Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I only like it if the taxpayers don't have to pay for it. Let the airlines pay for it.
I read the article and $50 Mil is coming from traditional and non-traditional government grants which means TAXPAYERS like you and I. If the main problem is just that the food concessions are away from the security than just get RID of the TSA. They've proven they are 110% ineffective and a waste of taxpayers money and just another negative aspect of traveling in this country anyway. Problem solved and $85 Mil saved!
I only like it if the taxpayers don't have to pay for it. Let the airlines pay for it.
I read the article and $50 Mil is coming from traditional and non-traditional government grants which means TAXPAYERS like you and I. If the main problem is just that the food concessions are away from the security than just get RID of the TSA. They've proven they are 110% ineffective and a waste of taxpayers money and just another negative aspect of traveling in this country anyway. Problem solved and $85 Mil saved!
I'd rather be the TSA be in place than not. I don't see how they are proven ineffective. There's no way to test your theory unless we remove them and incidents start to increase on flights and in airports, which isn't going to happen. They aren't a negative aspect when I travel. They put me at ease to know 95+% of the crazies aren't capable of running around with weapons on planes. There's always going to be some percentage that will never be stopped, weapons are just too sophisticated. I don't have a negative time when I'm traveling, I actually enjoy it and find it be stress free (whether flying or driving).
BTW: Taxpayers are paying for it, at least partially, because it is the taxpayers who will benefit from it, making the airport more attractive for visitors and increasing money that is spent in our area and adding people to destinations and hotels around town. This doesn't just help the airlines.
I only like it if the taxpayers don't have to pay for it. Let the airlines pay for it.
Usually, airlines only chip in at their hub airports or at cities that they have large numbers of flights to, or if the improvements only involve facilities for a particular airline. However, I think (as appears to be the case here) all stakeholders should have some skin in the game. It's public infrastructure, just like an interstate highway is. Funding should be provided as such.
Since no planes have been bombed or hijacked since the TSA has been around, I'd say they have been 100% effective.
I have not been attacked by tigers since I bought a magic rock, I'd say it has been 100% effective at keeping away tigers.
Now if only the renovations could bring down the cost of flying into and out of GSP.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
