AIRPORT SECURITY- END "TICKETED PASSENGERS ONLY" AT U.S. AND CANADIAN  AIRPORTS-NOW!!       

                                                      PLEASE NOTE

Articles, comments, and opinions on this site are NOT in chronological order,
but rather in categories; ticketed passengers obviously being number one. 
From there, the site goes on to other airport security issues.  The placements
of editorials are not less important just because it is further down on the site.
This site is updates almost on a daily basis and one must scroll down the page
and look at dates because new stories can be placed on any part of the site.
You can also look at the side bar to see what has been updated recently, and
click the category with the newest updates.  The comment section is at the bottom of the page.  Thank you.
 LAST UPDATE     2009-03-18

 __________________________________________________

     WHY TICKETED PASSENGERS ONLY SHOULD BE ENDED

www.spittlevixens.com/reen/airportphotos.html                 

This site is dedicated to the ending of the policy of not allowing visitors (non-
passengers) past security checkpoints at airports (ticketed passengers only) in the
United States and Canada.  This policy was put into effect at all airports after the
9/11 attacks as a "feel good" solution to airport security. But is nothing more than a
waste of time using "smoke and mirrors" and, "window dressing" to make people
"feel" safer, yet dose nothing to enhance security.  I work for a major airline in
Philadelphia, I know!

At this site, we know we are not the only ones who feel this way.  But, there is no
organized effort to end this policy in North America.  It is our hope that this site, and
others, will help end this ridicules policy and put the gate areas of airports, beyond
security, back to an open configuration, (open to the public with no ticket or pass
needed to enter).  

Your help is needed.  We hope that the ideas of writers to this site, and our impute,
will help in ending this policy; in the short run, we want to help the average citizen
and visitors, (meeter and greeters) to the airport, to get "gate passes" to go through
security checkpoints, and ultimately to end this "joke" security policy permanently
at all North American airports.

Below is an editorial I wrote which was placed in USA Today (in abbreviated form)
which will give my reasons and experiences in dealing with "ticketed passengers
only".  Please read it, heed it and HELP!! 

If there is one thing I can't understand or stand, it's when government and other officials
create senseless rules for our safety.  Since September 11, 2001,  the FAA has come
out with a river of mandates and rules in order to make flying "safer", and much
more cumbersome.  Some of these rules make sense such as reinforcing of
cockpit doors, and better background checks of employees with access to the
AOA (Air Operation Area) "the Tarmac" or Ramp.  But many are nothing more than
window dressing to give the illusion to the public that security is being beefed-up.
Noticeably,  National Guard solders stationed at checkpoints with no Police Power
or even bullets in their guns back in 2001.  Or, rules allowing tweezers with rounded
heads, but prohibiting pointy-head tweezers. Or the formation of a huge new federal
burocracy, the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA).   If the public feels safer
with the knowledge that only allowing one cigarette lighter per person past the check
point is permissible, then the average citizen, with their skulls full of mush, waiting 1/2
hour or more to go through the checkpoints, deserve what they get with this so called
better and "enhanced" security.  At least now, the TSA is allowing certain items
through again, like scissor, which I agree with.  And more should be allowed down in

sterile areas which are of limited threat. (but now, no liquids or pastes).   No water!                                                                                                        
But there is another security policy, which everyone should be aware of for the farce
it is and represents.  It is the taking away of YOUR freedom of movement at your airport. 
This useless waste of time and manpower of only allowing persons with tickets past
the security screening areas, known as "ticketed passengers only".

Don't be fooled, "ticketed passengers only" is NOT a security measure.  The following
is only a partial list as to why this is a waste of time.  I know, I worked as a supervisor
at a security checkpoint for five years, and for the last 10 years have worked for a major
airline.

1. Preventing non-passengers (meeters and greeters) from going to gates does not
enhance security since all persons must pass through security and clear checkpoint
areas. Meeters and greeters make up a small percentage of all pedestrian traffic (10
to 15%), and have little if any effect on security, logistically. 

2. Prohibits friends and loved-ones from providing assistance to children
(unaccompanied minors), elderly and handicapped persons.  While gate passes may
be available, many people do not know the procedure and are unable to obtain
one. This is coupled with the fact that airlines are laying-off employees, thus causing
even less assistance to travelers in need. This could also lead to violations of the
Americans With Disabilities Act in the U.S.. 

3. Visitors are less likely to be a security threat. They usually do not have large bags
and simply walk through the magnetometer.  And at certain slow times of the day,
there are no passengers walking through the checkpoint at all.  There is no reason
not to let these persons through to the gate area.

4. The Airport, including all gate areas, is public and should be open to all. This
procedure is followed in courthouses and other government buildings. "Ticketed
passengers only" is an unnecessary and unacceptable restriction of movement, and
serves no useful purpose.  It only leads to the inconvenience of everyone.

5. Businesses and Restaurants,  airport malls,  at the airport are seeing a
financial loss due to less revenue because of "ticketed passengers only".           

I work at an airport and can observe first hand what kind of disruption this security
policy causes.  Here are just a few situations where I have personally been involved:

1) I had an elderly frail lady of about 80 years of age who came off a flight and was
expecting her son to be waiting for her.  Of course he wasn't because of "ticketed
passengers only".  She only spoke Spanish.  We did find a Spanish-speaking agent
and found that the lady did not want to move until her son showed up.  We finally
convinced her to get in a cart so I could drive her to security where he was waiting. 
Needless to say he was not pleased, either.  I told him that he should write to the FAA,
now the TSA, seeing it is they who imposed this "stupid" policy.  I also told him that
the next time, assuming this policy is still in effect, he should demand a gate pass. 
It seems I was the only one who bothered to tell him about these passes.

2) A mentally retarded young lady arrived on a flight from Charlotte.  Her mother
could not meet her at the gate, as she was not aware of this policy, and did not know
about obtaining a gate pass.  At this point the police were called in because the 
mother was worried about her daughter.  It took almost two hours to find the young
lady.  If the mother had been at the gate, this would not have happened.

3) A couple of days later, I was assisting a couple through customs.  Their connecting
flight was not until the next morning.  I thought I would take them through security
and put them on an electric cart to take them to the hotel, which is connected to
terminal B.  Customs is in A.  Stupid me.  They would not let them through security
even though I was with them because of "ticketed passengers only", and their
tickets were for the following day.  So I had to take them across and outside, in the
pouring rain, on the Departure road.

Boy, I'm so glad my friends at the FAA now (TSA) instituted "ticketed
passengers only", for our safety!  The TSA knows that passengers being

escorted by employees with ID's do not have to show tickets in the first place.

The rules have changed, even if you have an ID, you now need a sticker on it

showing that you are allowed TO escort!

4) A passenger came in from a flight at the bottom of "C" concourse.  He was wheel-
chair bound.  Because of staffing shortages, no one was able to wheel him up to
baggage claim or at least to security where the party who was to pick him up was
waiting. This should not have been a problem.  If the party picking him up was at the
gate, they could wheel him up themselves.  But, of course, there is "ticketed
passengers only" and they could not help him.  He waited for nearly an hour until
someone was able to take him up. I was coming from baggage claim at the end of
this incident.  When the family stopped me, and started to "vent" to me about what
had happened. All I could tell them was that they had a good ADA claim.  Not against
the airline, but the government, because it is their policy which the industry must
follow by government fiat.

5) An unaccompanied minor was terminating at PHL, the parents were not allowed
to the gate and no one told them they could get a gate pass.  It took over a half hour
to locate them.  They were less than happy.  On this same note, I had another minor
termination in Philadelphia.  They were aware that they could get passes but,
unbelievably, denied them.  When we found them, they were understandably livid.
After I calmed them down and they told me what had happened, I was angry myself.
I told them it was my airlines policy to give passes to all who are letting off or
picking up minors

6) And this is my personal favourite:  April 25 was National "bring your kids to work day".
But because of "ticketed passengers only" employees were not allowed to bring their
children to work.  Their own children, who we can escort through, anyway!  Outrageous!

Did you know that infants and lap-children now need a ticket to get through?  It's true!  \

These children need boarding passes.  They fly for free, they have no ticket, we have

to print a "gate pass" now so an 8 month year old infant can go through security!!!

How did these terrorists get on the planes in the first place? The fact is that on
September 11,  the terrorists, like everyone else, had tickets!  You can't get on
the plane without one.  How would "ticketed passengers only" have stopped them?
In fact several of these thugs were picked out for a more thorough check. 
But were passed because the knives they had were less than 4 inches long.  In
accordance with FAA regulations at the time.  Why did everyone come down on the
security persons?  They DID their job!  And box cutters were NEVER allowed past security!

And think about this, how many more freedoms do you want taken away, incrementally.
If this policy of "ticketed passengers only" is not ended, it will give government
technocrats all the excuses they need to implement even more draconian policies,
not only at airports, but also in other facets of our lives.

For right now, however, if you need to pick up or drop off anyone at the airport, and
if you want to go with them to the gate to see them off, go to the ticket counter and
get a gate pass, if they ask "why", give them any excuse you want.  It is not up to the
airlines or FAA/TSA/ CATSA/FBI/RCMP, pick your own alphabet soup agency, to
determine what is a "demonstrable handicap" or a"legitimate reason" for you wanting to go
to the gate area.  Who are they to pass judgment on what is the premise of giving out a pass.
The ADA in the U.S. and other laws are so wildly interpreted that you could say the person you're
picking up is a drunk, which makes them handicapped.  If enough people write the TSA and
their Congressional Delegation, or CATSA and their MP's, in Canada, plus the airlines with
complaint aftercomplaint, they will get the message.  This policy only causes confusion and
problems; it does not provide added security. It's very important to have the terminals opened
up again. You can still go through security in Federal buildings.  Why not at the airport?  What's
the difference?

"Ticketed passengers only" might have its place for short periods of time during
emergencies.  However, 5 years after the tragedy of September 11, this policy is still
being enforced.  At this point it only adds to the problems of the passengers and
meeters and greeter.  Also, the loss of revenue for businesses at the airports, such as
"restaurants, clothing stores, etc."  These businesses serve not only passengers but
also the people who visit the airports for dining.  Also, the airlines are as responsible
as the TSA and CATSA.  If they would speak out against "ticketed passengers only",
which they won't, the policy would end in a month.  In many ways, it's the airlines whom
you pay to fly you somewhere, who are also the ones preventing your meeters from being
allowed down to the gate to assist you!

Even assuming "ticketed passengers only" is ended, what is needed is  Federal laws,

which makes this policy illegal except for immediate emergency situations. It could
be titled the "Freedom of Access Act, of 2010".

It's up to you and me to let our voices be heard by e-mail, letters, etc. to the TSA,  ( CATSA)

in Canada and your Congressional Delegation, or MP until this policy of the illusion of security
is ended.

Finally, there's the question of how our nations deal with the critical question of preserving
both a reasonable measure of safety with individual rights in general. Striking a balance
between feeling safe as opposed to being safe, and being free at the same time, is the
most tenuous security concern of all.

Averill Hecht Cheltenham, Pa.

rdhecht@comcast.net or comments@airport.bizland.com

                       _______________________________________________
                    Want to e-mail the bos of the TSA, Edmund "Kip" Hawley
                  in Arlington, Va. yourself?   You can, this is,his e-mail address:
                                              edmund.hawley@dhs.gov
                  Canadians contact Tim Meisner, Executive Director of CATSA,
                    within Transport Canada at meisnet@tc.gc.ca in Ottawa, Ont.
                 THESE E-MAILS MIGHT BE OUT OF DATE. IF YOU
                  KNOW OF UP-DATES, PLEASE TELL US! Thanks!!
               _____________________________________________
 
                       Play the official new TSA theme song, here-
                       tsathemesong.wma  or  03/23/07: Airport security?
               _______________________________2007-03-13____       

New for 2009

On Jun 23, 2009, at 14:03, Averill and Ruth

>
>
>
>
>> In the next few days I'm placing you're petition, prominently, near 
>> the top of my web site.  You're work on all of this is great!!
>>
>> Averill
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "PDBowden" 
>>
>> Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 12:38 AM
>> Subject: [Flickr] The petition to end TPO
>>
>>
>>> You've been sent a Flickr Mail from PDBowden:
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> :: The petition to end TPO
>>>
>>>
>>> Averill,
>>>
>>> Here's the petition to end TPO:
>>>
>>> http://www.PetitionOnline.com/ENDTPO/petition.html
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>
 

New Airport Security Rules Will Require More Personal Information 2009-03-18

The TSA is about to get a little more personal with travelers.

In the next few months, you'll have to own up to your age when you book airline tickets. The TSA is requiring that all U.S. travelers provide their birth date and sex, in addition to their full names, as part of security enhancement recommendations from the 9/11 Commission, the Los Angeles reported over the weekend.

The new program is called Secure Flights and its purpose is to allow the TSA to take over pre-screening of passenger information against federal government watch lists, which is currently monitored by the airlines.

According to the program information, a passenger's information provided at the time seats are booked must exactly match the information on the traveler's valid ID.

The purpose, according to the TSA, is to identify known and suspected terrorists from boarding an aircraft and prevent those individuals on No Fly Lists from entering the screening or boarding area of an aircraft. After matching passenger information against government watch lists, Secure Flight will transmit the matching results back to aircraft operators.

The L.A. Times reports that personal data will be held on file for no more than 7 days in most cases and passengers will only be given boarding passes once cleared by the TSA.

No official start date for providing this new information has been set yet, but according to published reports, travelers can expect to start revealing their real age within the coming months for domestic flights and later in the year for international flights.

No doubt these new rules have kicked off some controversy among consumer advocacy groups arguing that providing this information borders invasion of privacy, but we want to know what you think.

Has the TSA taken security one step too far, or is this another notch in the safety belt for American travelers?

 

© Cheapflights Ltd Melanie Nayer  3-18-09

 

Are we more secure with Secure Flight? By David Grossman, special for USA TODAY 2009-06-02 If you've purchased an airline ticket recently, your airline or travel agent likely asked for your full legal name or the name on your passport, as well as your birth date. After years of delays and rounds of controversy, the Department of Homeland Security's "Secure Flight" initiative is rolling out. Secure Flight's objective is to make us safer from terrorist threats when we fly, but the program has faced significant questions, opposition and implementation issues since its inception. Airlines have been matching passenger manifests to lists of known or suspected terrorists since the 9/11 attacks, but in 2002 Congress passed a law mandating that the list checking function be taken over by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Seven years later, that transition is finally underway. Concerns over passenger privacy have been addressed by scaling back the data collected by airlines and passed along to the government. Only the passenger's full legal name, sex and birth date will be used, but revamping airline and travel agency systems to collect this data has been an expensive and monumental effort. Another major issue created by checking passenger names against the "no fly" lists occurs when an innocent passenger happens to share the same name or alias with a known or suspected terrorist. In that situation the innocent traveler is constantly singled out or further screening until the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) can verify that this person is not the wanted terrorist. It is hoped the expanded data will mean fewer false matches and fewer innocent passengers singled out for further screening. TSA has also tackled the "redress" issue on how innocent passengers clear their names if they are falsely identified as a terrorist. TSA seems to have quelled most initial concerns, but using full legal names raises a new issue for millions of Americans. From now on, every airline ticket you purchase will bear your full legal name and all your identification cards must match as well. Like many business travelers, I belong to multiple frequent flier programs, use several credit cards and have numerous relationships with travel agencies and websites for purchasing travel. Some vendors know me as David Grossman, others as Dave Grossman, others as David G. Grossman, still more as D. Grossman. David George Grossman appears only on my driver's license and passport.   Because of Secure Flight, millions of Americans will need to change the names they're currently using with every travel vendor. It's a costly exercise for individuals and travel suppliers. Will it be worth the hassle? Or more specifically, will it help catch or thwart terrorists? There are many skeptics. Bruce Schneier, an expert and author on security technology, believes Secure Flight is an ineffective way to prevent terrorism. To begin with, Schneier claims the entire concept of a no-fly list doesn't make much sense. "It is a list of people so dangerous that can't be allowed to fly for any reason, yet so innocent we can't arrest them," says Schneier. "What kind of moronic list is this? Either arrest the people or get them off the list." Schneier points out that regardless of how the TSA assesses the effectiveness of the no-fly list, it is forced to enact the legislation passed by Congress in 2002. "Even if TSA thinks this is an utter 100% waste of money, they still have to do it," says Schneier. "They can't say what I just said because they are required by law to do it." "Airline security isn't going to make people safer," says Schneier. He questions why we spend billions of dollars on security at airports while leaving other mass gathering places, like shopping malls vulnerable, for example. He also claims a distinction between the tactic and the target. "All you're doing is defending against what the bad guys did last weeks ... It doesn't make the nation any safer because we're not focusing on where the attack might come from tomorrow," says Schneier. I agree wholeheartedly. No measures can defend against everything a terrorist can do, yet we always try to do so after the fact. Empty the metal from your pockets, remove your coats and hats, take your laptop out of your bag, take off your shoes, now put them directly on the belt, empty all your bottles of liquid, etc. After every incident we add another ridiculous rule, yet the next attack is always something completely different. There has to be a more intelligent way to defend ourselves. Schneier says that pre 9/11 airport security did its job, and yet we suffered a horrific attack. "The terrorists didn't use guns, bombs, or knives," which would have been stopped by the screeners. "They used the fact that the passengers didn't realize they had to fight back," Schneier says. It took passengers four hours to figure out what they had to do to thwart the next attack, and it will never happen again – not because a no fly list is keeping bad guys off of airplanes, but because no passengers or airline crew would let it happen again. The terrorists know that, so all that extra money hiring an army of baggage screeners and airport lobbies filled with detection machines is money poorly spent. "Take all that extra money and put it on investigation, intelligence, emergency response; stuff that would work regardless of the plot," says Schneier. Schneier cites the case of the liquid bombers in London. "They were caught, not because they were trying to smuggle liquids onto an airplane. They were caught by investigation and intelligence," he says. "So whether they were using liquids or gases or solids or attacking airplanes or buses or schools, it didn't matter. They were caught," long before they got near an airport. I think Schneier's point is spot on. Secure Flight doesn't make the bad guy list any better. It just makes everyone spend more money, and creates more inconvenience. Even if our no fly list contained every terrorist in the world, what about all the new recruits they are bringing on every day? No list can catch them if they haven't done anything yet. That makes intelligence gathering all the more important to uncover these threats before it's too late. Read previous columns Send David your feedback: David Grossman is a veteran business traveler and former airline industry executive. He writes a column every other week on topics of interest and concern to business travelers. E-mail him at travel@usatoday.com.

Find this article at: http://www.usatoday.com/travel/columnist/grossman/2009-06-02-secure-flight_N.htm?plckFindCommentKey=CommentKey:e23cefa0-ae72-46e5-87b7-5500038ac423   Comments: (13) Showing:   Newest first Oldest first Most recommended   New: Most recommended!     Sam Sticka (10 friends, send message) wrote: 6/8/2009 3:25:06 PM If we want real security on planes, and that is a big if, we'd have more respect for the Second Amendment. If we hadn't been so dependent on the federal government to set all the rules which prohibited guns, then the 9/11 hijackers may have had second thoughts.   Recommend   | Report Abuse     BMGRAHAM (1 friends, send message) wrote: 6/5/2009 6:57:10 PM Enhanced security is not for criminals, since they get guns past TSA security. Enhanced security is just there to make some people (not me, who realize that our security is in G-d's hands) feel better, while at the same time making us waste more time at the airport.   Recommend 1 | Report Abuse     Sam Sticka (10 friends, send message) wrote: 6/3/2009 9:40:23 PM The big pisser-offer for me is not being able to see off or meet anyone at the gate. I do not enjoy having to do it at security or baggage claim.   Recommend   | Report Abuse     Blogger Bob (0 friends, send message) wrote: 6/3/2009 2:28:31 PM Good day! Bob here from the TSA Blog. I just wanted to pop in real quick and let you know we currently have two blog posts on this topic and the latest post is a Q & A with the Secure Flight program office. Naturally, there are many questions and concerns, so we encourage you to take a look at our posts or our web page where you’ll find an accurate answer to all of your questions. What’s In a Name: http://is.gd/Nhku Secure Flight Q & A: http://is.gd/NhiD Secure Flight Web Page: http://is.gd/NhE0 Thanks, Blogger Bob The TSA Blog Team   Recommend   | Report Abuse     Solo44 (0 friends, send message) wrote: 6/3/2009 9:51:33 AM I worked for the CIA and IRS for nine years before I got out. The TSA is a fed govt run agency. Inefficient and poorly trained. The typical federal govt response is REactive rather than PROactive. See 911, see the "financial crisis". Where were the FAA, FBI, SEC, Federal Reserve BEFORE all this happened?? Counting their days to retirement, that's where!!!!!!!! It's going to get WORSE now with the other party in office. We'll waste billions trying to "feel secure" in planes while the bad guys plan other targets. Not ONE single person has been held ACCOUNTABLE for 911. Think about that.   Recommend   | Report Abuse     xmlman (0 friends, send message) wrote: 6/3/2009 8:07:29 AM Great column. This guy Schneier is spot on. I've railed for years against the dog and pony, smoke and mirrors show put on by the TSA. Schneir is absolulely right. The 9/11 hijackers took advantage of the fact that air crews had been trained to cooperate with hijackers in the past. Something that will most likely never happen again. That one thing will do more to stop another 9/11 than anything the TSA implements EVER!   Recommend 3 | Report Abuse     Sam Sticka (10 friends, send message) wrote: 6/2/2009 11:20:54 PM Schneier says that pre 9/11 airport security did its job, and yet we suffered a horrific attack. "The terrorists didn't use guns, bombs, or knives," which would have been stopped by the screeners. "They used the fact that the passengers didn't realize they had to fight back," Schneier says. It took passengers four hours to figure out what they had to do to thwart the next attack, and it will never happen again – not because a no fly list is keeping bad guys off of airplanes, but because no passengers or airline crew would let it happen again. The terrorists know that, so all that extra money hiring an army of baggage screeners and airport lobbies filled with detection machines is money poorly spent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I agree with Scheiner. We need to quit kidding ourselves. Pre-9/11 security was just fine. These extra security measures are just a complete waste of time. All they do is slow everything down and make flying more unpleasant. They only serve to make us all more obedient and complacent to authority. Private screeners were effective. The TSA is an unnecessary replacement for them.   Recommend 2 | Report Abuse     StickIt (0 friends, send message) wrote: 6/2/2009 10:05:45 PM agree that we need to use intel..except the liberal rags (usa today included) want to strip cia of power. Did u get clearance to run this article from upstairs?   Recommend 1 | Report Abuse     tguide (0 friends, send message) wrote: 6/2/2009 7:59:08 PM What is the point? We have our identification....kooks and terrorists can certainly get around that.......... We can have our ID...full name....dob....ssn....something no one else could falsify for their purposes....? These days it doesn't really take a rocket scientist to reproduce those documents for their purposes... These new "secure flight" measures do not make me feel any more/less determined to use public transportation.....   Recommend 1 | Report Abuse     biztripster (0 friends, send message) wrote: 6/2/2009 6:37:32 PM Bluntly, it is disgusting that the U.S.A. would allow this stupid policy become a reality. Seriously, people who created this ineffective "security" should be fired. Whether it causes travelers headaches or not, it is ineffective and inefficient. Oh, now I get it, that IS government!   By the way "Secure Flight" and the "clear cards that a company was contracted to run, went broke!  Averill I'm with Scheiner on this one.  This Secure Flight program is ridicuolous. No terrorist will be punished by it.  It's just another waste of time and money. Sam   Averill, Registered travel program FlyClear has gone bankrupt and that shows  how bad these programs are. I just heard about it on the radio today.  This could also mean a new sign that TPO should end NOW and the TSA is  a failure. I hope this sign is a sign that TPO could end now!!! Phil

 

Posting Date:   March 18, 2009      Flying ain’t what it used to be
By RAY HANANIA


As I was standing in a long line at Midway Airport security with my toothpaste in a plastic zip lock baggie, stripped of major clothing, shoes, wallet, glasses, cell phone, belt and all my dignity, I had a lot of time to remember how it was to travel when I was a kid.

Pan Am was the big airline at the time and the trip to the airport was a family affair, even if the entire family wasn’t traveling.

In fact, when one member of the family traveled, usually “back home to Bethlehem, the rest of the family including cousins, uncles, aunts and wives-to-be, tagged along.

Going to the airport was fun. Sometimes we would picnic just outside the airport after we dropped off the relative and lay a blanket and eat sandwiches my mom wrapped in “wax paper” – it did exist folks – and we watched the jets take off and land.

Now, my son and I sometimes sit in the car in the White Castles parking lot at 63rd and Cicero, enjoying fast food and watching the jets drop from the sky into the little airport that is today huge.

The family parked. Everyone walked into the terminal – what a terrible name to call an airport – and then accompanied the lucky family member to the gate where everyone sat and the kids played by the big windows as the planes taxied to and from.

When they called the passengers to board, everyone got up and everyone hugged and kissed and cried and hugged and kissed some more. As a child, my cheeks got pinched and yanked a foot. No one dared leave until the plane took off.

Being a special occasion, everyone dressed to the “nines.” We put on our Easter Sunday suits, gowns and the shiniest shoes – do people even shine their shoes any more?

On the flight, the stewardesses – “politically correct” was invented years later by societal guilt and litigious sensitivity – was so polite. We didn’t jump around but they always had a little toy. And they always gave us their “wings.” I think I still have a set from a Pan Am flight to visit relatives in Venezuela.

They’d eagerly grabbed the kids and walk them to the cockpit where you could walk inside, talk to the pilot. Take pictures. And even peer over the instrument panel out the huge windows in front.

It was scary.

These days, the only thing scarier is seeing men and women bending over with their hip-high slacks, showing some “back crack.”

I’m always tempted to walk up and put a quarter in there just to see what song they would start to sing. But, then, I probably would get arrested, mugged, beaten up in the holding room, handcuffed, kicked, accused of all sorts of crimes, and then thrown before the mercy of a merciless court.

No quarters.

The terminals are filled with zombies these days. Not passengers. All the relatives have to wait outside and can’t come through security so travelers are alone.

Everyone has a cell phone and computer – I’m writing this with half a Gold Coast Char Dog in my mouth with mustard all over, and memories of bad food long forgotten, typing away at my own laptop with a broadband connection.

Doesn’t anyone know how to turn the stupid music ring tones on their cell phones off and put them on vibrate? The sound in the food court – which is the main attraction these days of any airport – makes me think of a herd of crickets screaming as they await eradication.

So I sit and wait thinking about food the entire time. I have two hours before the flight. They require two hours for international travel and one hour for domestic, but who wants to take a chance in Chicago’s traffic even at Midway Airport? Security can be a bitch! It’s not the security procedures that are the hassle.

I don’t mind stripping in front of beautiful women. But the employees working the TSA checkpoints spend a lot of harried time buzzing back and forth. Straining into the x-ray machines or magnetometers or whatever they are called these days.

I’m carrying my shoes wondering how much dirt will scrape on my socks. Many people don’t even wear socks, walking barefoot along the dirty tile floor along the security checkpoint conveyor belt.

The worst part of traveling besides the body odor stench from people caused by hanging out in airports forever, is most travelers dress like slobs. Why waste the good clothes in this environment? Who are you going to impress?

No one, apparently. You just don’t want the security dude standing in front of the two magnetic boards like a video store clerk checking to make sure you didn’t try to steal a brand new VHS copy of “Rambo” out the store.

If you can remember when that movie title came out on Video, you probably know exactly what I have been babbling about.

Ray Hanania can be reached at rayhanania@comcast.net.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


TSA to test encrypted boarding passes

by Jeffrey White   Feb 12th 2009 @ 12:30PM

Can any moron make a fake boarding pass? Some security analysts say so, and the Transportation Security Administration seems to be taking that threat seriously.

The TSA has announced that beginning this year it will test encrypted boarding passes at most of the country's airports, with an eye to eventually making the paper boarding pass obsolete.

What exactly does this entail? The TSA says it is considering purchasing nearly 2,500 boarding pass scanners (they look like any bar code scanner), which breaks down to roughly one scanner for every airport security checkpoint in the country. At test airports, TSA workers will scan boarding passes with these scanners rather than simply comparing the name on the pass to an ID, reports USA Today.

It is the bar codes on these boarding passes that will be encrypted, making it nearly impossible, in theory, for a terrorist to forge.

This is good news for those travelers out there who rely on mobile devices. If airlines are forced to give up their paper passes for the new encrypted passes, it will usher in for good an era where boarding passes will be e-mailed to your PDA or other mobile device and all you'll have to show at the airport is a bar code that will be scanned at security.

Filed under: Airlines, Airports

Related Link

Jetport Adds New Restaurant Web Editor:  Ken Christian, New Media Manager   Last Updated: 6/11/2008 10:16:55 PM

©2007 WCSH6.com/Gannett Co., Inc. All Rights Reserved.  

NO COMMENT! Averill

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

They started this nonsense about 4 weeks ago in Philadelphia.  It is not the
job of the TSA to check ID's, and to see if they are real.  I also don't
like their attitude that the TSA has training for their people that other
security and airlines personnel don't get.   We have to end ticketed
passengers only to get rid of all this.  Write, and keep writing to everyone
until this ends.  Keep hitting your Congressman and Spokane Airport
Authority and others.  That's what I do along with writing gate passes and
telling everyone I see how I feel.

When I update the site I'm putting your story and opinions onto it.

Thanks again!

Averill

Airports used to be my favorite public spaces.

Travel writer Pico Iyer once wrote that "Airports are among the only sites in public life where emotions are hugely sanctioned, in block capitals. We see people weep, shout, kiss in airports; we see them at the furthest edges of excitement and exhaustion. Airports are privileged spaces where we can see the primal states writ large—fear, recognition, hope."

I miss seeing the lines of people waiting for loved ones, friends and ailing grandparents to exit the tube from the plane to the concourse.  I miss seeing the lingering final goodbye kisses of long-distance lovers, too sad to hide from the eyes of bored business travellers waiting for a boarding call.

I know there are reasonable arguments to be made for keeping non-travellers out, but it costs.

No Pico, there are no arguments to be made for “ticketed passengers only”, but it sure does cost!  Averill

_____________________________________________________________________

Gun T-shirt 'was a security risk'

A man wearing a T-shirt depicting a cartoon character holding a gun was stopped from boarding a flight by the security at Heathrow's Terminal 5.

Brad Jayakody, from Bayswater, central London, said he was "stumped" at the objection to his Transformers T-shirt.

Mr Jayakody said he had to change before boarding as security officers objected to the gun, held by the cartoon character.

Airport operator BAA said it was investigating the incident.

Mr Jayakody said the incident happened a few weeks ago, when he was challenged by an official during a pre-flight security check.

"He says, 'we won't be able to let you through because your T-shirt has got a gun on it'," Mr Jayakody said.

"I was like, 'What are you talking about?'.

"[The official's] supervisor comes over and goes 'sorry we can't let you through and you've a gun on your T-shirt'," he said.

Mr Jayakody said he had to strip and change his T-shirt there before he was allowed to board his flight.

"I was just looking for someone with a bit of common sense," he said.

"It's a cartoon robot - what threat is it to security or offensive to anyone at all?"

A BAA spokesman said there was no record of the incident and no "formal complaint" had been made.

"If a T-shirt had a rude word or a bomb on it, for example, a passenger may be asked to remove it," he said.

"We are investigating what happened to see if it came under this category.

"If it's offensive, we don't want other passengers upset."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7431640.stm

Published: 2008/06/02 14:19:33 GMT

 _________________________________________________________________________________________________

10-Year-Old Talks His Way Through Sea-Tac Airport Security

Posted May 28, 2008, 01:12 pm CDT
By Martha Neil

A 10-year-old boy who took a commercial airline flight to Texas, with a stopover and without a ticket last year, at age 9, has reportedly tried again.

This time, Semaj Booker talked his way through the security screening at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport without a ticket, but was stopped as he was getting onto a flight to Sacramento, Calif., en route to Dallas, reports the Seattle Times. Authorities are investigating the security breach; passengers are not supposed to enter that part of the terminal without a boarding pass.

Booker is unhappy living in Washington state, according to his mother, and was trying to visit his grandfather in Texas.

So far, authorities have not pursued any charges.

This proves that "tickered passengers only" at airports is a farce.

Why stop meeters and greeters form seeing friends off at the gate like before 9/11.  You still have to show a ticket to get on the plane, and everyone still has to go to security to get to the plane.  TSA, end "ticketed passengers only" NOW at our nations' airports!

Averill Hecht

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Friday, May 23, 2008 from rubber hose w

Let's hope that non passengers will be allowed past security again so they can view those "arrival" monitors again!!!  Averill

I personally think a lot of airport "security" is to make people feel more secure. I don't think a lot of it makes sense -- e.g., carrying liquid in see-through bags and confiscating water bottles and baby bottles. If liquids can be used to make a bomb on the plane, why be allowed to carry any liquids (e.g. in plastic bags) and if there is a suspicion that water or baby formula is a bomb making substance, have the person drink it at the checkpoint.
elliej | 05.24.08 - 10:05 am |

or baby formula is a bomb making substance, have the person drink it at the checkpoint.
What?  and have the baby go hungry?  how cruel. 

I thought that airport "security" was just to get us inured to the idea of giving up individual liberties such as choosing to carry food, baby bottles and safety pins on our person (or at least in our carry-on luggage), so that when the major liberties are infringed upon we have already acquired the necessary apathy to do nothing about it.
LaraB | 05.25.08 - 11:00 am |

All above from rrubber hose

The empty airport.
I've been having an interesting dream repeating in my latest round of nightmares.

I've gone to pick up my wife at the airport.  It's empty or nearly so.  Sometimes it's completely empty, sometimes there is a bare bones crew there, particularly security guards, who won't let me past the security checkpoint.  I'm looking for my wife, but I can't find her.  I start to panic, and I'm running around, deathly afraid that something bad has happened to her.  Sometimes I see a glimpse of her, but then she's gone.  I call out to her but she doesn't respond.  Sometimes she calls out to me, and I try to respond, but I'm unable to.

So what is going on here, me, empty airport, my wife. 

Let's work backwards.  Why backwards?  That way things get better as we go along instead of worse.   Sort of a Betrayal or Time's Arrow or Irreversible thing.

The last time I saw my ex at an airport was when she left for San Fransisco.  She'd decided to leave a few months earlier, but stayed so that we could have one last anniversary and one last Christmas together.  This was the low point for me.  We rented a car that morning and spent the morning together, had breakfast, watched an episode of CSI:  Miami online (I don't know why that sticks in my mind so securely, but it does), and stopped in at Chik-Fil-A for lunch before heading for the airport.  We hadn't had a car in many months, so having access to one was a big treat for us.

I took her to the airport, parked, went and got a cart, and dollied her luggage up to the counter.  We checked her bags and headed over to the security checkpoint.  Only ticketed passengers were allowed past this point, so I wasn't able to go wait for her plane with her.  I'm still not sure what the purpose of this rule is, how it keeps us safer.  If the guests were screened like passengers, wouldn't that ensure the people's safety?

Anyway, we knew this was it.  We stopped a bit of a distance away and said goodbye.  She had a bottle of water for the flight and her carry on.  I carried the bag up to the checkpoint.  This part of the terminal had very few people in it.  I suspect this is because people don't linger any more--they drop off and leave or go in to the gate.

I gave her a hug, then turned and walked away.  I felt this intense urge to turn back and get in one last goodbye, but I didn't, I just kept walking towards the escalator.  I knew that if I did turn back, I'd start crying.  I even suspected she was doing the one last goodbye thing, and I'm not sure exactly why right now I didn't want to.  Maybe it was a little resentment towards her for leaving me, maybe it was because I wanted to make a clean break. 

I didn't know this at the time, but she'd had a problem, a very small one.  She wasn't allowed to take her bottle of water in with her.  The guard checked her ID and boarding pass and told her she'd have to leave the water.  Apparently she turned to me, walking away, and called out to me, wanting to give me the bottle of water.  She didn't do this loudly, though, not wanting to make a scene.  I didn't hear her.  So she just left the bottle of water there.

When she told me this story later on, I felt unreasonable guilty for not being there for her that one last time I had the opportunity to do something for her, even if it were something really small.  It's such a stupid thing to feel guilt over, an abandoned bottle of water, but there it is.

WELCOME TO THE WORLD OF AIRPORT SECURITY via “TICKETED PASSENGERS ONLY” Averill

From Live Journal-So Many Conflicting Thoughts - http://gilda-m.livejournal.com/

This was placed on the Airliners.net website.  It might answer some of the questions you might have.  And while some of the answers are from people who don't want to re-open the terminals, there are a lot who do.  Keep fighting, we can win this one!

How Long Will It Be Only Ticketed Passengers

Leopold From , joined today!, posts, RR: Posted Wed Jul 31 2002 21:49:02 your local time (5 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1016 times:     Does anyone know how long access to the terminals in the USA will be limited to only ticketed passengers? I know that they have been doing that for years in europe, but that was never the custom here. will it ever change or are is that likely to be a permanent new fixture in our airports?

55 replies: 25 compressed (already read), showing first 25 unread out of 30

1 Brons2: I don't think it will go back. There's no real rational reason for it. People can meet outside security in the baggage claim area, or any other place.

2 Flynavy: Brons2 is correct. Don't hold your breath. Security takes priority over someone wanting to meet their loved one 2 minutes earlier or someone wanting t

3 Tom in NO: Regarding moving security check-points to terminal entrances, I spoke with our director the other day on this issue, and he doesn't see it happening a

4 SAS23: It's ticketed passengers only beyond security everywhere else in the world ... why should the US be different?

5 ScottysAir: Now, It's is TIME to bring with the visitors are back into the concourses right now!!!! I hate to said something with an the Only Ticketed Passengers

6 Flynavy: I'm sorry, what was that?

7 Ual777contrail: i hope it never changes.it is much easier this way,as an agent it helps. ual 777 contrail

8 Nonrevman: The only objection I have (along with many others) is that security is often a congested hassle as it stands. Even with only ticketed passengers going

9 NebFlyer: I said this in the "9/11 Excuse" thread, but I'll say it here too... the terrorists on that awful day FOLLOWED THE RULES. They were TICKETED PASSENGER

10 RickB: If I translated that correctly - I think he was in favour of visitors being allowed past security check points. That being the case I would have to di

11 Seiple: Alright. Now, It's is TIME to bring with the visitors are back into the concourses right now!!!! I hate to said something with an the Only Ticketed Pa

12 Flynavy: I am preaching to the choir here (perhaps over-reacting as well), but how many people have to die in order for some people to stop whining about the s

13 Nonrevman: Flynavy, Read the rest of my paragraph, please. I was trying to explain that if everyone else was allowed through the checkpoint would create even mor

14 Seiple: NebFlyer, From what I can see, the "security" measures we have implemented in airports since 9/11 would NOT have stopped those terrorists. The only th

15 Trvlr: It is my firm belief that non-ticketholders should be allowed inside the terminals. However, I don't recommend their readmittance until security proce

16 Twaneedsnohelp: Why do non-passengers deserve to be let down to the gates? Well for one reason, its their money building the place. Purchasing one way tickets day of

17 B757300: It has very little if anything to do with security. It has to do with efficiently and convenience. Right now if 5-10 times the number of people wanted

18 Seiple: Removing non-ticketholders from terminals is a good band-aid measure in that it allows for an easier overhaul of aviation security due to reduced vol

19 Seiple: Twaneedsnohelp, Well for one reason, its their money building the place. Well, our taxpayer money is being used to build police stations, military bas

20 Andie007: At Germany non-ticketed passengers were never allowed at the transit zones, gates, etc. I never understand why this was allowed im America. I was very

21 Wn700driver: Worrying about PAX being a security concern is a complete waste of time. My experiences show me that a well motivated flight-crew is a much more likel

22 Flynavy: The following two, count them two, paragraphs are non directed at any one user. They are generalized statements. Some people feel that post-September

23 Srbmod: In some ways, the FAA allowed the hijackings to take place because they wouldn't enact more serious security measure because the airlines whined to th

24 PROSA: Some U.S. airports had ticketed-pax-only restrictions in effect even before September 11th. An example was the AA terminals at JFK.

25 Greg: Don't bring them back! It's much nicer without all the extra people. Shorter lines at the bars, shops, etc... Also...less children!

USER PROFILE SEND INSTANT MSG ADD TO RESP MEMBERS SUGGEST DELETION QUOTE SELECTED TEXT _ ScottysAir From , joined today!, posts, RR: Reply 26, posted Thu Aug 1 2002 02:05:59 your local time (5 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 698 times:

Greg, Just please bring them back with the visitors are goes into the concourse again as for possible. It's is time to be bring it back go through of the concourses to look with the airplanes. OK? Just please do it with through of the security checkpoint at the US Airports. I did take it off with the Ticketed Passengers Only is out at the FLL airport. I don't want to see it with the sign. Just please do it with your friends can able go through of the concourses again and kill with the Ticketed Passengers Only is out at the front of the checkpoint right now. Well, you should get ready to be happy go back at gate area!! YAY!!!!!!

USER PROFILE SEND INSTANT MSG ADD TO RESP MEMBERS SUGGEST DELETION QUOTE SELECTED TEXT _ Seiple From , joined today!, posts, RR: Reply 27, posted Thu Aug 1 2002 02:18:34 your local time (5 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 676 times:

ScottysAir, I'm sorry, but I still don't see any legitimate reason why security checkpoints should be reopened to everybody. Should they be opened to all so that people can go watch airplanes and just have fun or is there a more concrete reason?

USER PROFILE SEND INSTANT MSG ADD TO RESP MEMBERS SUGGEST DELETION QUOTE SELECTED TEXT _ TWAneedsnohelp From , joined today!, posts, RR: Reply 28, posted Thu Aug 1 2002 02:42:48 your local time (5 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 660 times:

ScottysAir, I'm sorry, I know you are hard of hearing, but I can't understand one goddamn thing you wrote.   Why did they make sign language so different from spoken language? Jason... Listen, I'm all for the background checks, they should be an integral and important part of aviation security. I'm upset our government doesn't do it. Oh and your are excused for the editing, I know exaclty what its like to have a bitter mod on your tail looking for any reaons to delete. take care, russ

USER PROFILE SEND INSTANT MSG ADD TO RESP MEMBERS SUGGEST DELETION QUOTE SELECTED TEXT _ Seiple From , joined today!, posts, RR: Reply 29, posted Thu Aug 1 2002 02:46:09 your local time (5 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 652 times:

Russ, Having spoken with a few people, apparently passenger manifests are checked against a government-compiled list of "question passengers" which include those suspected of being in terrorist organizations, those wanted by the INS or US Customs, those with outstanding warrants in many local jurisdictions, etc. Supposedly it does happen in practice, but how widespread I am unsure.

USER PROFILE SEND INSTANT MSG ADD TO RESP MEMBERS SUGGEST DELETION QUOTE SELECTED TEXT _ Flyboy36y From United States, joined Mar 2000, 3020 posts, RR: 6 Reply 30, posted Thu Aug 1 2002 02:47:39 your local time (5 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 649 times:

When I was in LBB my flight jut landed. I went to get my bags and tried to re enter the security area. THey would not let me. I was stuck for hours wiith no food as all the food was inside the security area!! It is stupid not to let anyboydy past security who is not flying.

USER PROFILE SEND INSTANT MSG ADD TO RESP MEMBERS SUGGEST DELETION QUOTE SELECTED TEXT _ Flynavy From United States, joined Mar 2002, 1836 posts, RR: 13 Reply 31, posted Thu Aug 1 2002 03:00:05 your local time (5 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 638 times:

I would call it smart, personally. Jacob: First of all, you KNEW that you couldn't get past security if you weren't a ticketed passenger. You created the inconvinience for yourself. Later, Chris in Orlando   Delta Air Lines: Rising.

USER PROFILE SEND INSTANT MSG ADD TO RESP MEMBERS SUGGEST DELETION QUOTE SELECTED TEXT _ SJCguy From United States, joined Apr 2001, 579 posts, RR: 1 Reply 32, posted Thu Aug 1 2002 03:14:49 your local time (5 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 621 times:

Could you only imagine what the wait and lines would be if everybody and anybody was allowed thru security!?!? It takes forever for just ticketed pax to get thru there, now add about 100 extra people per line into the mix...uh uh...ain't gonna happen. The days of meeting your loved ones at the gates are over unfortunatly. Thank the piece of shi* terrorists for that one my friends... SJCguy

USER PROFILE SEND INSTANT MSG ADD TO RESP MEMBERS SUGGEST DELETION QUOTE SELECTED TEXT _ Krags From United States, joined Nov 2001, 47 posts, RR: 0 Reply 33, posted Thu Aug 1 2002 03:40:57 your local time (5 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 602 times:

I have to admit that right now I am undecided about allowing everyone into the secured areas. I can certainly understand the reasons for allowing ticketed passengers only. But on the other hand, anyone with a computer, printer, and scanner can forge an e-ticket print out. So if a terrorist really wants access to the secured area he will get it one way or another. I think a solution might be to have seperate security screening areas. One for actual passengers and one for "visitors". The one for visitors could be manned with minimum staffing so if it takes a long time to get through then its no big deal because you aren't going to miss a flight. Here in TUL I have seen the ticket counter agents give non passengers special passes that allow them to accompany ticketed passengers to the gates. One example was a wife who just wanted to be able to see her husband off. So that shows me right there that there are already loop holes in the system.

USER PROFILE SEND INSTANT MSG ADD TO RESP MEMBERS SUGGEST DELETION QUOTE SELECTED TEXT _ Seiple From , joined today!, posts, RR: Reply 34, posted Thu Aug 1 2002 03:47:53 your local time (5 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 591 times:

I have to admit that right now I am undecided about allowing everyone into the secured areas. I can certainly understand the reasons for allowing ticketed passengers only. But on the other hand, anyone with a computer, printer, and scanner can forge an e-ticket print out. They won't be able to get onto an airplane, so what is the concern? So if a terrorist really wants access to the secured area he will get it one way or another. I think a solution might be to have seperate security screening areas. One for actual passengers and one for "visitors". The one for visitors could be manned with minimum staffing so if it takes a long time to get through then its no big deal because you aren't going to miss a flight. That would require either diverting energy from the checkpoints currently used for passengers only, which would defeat this purpose and just cause longer waiting, or hiring more workers and purchasing more equipment, which is not worth it as visitors are not paying PFC's or security taxes. Here in TUL I have seen the ticket counter agents give non passengers special passes that allow them to accompany ticketed passengers to the gates. One example was a wife who just wanted to be able to see her husband off. So that shows me right there that there are already loop holes in the system. I'll say again that the point of the security is not that "all non-traveling people are dangerous." The point of restricting the gates to only ticketed and traveling passengers is simply to cut down on the number of people to make security lines shorter. With added things like more bomb swabs, completely opening many bags, having electronic devices turned on (at some airports), the shoe tests, and wanding, going through security is much more involved than before (put your bags on the belt, metal stuff in the pan, walk through, grab your bag, go on to the gates). It takes longer so to cut down on wait times, restrict it to only those who need to go through. Nowhere did the government say that non-traveling passengers are dangerous. They simply cause undue wait because of added volume.

USER PROFILE SEND INSTANT MSG ADD TO RESP MEMBERS SUGGEST DELETION QUOTE SELECTED TEXT _ Jjbiv From United States, joined Jan 2001, 1226 posts, RR: 3 Reply 35, posted Thu Aug 1 2002 04:17:57 your local time (5 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 572 times:

At TOL, passengers need to have a boarding pass (or priority verification) issued at the airport on the day of departure to pass through security. Our ticket counter closes 30 minutes prior to departure. These two policies make working the gate a piece of cake -- except for searching pax...that's still a pain. joe

USER PROFILE SEND INSTANT MSG ADD TO RESP MEMBERS SUGGEST DELETION QUOTE SELECTED TEXT _ Flyboy36y From United States, joined Mar 2000, 3020 posts, RR: 6 Reply 36, posted Thu Aug 1 2002 07:01:35 your local time (5 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 536 times:

Jacob: First of all, you KNEW that you couldn't get past security if you weren't a ticketed passenger. You created the inconvinience for yourself. This is true, but it was a no win situation. What can I do? I needed to get my luggage.

USER PROFILE SEND INSTANT MSG ADD TO RESP MEMBERS SUGGEST DELETION QUOTE SELECTED TEXT _ Flynavy From United States, joined Mar 2002, 1836 posts, RR: 13 Reply 37, posted Thu Aug 1 2002 09:17:56 your local time (5 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 504 times:

Again, you KNEW that you couldn't get past security if you weren't a ticketed passenger. You created the inconvinience for yourself.   Delta Air Lines: Rising.

USER PROFILE SEND INSTANT MSG ADD TO RESP MEMBERS SUGGEST DELETION QUOTE SELECTED TEXT _ Jhooper From United States, joined Dec 2001, 5719 posts, RR: 10 Reply 38, posted Thu Aug 1 2002 09:40:51 your local time (5 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 496 times:

Some U.S. airports had ticketed-pax-only restrictions in effect even before September 11th. An example was the AA terminals at JFK. Yea, my local airport has NEVER let non-ticketed passengers through the security checkpoint, but luckily the vast majority of the terminal is unsecured area (with a small waiting room just inside the security checkpoint right next to the boarding door)   Make a difference.

USER PROFILE SEND INSTANT MSG ADD TO RESP MEMBERS SUGGEST DELETION QUOTE SELECTED TEXT _ ILUV767 From United States, joined May 2000, 3073 posts, RR: 5 Reply 39, posted Thu Aug 1 2002 10:11:08 your local time (5 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 480 times:

I'll say what has already been said but, if non ticketed passengers were presently allowed past the checkpoint, lines would me much longer and more people would be troubled. I L U V 7 6 7

USER PROFILE SEND INSTANT MSG ADD TO RESP MEMBERS SUGGEST DELETION QUOTE SELECTED TEXT _ Jhooper From United States, joined Dec 2001, 5719 posts, RR: 10 Reply 40, posted Thu Aug 1 2002 10:14:35 your local time (5 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 476 times:

We need to see some real reform in security. Most of the procedures in place right now (i.e. checking photo IDs two and three times) do little to enhance security, since creating fake IDs and documents is way too easy, as if someone really on a "watch list" will really try getting on a plane with their true identification. We should develop bomb-resistant cargo containers, 100% screening on checked luggage and passengers (and by the way, if the first screening is done correctly, what's the use of the "random search"?) and train crews how to property respond to hijackings, and stop harrassing people who want just want to watch airplanes. I know I digressed slightly from the discussion of letting visitors in the terminal, but I do understand the long lines and hassle that would be placed on traveling passengers. But if you really want to get through to meet your guests at the arrival gate, I'm sure you would figure out how to do it without changing the current rules.   Make a difference.

USER PROFILE SEND INSTANT MSG ADD TO RESP MEMBERS SUGGEST DELETION QUOTE SELECTED TEXT _ Kcle From United States, joined Feb 2001, 686 posts, RR: 0 Reply 41, posted Thu Aug 1 2002 10:29:42 your local time (5 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 481 times:

At CLE, I think it should be like this: We have a Spectator Deck, where a good portion of all the A.net photos from CLE were taken. Since the deck is located within the secured portion of Concourse B, there has been almost no one up there anymore. First they closed off the whole thing because of "security reasons"(Right, if you go THROUGH the checkpoint first and they check you for anything, how exactly do you pose a threat sitting in a Spectator Deck watching planes?) Then they decided to reopen only the inner portion, and because of the checkpoint, it was only avialable to those flying DL, WN, UA, airOntario, or the Delta regioal affialiates. Now, when I would spend entire days at that Deck last summer, I know about 95% of them weren't flying out of B. They were either waiting for a long connection from CO or decided to spend the a few hours there and watch for a family members plane flight to arrive. One time a whole family came up there to wish off a family member flying aboard a UA 737. Now here's another thing. Concourse B is not all that busy, save WN at the end of the Concourse, but that is in waves. Same thing with all the other airlines. Sure they get busy, but there are times I remember there was maybe 1 or 2 in line for security, and 15 or 20 leaving the Councourse. Here's what they should do: Reopen both parts of the deck. Have people who plan on visiting the deck call a day or two in advance and make an appointment. Then you would be told to go talk to a certain person about going to the deck. They would give you a special ticket or something with an access code or number or bar code that you show the security personnell and then they scan or type it in on a small computer and if a green light shows up you can go if it's red you get questioned. You would only be able to go to the security checkpoint during an offpeak time during the day, like between flights, when there is less then 5 people. You would only be allowed one bag, for a camera that would be searched and you would have to subject to a hand search with that metal detector wand thing. When you leave the Councourse, you have to return the pass to the certain person you got it from or an alarm will go off at the doors.

USER PROFILE SEND INSTANT MSG ADD TO RESP MEMBERS SUGGEST DELETION QUOTE SELECTED TEXT _ RickB From United Kingdom, joined May 2003, 243 posts, RR: 4 Reply 42, posted Thu Aug 1 2002 14:37:37 your local time (5 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 437 times:

The point I think people are missing is this:- If a terrorist can walk through a checkpoint 100's of times (rather than just each time he buys a ticket) it is possible he will be able to spot a weak point in the security or spot someone who doesn't do the job quite right. During this 'research' phase he would be unarmed and therefore if he gets stopped - no big deal. Once he has found the weakpoint - he returns with a weapon - goes through the checkpoint using the flaw he has found (he may not even have a ticket at this point) - once through security he can plant the weapon somewhere - say in a flower box, plant tub or something. Later on the real terrorist who is unarmed - goes through the checkpoint unarmed and picks up the weapon from the agreed location - he's now onboard the aircraft with his weapon. Letting visitors through security is a POTENTIAL weakness and should be avoided. I appreciate it may inconvenience people - but think about 9/11 and think how much is the inconvenience really worth !! RickB

USER PROFILE SEND INSTANT MSG ADD TO RESP MEMBERS SUGGEST DELETION QUOTE SELECTED TEXT _ Greg From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 0 posts, RR: 1 Reply 43, posted Thu Aug 1 2002 18:01:18 your local time (5 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 399 times:

It's just been SO much nicer with less crowds in the terminals. You can find a place to sit and their are only half as many screaming babies. Although I fully support a viewing area for non-passengers...even if there is a slight charge to maintain the facility and it's security.

USER PROFILE SEND INSTANT MSG ADD TO RESP MEMBERS SUGGEST DELETION QUOTE SELECTED TEXT _ Kwbl From United States, joined Jun 2001, 392 posts, RR: 0 Reply 44, posted Thu Aug 1 2002 19:50:33 your local time (5 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 365 times:

My 2 cents for whatever it's worth: 1. I think non-pax should be allowed back down the concourses. At least in the airports I have been to, this number is less than 15% of the people so there would not be hoards of people. I do not see that security is improved though I would agree from a convenience standpoint, it makes the security lines shorter for those who are flying, but agin, I do not think we are talking about large amounts of people. Also, people who are not flying generally do not have baggage or anything that needs to be checked. 2. RickB indicated that a potential problem maker could go through hundreds of times to check out weaknesses. I don't think that would be an issue. Terrorists are well-funded, if they want to check out the security situation, and the only way to do it is to buy a ticket, they can buy tickets-it would not be a problem . 3. The reason US airports have traditionally let non-pax down concourses is that for the most part, US airports are domestic facilities. Most countries in Europe and Asia have a far greater # of int'l passengers who must 1st transit through customs. 4. I think some of the security issues taken are good but the reality is, that if terrorists or other plain old bad people are going to do bad things, there is always a way to beat the system.

USER PROFILE SEND INSTANT MSG ADD TO RESP MEMBERS SUGGEST DELETION QUOTE SELECTED TEXT _ Seiple From , joined today!, posts, RR: Reply 45, posted Thu Aug 1 2002 20:01:51 your local time (5 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 353 times:

Kwbl, Your points are well taken. However, I have yet to see a real convincing argument out of most other than "I want to watch airplanes so they should let us back through!" I'd be really interested in seeing the financials of businesses behind and outside of security. I proffer a guess that it has all worked out (especially since most retail outlets in a given airport are operated by one company).

USER PROFILE SEND INSTANT MSG ADD TO RESP MEMBERS SUGGEST DELETION QUOTE SELECTED TEXT _ Tom in NO From United States, joined Nov 1999, 6870 posts, RR: 50 Reply 46, posted Thu Aug 1 2002 20:33:32 your local time (5 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 338 times:

#1) I agree with Seiple, I have also yet to read a single convincing argument for allowing non-ticketed passengers through the checkpoints. The "I just to watch the airplanes" argument doesn't hold water, and I guarantee you that the TSA and we as airport management don't even consider that argument. #2) Another argument against moving checkpoint to the terminal entryways: has anyone considered the logistical headaches of screening absolutely everything and everybody that enters the terminal? This idea changes the line of thinking regarding the location of EDS (Explosive Detection System) in airport terminals...unless you all want your luggage screened twice. Secondly, were this to happen, we all can say goodbye to our friends and family on the departure ramp, because non-ticketed passengers won't be let in the terminal. Finally, anyone here think we're going to approve a serious loss of revenue from losing the non-ticketed passenger in airport retail, and what would be a serious revenue dropoff in our parking lots? As an aside, we don't see the TSA forcing that issue, they've got enough deadlines and headaches to keep them busy. Tom in NO (at MSY)   "The criminal ineptitude makes you furious"-Bruce Springsteen, after seeing firsthand the damage from Hurricane Katrina

USER PROFILE SEND INSTANT MSG ADD TO RESP MEMBERS SUGGEST DELETION QUOTE SELECTED TEXT _ Mr. Mof From United States, joined May 2001, 38 posts, RR: 0 Reply 47, posted Thu Aug 1 2002 20:43:48 your local time (5 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 333 times:

I work as an inner-city school teacher in NJ. Pardon my analogy: There is a sure-fire way to cut back on problems in our hallways and that is to LIMIT the number of students in the hallways...when they DO NOT NEED TO BE THERE! My airport I use is Newark and Terminal C used to be a wonderful place to spot planes, shop and even eat if you were eaiting for family/friends. Now it is off-limits to non-passengers since 9/11. As far as the terrorists...the cliche, unfortunately, states it all, "Where there is a will, there is a way."

USER PROFILE SEND INSTANT MSG ADD TO RESP MEMBERS SUGGEST DELETION QUOTE SELECTED TEXT _ Eugdog From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2001, 425 posts, RR: 0 Reply 48, posted Thu Aug 1 2002 22:01:52 your local time (5 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 302 times:

many shops in the airport concourse are paying huge rents - now that only ticketed passengers are allowed pass the check in desk these shops must be suffering a big drop in customers - yet they may be still paying the big rents that were negotiated pre-September 11. It is very tough on them -but whether this justifies allowing non ticketed passengers back into the main concourse is debateable. Lives are more important then the airport shops!

USER PROFILE SEND INSTANT MSG ADD TO RESP MEMBERS SUGGEST DELETION QUOTE SELECTED TEXT _ Nonrevman From United States, joined Nov 2001, 1160 posts, RR: 0 Reply 49, posted Thu Aug 1 2002 22:41:13 your local time (5 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 288 times:

Concerning the businesses that operate on the secured side: Even before 9-11, it seems that most of the business came from passengers and employees at the airport. Today, both of these groups are still allowed through. Let's see what kind of businesses we have on the secured side. There are fast food places, sit-in restaurants, souvenir shops, newspaper-convenience item shops, currency exchanges, and some services such as barbers and shoe shine stands. In larger airports, a lot of "mall" stores such as Bath and Body Works have set up shop. When it comes to the food, the prices are always higher than you would find them to be in the same franchise outside the terminal. It is likely that someone is not going to go to the airport just to eat. The meeters and greeters would probably prefer that everyone either eats before they drop you off or after they pick you up anyway. As for the souvenir shops, convenience items, and service shops, these are clearly geared towards the passengers. They tend to offer things that would appeal to a traveller. Personally, I prefer not to go to airport and pay for a 8$ hamburger or a souvenir marked up about 300%. However, I might buy food or items at the airport while I am travelling. All of the businesses in my concourse that were there before 9-11 are still there, and they are doing fine. In fact, this whole security issue might have inadvertantly helped them out. Since the lines in to security are often hard to predict and people are expected to get to the airport earlier for check-in, many people find that they have a lot of time on their hands when they pass through security. This has helped out the shops tremendously. Also, since food on domestic flights is on the decline, the restaurants and fast food places have done rather well. I would not worry too much the impact of ticketed passengers only past the checkpoint.

USER PROFILE SEND INSTANT MSG ADD TO RESP MEMBERS SUGGEST DELETION QUOTE SELECTED TEXT _ Eugdog From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2001, 425 posts, RR: 0 Reply 50, posted Thu Aug 1 2002 22:52:55 your local time (5 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 277 times:

As a business man myself I can tell you that the profits are made at the margin - it the last 10-20% of sales that make the profits - the earlier sales are just contribution to the fixed costs. So I cannot believe that profit margins are not significantly effected by the barring of non passengers from the shop. Regarding the very high prices charged at airport shops - this is classic example of economic rent theory - Shop Prices are NOT high because of the high rent - it is the opposite - Rents are high because shop prices are high!!!! Shop keepers are willing to premium rents because they can charge premium prices due to the location, captive market etc. Economic theory suggest that the Return on investment for airport shop should be the same as for any oher location. The great British economist David Recardo realized this in the 18th century when price of grain seemed to be very high - people blamed the landlord for jacking up rent.

51 Flynavy: Nonrevman is correct. These shops are geared towards the traveling public. Why? Because they are in an AIRPORT. It seems to me like there are two reas

52 ScottysAir: Hey Guys, How about getting ready to chance bring with the visitors are back at concourses and gate area again. It's is TIME to let bring it back! I w

53 Tom in NO: I think people are missing my point a little bit when I mention secured-area retail shops post-9/11. Fact is, most shops did see a loss in revenue (as

54 MD88Captain: Getting through security now is a time consuming process. Allowing non-ticketed passengers through to the gates will increase the hassle factor for al

55 Seiple: ScottysAir, How about getting ready to chance bring with the visitors are back at concourses and gate area again. It's is TIME to let bring it back! I

      Averill's newest  letters to the TSA 2007-07-30

Rush Limbaugh's view on liquids through security and how it relates to      "ticketed passengers only".

    While "ticketed passengers only" should be ended now, while
    it is in force, the least the TSA or CATSA, the airlines and/or
    airports could do is place signs like the one below to advise that
    "gate passes" are avaliable to meet unaccompanied minors and
    other handicapped persons who must be met by family or friends 
    at the gate!

Jacksonville International Airport: 
With a large/spacious checkpoint like this, why "ticketed passengers only" anyway?
_____________________________________________2006-12-01

Sound off like you’ve got a pair

June 24, 2007 By Eric All & Sundry - http://www.sundrymourning.com
 

I remember when I was a kid how much I used to love airports. They were so exciting and full of promise, from the swirls of busy people rushing to their departure gates to the stomach-dropping miraculous moment when the plane left the tarmac and began its inexplicable climb into the sky. I used to travel by myself to visit my grandparents in Michigan, and the sight of their eager faces when I walked into the gate, their opened arms and exclamations of delight, was even better than the flight itself. Even better than the thrillingly salty peanuts, or the nose-burning cup of ginger ale, or the blue plastic wings a stewardess would always offer me.

Of course nowadays only ticketed passengers can hang around the terminal, and you don’t get peanuts because someone could go into anaphylactic shock, and any excitement associated with flying has long been replaced by the ever-present feeling of dread and discomfort as you stand in line after line while uniformed men shout aggressively into the crowd about how any liquids need to be in plastic bags or SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES, and the whole time you’re standing there in your bare feet trying not to think about how many other people’s bare feet have touched the exact same section of the floor you’re on. Never mind the flight itself, where you’re so intimately crushed against both the seat in front of you and the stranger on your left, even if anyone did give you peanuts (which they will NOT) the sodium bloat would probably cause permanent injury.

What I’m saying is that I think it’s going to take a lot of convincing to get me to do another business trip anytime soon. The next time I deal with air travel I want a big payoff on the other side, like say for instance a week in Hawaii. I mean, that cream puff was pretty goddamned good, but definitely not worth the hassle of getting there.

By: sundry | 2007/06/24 |

Comments

1. Mary O

Comment by Mary O | 2007/06/24 at 21:09:58

I agree about airports. I have not been on a flight lately that has not been delayed at least an hour. It’s so rediculous these days.

2. Mack

Comment by Mack | 2007/06/24 at 21:13:19

The airport is the single most stressful experience on the face of the planet. And at your destination, waiting for you(r) opened arms as you get off the plane? Nothing but more people hating the experience as much as you do! Except for the guy that got cavity checked. He hates it more than you.

3. TinaNZ

Comment by TinaNZ | 2007/06/24 at 21:46:10

The writer Terry Pratchett defined an airport as a place where you hurry up and wait. The way things are going, a cavity check will be mandatory. And does anybody have any statistics on just how many deaths were cause by those peanuts?

 (hundreds of unhappy people yelling at them) and things could have been much worse.

4. Meg

Comment by Meg | 2007/06/24 at 22:28:51

                I totally get peanuts when I fly. I did on my flight in May. Is Southwest the last airline handing out peanuts?

Anyway, I know what you mean. I used to like flying, too. Now every time I’m at an airport, I can’t help

realizing that I hate most of the people in the world. Or I’m grumpy when I fly.

I’m grateful to still have that same childhood joy of the plane taking off, though. I really love that part.

5. Alex

Comment by Alex | 2007/06/25 at 01:26:48

This post was brilliantly written.

6. Emily

Comment by Emily | 2007/06/25 at 01:57:59

A good alternative to air travel is Greyhound. Less annoying security, more intoxicating smells!

(HA! Totally kidding. Greyhound makes me want to stab myself in the eyes.)

7. Niki P.

Comment by Niki P. | 2007/06/25 at 03:35:52

MY son travels quite a bit for work and he has masterered “travel post 9/11.” If he is gone for more than 2 days he will mail his crap to his destination so he doesn’t have to use baggage claim. They have “misplaced” his luggage more times than I can count. He has airport shoes and carries antibacterial wipes with him. No, he is not a neat freak- it’s just that the general public is GROSS!
 

8. Emblita

Comment by Emblita | 2007/06/25 at 05:35:47

Yup, they have managed to make airtravel an hellish experience without actually increasing security that much (an danish reporter walked through security with an 18cm long ceramic knife and wrote a story on it- eeek). Same security level, more pissed off passengers.
In a couple of months we’re going to Thailand so we can add total abject fear of someone having put drugs in our luggage and being put into a Thai prison… shudder (I’m paranoid about that stuff).

9. kendra!

Comment by kendra! | 2007/06/25 at 06:28:29

I always think about the foot traffic, literally, that has spread its fungus before me. If socks with sandals is a fashion faux pas, I think the security line at the airport must forgive this.

10. Eric’s Mommy

Comment by Eric’s Mommy | 2007/06/25 at 06:31:38

I hadn’t flown since 9/11 until about a month ago when we took Eric to Disney. What a pain in the butt! I hated that stupid thing that you walk into and it shoots air out at you. I also don’t like how nobody can meet you at the gate anymore, I used to love getting right off the plane and seeing my family, now you get to go claim them along with your luggage.

11. lea

Comment by lea | 2007/06/25 at 10:00:30

Do you ever get that feeling when you go through airport security like you’re going to a nazi internment camp or something? Like the next thing they’re going to do is strip you naked, shave your head, and hand you a small piece of soap. It’s creepy and airport security should be doing something to help us feel better and less stressed, not like we’re all criminals…

12. serror

Comment by serror | 2007/06/25 at 15:07:52

It was so refreshing flying in New Zealand. We flew around the country in these little 18 person planes, and you actually walk out on the tarmac and up the little plane stairs. It made me feel like air travel in the 50’s in the states… Also, they do have security but much more like our pre-9/11 security. Reasonable stuff. Sometimes the agents at the little one room, airports would even forget to check IDs (they were 30 minute commuter flights in the country)

What drives me nuts about all the upped US security, is that I don’t really believe it is doing any good. If it is ok for women to wear bras with gel or water in them, or if people could strap anything to their body that they want to as long as it isn’t metal, why put liquids from carry-ons in little tiny containers in quart size plastic bags? It just seems like if someone is determined, we aren’t doing anything to stop them unless they are carrying metal, but making life inconvenient for those of us just trying to travel.

13. Christy

Comment by Christy | 2007/06/25 at 17:33:56

I’m glad to learn that I’m not the only person who minds taking off my shoes. Last week when I flew I had on flip-flips, for cryin’ out loud–where was I going to hide something? They’re foam and rubber!

Ick. The thought of all those bare feet touching the same carpet and tile. It makes my whole body cringe.

                Gate passes for sale

2007-04-21

On The “Ticketed Passengers Only” Rule At Airports

NEW FOR 07 posted 2007-01-03 

By MikeTheActuary

27B Stroke 6 has been abuzz the past few days with the story of an Indiana ST University
grad student releasing a fake boarding pass generator to highlight
one of the weaknesses of airport Security Theater, and the subsequent FBI
raid of the aforementioned grad student. (All charges were later dropped &
his computers were returned, undamaged, I hope. I hope he sues!. Averill)

I appreciate the guy’s chutzpah and the statement he was trying to make, but
you’d think that a grad student would be smart enough to be aware that the
feds have absolutely no sense of humor when it comes to security (or Security
Theater). For tha