Delta worker accused of smuggling guns on Atlanta flight

a reply to: OrphanApology

Because they have to go back and forth constantly. When you're talking about Atlanta, which swaps with Chicago for busiest airport almost anywhere, that wouldn't be possible.

Again, the Passenger Screening Act went into effect in 1973. In all that time, the incidents like this, if taken all together, don't even make a blip in the statistics.

Has anyone pondered why such an endeavor was attractive in the first place?

Laws that have the effect of skewing economics create situations such as reported.

Just as the taxation of cigarettes contributed to a death so goe's gun running.

It is New York Cities draconian laws that set up the framework making it financially attractive to sell items such as pistols and cigarettes on the black market.

The results are quite predictable. Make an item scarce, expensive or almost impossible for the average person in a localized area and this is what you get - a market place response.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

You CAN'T screen employees. So the best they can do is a background check. 98% of employees are going to be trustworthy and never even sneak a sandwhich through. But no matter how good your security is an employee will ALWAYS be able to do something. There is no such thing as 100% secure.

why can't you? EVERYBODY (and that includes TSA agents, pilots, aircraft mechanics, ground crew, airport employees, even every item for stores and restaurants) that goes into the "secured areas" needs to go through the exact same checks as everybody else. i once watched a movie about a hijacking (can't remember if based on a real event or not but i think it was), it was an employee (ground crew, cleaning or maintenance), that stashed the guns on board the aircraft for the hijackers to use. you are right, employees are the weak link (or anyone who doesn't get the same level of checking), which is why they if no one else should be checked rigorously when entering secured areas even if the only left for a minute. the fact this was done many many times is very concerning. it is even more concerning that it was security at the airport that caught it, but the fact that the guns were purchased afterwards that caused it to come to light. this one person alone could have hijacked aircraft almost 50 times due to the lack of proper security at airports.

it is sad to think that malls where i am are likely more secure than an airport and aircraft in North America. and for some odd reason "mall shootings" don't tend to happen like in the US and Canada. this because EVERYBODY is checked and patted down (including bags and purses) when entering. store employees are even checked and patted down both when exiting to carry out an item, and when they return (plus logged in a book). employees are either checked as they enter the mall through mall entrances as well as those say for a department store entering through private entrances (normally there is even a line of those waiting to be checked at the department store i go to). malls are "gun free zones" (except uniformed police and security), guns are legal (for citizens only) and possibly as popular to have and carry as in the US. heck banks even typically have a podium to leave your gun at while in the bank, and you are checked by security before a security guard inside the bank opens the door to let you in.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

There are a thousand or more employees at large airports that have business in the secure area. You'd have to add at minimum several hundred screeners just to deal with them.

then they need to add them. security only works when it is applied equally to everybody.

This system has worked for forty years. The number of events that are on a level of this, aren't even a statistical blip. The number of events that led to death or injury can be counted on one hand, leaving fingers left.

if you think about it there have not been all that many hijackings either statistically speaking compared to the number of flights. so what you are really saying is ALL of the security at airports is a complete waste of time and money. in over 81 years there have been about (if i counted right) 124 hijackings according to a list on Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org... from Sep 1932-Feb 2014. that is 1.5 per year. in the US alone there are more than 30.000 flights every day, i hate to think about how low a percentage 1.5 hijackings a year is when compared to all the daily flights in the world, talk about not even being a "statistical blip", i bet you couldn't even see it on a pie chart for the total number of number of flights/number of hijackings in that time.

with two million passengers in the United States boarding more than 30,000 flights every day

www.nytimes.com...

a reply to: generik

When I worked at the Honolulu airport, I'd go back and forth twenty times a day. That's like the 20th busiest airport in the US. At peak times it takes an hour plus to get passengers through. You wouldn't be able to do your job because you were standing in line all day to get screened.

Let's put this into perspective. There are 25,000+ commercial flights a DAY in the US. This involved 43 flights over a period of time. Since the Act went into effect in 1973, the ONLY flight I've ever heard of where someone did something like you described was in the late 70s or early 80s. One flight, out of an insane number that have happened since passenger screening went into effect. The current system works.

a reply to: generik

And look at how many of those were BEFORE the Passenger Screening Act went into effect. So while the screening is a pain, it's a deterrent to all but the most detemined people.

You will NEVER be able to stop everything. No matter how much screening you add.

originally posted by: generik


then they need to add them. security only works when it is applied equally to everybody.

The entire enterprise was because of financial gains only possible by New York's de-facto hand gun ban, remove that incentive and this particular crime would never have happened nor been contemplated by those doing it.

Airline security and the transport of contraband is important however this particular incident is one artificially created by New York law which provided the financial incentive and never would occur otherwise.

Blaming airport and airline security for this is treating a symptom rather than the root cause. Root cause is New York law out of step with the rest of the nation on this and other issues.

I really don't see increased airline security as preventing the importation of contraband into New York as other methods will be used so long as its financially attractive. Screening employees better might help stop some religious fanatic from utilizing this channel in future but that's not subject here is it?