An interesting debate in the 'Border Mail' about whether Rex (code ZL) with its lower weight planes ought to have its passengers subject to screening (QF and VA passengers already are):
Rex rejects screening heat | The Border Mail
Note that the (State) Liberal Member for Albury, NSW agrees with Rex, but the (State) Liberal Member for Benambra (who represents Wodonga, Vic.) disagrees and is leading a push for Rex passengers to be subject to screening. The paper has not asked for the views of the Federal MPs (Liberal on the NSW side and a so-called Independent, through really a leftie, on the Victorian side.)
It's easy to see both sides. So far, no one has caused any trouble that I'm aware of on a Rex flight - at least not something that screening would prevent - yet on the other hand it seems odd to have different rules ar country airports, and a rule that effectively causes QF and VA to pay while ZL does not have to.
Complicating the issue is how screening cannot apparently detect plastic explosives or some other items.
I find it hard to agree that 'the annual cost of screening' (at each of the 45 locations) would be $750,000.' Two security staff per shift (and two shifts per day) that are shared between airlines even with on costs does not equal $750,000pa. At some of the 45 airports, Rex would be the only operator but it might only operate one flight a day, so presumably all an airport would need would be one staff member to operate the machine(s) and screen passengers. There is also the question as to who would pay the capital and operating costs of the equipment.
Rex's extension of the discussion to other modes of transport is legitimate. However, Islamic terrorists have a special fascination with aircraft as we saw on 11 September a number of years ago. One assumes a successful 'action' affecting an aircraft is regarded as 'the big prize.'
It would be great to hear the views of country residents who may or may not be Rex passengers. One of our aviators is in that category.
On balance, I'd stick with the status quo on the 'if it ain't broke...' view.