In order to examine the national and New York City-specific changes to air travel that have been put in place after the September 11th, 2001 attacks and then analyze whether or not additional security measures are warranted, it is important to discuss September 11th. From there, it becomes evident that New York City and the country have made many changes, but more improvements are needed if the city and the United States would like to prevent all possible future attacks.
This, in turn, shows that airline safety is actually a matter of cost versus benefits and requires the realization that relative safety should be the goal, despite the shock and tragedy that stemmed from September 11th. A thesis such as this seems callous at first because it requires a sense of relativism and a realization that complete and unassailable safety becomes less and less practical when it is fully examined.
[...] New York City does not set its own airline agendas. In many ways, it is just another city in the mix, despite have been attacked and having been proven to be a target. When the Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport reopened, New York City was one of the eight hub cities that were approved for six airlines. It was later expanded to more cities and flight plans were altered to keep planes farther away from the White House, the Capitol, the Pentagon, other federal buildings and monuments (Curl, 2001). [...]
[...] Despite these measures, many of which were a part of the Aviation Security Act, it remains clear that a blanket guarantee of safety is not something that officials can promise or guarantee in any real way. There are too many airports and flights in the United States to ensure that terrorists will not find a way to attack. More rigorous safeguards have been instituted at all U.S. airports and federal officials and consumer advocacy groups have presented a consistent message that the public should not to be afraid of flying, but these improvements are not cure-alls. [...]
[...] This is why emergency management has become more important than ever in the eyes of New York City. With almost half of the 400 firefighters who first arrived on the scene dying and 37 police officers dying, certain specialized changes to New York City air safety were in order. Some of the changes that were implemented in New York City included security changes, airport and airline safety, new regulations and procedures, changes in naturalization and immigration laws and changes in overall transportation. [...]
[...] A. (2005, June). Secure Flight in Holding Pattern. Security Management Retrieved April from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5009609658 Karber, P. A. (2002). Re-constructing Global Aviation in an Era of the Civil Aircraft as a Weapon of Destruction. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 781+. Retrieved April from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5000729479 Lawrence, M. (2006, March). Behaving like a Terrorist. Security Management 36+. Retrieved April from Questia database: [...]
[...] "[E]xperts say that behavioral profiling is a necessary and fundamental component of any security program" (Lawrence p. because eyes and ears are actually more valuable deterrents than most realize. Secondly, many who fly regularly have come to sense the situation as being that, "[s]ince 9/11, the airlines in particular have been shedding employees like unwanted ballast, with predictable results" (Ehrenreich p. 39). New York City's best defense is to address those two fronts, as would the other airports throughout the country, because, even though much cannot be predicted, those are the two most controllable variables and those are most likely to increase safety. [...]
using our reader.