What struck me as odd what the justification (in the original press release) saying that a pocket knife is no longer a threat, that terrorist would use explosives or other means if they wanted to use airliners again, that the new security door features are enough to keep cockpits secure, and that it was too cumbersome expensive to enforce the restriction. It came across as dismissive... just like we used to be dismissive about Taliban and box cutters.
I tend to think in terms of pros/cons about everything, and I won't say this is the wrong decision, but the explanation seems dubious. A small knife is plenty capable of killing. That new door is only as safe as those that have access. Could a pilot or attendant be coerced in the right situation? If it's so expensive, why not inconvenience or fine offenders? I bet a 2 hour "processing delay" would help people remember... and fines for subsequent violations would cover the expense.
I don't know. You guys know I'm a big gun rights advocate, so why would I balk at reducing restrictions such as these? Maybe because it's supposedly a screened area... a level playing field if you will, which is different than the streets and stores we frequent.
I agree, in the wrong hands, many commonplace items become weapons.
I also acknowledge there are no guarantees of safety, regardless of the security measures in place. Where there's a will, there's a way.
Like I said, mixed opinions, no right or wrong... just indifferent. Hopefully all is well and it's a non-issue for years to come.
