"Jay Honeck" wrote in message

Agreed. Best of all, common sense seems to have reared its ugly head
again, nationwide, since 9/11.

Right after the terrortist attacks on New York and Washington, nearly
everyone restricted drive-on traffic at airports. Now, on our recent
trip across the country (WV, NC, SC, AL, TN, MS), we were once again
able to pick up our rental cars right at our airplane at every airport
we visited.

I'm sorry to see Marco's airport going the other way, against the
grain.

The timing is what makes it all suspect. There hasn't been any significant
events that would prompt such an action. It can be argued that the Cory
Lidle crash was one but that can be argued by both sides quite convincingly.

The Airport Director keeps citing the "security experts" as "they" refuse to
name them but will only divulge that they are on the "state" level. Yeah,
OK..experts.

The max payload that any plane on the ramp can easily be stuffed into a
couple of suitcases (if it's dense enough, only one) that can be rolled
across the ramp with nary a suspicious glance. That goes for bad people as
well. The thing is, I think most if not all of the tenants will be open to a
significant increase in security short of the complete denial of vehicular
access. I even think there will be little pushback if they made us foot the
bill for vehicle passes (they have a gate system already and would just need
new card readers). It seems illogical that they would cause a firestorm of
resentment and probably a host of lawsuits when they could avoid it by
coordinating a common solution that will still maintain virtually the same
target level of security.

Unless, of course, there are other factors at play here...

Marco