End “ticketed passengers only” at North American airports – Continuation

 

Castro died today: This was the man who with Kennedy caused the embargo of Cuba. And, in doing so, created, the first plane hijackings of, “homesick” Cubans. While through the years plane hijackings’ became more widespread and deadly, at least in North America, airport security and “ticketed passengers only” had its embryonic beginnings with this man and the way we reacted, or did not react, to him via the “Bay of Pigs”, and other issues which made Cubans want to go home after we stopped flying to Cuba from US airports.

Feds say WA drivers licenses won’t be good enough for airport security

Soon, Washington residents may need a passport or other federally issued identification to board commercial flights or enter federal buildings because Washington-issued licenses won’t be acceptable.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security told the state this week that standard driver licenses and identification cards will have to comply with federal rules requiring proof of U.S. residency or citizenship in order to be valid for federal purposes, according to the Associated Press.

The Department of Homeland Security’s REAL ID program already requires states to ask for proof of U.S. citizenship or permanent residency for state-issued identification that would be acceptable to get into federal buildings. The same also will be required — perhaps as soon as next year — to use state-issued identification for airport security lines.

Most states do not issue drivers licenses without proof of residency or citizenship. Washington and New Mexico are the only states that issue standard driver’s licenses and identification cards regardless of U.S. residency or citizenship status. Other states, including California, issue drivers licenses to people without documentation, but the licenses and identification cards indicate that the identification card is not valid for federal purposes.

Washington had an extension to comply with the REAL ID law. But this week, the Department of Homeland Security declined to continue to Washington’s extension and gave the state three months to comply, according to the Associated Press.

Earlier this year, the Washington Department of Licensing developed a proposal that would have continued to allow undocumented immigrant drivers to get standard licenses and expanded the state’s existing Enhanced ID program. But the proposal died in the 2015 legislative session.

In 2007, the Washington state legislature passed a bill opposing the federal REAL ID mandates.

This is yet another example of how “ticketed passengers only” is taking yet more of your rights.  Why should you need a drivers license to go through security in the first place!  Averill 10/29/15

Read more:

Associated Press: Standard Washington driver’s license soon won’t get you aboard aircraft

The Seattle Globalist: New state proposal would still allow undocumented immigrant drivers

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Everyone here might want to read this editorial in National Review below. It relates to “ticketed passengers only” only because it is a reminder of what rights the “people” have in relation to our ever increasing and dictatorial governments. It deals with the Nevada Bundy cattle grazing mess on Federal lands. But you can just put “ticketed passengers only” or any other regulation which has you up in arms.

April 15, 2014 4:00 PM

The Case for a Little Sedition
The Bundy standoff reminds us that government is our servant, not our master.

By Kevin D. Williamson

bundy

 

Cliven Bundy supporters rally in Nevada.


A great deal of the discussion about the Cliven Bundy standoff in Nevada has focused on the legal questions — the litigation between Mr. Bundy and the BLM, his eccentric (i.e., batzoid) legal rationales, etc. But as Rich Lowry and others have argued, this is best understood not as a legal proceeding but as an act of civil disobedience. John Hinderaker and Rich both are correct that as a legal question Mr. Bundy is legless. But that is largely beside the point.

Of course the law is against Cliven Bundy. How could it be otherwise? The law was against Mohandas Gandhi, too, when he was tried for sedition; Mr. Gandhi himself habitually was among the first to acknowledge that fact, refusing to offer a defense in his sedition case and arguing that the judge had no choice but to resign, in protest of the perfectly legal injustice unfolding in his courtroom, or to sentence him to the harshest sentence possible, there being no extenuating circumstances for Mr. Gandhi’s intentional violation of the law. Henry David Thoreau was happy to spend his time in jail, knowing that the law was against him, whatever side justice was on.

But not all dissidents are content to submit to what we, in the Age of Obama, still insist on quaintly calling “the rule of law.” And there is a price to pay for that, too: King George not only would have been well within his legal rights to hang every one of this nation’s seditious Founding Fathers, he would have been duty-bound to do so, the keeping of the civil peace being the first responsibility of the civil authority. Every fugitive slave, and every one of the sainted men and women who harbored and enabled them, was a law-breaker, and who can blame them if none was content to submit to what passed for justice among the slavers? The situation was less dramatic during the government shutdown, but every one of the veterans and cheesed-off citizens who disregarded President Obama’s political theater and pushed aside his barricades was a law-breaker, too — and bless them for being that.

Harry Reid, apparently eager for somebody to play the role of General Dyer in this civil-disobedience drama, promises that this is “not over.” And, in a sense, it can’t be over: The theory of modern government is fundamentally Hobbesian in its insistence that where political obedience is demanded, that demand must be satisfied lest we regress into bellum omnium contra omnes. I myself am of the view that there is a great deal of real estate between complete submission and civil war, and that acts such as Mr. Bundy’s are not only bearable in a free republic but positively salubrious. Unhappily, those views are not shared by many in Washington, and, if I were a wagering sort, my money would be on Mr. Bundy ending up dead or in prison, with a slight bias in the odds toward death.

Mohandas Gandhi and George Washington both were British subjects who believed that their legal situation was at odds with something deeper and more meaningful, and that the British were a legal authority but an alien power. (Washington is not really so much closer to London than New Delhi is.) Mr. Bundy is tapping into a longstanding tendency in the American West to view the federal government as a creature of the eastern establishment, with political and economic interests that are inimical to those of the West and its people. And it is not as though there is no evidence supporting that suspicion. The federal government controls 87 percent of the land in Nevada, something that would be unheard-of in any state east of Colorado. Uncle Sam owns less than 1 percent of the land in New York, 1 percent of Maine, less than 1 percent of Rhode Island, less than 1 percent of Connecticut, but nearly half of New Mexico and Arizona, more than half of Utah and Idaho, and is practically a monopolist in Nevada. And a monopolist is rarely a good and honest negotiating partner. The original Sagebrush rebels objected to conservation rules written by eastern environmentalists who had never so much as set foot in the lands they were disposing of; a century and some later, people travel more, but the underlying dynamic is the same.

There are of course questions of prudence and proportion to be answered here, and though I note that he uses the very strong phrase “lawless government,” I sympathize with Mr. Lowry’s desire that both sides should follow the law. But there is a more important question here: Is government our servant, or is it our master? The Left has long ago answered that question to the satisfaction of its partisans, who are happy to be serfs so long as their birth control is subsidized. But the Right always struggles with that question, as it must. The thing that conservatives seek to conserve is the American order, which (1) insists that we are to be governed by laws rather than by men and (2) was born in a violent revolution. Russell Kirk described the conservative ideal as “ordered liberty,” and that is indeed what we must aim for — keeping in mind that it is order that serves liberty, not the other way around. And it is the government that exists at the sufferance of the people, including such irascible ones as Mr. Bundy, not the other way around.

If the conservatives in official Washington want to do something other than stand by and look impotent, they might consider pressing for legislation that would oblige the federal government to divest itself of 1 percent of its land and other real estate each year for the foreseeable future through an open auction process. Even the Obama administration has identified a very large portfolio of office buildings and other federal holdings that are unused or under-used. By some estimates, superfluous federal holdings amount to trillions of dollars in value. Surely not every inch of that 87 percent of Nevada under the absentee-landlordship of the federal government is critical to the national interest. Perhaps Mr. Bundy would like to buy some land where he can graze his cattle.

Prudential measures do not solve questions of principle. So where does that leave us with our judgment of the Nevada insurrection? Perhaps with an understanding that while Mr. Bundy’s stand should not be construed as a general template for civic action, it is nonetheless the case that, in measured doses, a little sedition is an excellent thing.

— Kevin D. Williamson is roving correspondent for National Rev

Without law there is no justice.  With regulations we stop needing laws.  The government becomes the souven, and the people just the subjects; and then we all lose!  Abraham Dash, Professor of Constitutional Law, University of Maryland Law School.  The kindest and smartest man I knew, and my uncle!

149335_3805842561332_269692702_n2

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

 

Let’s take a look at this British plot some weeks ago. Twenty-one people said to have found ways to get liquids aboard planes and carry-on baggage, and then the passengers, the 21 guys, the Muslims, are going to blow ’em up, up there. Ten planes blown up, midair, over the Atlantic Ocean, traveling to the United States. So immediately, what did the Brits do and what did we do? Well, we started banning liquids from airplanes: mother’s milk, baby milk formula, shaving cream, shaving gel. You know the list, whatever it all was, and of course does that not miss the point? Our enemy is not baby formula. Our enemy is not Edge shaving gel (or Gillette, take your pick. Schick. I don’t want to leave anybody out. Colgate) Our enemy is not bottled water.

The enemy are the people who do this, and we have excellent records of who they are. But don’t do that, that’s profiling, that is not the American way. We’re not going to look the evidence straight in the eye, we’re not going to see what the evidence says without a shadow of a doubt and draw the obvious conclusion, because that would make us feel guilty, and that would hurt feelings, and that would cause us even greater problems in the rest of the world because people would think we’re biased. So we focus on baby formula as the enemy now. We focus on — you pick it — whatever these liquids were that they banned from the airplanes, and you saw what it did in terms of check-in, early arrival, airlines said, we can’t keep doing this. You are causing us to lose money.

This is absurd. This is ridiculous. Now, at first blush, on the day of the event, yeah, it makes sense, because you never know if they rounded up all the guys. You never know if they rounded up everybody in the ring. So it makes sense to take all that stuff that was going to be used as the target off. But after that, to focus on those things as the problem is missing the problem on purpose. It’s not hard to identify what to do here, but we’re never going to do it, because that’s “racial profiling.” (Gasping.) The liberals can’t stand that, not going to allow that to happen, and we’re not going to offend people. Well, let ’em blow us up before we offend.

From the Rush Limbaugh Program:“John Kerry can’t let go of Ohio, emblematic of the Democratic Party’s problem…”
2006-08-29 Show.

Moderators view on the above:

While I agree with the general premise of the above quote from Mr. Limbaugh, and though he’s right that the government has files on many of the people who would like to do harm to North Americans, I don’t think profiling in airports is the answer. Technology, such as the GE walk through metal/explosives detector at all airports, and intelligence/infiltration of these terrorists is what needs to be done. And, why are law makers talking like we have to beef-up security even more or else? The system works. We (the British and Pakistan’s) caught these fools before they could carry it out. The system of international intelligence DID work, as Rush Limbaugh has stated numerous times.

Also, when Rush says that maybe these extraordinary procedures might have been necessary the first day or two, to be sure we got everyone, “at first blush, on the day of the event, yeah, it makes sense, because you never know if they rounded up all the guys. You never know if they rounded up everybody in the ring. So it makes sense to take all that stuff that was going to be used as the target off“. Rush IS absolutely RIGHT!!!

The same can also be said about my fight against ticketed passengers only“. For the first few days and weeks or even months after 9/11/2001, I even thought it was the right course of action to take because of the totality of what happened. I didn’t like it, mind you, but I understood it as a short term prudent act. But after that, when things did settle down to the point where operations were more or less back in control and flights were back to normal, and defiantly after the great and wonderful TSA took over Security nation wide, there was and is still no need to keep “ticketed passengers only” especially after 6 years.

This is all part of the governments “feel safe” solution to airport security. The TSA is going to secure the airlines right out of business ( see British Airways stories farther down on this site). Especially when Amtrak sales are up 25%; which alone should tell you something!

Averill Hecht 2006-09-02 moved 2006-12-03

___________________________________________________________________________

Here are some photos of the good all days before 9/11.  Don’t be sad, be angry.  Be so angered that you will fight like me and the other members of this site, and others who are fighting to end this TSA nonsense! 4/13/141991 Press Photo Airport Security Persian Gulf WarPHLB mia Miami International Airport Project 745E Miami Flughafenkontrolle-e1342816010465 Berlin_Schönefeld_Airport_metal_detectors ttryryr trt2t3t International Airport,Philadelphia,Pennsylvania Postcard (Circa 1960's) index.3 Reunion imagesXRBOUG8YThis was douring the first Gulf War in 1991.  This was one of the only times in pre 9/11 airport security where “ticketed passengers only” was put in place.  This policy began in early January 1991 by the FAA.  It was called Level 4 security.  The FAA lowered the threat level to two just before Memorial Day of that same year, and most of the signs came down.  The exception was around 10% of the US airports.  A few were Portland, ME., Burlington, VT., SOME of the councrses at Miami and Ft. Lourdidale but not all of them.  Remember, TPO was the decision of the dominant airline in the terminal with the consent of the airport authority and other airlines and tenants who used the terminal.  The FAA always deferd to the locals except in emergencies in a region or particular airport.  And, of course, in national emergencies like war.  Canada also allowed local option for the most part.

1998 Miami International Airport 1989 Airport-Miami International-Passengers flights leaving 1976 Press Photo Tampa Florida International Airport Security Scan 1973 Airports Seattle Tacoma Intl. 1972 35mm Negs O'Hare Airport Security 1971 Press Photo Passengers Tampa International Airport Florida $(KGrHqV,!rEFC10iQ)NHBQw6PhpE7Q~~60_57 Airports Seattle Tacoma Intl. 1974 Lara Swimmer 3392325329_e8d5716159_z

 

 

Study Finds Glaring Vulnerabilities in TSA’s Controversial Full-Body Scanners

By: Amanda Vicinanzo, Contributing Editor

08/24/2014 ( 6:42pm)

 

After coming under intense public scrutiny last year for depicting nude images of passengers, the full-body scanners widely deployed at US checkpoints throughout the United States from 2009 to 2013 are now the center of a new controversy—they don’t work.

Researchers from the University of California-San Diego, the University of Michigan and Johns Hopkins University recently published the findings of several laboratory tests conducted on the Rapiscan Secure 1000 full-body scanner and presented their findings publicly at the USENIX Security conference in San Diego last Thursday.

The study discovered several significant vulnerabilities in the controversial scanner, including failure to detect knives, firearms, plastic explosive simulants and detonators. In addition, the researchers assert that malicious software running on the scanner console can manipulate images to conceal contraband.

“Frankly, we were shocked by what we found,” J. Alex Halderman, a professor of computer science at the University of Michigan and one of the authors of the study, said in a statement. “A clever attacker can smuggle contraband past the machines using surprisingly low-tech techniques.”

The researchers performed a detailed evaluation of the hardware and software of a Rapiscan Secure 1000 full-body scanner—a commercially available model of the machine used by TSA— they obtained through a seller on eBay who purchased the scanner in 2012 at a surplus auction of equipment from a US government facility in Europe.

“The system’s designers seem to have assumed that attackers would not have access to a Secure 1000 to test and refine their attacks,” Hovav Shacham, one of the authors of the study and a professor of computer science at University of California, San Diego, said in a statement.

In order to meet the evolving terrorist threat, TSA began using advanced imaging technology (AIT), also known as whole-body imaging, in 2009. The technology in the Rapiscan Secure 1000—one of the two AITs deployed by TSA— dates from the early 1990s and uses X-ray backscatter imaging, which exploit the unique properties of ionizing radiation to detect hidden contraband.

The researchers concluded that the scanner performs as advertised in a non-adversarial setting involving a naïve attacker— an attacker whose tactics do not change in response to the introduction of the device—and easily detected a variety of naïvely concealed contraband.

An adaptive adversary familiar with backscatter technology, however, “can confidently smuggle contraband past the scanner by carefully arranging it on his body, obscuring it with other materials, or properly shaping it.”

The researchers were able to conceal a .380 Automatic Colt Pistol by either taping it to the outside of the leg just above the knee or by sewing it into the inside of the pant leg in the same location. The scanners also failed to detect an 11cm metal folding knife on the side of the body and an 18cm knife affixed to the spine with a thick layer of Teflon tape, which masked it from the scan.

While side to side scans in addition to front to back scans would provide a simple procedural remedy to thwart many of these types of concealments, the additional scans would double the subject’s radiation dose.

“We find that the system provides weak protection against adaptive adversaries: It is possible to conceal knives, guns, and explosives from detection by exploiting properties of the device’s backscatter X-ray technology,” states the report.

The researchers also managed to conceal malleable contraband, such as plastic explosives.  They successfully affixed a 200 gram thin pancake of unmodified C-4 simulant—a common plastic explosive—with a thick layer of tape around the subject’s torso and hid a small detonator with a hard metal shell in the subject’s navel, which mimicked the appearance of a bellybutton in the final image.

“To put this amount in perspective, “Shoe Bomber” Richard Reid reportedly carried about 280 g of explosive material, and the bomb that destroyed Pan Am Flight 103 is thought to have contained 350 g of Semtex,” the report said.

While the researchers based their success on their ability to experiment with the scanner, they also noted that “since we were able to purchase a Secure 1000, it is reasonable to assume that determined attackers and well-financed terrorist groups can do so as well.”

In addition to physical attacks, the researchers also tested the complex cyberphysical system of the Rapiscan Secure 1000. They picked the lock of the cabinet where the scanner’s computer was mounted in under ten seconds using a commercially available tool and then installed the malware on the computer inside. The software lacked any electronic access controls, such as passwords, making it possible for a determined attacker to gain physical access to the machine to upload malware.

Once installed, that malware could be programmed to selectively replace the scan of any passenger with a fake image if the individual wore a piece of clothing with a certain symbol or Quick Response Code—a machine-readable code consisting of an array of black and white squares.

In the researchers’ experiment, they arranged lead tape in the target shape on an undershirt.  According to the researchers, “When worn under other clothing, the target was easily detected by the malware, but hidden from visual inspection.”

“These machines were tested in secret, presumably without this kind of adversarial mindset, thinking about how an attacker would adapt to the techniques being used,” Halderman said.

“They might stop a naïve attacker,” he continued. “But someone who applied just a bit of cleverness to the problem would be able to bypass them. And if they had access to a machine to test their attacks, they could render their ability to detect contraband virtually useless.”

Although the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) pulled the 171 full-body scanners from airports last year amidst the privacy concerns raised over the nude images produced by the scanner, the scanners are still in use in jails, prisons, and government buildings. Costing $130,000 to $170,000 each, TSA sold the controversial scanners to law enforcement agencies at a fraction of the price through the federal surplus program.

Currently, airports use millimeter-wave scanners—a whole-body imaging device using a special type of microwave rather than an X-ray—which the authors of the study have not yet tested.  The report recommends that those “scanners, as well as any future AITs—whether of the millimeter-wave or backscatter variety—be subjected to independent, adversarial testing, and that this testing specifically consider software security.”

The researchers concluded that the Rapsican Secure 1000 is an ineffective method of screening for contraband against an attacker with access to a device for purposes of study and experimentation.

However, “The flaws we identified could be partly remediated through changes to procedures: performing side scans in addition to front and back scans, and screening subjects with magnetometers as well as backscatter scanners; but these procedural changes will lengthen screening times.”

TSA, however, disagrees. “Technology procured by the Transportation Security Administration goes through a rigorous testing and evaluation process, along with certification and accreditation,” said TSA spokesperson Ross Feinstein in a statement. “This process ensures information technology security risks are identified and mitigation plans put in place, as necessary.”

Feinstein further stated that, “A majority of the equipment we utilize is not available for sale commercially or to any other entity; the agency regularly uses its own libraries, software and settings.”

Billy Rios, director of threat intelligence for Qualys, said during a discussion on scanner security at the recent Black Hat hacker conference that he’d tested three scanners from three separate manufacturers and found “really obvious security issues,” including hard-coded backdoor passwords in each of them.

“If the TSA has a certification process, it seems to revolve around general acquisition due diligence, not cybersecurity,” Rios told TechNewsWorld. “So, when they purchase these devices and certify them, they actually don’t know if these devices are robust from a cybersecurity standpoint.”

One of the most important lessons learned, according to the researchers, is that adversarial thinking is crucial to security. The report recommends that all airport security screening solutions, whether they employ millimeter-wave or backscatter technology, undergo rigorous independent testing.

“The root cause of many of the issues we describe seems to be failure of the system engineers to think adversarially,” the researchers said.

Photo: Hovav Shacham, one of the security researchers who found a collection of gaping vulnerabilities in the Rapiscan X-ray machines, poses for a full-body scan in one of the systems. Photo: Erik Jepsen/UC San Diego Publications.

 

Airport Pass  10/31/14

Up to two airport passes given with each air travel ticket sold

[

 

Remember the days when you could walk through security at the airport and see your family off or hug them when they arrived at the gate. Well thanks to 911 that is a thing of the past. The following idea came to me while traveling this past week. There are always elderly people traveling that are mostly ignored by skycap while their families wait helplessly at the security check point for them. While I respect the increased security, here is an idea that may be able to solve both issues.Simply put alow the purchase for about $10.00 each of up to two airport passes with each ticket sold. These passes are tied to the airline ticket that is sold with them and are only good for the day and time of the airline ticket. Two additional tickets can also be purchased for the arriving airport. If the ticket is round trip the tickets will also allow airport access for the returning date and time. The airport passes must be purchased at the same times as the airline ticket and must have the names of the people they are assighned to printed on them. The reason for the $10.00 charge is to offset the additional cost to the airline as well as providing another source of income for the struggeling airlines.Please give me your oppinion on this idea as well as wheither it should be less or more restricted than my purposed idea.. Also is this something that you would use if available?

Additionally, restricting the number of people that access the terminal areas saves serious MONEY on terminal building costs — both in terms of maintenance and on new construction.

 

Nobody seems to get it that if I only have to design my terminal building for a flow of 750,000 people per year instead of 1.5 million, I’ve just built a lot cheaper building to accomodate those people and still have the same flight capacity. I assure you that security is far from the only reason for this policy.

 

BTW, Sorry if I’m coming across as harsh, but I’ve got first hand knowledge of a lot of waste and craziness related to all of this stuff at airports. It’s late, I’m tired, and I guess I’ve just been in too many of these conversations over the years.

 

[+] for the idea.

zigness, Jun 14 2006

 

Having people go through security screening that are not going to get on a plane increases security costs by a certain amount. I see no other problem with allowing such people through security. If non-passengers that wish to go through security are willing to pay the extra costs resulting from their doing so, I see no reason they shouldn’t be able to do so.

supercat, Jun 14 2006
I worry that this could potentially mean that people who have no intention of travelling are going airside which has huge security implications.// Sorry, jon, but this is non-sense.

 

We had it this way for years and years and years and years with no problems.

 

All of the 9/11 hijackers were ticketed passengers.

 

I actually have over 15 years as an airport consultant, and I can tell you that the problems lie elsewhere. It’s access to AIRCRAFT that is this security issue, and that CAN be controlled just fine on the end of a terminal regardless of who is out there.

 

The reasons we’re doing it this way have more to do with creating the “appearance” of security — not any real, specific, or defined threat.

If the problem is that the elderly or wheelchair bound don’t get looked after properly by airside staff, then that’s the issue that needs fixing.

 

If waving goodbye to my family at passport control and not the gate is the price I pay for increased security, then I’ll happily pay it.

jonthegeologist, Aug 02 2004

 

we should forget 9/11.

 

we are really going too far with this. we should just change it back.

FireElf, Jun 13 2006

 

this is baked somewhat. when minors are traveling unaccompanied, someone cann get a pass and follow them out to the gate. because both parties have to go through security first, it is just as safe as otherwise. (which is still fairly ridiculous)

 

people with disabilities often have a member of the airport courtesy staff will help them through to the gate.

tcarson, Jun 13 2006

 

In truth, I think we need the ability to allow Americans to pay a fee to have a background check performed and tied to a secure idenification device. These people could then enter the airport like the old days. Let’s face it for those of us who travel a lot, it would be nice to be able to pay extra for a pre-screening that establishes that you are not a risk. Airport personnel go through a similar process. Why not all of us. Those unwilling could then be given the current normal screening. This would allow for a more thorough screen because fewer people would not choose to be pre-screened.

 

Frankly, I seriously doubt another hijacker will ever pull off a 9/11 like crash. The passengers are not going to die while a Islamic terrorist takes over the plane. Flight 93 proved that. The current security measures are more like a over done case of closing the barn door after the horses have gotten out.

HogHunter, Jun 13 2006

 

[HogHunter] //I seriously doubt another hijacker will ever pull off a 9/11 like crash//

 

I think you are seriously, and I regret to say it as I fly quite a bit, mistaken in this belief… The “shoe bomber” was actually in the process of detonating a viable device hidden in his shoe when he was apprehended, and this was well after 9/11. He had managed to get this on board the plane undetected.

 

Determined terrorists, who care nothing for their own demise, will inevitably find a loop hole when they decide to. I lived through thirty years of terrorism and I have seen them running rings around the best that the British government had. ie MI5, MI6, Special Branch, SAS etc

xenzag, Jun 13 2006

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This is a breakdown of TPO policies before 9/11, it’s interesting!

clear

 

Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search | All read: jump to last

 

Ticketed Passengers Only  
User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 43
Posted Sun Mar 11 2001 09:54:25 your local time

(14 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3418 times:

It’s been a long time since I’ve posted this topic, and we have a lot of new users, so I’m going to bring it up again.Who here besides myself finds few things more irritating or heart-sinking than wanting to go to the gate areas (to spot, take pix, or meet someone), only to be stopped dead in your tracks by a hostile and sinister sign bearing the following message of evil:TICKETED PASSENGERS ONLY BEYOND THIS POINTOr something to that effect. And there is usually one or more “bouncers” standing next to the metal detector behind a little podium barking out demands to see your tickets.So I have two and a half questions regarding this, which is known officially as a “sterile concourse”.1. Why does this policy exist?
1A. Why do some airports do it but not others-sometimes it will be in one terminal but not the other in the same airport?

2. Is your airport (or any that you know) “sterile”?

These are the ones that I know for sure have that have this policy in effect:

EWR (terms A and B) [but not C]

LGA (Central terminal) [USAirways has a sign that says “Public welcome in gate areas!!!]

LAX (Bradley International terminal) [all others are open to public]

JFK (since I’ve only been in three of JFK’s terminals-TWA, 6-jetBlue, and United/British Airways) only the TWA terminal was “sterile”, although I’m sure there are others.

SJC (old terminal-but it’s very loosely enforced-if at all)

I’ve been in the following other airports and never saw that evil signage anywhere:

PHX
LAS
SAN
FAT
BFL
RNO
COS
PHL
TTN
SNA
ONT
BUR
LGB
PSP

47 replies: All unread, jump to last

User currently offlineCPDC10-30 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 4905 posts, RR: 22
Reply 1, posted Sun Mar 11 2001 09:57:29 your local time

(14 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3252 times:

It seems this is an American phenomenon, guests being able to go all the way to the gates. I’ve never been to an airport where this is allowed.

 

User currently offlineNEFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted Sun Mar 11 2001 09:59:22 your local time

(14 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3244 times:

It’s probaly for security reasons. This is also being done at Toronto, Vancouver and Seoul.

 

User currently offlineFlagshipAZ From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3419 posts, RR: 13
Reply 3, posted Sun Mar 11 2001 10:01:56 your local time

(14 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3239 times:

Buffalo International has this policy.
At least the last time I was there.
So did Salt Lake a few years ago.
It might just be a random thing, to keep passengers & escorts on guard, to make security look good. Regards.

“Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.” –Ben Franklin

 

User currently offlineDesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7862 posts, RR: 14
Reply 4, posted Sun Mar 11 2001 10:11:30 your local time

(14 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3232 times:

The only airport that I have been to that was like this was Cedar Rapids, Iowa!I think the reason for this, at least outside of the US, is that most flights tend to be (don’t quote me on this one) to be international flights and for security reasons keeping a sterile concourse is more important. But that is only speculation on my part.

Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. — seen on a church marque in rural Virginia

 

User currently offlineNEFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted Sun Mar 11 2001 10:13:35 your local time

(14 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3223 times:

Are you sure about Buffalo?? BUF is my home airport and I do not remember having to show proof of boarding passes to get access to the gates. Family members and friends of passengers are always at the gate area to meet with passengers on flights.

 

User currently offlineFlagshipAZ From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3419 posts, RR: 13
Reply 6, posted Sun Mar 11 2001 10:19:56 your local time

(14 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3219 times:

Hmm…
American at BUF wouldn’t allow my family there to escort me to the gate then. This was maybe three years ago. They were told to stay behind security then. Maybe the policy changed since my visit.
I really shouldn’t say “American”. They were simply the airline I was flying at the time. But it was the agent that advised me of this security policy. Regards.

“Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.” –Ben Franklin

 

User currently offlineTWAConnie From United States of America, joined Jun 2008, 19 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted Sun Mar 11 2001 10:28:57 your local time

(14 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3215 times:Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I can recall flying out of Narita and being pulled off the shuttle bus and required to show my ticket in order to be allowed to even go to the airport at all !!!

 

User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 21
Reply 8, posted Sun Mar 11 2001 10:34:17 your local time

(14 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3211 times:

Thank God DFW & IAH don’t pull that kind of B.S. but ORD does in the international terminal.

“There is no victory at bargain basement prices.”

 

User currently offlineHawaiian717 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3235 posts, RR: 7
Reply 9, posted Sun Mar 11 2001 12:11:41 your local time

(14 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3191 times:

This happens in international terminals when there are international transit passengers. All passengers leaving the gate areas have to pass through immigration, so they only allow passengers departing to pass from the ticket area to the gate area.The passengers-only policy also goes into effect during high-security periods, such as the Persian Gulf War, when the risk of terrorism against the US is thought to be high.David

 

User currently offlineLoneStarMike From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 4024 posts, RR: 31
Reply 10, posted Sun Mar 11 2001 12:26:54 your local time

(14 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3189 times:

I remember at the old AUS airport during peak travel times, like Christmas, they used to put up a sign like that in Southwest’s area. It wasn’t really for security purposes, though. It was because the area was already too crowded. Every seat was taken and people were sitting on the floor.I don’t know how security could have enforced it though. If you were traveling on an e-ticket, you wouldn’t have a ticket to show them, nor would you have a boarding pass because on Southwest, those are issued at the gate.At the other airports, do the security personnel actually look at your ticket or as long as you have a ticket jacket in your hand do they wave you through?LoneStarMike

 

User currently offlineBen88 From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 1093 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted Sun Mar 11 2001 12:29:49 your local time

(14 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3189 times:

I can speak for TBIT at LAX. The reasons for which it is prohibited are twofold.1.) During peak season there are simply too many people passing through the two gate entrances to allow family members in. Often times there is one traveler and 3 family members, further clogging the entrances. Often times the TBIT has to handle the boarding of 8 or more 747’s/MD-11’s/A340’s at one time. Let’s multiply 8*300 passengers*3 visitor per passenger. That comes out to be 7,200 people that have to clear security in a matter of an hour or less. Now if we eliminate the non ticketed passengers we lower the number to 2,400, a huge difference. Of course my statistics are not scientific, but I work there and trust me, I regularly see more visitors than ticketed passengers and cringe at the thought of allowing everyone through the gates.2.) Security concerns. Most internation airlines fly out of TBIT, with the exception of Virgin, KLM and some others. It goes without saying that security measures are heightened on international flights.

 

User currently offlineAmerican B757 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 370 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted Sun Mar 11 2001 17:46:55 your local time

(14 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3160 times:

AA Does it a PHX. But not all the time, it is usually done at night around 9 p.m. why? I dont know!

 

User currently offlineIkarus From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 3524 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted Sun Mar 11 2001 18:06:31 your local time

(14 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3156 times:

I was very very amazed indeed when friends and family could accompany up to the gate in Washington Dulles.All European airports I’ve been to have two main areas: “check-in/arrivals” and “airside”. To go airside (eg to the gates) you need1) passport
2) boarding card-This is for security reasons, and makes sense in my eyes. Why is it different in America, which, if anything, should have a lot higher security???

 

User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3529 posts, RR: 44
Reply 14, posted Sun Mar 11 2001 18:52:35 your local time

(14 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3149 times:

>1. Why does this policy exist?
> 1A. Why do some airports do it but not others-sometimes it will
> be in one terminal but not the other in the same airport?
Federal Air Regulations. Each airport is required to provide a specified level of security, yet each airport is free to decide how that security level is to be provided. Most airports assign this responsibility to the airlines that utilize the airports terminals. Airlines attempt to provide the required security at minimum cost and may coordinate with each other to provide that security service.Each airport terminal is individual in its design layout and its tenant airlines and their locations within that layout. Most security checkpoints are located at natural “choke-points” within the physical layout of the terminal.The primary reason an entire area (terminal or pier) is restricted to ticketed passengers only is to minimize the time required to clear persons through the security checkpoint. This is followed closely by the requirement to maintain security levels in all areas beyond the security checkpoint — fewer individuals in the area makes this easier to accomplish. The downside is the inability for non-travelers to “see a traveler off” and reduced revenue potential from non-airline vendors located inside sterile area (reduce airport commissions).> 2. Is your airport (or any that you know) “sterile”?Normally no, but on especially heavy travel periods… yes. That’s for SAN and SNA.

*NO CARRIER* — A Naval Aviator’s worst nightmare!

 

User currently offlineEricmetallica From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted Sun Mar 11 2001 19:09:44 your local time

(14 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3138 times:

Here at ROC during late afternoon and night the terminals are restricted to passengers onlyEric

 

User currently offlineLewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3723 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted Sun Mar 11 2001 19:12:17 your local time

(14 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3135 times:

I have never been to an airport where this is allowed! Are the non-ticketed visitors checked from security at least?

 

User currently offlineJFKspotter From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 448 posts, RR: 7
Reply 17, posted Sun Mar 11 2001 21:19:35 your local time

(14 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3117 times:

As far as I know, here at JFK, you CAN go to the gates in terminals: 2 (Delta), 3(Delta), 6(jetBlue, America West, United), and 7(BA, United).
Getting past security is restricted in 1, 4E, 4W, 5, 8 and 9.
I was in ROC this week, and some other people that were with us (not flying) could all get past security. However, there was a sign that said “This area will close after the last flight” Or something like that.-JFKspotter

 

User currently offlineEWR Spotter From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 63 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted Sun Mar 11 2001 21:29:41 your local time

(14 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3118 times:

It is true that EWR forbids people without tickets to go to the gate areas in Terminals A and B. I don’t know why they would allow it for C though. I don’t know if that will change or not soon because Continental is planning to make a Customs and Immigration service area in their Terminal C. There was one time I was going to see someone off and I was allowed in because I asked at the ticket counter and they gave me a special pass. But, that was the only time. I believe the airline was United.

 

User currently offlineN312RC From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 2684 posts, RR: 15
Reply 19, posted Sun Mar 11 2001 21:36:08 your local time

(14 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3112 times:

Ive seen that signage in DTW at the old L.C. Smith Terminal security points. Not at the J.M. Davey (Northwest) or the M. Berry International Terminal though.

N/A

 

User currently offlineCapt.Picard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted Sun Mar 11 2001 21:41:01 your local time

(14 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3112 times:

“Thank God DFW & IAH don’t pull that kind of B.S. but ORD does in the international terminal”.Sorry, but I think allowing families and spotters through to airside is BS.As people have already mentioned the main priority at Airports should be all about SECURITY. If you start letting anyone&everyone into the airport, YOU ARE JUST ASKING FOR TROUBLE.Sorry, I love Aviation, but a line has to be drawn somewhere; in the case of Security, it should be drawn pretty early!Spotters-what is your problem?? Just go outside and take the photos out there!! Why give the security people extra hassle??  InsaneFamilies-when a friend or relative has to go, they have to go!!! Why not just be done with it at the car park or at home?? Do you have to see them get on the plane??  Insane

Strictly forbidden in the UK. And I fully agree; we’re not having any of that nonsense over here! Big grin

 

User currently offlineGocaps16 From Japan, joined Jan 2000, 4392 posts, RR: 18
Reply 21, posted Sun Mar 11 2001 22:47:49 your local time

(14 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3092 times:

It totally sucks that airports has that policy. I’ve been to EWR and they wouldn’t let me in the Intl. terminal without a ticket. I have been thru the gates at LGA which you needed a ticket to get in but I didn’t have a ticket. I have been “escorted” in to the gates from a United flight attentend which I know her. (Thanks Denise)All I know that BWI’s new International terminal has that new policy which I heard from a fellow spotter. It is restricted to people without a ticket. Kinda sucks, eh?Kevin/DCA

SIX T’S!……TURN. TIME. TWIST. THROTTLE. TALK. TRACK.

 

User currently offlinePVDtoGo From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 14 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted Mon Mar 12 2001 02:25:30 your local time

(14 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3068 times:

For those of you who have mentioned security as a reason for justifying this practise, I’d ask you to think again. If a person or organization is considering doing some type of damage to a plane or even a gate, how hard would it be for them to by a cheap ticket to get thru security? I think the airport security people that use security as a justification are either fooling themselves or masking a more justifiable reason – crowd control.I am all for security, lets just make sure it does what it is supposed to do – protect us. Just my two cents!Thanks.

 

User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 43
Reply 23, posted Mon Mar 12 2001 02:28:50 your local time

(14 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3068 times:

Wow!!! That’s one I’ve never heard before!A concourse restricted to people WITHOUT a ticket?So let me ask you….What happens if you are stopped and subjected to a random search, and you are discovered to have a ticket on your person? Would you be charged with attempted breach of security?Now if this concourse is restricted to people without tickets, I take it that no airlines actually USE this concourse. Or is it for e-ticket holders only?Do explain please.

 

User currently offlineDL Widget Head From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 2104 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted Mon Mar 12 2001 02:39:59 your local time

(14 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3058 times:

Some concourses at MIA are sterile and others not. There are no sterile concourses at FLL or ATL though. I don’t see the point of only allowing ticketed passengers access to the terminals and concourses unless there is limited space and undue crowding.
 25 Tom in NO : AAR90 is quite correct, so let me expand on his comment: While the airport operator has responsibility under FAR Part 107 for security to the AOA/SIDA 

26 DeltaSFO : Before SFO opened the New International Terminal, Concourse D (then the International Concourse) was restricted

 

 

User currently offlineMichigan4life From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 212 posts, RR: 1
Reply 27, posted Sun Mar 11 2001 21:19:52 your local time (14 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3045 times:

I am glad to hear that UA/BA have open terminals @ JFK, as I usually just stick to jetBlue’s terminal. Does DEN have any sterile areas???Mike

User currently offlineCapt.Picard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 28, posted Sun Mar 11 2001 21:19:57 your local time (14 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3044 times:

I personally never proposed a concourse only for people without a ticket.I proposed that only people with legitimatereasons should be allowed AIRSIDE ie.beyond passport control.IMO, Spotters/non-pax do not have a legitimate reason forbeing airside, from a security perspective.

“how hard would it be for them to by a cheap ticket to get thru security?”

Well, apparently in some US airports he wouldn’t even have to bother!!

“I think the airport security people that use security as a justification are either fooling themselves or masking a more

justifiable reason – crowd control.”

Crowd control/security-same thing.

Sorry, I still don’t agree with allowing spotters and non-pax past passport control.

User currently offlineCapt.Picard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 29, posted Sun Mar 11 2001 21:28:38 your local time (14 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3033 times:

Matt DJust noticed your comment was directed to someone else. I have my A.Net switched to “Show Full Replies”, andtherefore seldom read who the subject is directed to.I still disagree with you though! Big grin

User currently offlineJFKspotter From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 448 posts, RR: 7
Reply 30, posted Sun Mar 11 2001 21:49:56 your local time (14 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3024 times:

I was glad, and impressed to know that as well. I thought BA would permit only ticketed pax, until I asked one of the security agents at the checkpoint. Didn’t think twice about going in when she told me I could.-JFKspotter

User currently offlineCo LITE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 31, posted Mon Mar 12 2001 19:53:37 your local time (14 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2996 times:

They only allow ticket passengers into Sterile Areas in many small Airports. In Hattiesburg, MS (PIB) they have a small “Sterile Lounge” after the metal detector, with about 30 seats next to the only Gate on the first floor. NWA does the screening and only allows Ticket Passengers through. In Gulfport, MS (GPT) they only allowed ticketed

passengers into the two gate (2 jetways, 2 Stairs) Concourse, because of room. However, this changed when they

opened up the two additional gates making a Four Jetway, Two stair concourse total. I do not agree with this policy,

but for something like PIB, I make an exception.

User currently onlineLewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3723 posts, RR: 4
Reply 32, posted Mon Mar 12 2001 20:01:48 your local time (14 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2991 times:

It is crazy for that to be allowed. Then US says that European airports and especially Athens are dangerous. What if a terrorist pretends to be a spotter while he is at the gates area? Try to get to the gates or even the departure halls here in Athens without passing 2 passport checks and security. It is impossible here but very possible in many US

major airports as two journalists have proven. They managed to get to the gates area without even being asked for

anything. This happened after the US government accused Europe for unsafe airports.

User currently offlineGocaps16 From Japan, joined Jan 2000, 4392 posts, RR: 18
Reply 33, posted Mon Mar 12 2001 22:31:51 your local time (14 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2975 times:

MattD, good question.If I do get stopped by authorities, my guess would be a warning to me and my flight attendent friend. Although, they’ll probably just ask not to “escort” us again. Besides, I wasn’t alone. I was with my father, one of my father’s friend, and his fiance who is the f/a. I know her really well. I was only 16 years old at that time and was with my father shooting thru the glass window. (I believe the UA concourse) Airports authorities wouldn’t go up to a random family saying “Lemme see your tickets”, schucks if I was the cops, I’d be embarrassed.It was the authorities of the sercurity checkpoint who let us thru without a ticket. All it was needed is a identification badge from the flight attentend and she clearly told the authorites if she could escort us in to take some pictures and they let us access the gate area. Otherwise, I wouldn’t if they deny us the entry.It’s nice to have good connections from people you know.Regards,Kevin/DCA

SIX T’S!……TURN. TIME. TWIST. THROTTLE. TALK. TRACK.

User currently offline777boy From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 287 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted Mon Mar 12 2001 22:45:52 your local time (14 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2973 times:

LGA, as mentioned before, also in the DL terminal.In SJC, the only place I’ve seen that sign is at the DL security point, thought I’ve never seen it enforced. Also, why would you want to go there as the obs deck is right next to it?Matt

User currently offlinePendrilsaint From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 685 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted Mon Mar 12 2001 23:20:20 your local time (14 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2968 times:

I dont think Den has any sterile areas although I will admit I have never been to concourse A…but B and C are open.

User currently offlineCo LITE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 36, posted Mon Mar 12 2001 23:45:54 your local time (14 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2962 times:

I dont agree with keeping non-ticketed passengers out. Although some Airports need to do a more extensive check to ensure security. I like being able to eat near my gate at a restaurant, and in order to keep that restaurant in good operation (And Lower Prices) they need to let the Public in. I bet the Restaurants in Europe are Sky High with Prices. These Photographers (Im one of them) eat in the Concourse restaurants.Just My Two Cents

User currently offlineTom in NO From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 7194 posts, RR: 31
Reply 37, posted Mon Mar 12 2001 23:51:37 your local time (14 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2958 times:

A quick clarification:At MSY, we define a “sterile” area as any area that requires a screening, either via airport ID badge, or a checkpoint. Therefore, any concourse area past the security checkpoint is sterile, no matter if non-ticketed pax are allowed through.Tom in NO (at MSY)

“The criminal ineptitude makes you furious”-Bruce Springsteen, after seeing firsthand the damage from Hurricane Katrina

User currently offlineCo LITE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 38, posted Tue Mar 13 2001 00:47:00 your local time (14 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2949 times:

Same in GPT, a “Sterile” Area is any concourse area beyond the security checkpoint.

User currently offlineFlyerC_B757 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 39, posted Tue Mar 13 2001 00:51:40 your local time (14 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2945 times:

Hmmm…I’m not sure if TPA has the “sterile” sign or not, I don’t remember. But, I do know that the Delta terminals @ BOS and LAX have it.

User currently offlineFlashmeister From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 2916 posts, RR: 6
Reply 40, posted Tue Mar 13 2001 04:37:21 your local time (14 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2931 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

DEN does not have any sterile areas on any of concourses A B C, but they do restrict access to ticketed passengers only when the train system is overloaded…Also, if you notice – airline employees don’t have to wait in the security linesat DEN in the main terminal. They can cut to the front.

User currently offlineThe Ticketor From Norway, joined Oct 2000, 434 posts, RR: 1
Reply 41, posted Tue Mar 13 2001 10:19:30 your local time (14 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2916 times:

Here in OSL, only ticketed pax can go airside, and that is the way it is in most international airports (and some national too) in Europe. In OSL, all passengers, domestic or international, are screened (metal detectors and x-ray machines) along with their carry on. Once inside security, there’s another check (ticket check only) for pax going to

the international pier to make sure they are where they should. Seeing the sometimes very long lines to security

check, I’m glad only ticketed pax are allowed airside. It is also a security thing. You know, not only terrorists are

security threats.

User currently offlineAussie_ From Australia, joined Dec 2000, 1767 posts, RR: 4
Reply 42, posted Tue Mar 13 2001 10:30:44 your local time (14 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2911 times:

The public have access to gate areas in all Australian domestic terminals EXCEPT the new Melbourne domestic express terminal (evil sign on entrance). However when I asked they had no problem about letting me through.My question is why European airports don’t allow it, as so many “international flights” no longer require passports etc and

those which do are already seperated. They should allow pulic accessr to all schengen gates.It was so bad that in BCN,

they refused to let the Dad of a kid travelling solo into the gate area to accompany his son, even though the flight was to

France and thus had no passport or immigration restrictions whatsoever.

User currently offlineRyanb741 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2002, 3222 posts, RR: 15
Reply 43, posted Tue Mar 13 2001 10:42:34 your local time (14 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2908 times:

C’mon, surely it can’t be too difficult to work out. SECURITY! I cannot believe that any airport would let unticketed pax anywhere near the gates.

I used to think the brain is the most fascinating part of my body. But, hey, who is telling me that?

User currently offlineMls515 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 3078 posts, RR: 8
Reply 44, posted Tue Mar 13 2001 11:35:50 your local time (14 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2902 times:

DesertJets,I went up to Cedar Rapids (CID) to look around last summer and I wasn’t asked to show a ticket. Maybe onlyat certain times they do this.mls515

User currently offlineCapt.Picard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 45, posted Tue Mar 13 2001 11:43:33 your local time (14 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2903 times:

All of the International flights I have been to, whether outside the EU, or inside the EU, require passports.Which ones were you referring to Aussie?CP

User currently offlineJetboy From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 184 posts, RR: 0
Reply 46, posted Tue Mar 13 2001 12:52:14 your local time (14 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2893 times:

when travelling from a Schengen country to another a passport is not required, but some sort if ID is (e.g ID card)cheers jetboy

User currently offlineCapt.Picard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 47, posted Tue Mar 13 2001 12:56:31 your local time (14 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2893 times:

Thanks Jetboy;I must add I meant Int’l flights originating or departing for the UK.

 

Top Of Page
Forum Index

 

 

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics: More similar topics…
How Long Will It Be Only Ticketed Passengers posted Wed Jul 31 2002 18:49:02 by Leopold
CNN: From Now On Only Ticketed Passengers To Gates posted Wed Sep 12 2001 20:32:11 by Nwa747-400
Help For Air Madrid Ticketed Passengers? posted Mon Dec 18 2006 15:46:45 by Pmg1704
Non-Ticketed Passengers / Security Checkpoints posted Sat Mar 30 2002 23:57:10 by Jhooper
Dragonair “Grounds” Passengers…Only Chinese posted Wed Jan 2 2002 07:01:38 by 9V-SPK
Ticketed Passengers Only posted Sun Mar 11 2001 06:54:25 by Matt D
SJC-Only US Airport With A Decrease In Passengers? posted Fri May 11 2007 22:54:42 by Marcg11
Personal Air Vents Vs Central Cooling Only posted Fri Jul 6 2007 03:31:52 by ATLflyer
Police Forced To Remove All Passengers From Plane posted Wed Jul 4 2007 18:13:09 by MeridianBUF
DL Has Only 1 Mainline On Saturday In IND posted Sat

 

 

28 Capt.Picard : I personally never proposed a concourse only for people without a ticket. I proposed that only people with legitimate reasons should be allowed AIRSID

 

 
 

 

Top Of Page
Forum Index

 

 

 

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

 

 friendly format

Similar topics: More similar topics…
How Long Will It Be Only Ticketed Passengers posted Wed Jul 31 2002 18:49:02 by Leopold
CNN: From Now On Only Ticketed Passengers To Gates posted Wed Sep 12 2001 20:32:11 by Nwa747-400
Help For Air Madrid Ticketed Passengers? posted Mon Dec 18 2006 15:46:45 by Pmg1704
Non-Ticketed Passengers / Security Checkpoints posted Sat Mar 30 2002 23:57:10 by Jhooper
Dragonair “Grounds” Passengers…Only Chinese posted Wed Jan 2 2002 07:01:38 by 9V-SPK
Ticketed Passengers Only posted Sun Mar 11 2001 06:54:25 by Matt D
SJC-Only US Airport With A Decrease In Passengers? posted Fri May 11 2007 22:54:42 by Marcg11
Personal Air Vents Vs Central Cooling Only posted Fri Jul 6 2007 03:31:52 by ATLflyer
Police Forced To Remove All Passengers From Plane posted Wed Jul 4 2007 18:13:09 by MeridianBUF
DL Has Only 1 Mainline On Saturday In IND posted Sat Jun 30 2007 18:08:59 by RampGuy

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *