The Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) has recently allowed federal airport screeners to allow passengers to carry onto a plane small knives – with blades less than 2.36 inches or 6 centimeters long – as well as sporting equipment, including golf clubs, billiard cues, ski poles, hockey and lacrosse sticks.

A TSA spokesperson said that a passenger wielding a small knife or swinging a golf club or hockey stick poses less of a threat to the pilot locked in the cockpit, compared to the passengers and flight attendants in the passenger cabin. The TSA spokesperson acknowledged the abovementioned items could still pose a real threat to passengers and flight attendants in the passenger cabin.

The policy change was immediately criticized by flight attendants, who say the move will create an unnecessary risk and further crowd the already limited space in the overhead bins.

A Delta Airlines spokesperson concurred with the flight attendants, stating that allowing small knives to be carried on board after a ban of more than 11 years will add little time saving value to the passengers  in the security lines compared to the additional risk for their our cabin staff and customers. Delta is the world’s second-largest airline. It is the first major airline to join not only flight attendants but pilots, federal air marshals and insurance companies in a burgeoning backlash to the TSA’s latest security proposal.

The TSA said the change will help align the list of prohibited items on U.S. flights with those of international carriers and cut the time passengers spend going through security screening, claiming the change would allow the TSA to focus on the threats that can cause catastrophic damage to an aircraft. They claimed that other security measures are already in place to protect U.S.-based planes, including hardened cockpit doors, armed federal air marshals, armed pilots and crew members with self-defense training.  However, we must remember not all flights have federal air marshals or armed pilots onboard.

The soon to be implemented lenient security policy, which is scheduled to go in effect on April 25, 2013, was studied by the TSA. After subjecting billions of passenger screenings to many thorough risk based assessments, the TSA came to the conclusions their latest plan didn’t present any additional security risks. This conclusion seems at odds with what was said by a TSA official in the last sentence of paragraph two, where it was mentioned, and I quote: “The TSA spokesperson acknowledged the abovementioned items could still pose a real threat to passengers and flight attendants in the passenger cabin.” I would be in favor of the policy if it “reduced” the security risk, but for it to pose a “real” threat, as stated in the last sentence of paragraph two (above), or “didn’t present any additional security risk, as stated in this paragraph, is not acceptable.

It appears the country is about split on implementing the new security policy vs. objecting to its implementation. That being so, it seems that the TDSA should pause a moment and rethink the implementation of what they’re doing in relationship to the political grand scheme of things. If the TDSA wanted to mirror the purpose and intent of our Founding Fathers’ Constitution, which was to serve the “common man,” and because the Constitution was written, by, for and of the citizens of the United States, those groups who are opposed to implementing the new security policy should be heard and further debate needs to ensue before the new security policy is implemented. The reason that’s important to do is because the Constitution was written to put into practice the freedoms as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, that states:  “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” (italics mine).

Since the airline attendants and airline passengers  flight safety and “life” are more at risk if the new security policy was enacted, and because many of the airline attendants are vehemently against this procedure, serving the airline attendants and their passengers should be of the highest priority, as implied in the writing of the Constitution, therefore, the new policy should not be endorsed and implemented unless a satisfactory compromise can be achieved between the TDSA and the airline attendants