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
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.
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!
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…”
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! 4/13/14 This 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.
Study Finds Glaring Vulnerabilities in TSA’s Controversial Full-Body Scanners
By: Amanda Vicinanzo, Contributing Editor
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.
|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.
|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.
This is a breakdown of TPO policies before 9/11, it’s interesting!
(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:
(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.|
(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.|
(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
(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
(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.|
(14 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3219 times:
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
|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 !!!|
(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.”
(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|
(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|
(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.|
(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!|
(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???
(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!
(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|
(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?|
(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
(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.|
(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.|
(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?? Families-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??
Strictly forbidden in the UK. And I fully agree; we’re not having any of that nonsense over here!
(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.
(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.|
(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.|
(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|
This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.
|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|