Quote Originally Posted by Snoopy View Post
The answer of course is that although the chance of a terroist attack is slight, the consequences could be catastrophic. You can't ignore a small risk if the costs of an adverse event are very high.
The chance of an in-flight terrorist attack, despite media and movie attention, is pretty much non existent. I'd argue that the consequence of the security changes are more catastophic than any likely attack and AIA and NZ, could do a lot better if we ignored the security requirements - which of course the FAA won't let us.

Take AIA with 13m passenger movements a year. Say the security adds an extra 15 minutes to the time it takes to process a passenger and the cost to that individual is $1 a minute. Thats $195m in lost human productivity out of one airport in one year. Thats about half of AIA's revenue.