What Do You Need To Take Off After Taking Off Your Shoes By Plane?

Mr. Song, who has just returned from a business trip in Beijing, complained to the media that the security check at the capital airport was rather rigorous and almost touched all over the body.

Guangzhou Baiyun Airport also stipulates that if a business guest carries a laptop, he must go through the X ray machine alone.

Shoes, leather shoes, boots and other shoes, such as thick or large size shoes, must be checked off.

Shanghai airport also said it did not exclude the civil aviation authority from continuing to introduce new security measures and continue to upgrade its security level.

Flying is a very fragile field. Understanding civil aviation is doing the best to exclude the factors that may pose a threat to flight safety and ensure the safety of passengers as much as possible. However, safety is more important than the cost of safety. We should not blindly and unilaterally, at all costs for safety, and push these expensive costs to the passengers.

Obviously, from prohibition of liquids to prohibition of fire to clothing and shoes, the cost of civil aviation safety has now been pferred to passengers.

"Almost touching all over the body" is a trivial matter. There is nothing wrong with lifting clothes, taking off shoes and unleash the belt. It may be the price that passengers must pay for public safety; what is important is that they will not be allowed to take this or tomorrow to take that and the day after tomorrow, which is unreasonable.

More importantly, complex security procedures have greatly affected boarding speed. Many airports now require passengers to arrive at the airport two hours in advance, which greatly increases the cost of time for people to travel by plane.

It is a right for passengers to spend more money on the plane to save time. "To spend as little time as possible to the destination" should be a right of passengers. But nowadays, the time cost of flying is getting higher and higher. If the civil aviation does not introduce any new injunction, it does not know how long it will take for passengers to get to the airport, so what is the significance of flying?

There is a big problem with the regulation thought of "a sick person who takes all passengers' medicine."

A certain passenger has used a certain item to pose a threat to flight safety. The problem may not be that this item carries some natural danger, but that the civil aviation has some problems in its safety assurance.

Civil aviation does not reflect on its own security and emergency response capabilities, but the danger is attributable to that kind of goods, to prohibit all passengers to take that kind of goods boarding, which is obviously pushing costs to passengers.

If a person wants to do something bad on a plane, from lighter to match, from high-heeled shoes to bra, what can he (she) not become a weapon?

This prohibition mentality goes to extremes, so that all passengers must be naked when flying. But even so, is flight absolutely safe?

Even if some restrictions are very necessary, we must take into account the equal distribution of the prohibition costs, not just thinking about setting up various obligations for passengers but not respecting their rights. For example, passengers who buy expensive tickets at high prices are in order to catch up with time. Therefore, we should give passengers a steady expectation and definite protection in the "rush to get to the airport in advance". There should be more prohibitions, at least not occupying passengers' time too much, and the airport should not be allowed to shirk the cost to passengers.

It is frightening that this prohibition logic, which costs no cost and pushes all costs to the public, is quite common in public administration. This is also normal. People in power have the ability to pass on all kinds of costs, and eventually the cost is accumulated to the poor civilians.