For our safety or their convenience?

For the last two decades I have been a very frequent flyer. But since 9/11 that has become harder and harder. For almost all of that time I have been at the highest level on two airlines. (the one which George Clooney's character brags about - except not American). But as I have watched the development of the TSA and the internal safety rules on individual airlines - many simply do not make sense.

For example - We are told that somehow our electronic gear like iPods and electronic book readers interfere with the navigation systems of airliners and therefore we need to keep them in the OFF position for the first and last 10 minutes of a flight. The data that I have read suggests that those kinds of systems do not interfere with any system but the passenger's attention. How about a rule which states no earphones for the last 10 minutes? And why have I noticed that flight attendants are increasingly calling the no toy use rule earlier and earlier in the flight path? What is the difference in attention between a Kindle and a paperback?

We have also been subjected to new types of restrictions on flying. All liquids below a certain quantity have been banned. Those have to come in a one quart plastic bag. Then we get new suggestions after the hot pants bomber on Christmas - that we will have to stay in our seats for an hour before landing on international flights. But the infinite wisdom in the Transportation Safety Administration would not dare to think about profiling potential terrorists. Quick can you think of how many 80 year old grannies have ever contributed to a bombing plot? That was east but there are hundreds of other types of flyers who are unlikely to be involved in plotting to bring down an airline. This is not rocket science, it involves intelligence. But as we saw in the Keystone Cops like performance of the TSA and the intelligence agencies, evidently those tasked with reducing our risks in flying are lacking in the basic skills of intelligence.

Admittedly our prior president was the one who agreed to make all of the security screeners public employees. But really now, are all these new rules necessary or even helpful? True, we've only had a couple of near misses on incidents (hot pants and shoes) but have the agencies tasked with thinking about these questions thought about any alternatives that would concentrate more resources on people who are likely to act inappropriately?

Has the government even considered any alternatives that would improve the situation for the most frequent travelers? In the early 1990s the Customs Service created a program which allowed the most frequent international travelers to submit some bio-metric data in exchange for express service in coming back into the country. Unfortunately, the Fast Pass program was dropped because the government computers and scanners were only about 30% accurate - and when they failed the system went down? Couldn't they get some competent computer professionals to implement a system that was as reliable as an ATM?

From my perspective there has been one group (besides the terrorists) that has benefited from all the new rules and requirements - those are the businesses behind the screeners. In most airports now there are tons of new businesses including food courts, massage, shoe repair, jewelry stores and gadget shops that have been established to allow you to pass the time after getting through screening. I had not thought about it before but perhaps this is just a big part of the stimulus package - which will get one sector of the economy working again.