Brandioch Conner • May 30, 2008 2:32 PM
What always struck me as interesting is how you see cars advertised with all kinds of new safety features …
But the airlines don’t seem to advertise that. Nothing about “every one of our flights has undercover security agents for YOUR protection” or “our flightdeck door is triple layered”.
Marc B. • May 30, 2008 3:33 PM
Not funny – Don’t get them ideas …
SteveJ • May 30, 2008 3:36 PM
Because it isn’t the airlines which decide the security features, and it doesn’t create anything to choose between them. Airlines are mostly competing against each other rather than against alternate modes of transport.
As for why airlines don’t introduce additional security measures of their own (with the arguable exception that they’ve always pushed harder for passenger ID than the law required) – presumably because passengers don’t want them.
Besides, if they advertised specific security measures then their ad copy would become obsolete every 10 minutes…
Brandioch Conner • May 30, 2008 4:09 PM
“Because it isn’t the airlines which decide the security features, and it doesn’t create anything to choose between them.”
Um, yes it is.
The issue is that right now they are NOT doing ANYTHING. Any “security” improvements are courtesy of the FAA and TSA.
“As for why airlines don’t introduce additional security measures of their own (with the arguable exception that they’ve always pushed harder for passenger ID than the law required) – presumably because passengers don’t want them.”
Yeah, right. Which is why car companies don’t advertise their safety features. Oh, but car companies DO advertise them.
“Besides, if they advertised specific security measures then their ad copy would become obsolete every 10 minutes…”
Huh? How? What are you talking about?
Davi Ottenheimer • May 30, 2008 4:44 PM
…oh, I remember how Americans used to make fun of “backward” countries where “state security” officers would stop people randomly to search and take whatever they wanted. Those were primitive, un-democratic, freedom-hating places, or so it was said. Now it’s nation-wide domestic humor. Does the FCPA really need an F?
Eric • May 30, 2008 5:49 PM
The reason why airlines don’t advertise security features or enhancements is that they do not want to induce people into thinking about safety. Too many people are nervous enough about flying, and bringing their fears to the fore might make them inclined to take some other mode of transportation or skip the trip altogether.
Instead airlines will focus on price/value, comfort, pampering, timeliness, how great the destinations are, etc.
“You get three feet for your two legs on Western Airlines.”
Nomen Publicus • May 31, 2008 3:46 AM
Ah, the young 🙂
Some of us remember when US car makers fought tooth and nail to avoid talking about safety. They would do the maths and work out when it was cheaper to alter a design to avoid future problems or cheaper to pay compensation when a court forced them to.
As for airlines, it’s my view that they should be totally responsible for passenger safely no matter what the cause of an incident. Then we might see some sensible responses to possibility of terrorism.
PF • May 31, 2008 5:58 AM
Of course, paying for safety is every citizen’s duty. Even if you’re not flying. Even if it’s all just security theatre. Even if you don’t have a passport. Pass the hat and please give generously. Your neocon regime needs you. Civil Liberties – please give generously from your own limited supply 😉
Brian Greer • June 1, 2008 9:47 AM
I don’t know how anyone puts up with this on a regular basis. Just watching people go through security checkpoints can make my blood boil. Doing it myself on a regular basis might give me serious health problems.
bob • June 2, 2008 6:45 AM
@Brandioch Conner: Maybe because nothing done in the name of security has ACTUALLY been for security?
The only REAL change since 9/11 is the attitude of “dont give up the ship”, and that is as much – if not mostly – the passengers doing that.
@Nomen Publicus: Car manufacturers still dont push safety. They love it when the government mandates a security item (ABS, for example) because then all players do the same thing and can pass the cost across (maybe even embellished a little) to the customers.
If MANUFACTURERS introduced safety, then they would have to compete (like would happen in a free market) and amortize the costs.
Brandioch Conner • June 2, 2008 9:47 AM
“Car manufacturers still dont push safety.”
Volvo does. Mercedes does. etc.
“Car manufacturers still dont push safety.”
Maybe you’re watching the wrong channel. I see commercials all the time that claim “5 start crash test results” and “best crash test results in its class” by several manufacturers.
Richard Johnson • June 2, 2008 10:28 AM
Can’t see what’s so funny about that. Literally. There’s no comic on the page. Even turning on scripting doesn’t help. Too bad for gocomics.com, eh?
Pavel • June 2, 2008 12:05 PM
Hrmm… works for me.
I’d love to see http://www.preparedness.com/protbysmitwe.html – style signs on aircraft.
Subscribe to comments on this entry
Sidebar photo of Bruce Schneier by Joe MacInnis.
Leave a comment