Anyone boycotting the TSA scanners tomorrow?

[EarlyMon]

FedEx has standard container sizes? You don't think you could do the same thing with Luggage? It's not like the packages that get sent through FedEx are all "standard sizes". They load containers with packages of all different sizes and shapes.



There is no benefit to putting resources into luggage handling. Hence the extreme fine. When it becomes worth it for the airlines to track their luggage like they should already be doing, then they will. Otherwise, it's more cost efficient to just lose luggage.



Luggage is closer to being uniform in size than freight is. If they shipped luggage like they do freight, then they would be shipped lighter AND a cakewalk.

There is no reason that airlines shouldn't have the delivery record of FedEx or UPS when it comes to luggage. They don't see any money in ensuring your luggage gets there, so they don't do it.

If, if, if and who thinks what.

I've answered the question, I've cited someone who has to do it for a living, and you've found fault with that.

You've created an ideal solution.

It's your right to defend this idea, but I'll bet you have no experience in this or you'd have said so when I asked.

I find your idea impractical and a logistical nightmare, and I see you're intransigent on this one.

In my opinion, it's armchair quarterbacking. Sometimes you're right, sometimes you're wrong.

 

[byteware]

I've answered the question, I've cited someone who has to do it for a living, and you've found fault with that.

I've not found fault with what your friend said. I've found fault with how the airlines are currently doing things. It would be easier for airlines to use standard shipping containers than it is for FedEx and UPS... however, they don't. Why? Because there's no money in making that process better.

You've created an ideal solution.

Not ideal, but it's been thought out and would work.

It's your right to defend this idea, but I'll bet you have no experience in this or you'd have said so when I asked.

I, and friends of mine over the years, have worked on this problem for quite some time. I'm a tech. I'm familiar with airline systems and FedEx via contracts that I've worked for both of them. I'm also familiar with the routing of packages and of luggage. I've tossed this idea around for more than a decade, believe it or not. The idea has been refined somewhat since I first started thinking about it, but along the way, I've gotten input from engineers and efficiency experts. It's been a fun side project.

I didn't mention "credentials", because really it's meaningless. GM's execs were experts and they ran the company into the ground.

I would rather win you over by the logic of my argument than by the qualifications that I can present. I think qualifications just muddy the water.


Are there issues that I haven't foreseen, absolutely. Is it possible that it could all fall apart? It's possible.

Would it be a bigger logistical nightmare than FedEx? No, absolutely not. But it would take a change in mentality.

Currently they have a process where if it gets lost, it gets lost. No one investigates. No one gets fired. No one gets in trouble, and they often never even find where your bag went.

They need to change that mentality to: "On time. Every Bag. Every time."

Change to that mentality. Put the money into it to make that happen, and the logistics are less complicated than FedEx. Much less complicated.

 

[Bob Maxey]

I am reading a lot of people saying that flying is a necessity because it is cheaper and faster. IMO your argument is flwed. Your statements only make flying a greater convenience, but still not a necessity. You have other, more expensive and more time consuming options.

Please understand I am not picking sides here, just stating that flying is a necessity for THOSE reasons is quite the flawed argument.

If you just scrape by, a more expensive option is really not an option. If you need to be somewhere fast, flying is the only option available. For example, a death in the family, a child's wedding, etc. Do not tell the bereaved or the happy father looking forward to his daughter's wedding about other options that really do not exist in their case.

And yes, flying is a privilege not a guaranteed right.

Some business people need to travel by plane. Tell your boss you refuse to fly and see how far you get.

For many of us, yes, there are other options. For all of Amtrak';s issues, I love the train so I will take that option if I need to be somewhere.

Bob Maxey

 

[EarlyMon]

I, and friends of mine over the years, have worked on this problem for quite some time. I'm a tech. I'm familiar with airline systems and FedEx via contracts that I've worked for both of them. I'm also familiar with the routing of packages and of luggage. I've tossed this idea around for more than a decade, believe it or not. The idea has been refined somewhat since I first started thinking about it, but along the way, I've gotten input from engineers and efficiency experts. It's been a fun side project.

I didn't mention "credentials", because really it's meaningless. GM's execs were experts and they ran the company into the ground.

I would rather win you over by the logic of my argument than by the qualifications that I can present. I think qualifications just muddy the water.

Were credentials your only argument that would've been one thing.

Credentializing experience counts.

FedEx's execs were experts and they haven't run the company into the ground.

I find your argument flatly illogical.

However - if you have superior experience in this, and have given it more thought, and have survived peer reviews and refined your idea, then I can take a less entrenched position.

You may think credentials don't count, but I think they matter, with proper provenance.

And I'd like to personally horse whip the idiot that started the "a patent clerk named Einstein thought up relativity" meme - it was physicist with a doctorate who for political and family pressures was unable to get a teaching degree, so rather than live on the dole, worked in the patent office for a while out of self-esteem of having a job, who thought up relativity.

Credentials with provenance matter.

As for GM execs - I've met auto execs. Many of them prove the point that 20 years experience is not the same as 1 year of experience 20 times.

As for your idea - I remain quite dubious, but given that this isn't something you cooked up just to post about here, I'm happy to shut up and pay attention to your idea and then re-decide.

 

[Bob Maxey]

Which is more profitable for airlines, passengers, or cargo?

Cargo.

So, changing it up like this would make them MORE profitable, not less profitable.

The way I see it, here is where your argument begins to fail. We are not talking about cargo being more profitable than passengers, that just confuses things. I do not know the numbers perhaps you are correct.

What we are talking about is a single unit being flown from one place to another: the passenger and his or her luggage.

If the airiness are suddenly required to ship cargo separately, then the passengers must pay for the increased costs. Those include more fuel, perhaps double the amount because the passenger's luggage goes on a dedicated plane. 150 passengers in one plane and their luggage in a second plane. As it is now, the passengers fly with their luggage on the same plane. Simple math, it is a good thing.

We must pay for more employees, more airplanes, more runways, more security, more pissed off passengers because the system just got much more complicated.

Do FedEx and UPS suddenly loose because there is only so much space for everybody's aircraft? With your plan, the skies will likely becomes much more congested because up there in the wild blue yonder, there are far more planes. Planes fill with folks and planes filled with their crap.

Simply put, it ain't a gonna happen. What need to happen is a change in the TSA. No need for unworkable and silly ideas.

Bob Maxey

 

[Bob Maxey]

I'll go over this again...

They will be able to fly twice as many passengers per flight after modifying planes... this will mean fewer flights, but more passengers.

They will also be able to fly three times as much cargo per flight... which is hugely profitable for airlines. Airlines will sometimes fly cargo for UPS and Fedex. This will give them much more available room to sell to UPS and Fedex.


So, let's recap...

Same number of passengers.

Same number of planes flying.

Much more cargo being carried.


It's a win.

However, for this to work, we have to trust that airlines can actually get our cargo there... that's not something that's easy to trust them with, hence the fine.

Now we are modifying planes? Perhaps any argument can be won when you state your ideas and later, decide to make incremental changes that end up "proving" your point and completely changing it from the original point.

Any aircraft experts here? Seems to me the designers and builders of today's modern passenger liners work their magic to design planes that will safely carry as many passengers as possible. Now you want to change their designs to allow for even more bodies?

Why not simply use cargo planes? Seems that you know less about aircraft design than I do, sport.

Why modify a plane? Seems to me, we have things called cargo planes. Not sure what it cost to ruin a perfectly good passenger plane. Your argument assumes that it is legal to make changes in a passenger plane that will still be used to carry passengers. You are totally clueless, my friend.

If we were to separate cargo from passengers, what happens if some nut bar decides to blow up a cargo plane. Perhaps pack and mules to ship cargo?

Bob Maxey

 

[Knewz]

so we've gone from the security checkpoint to now boarding the plane. Lets boycott Delta for only giving 3/4 soda in stead of the whole can now.

 

[Bob Maxey]

so we've gone from the security checkpoint to now boarding the plane. Lets boycott Delta for only giving 3/4 soda in stead of the whole can now.

Huh? What are you trying to say?

Bob Maxey

 

[Knewz]

How did the conversation go from scanners to "modifying planes"?

 

[Bob Maxey]

I, and friends of mine over the years, have worked on this problem for quite some time. I'm a tech. I'm familiar with airline systems and FedEx via contracts that I've worked for both of them. I'm also familiar with the routing of packages and of luggage. I've tossed this idea around for more than a decade, believe it or not. The idea has been refined somewhat since I first started thinking about it, but along the way, I've gotten input from engineers and efficiency experts. It's been a fun side project.

I didn't mention "credentials", because really it's meaningless. GM's execs were experts and they ran the company into the ground.

Doubtful you know why GM has it problems and apparently, you are oblivious about the millions of corporations that are working smart, working hard, and succeeding in the US of A.

Perhaps you have tossed your idea around for a decade. Me too, actually. Lots of people have, so what? Great systems that work well today can fail when scaled up. There is no reason to believe FedEx could easily handle an increase of tens of millions of packages daily on top of what they handle now. Just a guess based on how well they do it today, as they are today, with the system in place, today.

You do not give much credence to credentials? But you posted your "credentials" and we should believe you because you say you are a tech and have familiarity with the systems in place. Why should we believe your stated "credentials?"

You mention FedEx. Are you so sure they would get the contract? Perhaps someone else will get it and perhaps whoever that is, they are not so efficient. Also, are you sure FedEX could handle tens of millions of additional pieces of this and that every day. What about the cost to the passenger?

What about increased safety issues with planes overhead? You will be doubling the number of planes up there in the Wild Blue Yonder, perhaps. Can the airports handle it? Do we suddenly find a need to float a bond to increase the size of the airport?

Remember, FedEx uses planes and with the vase increase in quantity, they need more planes and trucks. And to play the devil's advocate, once the FedEx system is in place, who is to say they do not become just as inefficient because they are the only game in town?

What about international flights? Do we require them to separate luggage and passengers? What about increased TSA workers? God help us if a cargo plane explodes.

What then, truck delivery of all luggage?

So we modify planes to carry more passengers. Is this possible to do? I am not so sure it is. Surely, you do not know because I doubt any knowledgeable and fully credentialed Internet poster with design knowledge would suggest modifying a passenger plane when a cargo plane is likely cheaper. But I am not an aeronautical wiz bang.

Again, bottom line: We will not be separating the passengers and luggage because it is too expensive. Second, your ideas are simply too complicated and unworkable, and three, the best way to deal with the problem is by revamping the TSA.

I suggest the Israeli Security train us and help us build lots of dark little rooms for the Interrogations.

Bob Maxey

 

[A.Nonymous]

Not really. With a FedEx package, it must go out at a certain time of day, or wait for tomorrow. The same is true of luggage. These shipments go out at scheduled intervals. Miss one, and take the next one.

So you're ok with taking the NY to Philly flight and then sitting in the Philly airport for 2-3 hours waiting for your luggage to get there?

Under the proposed system, you wouldn't have to wait for them to toss it onto the conveyor. There is no requirement that the luggage leave at the same time you do, or that it land at the same time you do. There is no requirement that the luggage makes all the same connections that you do.

There is if you don't want to wait for your luggage or you don't want to remodel airports so they have space to store all the baggage that is waiting for it's owners.

As far as the luggage staying lock step with the passenger... that's neither necessary nor productive. That's the way they've always done it and there's no reason it would change, unless of course you want to do something better.

Currently luggage does stay lock step with the passenger. If I fly from Houston to LA and have a stop over in Denver, my luggage gets off the plane in Denver and gets on the flight from Denver to LA. If that doesn't happen then you've got one of three things that can happen. Either my luggage flies directly from Houston to LA and then is stored someplace until I arrive (this requires a system where airports are remodeled to provide secure storage space for luggage and some notification system would need to be developed where handlers would be notified when I landed so that they could find my luggage and put it on the conveyor) or the luggage follows me around from Houston to Denver to LA requiring a second plane or the luggage gets there after I arrive in LA and I sit at the airport in LA and wait for my luggage to get there. It's ridiculous.

Both planes do NOT have to get there at the same time. In fact, just because you took a three over layover, doesn't mean that your luggage did. Your luggage may be waiting for you in inventory for hours until you arrive. (Also, the carousel would have to go too). No more just throwing everyone's luggage out and hope the right people get it. They will need a state of the art inventory system to get everyone their luggage quickly and efficiently.)

And where does the money come to remodel every airport in the world to store luggage? Where does the money come from to develop this inventory system? How do you propose to safely store large amounts of luggage for a long period of time? You would need an entire new flight system just to distribute the luggage to the right place. You'd end up with one system (which we already have) that gets passengers to the right place and a completely new system (which we don't have) designed to get luggage from one place to another.

Have you ever tried to get your luggage back after it's been loaded on the plane? It's not easy at all. Make it part of the agreement, that your luggage will be en route from the moment you give it over to the airline. Create a procedure for returning luggage, and let that be that.

Doesn't work. Terrorists can check a bag with a bomb in it and then never get on the plane. Currently luggage has to be matched with a passenger in order to fly. That's how it works. If I'm on the NY to Philly flight and my flight gets delayed until tomorrow because of engine troubles, I can still get my luggage off the plane. Might be a PITA, but I can do it. If my luggage is already in Philly and I have to wait until tomorrow to get it back, I'm gonna be pissed. Again, what if my luggage plane has mechanical problems and gets waylaid? Now you have a an entire flight full of people who are ticked because they don't have their luggage.

Why didn't GM revamp their processes before they went into bankruptcy?

GM didn't go bankrupt because their processes were ineffective. They went bankrupt because they failed to innovate and failed to compete with foreign manufacturers who were doing the job better.

How in the world are you going to pay for all of this? You'd have to pay to develop a new system of sorting and tracking luggage, pay to remodel airports to have storage space, pay to remodel all your airplanes and that's just the costs I can think of off the top of my head. The cost would be ridiculous. Once you do, you'll be charging more for your tickets than your competitors. Why would I fly with Airline A if Airline B is cheaper and is guaranteed to get my luggage there when I get there?

 

[copestag]

I didnt watch any of the videos in question here..... but what I found most interesting from the story...... other than the fact that the TSA is using strong arm tactics to stave off more embarrassment...... is the indication that while travelers and even flight crews must undergo such extreme search measures, the ground crew who load the planes etc. can simply just clock in and start loading......... so abdul the baggage guy undergoes no security checks whatsoever before putting packages on the plane..... Im not allowed near a plane with even 1oz of extra shampoo but abdul swipes a card and has unfettered access to put whatever he wants on my plane

Sacramento-area pilot punished for YouTube video | News10.net | Sacramento, California | News

 

[Dark Jedi]

How did the conversation go from scanners to "modifying planes"?

I wondered the same thing. Dont forget the talk about GM. Now thats way left field there.

Guess people are tired of the same old discussion. So like many other threads it takes off in a totally new direction. Think its a sign of this thread is done. like many others the correct answer is just agree to disagree.

 

[IOWA]

I didnt watch any of the videos in question here..... but what I found most interesting from the story...... other than the fact that the TSA is using strong arm tactics to stave off more embarrassment...... is the indication that while travelers and even flight crews must undergo such extreme search measures, the ground crew who load the planes etc. can simply just clock in and start loading......... so abdul the baggage guy undergoes no security checks whatsoever before putting packages on the plane..... Im not allowed near a plane with even 1oz of extra shampoo but abdul swipes a card and has unfettered access to put whatever he wants on my plane

Sacramento-area pilot punished for YouTube video | News10.net | Sacramento, California | News

As someone who's worked at an airport, in order to get one of those badges, you need to pass a Homeland Security/FBI background check, and if there's so much as even a dent on your record, or any kind of suspicion of malpratices and you don't get a badge. Even the snack vendor people need to be printed and run through the screening process.

 

[copestag]

and nobody who has undergone a background check has ever blown anything up? also, the pilots dont have to undergo background checks? I guess they have never seen any of those news reports after a serious crime has been committed....... when interviewed the neighbor always says "he seemed like the nicest guy you could ever meet, there was never a reason to suspect he was going to kill 5000 people"........ I guess a background check prevents abdul from putting bombs on planes........... but I have to be groped to make sure Im not carrying too much shampoo with me....despite having had Top Secret clearance in the past (that means I have undergone background checks as well)

 

[tommy_ed]

As someone who's worked at an airport, in order to get one of those badges, you need to pass a Homeland Security/FBI background check, and if there's so much as even a dent on your record, or any kind of suspicion of malpratices and you don't get a badge. \

obviously they don't check your android forums account, because if they would have seen the controversy associated with IOWA's they would shit!

 

[A.Nonymous]

and nobody who has undergone a background check has ever blown anything up? also, the pilots dont have to undergo background checks? I guess they have never seen any of those news reports after a serious crime has been committed....... when interviewed the neighbor always says "he seemed like the nicest guy you could ever meet, there was never a reason to suspect he was going to kill 5000 people"........ I guess a background check prevents abdul from putting bombs on planes........... but I have to be groped to make sure Im not carrying too much shampoo with me....despite having had Top Secret clearance in the past (that means I have undergone background checks as well)

Pretty much anyone who works in public safety has to go through a Triple I background check. Yet we still get people in public safety who end up as killers, thieves, addicts, etc.... Background checks don't catch anything. Also, background checks usually don't ask about your religion or political opinions since it's illegal to discriminate employment wise based on those. I could be a complete nutjob, radical Muslim, but if I've got no criminal record and I'm not vocal about my opinions, I'll pass a background test in most cases.

 

[copestag]

which was exactly my point........ abdul the baggage handler is more likely to blow up a plane than me the shampoo smuggler..... yet I have to be groped while all he has to do is show a name badge

 

[lordofthereef]

Fortunately, it doesn't really matter. Whether or not it is a necessity doesn't play into whether or not the Constitution protects your rights.

Driving isn't a necessity. But driving doesn't relieve you of your constitutional rights.

Eating at Taco Bell isn't a necessity, but eating at Taco Bell doesn't relieve you of your Constitutional Rights.

I'm sure you see where this is going.

People just like to argue in circles. Again, I am simply poiting out people's flawed arguments. It may be more convenient to fly, but that doesn't make it a necessity, so people should stop using that as a "why I NEED to fly" excuse. Sure, the constituition protects you, so use THAT in your arguments, not that flight is a necessity. That is all I was saying there...

And for what it's worth I bet I could tell my boss I refuse to fly under the grounds of what they are doing to people (groping, seeing them nude, etc.) If he wanted to fire me over that, I am sure I would have a fine court case. But, again, that was not at all my point.

 

[A.Nonymous]

People just like to argue in circles. Again, I am simply poiting out people's flawed arguments. It may be more convenient to fly, but that doesn't make it a necessity, so people should stop using that as a "why I NEED to fly" excuse. Sure, the constituition protects you, so use THAT in your arguments, not that flight is a necessity. That is all I was saying there...

And for what it's worth I bet I could tell my boss I refuse to fly under the grounds of what they are doing to people (groping, seeing them nude, etc.) If he wanted to fire me over that, I am sure I would have a fine court case. But, again, that was not at all my point.

I'll bet you wouldn't have a court case. In a lot of states, a boss can fire you because your eyes are blue and legally he's fine. I would think that if your job involved traveling by plane and you refused to do so that would be very good grounds for termination.

 

[Dark Jedi]

People just like to argue in circles. Again, I am simply poiting out people's flawed arguments. It may be more convenient to fly, but that doesn't make it a necessity, so people should stop using that as a "why I NEED to fly" excuse. Sure, the constituition protects you, so use THAT in your arguments, not that flight is a necessity. That is all I was saying there...

And for what it's worth I bet I could tell my boss I refuse to fly under the grounds of what they are doing to people (groping, seeing them nude, etc.) If he wanted to fire me over that, I am sure I would have a fine court case. But, again, that was not at all my point.

Actually you dont have a case. If your job entails you to fly and you refuse to fly because you dont like the security measures at airports. Then your boss can fire you for failure of doing your job. As how will you get to meetings if all you have left is train,bus, or car as alternative transportation. As most meetings are spur of the moment and the alternatives can take too much time.


Yeah you can tell the TSA you refuse to go through the scanner and say it violates your constitutional rights. Then the TSA will tell you then you dont get on the plane as they are charged with the safety of the passengers that are boarding on the planes. Whether the security measures work or not. They are more in place as a deterrent to possible terrorist attacks. They will not want to waste resources on an op that theres a great chance their people are stopped. Remember we are talking about people that dont like to be in the spotlight. Look at the underwear bomber a total greenhorn. Used by the Terrorists to test security. Why not use a trained operative for that day? Simple they saw it as a waste of resources as there's a great chance of the guy getting caught at the checkpoints.

Take the checkpoints away and the terrorists will go its open season on aircraft again.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Yeah you can tell the TSA you refuse to go through the scanner and say it violates your constitutional rights. Then the TSA will tell you then you dont get on the plane as they are charged with the safety of the passengers that are boarding on the planes. Whether the security measures work or not. They are more in place as a deterrent to possible terrorist attacks. They will not want to waste resources on an op that theres a great chance their people are stopped.

First of all, if you refuse, it's not as simple as just not getting on the plane. If you refuse, the policy is you're not allowed to leave the screening area until you've been screened. If you refuse the screening process, you're stuck in a catch-22. You can't leave until you're screened. You refuse to be screened and want to leave.

Just because something is supposed to be a deterrent doesn't make it effective. If I put 1 ft picket fence around my yard, it's not going to keep out burglars. Is it more of a deterrent than nothing at all? Yes, but it's not a deterrent to anyone who wants to come into my yard.

These scanners aren't a deterrent. The leaked documents detailing the TSA's own tests on them prove that. The don't stop people from bringing guns and explosives on planes a lot of the time.

 

[Dark Jedi]

First of all, if you refuse, it's not as simple as just not getting on the plane. If you refuse, the policy is you're not allowed to leave the screening area until you've been screened. If you refuse the screening process, you're stuck in a catch-22. You can't leave until you're screened. You refuse to be screened and want to leave.

Just because something is supposed to be a deterrent doesn't make it effective. If I put 1 ft picket fence around my yard, it's not going to keep out burglars. Is it more of a deterrent than nothing at all? Yes, but it's not a deterrent to anyone who wants to come into my yard.

These scanners aren't a deterrent. The leaked documents detailing the TSA's own tests on them prove that. The don't stop people from bringing guns and explosives on planes a lot of the time.

Never said the system worked. why I said exactly that in my post. You know many people just puts a sign in their yard they have like ADT home security system installed in their homes. Its amazing how much of a deterrent that lil sign is. They see the sign and go I am not wasting my time checking the house to make sure. Not saying its 100% but it deter most of the people willing to break in to your house.

same way with the TSA they are more of a deterrent. as the gov knows it dont work as a security measure. they know stuff will always get by the checkpoints. If there is a presence of security they will be less willing to try something. How do you know or they know the information leaked about the scanners are in fact true or not? If you wanted to board a plane with a bomb. Would you be so willing to test that information to see if it was true? Thats why you dont see terrorists try and get on a plane. Too many eyes on them. They like to work in the shadows and not in to the light. THese people are not stupid.

Yeah its a catch 22 and why you need to decide whether or not you want to fly or not before you leave the house. You like many others that fly know what to expect once at the airport. Same way when a cop ask you to blow in to a breathalyzer . If you refuse you get arrested on the spot. THen they still give it to you. Either by blowing in to a tube or by blood test in a hospital.

 

[Bob Maxey]

I'll bet you wouldn't have a court case. In a lot of states, a boss can fire you because your eyes are blue and legally he's fine. I would think that if your job involved traveling by plane and you refused to do so that would be very good grounds for termination.

Absolutely true. I would fire someone that put my business at risk and refusing to do the job I hired them to do is a good reason to kick them to the curb. If he or she wont fly, then they wont get a fat check with my name on it. Just a nice blue slip of paper.

Bob Maxey

 

[A.Nonymous]

Never said the system worked. why I said exactly that in my post. You know many people just puts a sign in their yard they have like ADT home security system installed in their homes. Its amazing how much of a deterrent that lil sign is. They see the sign and go I am not wasting my time checking the house to make sure. Not saying its 100% but it deter most of the people willing to break in to your house.

same way with the TSA they are more of a deterrent. as the gov knows it dont work as a security measure. they know stuff will always get by the checkpoints. If there is a presence of security they will be less willing to try something. How do you know or they know the information leaked about the scanners are in fact true or not? If you wanted to board a plane with a bomb. Would you be so willing to test that information to see if it was true? Thats why you dont see terrorists try and get on a plane. Too many eyes on them. They like to work in the shadows and not in to the light. THese people are not stupid.

Yeah its a catch 22 and why you need to decide whether or not you want to fly or not before you leave the house. You like many others that fly know what to expect once at the airport. Same way when a cop ask you to blow in to a breathalyzer . If you refuse you get arrested on the spot. THen they still give it to you. Either by blowing in to a tube or by blood test in a hospital.

You're wrong though. The ADT sign in your example works because the burglar doesn't know if it's a legit sign or not. He assumes it is so it works. If the burglar knows that the sign is not legit and knows that you don't have a security system than the sign is useless. You can broadcast to the world that you are safe, but the bad guy knows better.

The same thing can be said for airline security. The system doesn't work. The bad guys know it doesn't work. How does it make us safer if everyone knows the system doesn't work?