Mélusine: it might be shocking but in over 70 airports, that is what is going on, and as far as the technical methods, it didn't work 3 weeks ago, it took a tip to stop at least 2 bombs,
just a silly thought, why not emulate the safest airline in the world, and why are they the safest, because they profile, you know they actually concentrate on the people who are trying to do damage

Vikings: That was for freight via cargo not passengers.

As for the safest airline... Quantas?

(V): Quantas? well....Qantas has had so many problems that I don't think it holds that record any longer, or doesn't deserve to.

Bernice: .. Fatality wise it is the safest airline. The recent problems were teething problems with the engine... a relatively new one.

(V): they were not teething problems, you are talking the A380....what about the 3-4 747's that had to have a turn-around because of engine problems in the ensuing days (different engines/different planes)....it is maintenance problems as all the work is done off-shore. You haven"t done your research correctly/properly once again.

Bernice: You haven't read my post properly once again.....

"............Fatality wise....."

ie deaths not malfunctions or teething problems.

(V): you didn't do your research properly is all....you used the words fatality and teething...not I......the lack of good australian maintenance people instead of cheap O/seas labour is the problem.....do your research......AGAIN

Bernice: Yes.. I researched under the words "worlds safest airline".. and up on fatalities Quantas came up as the lowest on record... just 7 dating back to the 1950's.

I didn't look up on "blame the foreigners" .. I don't think (re the A380) Rolls Royce use cheap labour.

Mélusine: Have no answer to this. But if it means I must be search. I dont care. Better safe than sorry.

Artful Dodger: But it's your security services not a stranger. The comparison you've used is completely meaningless.

Artful Dodger: That is silly. I am responsible for myself at home.
When it comes to planting bombs then it is the airport,s responsibility to make it as safe as possible for the thousands that travel.

Artful Dodger: Other side of the coin, I suppose : What if they KNOW we won't check such people thoroughly and they find a way to use that to their advantage?

rod03801: I think most terrorists (under a Muslim banner or otherwise) know that security is high. Metal detectors, sniffer dogs, x ray scanners that can pick up what is in the luggage in many ways.... chemical detectors... Which are already in place. The problems that Have been going on with planes being hijacked over the last 5 decades, drugs smuggling and other illegal activities... make the ability to smuggle anything very hard.

Maybe we shouldn't have trained the ex favourite anti USSR freedom fighters so well and we wouldn't be in this pickle. Rambo (Rambo 3) fought side by side with them.

Artful Dodger: This should be an interesting week, with Thanksgiving traveling.

Artful Dodger: But what of the drug mules that would be caught in the process? Or has that problem in the USA that kills many many people each year now been sorted? No colour there to profile!!

(V): This isn't about "drug mules". This is about terrorists. Frankly, I'm even MORE against my child being poked and prodded to stop the influx of drugs. They did not increase this because of drugs.

rod03801: It's about safety and the prevention of deaths of American citizens as well as those of other countries affected by the emergence of the latest in terrorist groups of the 20th-21st century. Drugs (illegal legals or the illegal kind) kill.... As both Terrorists and drugs kill, I would have thought both would have been on the top two possible activities via plane been targeted.

It's called killing two birds with one stone.

The rules seem to be that if chosen to be scanned (as being trialled now), only if you decline will a body search be initiated.. yet at the moment with a body search being the only option without the scanners... the scanners is a better quicker option.