically is that the new procedure is a HUGE hassle to me, because not only do I have to remove my coat, hat, shoes, laptop, and liquids, but afterwards I have to put them all back. This is in addition to the standard keys, change, phone, etc that I've always had to deal with. Not only do I have extra hassle, I also have to wait while everybody else does the same thing.
You may not consider it a big hassle, but not everybody agrees with you.
Obviously not everyone agrees. That, however, doesn't matter much since it's essentially an appeal to popularity.
The fact of the matter is that yes, airport security measures are an annoyance, but that's all they are. It's hardly some travesty that they are in place.