Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pcstel who wrote (105136)	9/20/2001 1:34:54 AM
From: oconnellc	Respond to of 152472

I see your point. However, that isn't what I meant. I'm talking about the consequences to the plane flying public. There are a variety of responses to this that cover an entire spectrum. One extreme is strip searches and armed guards on every flight. Another extreme is for us to continue with the minimal, pathetic security that has existed for some time in the US. I think we would agree that a great majority of travellers would choose not to fly if they were subjected to the first alternative. So that is out. The second can, obviously, not continue. So, what do we do? Somewhere along that spectrum, the solution becomes so odious that most people decide not to travel by plane. I suggested that it is possible to increase security, mostly during the time before getting on a plane, so that the likelihood of a hijacking decreases to an acceptable level. Although this may sound harsh, think about it, this philosophy exists everywhere. It is impossible for anything to be 100%, ever. There is always a chance, no matter how small, that the wheels will fall off your car the next time you get in it. Or the wings will just fall right off that plane the next time you get on it. So, if we increase security, like I suggested, plane travel gets a little more inconvenient, but it is still endurable. We will have fewer choices, and it will cost more (I guess I don't think that it will get to the point that it will cost $2500 to fly from LA to San Fran), but it will still be there and people will still fly. So, how do you think people will react when they can't carry luggage on board and if the gas system screws up, their asthmatic kid might get a fatal dose? Americans will give up a lot, but don't tell them that they can't listen to CD's while they play computer games on the flight from Rochester to Chicago...