Dave Noble said:
The comment was made in relation to an aviation incident and is irrelevent to a land based tourist destination.
No, it's not irrelevent, as it directly led to a massive overhaul of Australia's gun laws, just as 9/11, Lockerbie and more recently the 'sports drink' episode in Britain has lead to the tightening of security at airports everywhere, sometimes to levels that could only be described as hysterical (Dave's link to the family holiday cancelled because the word "bomb" was taken out of context by overzealous - putting it nicely - security officers, is a pretty good example of that).
I get the gist of what Simongr was referring to, ie 35 dead is not as bad as say, 350 dead, but what's repulsive is the notion that someone, somewhere has decided (let's call it "risk assessment") that the lives of 35 people is worth risking in order to not spend money already levied for the very purpose of reducing risk. As Garyjohn951 commented "yeh better the bomb goes off on a Dash 8 than a 747, less people dead
good policy"
There is a world of difference between "all luggage was fully searched by hand and each item in a case was individually x-rayed and tested for explosives and if no hand luggage was allowed and each passenger was strip searched", and simply zipping the luggage/carry on (at least the carry on!) through a x-ray machine.
Dajop, the liquids ban is most certainly a fine example of just how serious the government is taking airport security. Whether it's all for show is open to interpretation, but I agree that it is illogical to not apply liquids bans to domestic flights, particularly between major airports. Which is kind of my point vis-a-vie not screening at all at Burnie. And don't forget that the flights you mentioned do have x-ray screening and metal detectors where passengers can be quizzed about "suspicious" items they're putting on an aircraft.
It must be remembered that airports have a mandate to pass on the costs of new security procedures implemented in the wake of 9/11. By spending the money on security measures the authorities are seen to be doing all they can to minimise risk. By having no security at all, despite the obvious precedents, I believe that it could be argued that they aren't doing all they can.
In the light of all the hysteria surrounding airport safety, when governments are telling us that they are doing all they can do to make air travel as safe as possible, and charging us for the priviledge, I am most perplexed that some flights into major airports simply have no security all.
You can bet your shirt that if additional security were introduced to Flinders Street Station that ticket prices would rise. And it couldn't or wouldn't come from any airport budget.