Up to 9 billion cost to inspect bags for bombs
Dec 9th, 2001, 08:07 AM
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
Up to 9 billion cost to inspect bags for bombs
They are saying the cost to build enough of the scanners to inspect checked bags for bombs will be 9 billion, up to three times the costs expected when the airline security bill was passed a few weeks ago. Any thoughts? Who will pay for the cost overruns?
Dec 9th, 2001, 10:31 AM
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
Albert:
Raising the ticket price by three times does not make sense economically. If no one can afford to travel what will happen to our previously 2 trillion dollar travel industry? The ripple effect on the rest of our economy when few will be able to afford to travel will increse unemployment 5 found, then the terrorists will win.
If safety is more important than anything else why not lower and enforce the speed limit on highways to 20 miles per hour. At that speed no one will die on the roads and car travel will be completely safe.
Raising the ticket price by three times does not make sense economically. If no one can afford to travel what will happen to our previously 2 trillion dollar travel industry? The ripple effect on the rest of our economy when few will be able to afford to travel will increse unemployment 5 found, then the terrorists will win.
If safety is more important than anything else why not lower and enforce the speed limit on highways to 20 miles per hour. At that speed no one will die on the roads and car travel will be completely safe.
Dec 9th, 2001, 10:40 AM
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
I certainly would not be able to afford to travel at all with treble ticket prices. That means a weekend trip to SF would cost me $300RT, what I pay now to visit DC. A better idea would be to cut the salaries of the top airline execs who have done crappy jobs thus far.
Dec 10th, 2001, 04:50 AM
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
Greg - Who do you think will pay? Who do you think should pay? The answer to each question is the consumer. If we want safety in this country, we have to be prepared to pay the price. All to often we ask, "who's gonna pay?" when the answer is obvious - if you want something, you pay for it.
After the Pan Am incident in Lockerbie, Scotland, the airlines and FAA could have equipped all airports with the latest "bomb sniffing" devices for much less $$. Consumers balked at the added expense and politicians did what politicians do best - nothing. Now the cost is in the billions because of years of federal inactivity and consumer griping about cost. Our society needs to grow up and stop expecting everything for nothing. If our saftey means extra cost, so be it. Afterall, isn't $9 billion a small price compared to the cost in future lives lost?
After the Pan Am incident in Lockerbie, Scotland, the airlines and FAA could have equipped all airports with the latest "bomb sniffing" devices for much less $$. Consumers balked at the added expense and politicians did what politicians do best - nothing. Now the cost is in the billions because of years of federal inactivity and consumer griping about cost. Our society needs to grow up and stop expecting everything for nothing. If our saftey means extra cost, so be it. Afterall, isn't $9 billion a small price compared to the cost in future lives lost?
Dec 10th, 2001, 05:03 AM
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
Only $9 billion? The price of two air craft carriers? A fraction of the cost of a new jet fighter? Minute fraction of a Federal budget approaching $2 trillion? To protect a nation that flies? Are you feigning surprise and shock? I sincerely hope so. You know, it costs to live ... store the suprise. Welcome to life. Yawn, now tell me something genuinely shocking. Lets invest the $9 billion ... but first we need enough manufacturing capability to get those devices on-line soon, not years from now. Ciao, L
