MilesBuzz! - Stupid passenger tricks at the security checkpoints....

In lots of threads, the folks staffing the security checkpoints have sometimes come in for more than a little derision. But let's give equal time to the stupid pax who add to the security staffers' woes. Here's one I saw today:

At SFO, I was in the UA security line ~ 7 p.m. The woman in front of me had only a boarding pass. No purse, no carry-on, no pockets (that I could discern). Only a boarding pass. The agent checking i.d.'s and b.p.'s before the x-ray said "I need to see your i.d." She said "It's with my husband at gate 78 -- we're just connecting here and I just ran out to have a smoke. He has my purse and i.d." The agent looked (and I think I would have too!) a bit baffled and said "But I need to see some identification to prove it's your boarding pass."

Now, I can understand someone making this kind of silly mistake, running outside for a nicotine hit and then having one of those oh-my-God moments at which you are truly embarrassed and chagrined and apologetic.

But this is where I lost all sympathy for her: She began to berate the agent, saying again (more loudly and more slowly this time, as if the agent was addled) I just went out for a cigarette; my husband has my i.d. at gate 78, and we already checked in once. So you need to let me in now."

At that point the agent called a supervisor over and I went on past her to the next machine; the last I heard the agent and supervisor were conferring about how they could page the husband at the gate quickly, and woman was getting more and more irate at the way she was being "treated."

Some people.

[This message has been edited by cblaisd (edited 01-20-2002).]

in some cases, it is simply not possible to save a person from themselves

maybe she will sue them

So did they let her thru?

I have no sympathy for an idiot wandering around an airport without any ID.

While this woman did put herself in this position, I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why letting someone through security without an ID is less safe than letting someone through with one.

Now that I think about it, I can't remember being asked for ID at security. They just ask for a boarding pass. IDs are only needed to get a boarding pass and to get on the plane.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by johnep1:
While this woman did put herself in this position, I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why letting someone through security without an ID is less safe than letting someone through with one.

Now that I think about it, I can't remember being asked for ID at security. They just ask for a boarding pass. IDs are only needed to get a boarding pass and to get on the plane.</font>

This be true! ID at ticketing and gate. Boarding pass at security.

From the ual.com FAQ <font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">What documentation is required for ticketed passengers to pass through security checkpoints?
It is recommended that you carry a government issued form of identification with you. Customers traveling on international flights must have a valid passport. The FAA has issued several new security measures that address access through airport security screening checkpoints.

To enter the secured area beyond the security screening checkpoint, you must hold one of the following boarding documents indicating a flight departure for the current date:


A receipt for an electronic ticket;
An itinerary generated by an airline or travel agency confirming an electronic ticket;
A boarding pass; or
A paper ticket.
If you do not have a boarding pass, ticket, e-ticket receipt or printed confirmation, an airline-issued boarding document must be obtained at the ticket counter prior to clearing security. Passengers who do not have baggage to check and already have an approved boarding document, as outlined above, may proceed through the security checkpoint directly to the departure gate.
</font> Thus far, ever security checkpoint has asked me for ID in the US. Less so in Asia.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by UAL Traveler:
From the ual.com FAQ What documentation is required for ticketed passengers to pass through security checkpoints?
It is recommended that you carry a government issued form of identification with you. Customers traveling on international flights must have a valid passport. The FAA has issued several new security measures that address access through airport security screening checkpoints.

To enter the secured area beyond the security screening checkpoint, you must hold one of the following boarding documents indicating a flight departure for the current date:


A receipt for an electronic ticket;
An itinerary generated by an airline or travel agency confirming an electronic ticket;
A boarding pass; or
A paper ticket.
If you do not have a boarding pass, ticket, e-ticket receipt or printed confirmation, an airline-issued boarding document must be obtained at the ticket counter prior to clearing security. Passengers who do not have baggage to check and already have an approved boarding document, as outlined above, may proceed through the security checkpoint directly to the departure gate.
</font> Thus far, ever security checkpoint has asked me for ID in the US. Less so in Asia.

It depends on the airport. Some check both, some check only one. It is UNIVERSAL that ID and BP are checked at check-in and at gate. Since this is the case, you could make the argument that anyone should be allowed through security. Either your systems work or they don't. Before 9-11, someone else could check-in and board since no one checked id at boarding. I believe that due to the long lines caused by increased security post 9-11 is why only people with BP are allowed beyond security.

They should have let her through after performing a cavity search.

It would seem appropriate for the supervisor to give her a warning to calm down or she will be arrested and may end up in jail or fined and definately miss her flight. She should also be asked to apologize.

Then he/she should suggest the passenger go back to the front and have her husband paged. She could then try yelling at him to bring her id, so she could properly clear security.

This solution inconveniences only the id-less passenger and keeps the line moving for the others. This one is easy!!!!1111

you mean no one has suggested the implanted-federal-government-issued-biometric-tell-the-airlines-what-you-ate-for-dinner-identity chip? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by cblaisd:
At that point the agent called a supervisor over and I went on past her to the next machine; the last I heard the agent and supervisor were conferring about how they could page the husband at the gate quickly, and woman was getting more and more irate at the way she was being "treated."
</font>

This sounds to me like an extraordinarily stupid passenger, who really ought to have known better, and who really should have apologized for her lack of thinking rather than being upset over how she was "treated."

However, I think this story also (again) tells us something about the security procedures and the screeners. I completely fail to see the security aspect of correlating the name on the boarding pass with the name on an ID at the security check point. Checking at check-in and when boarding makes sense, but at the security screening? It's not like they are checking against a wanted list or making sure the ID is not fake, is it? Seems to me that the only thing they really are checking is that they are dealing with ticketed passengers, for the purpose of having to screen fewer people, thus making the screening quicker for everybody. In this case it seems like they wasted everybody's time unnecessarily by enforcing a rule whose purpose is mainly to speed up the screening.

However, again, no sympathy for the stupid woman...

do you really expect them to think? They have a hard time dealing with reality, thinking is beyond their capability.

The entire security screening process in the US airports, what is checked, when and where, is a joke. So many things make no sense, and done just to pretend something is done. I only hope it get better over time, as reflexive, knee-jerk, "oh-my-god-lets-do-something!" gives way to real improvements.

One can always dream, right?

Just passed through security at Terminal 3 (AA) at ORD. I was required to show government-issued ID and boarding pass before going through the magnetometer, and then AFTER going through the magenetometer. I feel much safer now.

PDX initially required the presentation of a photo ID shortly after September 11 but they most definitely eliminated this requirement several months ago. EWR terminal C requires an ID and I'll see what JFK does this coming Wednesday. Its hard to imagine why there should be so much inconsistency.

At EWR this week, security instructed all passengers to remove their shoes. At SLC on my return, no one was told to do so. At ORD, the security screener at the gate told my wife she was only pulling unaccompanied travelers aside. At another ORD gate, the security screener wandered into the boarding area and asked the only African American to join her behind the screen.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Hagbard Viking:
I completely fail to see the security aspect of correlating the name on the boarding pass with the name on an ID at the security check point</font>

It prevents somebody from finding a boarding pass, or being handed one from an accomplice, or using one that was just lifted off somebody in the bathroom from getting into the secure area. Anybody who flies knows if you want a boarding pass there are lots of people who either lose them, or whatnot, and anybody with a printer and a third of a brain can print up an acceptable e-ticket receipt to get past at the airports you don't need a boarding pass from (or the places that let you print your own at home).

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by cordelli:
It prevents somebody from finding a boarding pass, or being handed one from an accomplice, or using one that was just lifted off somebody in the bathroom from getting into the secure area. Anybody who flies knows if you want a boarding pass there are lots of people who either lose them, or whatnot, and anybody with a printer and a third of a brain can print up an acceptable e-ticket receipt to get past at the airports you don't need a boarding pass from (or the places that let you print your own at home).
</font>

Right!

But...

so what?

Supposedly, the only "weapon" somebody gets through the security check point is themselves, if they are suicidal. Now, to make use of their suicidal nature they have to get on a plane, it's probably fairly difficult for someone unarmed to hijack an airport terminal building and use as a missile. Given that the ID is checked at the gate when boarding, I still fail to see the purpose of checking the ID at the screening point.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Hagbard Viking:
This sounds to me like an extraordinarily stupid passenger, who really ought to have known better, and who really should have apologized for her lack of thinking rather than being upset over how she was "treated."

However, I think this story also (again) tells us something about the security procedures and the screeners. I completely fail to see the security aspect of correlating the name on the boarding pass with the name on an ID at the security check point. Checking at check-in and when boarding makes sense, but at the security screening? It's not like they are checking against a wanted list or making sure the ID is not fake, is it? Seems to me that the only thing they really are checking is that they are dealing with ticketed passengers, for the purpose of having to screen fewer people, thus making the screening quicker for everybody. In this case it seems like they wasted everybody's time unnecessarily by enforcing a rule whose purpose is mainly to speed up the screening.

However, again, no sympathy for the stupid woman...</font>

Perfect. You took the words right out of my mouth!

Cordelli- Exactly what does checking the ID against the BP do to make us safer? So what if they found one, stole one, or printed one. Does that put the plane at greater risk? If they wanted to do some evil, couldn't they just BUY THEIR OWN TICKET? As for all the potential terrorists that may be in this country trying to blow up the next plane, I am quite confident that getting on the plane using someone eles's boarding pass is not one of their problems that they are attempting to work through. Why would someone else go throught security, then hand their BP to someone else? Yes it could be done, but to what end? What does it accomplish? Nothing other than the second person would be able to fly on the first's ticket.
And does anyone think that a person or group attempting anything would have any problem obtaining an ID under a different name if they wanted to. I can list at least a dozen websites right now where you can buy a perfectly legal ID for about 50 bucks that will get you through any airport ticketing agent, security screen, and gate check.
Again, it's not really necessary. If you plan on killing yourself, you could just use your own ID.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by cordelli:
It prevents somebody from finding a boarding pass, or being handed one from an accomplice, or using one that was just lifted off somebody in the bathroom from getting into the secure area. Anybody who flies knows if you want a boarding pass there are lots of people who either lose them, or whatnot, and anybody with a printer and a third of a brain can print up an acceptable e-ticket receipt to get past at the airports you don't need a boarding pass from (or the places that let you print your own at home).</font>

And what has all this to do with either of the following two scenarios?:

* the bad guy has a fake ID - not hard to get
or
* the bad guy plans on a suicide mission - such as Sept 11th.

This is a waste of time.

You guys are right. We should definitely have better IDs which are a lot more difficult to fake.

And, whether you agree with the policy or not, you shouldn't be arguing with the security screeners. If you don't agree with rules/laws, complain to the people who have the authority to change them. This would be the FAA and Congress, not the security screeners.

d

[This message has been edited by Doppy (edited 01-20-2002).]

As a number of people have observed it is rather silly to wander the airport without id. However, the real issue is with the lack of consistency. There are lots of airports that don't require an id check at security and certainly she could be used to using those. The only real purpose of the boarding pass requirement at security is to reduce the volume of people going through security. It does not serve a direct security purpose. Anyone can buy a refundable ticket if they really want to get to a gate. The checks at check-in and the gate are the security ones. The inconsistency currently in place at security checkpoints is absurd and getting worse. One airport (MRY which has only prop flights) requires everyone to remove shoes and wallet - most including all the big ones don't in general. Last week at PDX I had a screener tell me the same e-ticket printout that I had been using since 9/11 all around the country was no good because it didn't have an airline logo on it! I politely requested a supervisor on that one. This nonsense needs to stop and some consistent approaches adopted that will let us travel predictably.

As we all know, real terrorists never carry ID.

Boy did this topic bring out some strong feelings....

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by UAL Traveler:
Thus far, ever security checkpoint has asked me for ID in the US. </font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by johnep1:
...Now that I think about it, I can't remember being asked for ID at security. They just ask for a boarding pass. IDs are only needed to get a boarding pass and to get on the plane. </font>

At every airport through which I've gone through security post 9/11, I have been asked for i.d. and b.p. at the security check in order to be allowed to the x-ray machines (SMF, SBA, ONT, RNO, SFO, SJC, STL, MSY, SNA)

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Hagbard Viking:
...I completely fail to see the security aspect of correlating the name on the boarding pass with the name on an ID at the security check point.... </font>

To my perhaps overly simple mind, it is the way to ensure compliance with the statement (that I hear over the p.a. ad nauseum at every airport it seems) that "Only ticketed passengers will be allowed beyong the security checkpoint." I.e., the b.p. and the i.d. is the way the confirm that it is indeed you who are the ticketed passenger who is seeking to go airside.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by MileJunkie:
do you really expect them to think? They have a hard time dealing with reality, thinking is beyond their capability... </font>

I think that's an unneccesary and over-general slam. There are those who do try to do their job with dignity and thoughtfulness.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Doppy:
And, whether you agree with the policy or not, you shouldn't be arguing with the security screeners. If you don't agree with rules/laws, complain to the people who have the authority to change them </font>

Agreed. It makes no sense to argue with the folks who have no discretion about the policy itself. The carrying out of this particular policy isn't a matter of interpretation (like whether a such-and-such size nail clipper with or sans file is a "potential weapon") about which there can indeed be legitimate complaints of unfairness, capriciousness, etc. The i.d. and b.p. (or official itin, etc.) policy seems pretty easy to understand and enforce -- either you have both or you don't -- and leaves the screener with little need or room for discretion or interpretation. As to whether the policy itself makes any sense, see my next comment. But complaining to the security folks about a policy's senselessness isn't going to be effective.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by NoStressHere:
...This is a waste of time </font>

Absolutely.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Rosemarie:
So did they let her thru? </font>

I don't know. I went on -- I had a plane to catch. But I would like to know too.



[This message has been edited by cblaisd (edited 01-21-2002).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by cblaisd:
At SFO, I was in the UA security line ~ 7 p.m. The woman in front of me had only a boarding pass. No purse, no carry-on, no pockets (that I could discern). Only a boarding pass. The agent checking i.d.'s and b.p.'s before the x-ray said "I need to see your i.d." She said "It's with my husband at gate 78 -- we're just connecting here and I just ran out to have a smoke. He has my purse and i.d." </font>

This was UA domestic at SFO??

Well obviously she went through the wrong line ... I've noticed UA's SFO elite bypass line has been quite happy to let people through to the metal detectors & X-rays by simply showing a boarding pass, no ID (just like the letter of regs say). Three of the 4 times I went through there in the last 2 weeks, a boarding pass was all it took.

Now the elite queues at UA LAX are a different matter. At LAX everyone first goes through the same boarding pass/itinerary checkpoint and they insist on IDs there. Then there was a separate queue for elites after the boarding pass check to wait for the metal detectors.



[This message has been edited by Quokka (edited 01-21-2002).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Quokka:
This was UA domestic at SFO??

Well obviously she went through the wrong line ... I've noticed UA's SFO elite bypass line has been quite happy to let people through to the metal detectors & X-rays by simply showing a boarding pass, no ID (just like the letter of regs say). Three of the 4 times I went through there in the last 2 weeks, a boarding pass was all it took.

</font>

Why is the elite line the "wrong" line? Ummm, not everyone, in fact, not even everyone on FT, has elite FF status.

. . . . . . . .

Reading through this thread, it looks like FT'ers berating a fellow FT'er for neglecting to have photo ID with oneself at all times. Those of us who know what the "security" rules are (including the large variance in said rules), and who fly very often, or at least pay attention when we do fly, are unlikely to do such a thing.

Reality check -- not everyone reads FlyerTalk! In fact, most people haven't ever heard of FlyerTalk. I know this site is popular, but come on, let's look at this from the perspective of the typical air passenger.

Yes, most air passengers know that you must have photo ID to fly on a commercial plane. That's because the requirement has been around for a few years, and it's always been required at check-in, and now recently also at the gate. Naturally, if you have photo ID at check-in, you also have photo ID at the gate, unless you give your ID to your husband and he takes a different flight, which is quite uncommon.

It's perfectly logical for one person in a traveling party of two to keep both ID's, when one of them has a purse with lots and lots of "stuff" in it (I'm not a woman, but I'm married, so I know how much junk you gals can stuff in there http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif ). My wife and I do exactly the same thing -- I put her NY driver's license right under mine in my wallet. I have never lost my driver's license or credit card; my wife has lost both of them, twice, so far. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif

Calling someone an idiot for not being 100% up-to-date on the "security" rules of flying, which seem to change from day to day, smacks of elitism, and I'm not talking about 25,000 credited miles per annum on a single carrier.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by mikey1003:
This be true! ID at ticketing and gate. Boarding pass at security.
</font>

Depends on the airport.
I've been through security at ORD and DTW where no ID was required. At BOS, though, it's been required every time in the last 120 days.

As most folks around here probably remember, the only reason for an ID check at all was to allow the airlines to prevent sale of tickets between individuals, which allows them to enforce the non-refundable ticket policy. The new multiple ID-check requirement is just a multiplication of a practice that never was an element of security in the first place (and still isn't). Until the checkers actually do something with the name information, like an insta-check aginst an INS/FBI/CIA watch list, the ID check is meaningless. They could better spend the salaries on additional bag screeners, performing real baggage screening, which would actually provide a real security benefit (if done correctly).

[This message has been edited by fcrit (edited 01-21-2002).]

A fake driver's license is still cheaper than a walkup fare.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by fcrit:
As most folks around here probably remember, the only reason for an ID check at all was to allow the airlines to prevent sale of tickets between individuals, which allows them to enforce the non-refundable ticket policy. The new multiple ID-check requirement is just a multiplication of a practice that never was an element of security in the first place (and still isn't). Until the checkers actually do something with the name information, like an insta-check aginst an INS/FBI/CIA watch list, the ID check is meaningless.</font>

All passenger manifests are being checked against a government watch list, which includes names from the INS, FBI and CIA. Checking IDs is supposed to ensure that someone who's not on the watch list doesn't buy a ticket and give it to his friend who is on the watch list (and thus couldn't fly or would be arrested).

While I don't see the necessity of checking IDs at security (boarding pass should be enough - the point is to keep lollygaggers and other unecessary people from clogging the security lines), there are obvious and legitimate reasons for checking it at the ticket counter and at boarding.

d

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Quokka:
This was UA domestic at SFO??</font>

Yes. The 1K security line wasn't open at that time.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"> ...Three of the 4 times I went through there in the last 2 weeks, a boarding pass was all it took. </font>

I've been through the elite line twice and the regular line twice in the last three months at SFO, and was ask for both i.d. and b.p. every time.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by JS: ...Reading through this thread, it looks like FT'ers berating a fellow FT'er for neglecting to have photo ID with oneself at all times. </font>

My intention was not to "berate" her for not remembering the rules -- we all, I assume, make dumb mistakes even when doing something we know really well -- but for her attitude.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"> Those of us who know what the "security" rules are (including the large variance in said rules), and who fly very often, or at least pay attention when we do fly, are unlikely to do such a thing.... Yes, most air passengers know that you must have photo ID to fly on a commercial plane. ... Calling someone an idiot for not being 100% up-to-date on the "security" rules of flying, which seem to change from day to day, smacks of [i]elitism... </font>

My assumption was (given her comments) was that she'd already checked in once (SFO was a connection airport) and therefore knew from when she checked in for her originating flight that both documents were going to be required to enter security. Other posters have cited different experiences at other airports, though, and perhaps, indeed, the requirement in the SFO line caught her by surprise. But there's still the attitude thing...

Despite the many insightful replies, I think you've all missed the point.

To wit, if this (hopefully ex-) passenger's filthy nicotine habit were banned, this serious security issue never would have occurred in the first place.

Talk about missing the obvious!

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Lucky5:
...To wit, if this (hopefully ex-) passenger's filthy nicotine habit were banned, this serious security issue never would have occurred in the first place.
Talk about missing the obvious! </font>

It is indeed banned -- as it quite rightly should be -- inside a public space (SFO) which is partly your space and air. That's why she was going outside. What else would you like to ban? Self-righteousness?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by cblaisd:
It is indeed banned -- as it quite rightly should be -- inside a public space (SFO) which is partly your space and air. That's why she was going outside. What else would you like to ban? Self-righteousness?

</font>

What I meant was banned as in "tobacco should be made illegal and users should be subjected to lengthy prison terms."

Unfortunately, I hadn't (until now) figured out how to use "smilies" and thought that the usual http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif wasn't necessary given my seemingly pompous (though no less exaulted, mind you) usage...

Simply a subtle ('tho apparently too much so) attempt to poke fun at the so-called security procedures that (and not to excuse the aforementioned woman) push passengers into hissy fits when they face stupid rules that are not only ineffective (see various posts re _real_ terrorists with _real_ IDs), but disruptive as well.

And as for banning self-righteousness, what fun would that be? (I can only assume that you don't mean MY self-righteousness...right?)

I do not believe having govt issued ID or lack of govt issued ID has ever stopped anyone from hijacking an airplane, a train, bus, car or golf cart. It did not stop the 9/11 crowd, the guy calling himself "Richard Reid" etc.

It does prevent my office staff from exchanging airline tickets and one coming home a littler earlier on the other ones ticket and v/v instead of paying 2 change fees. ID enhances the airlines bottom line, it may find a robbery fugitive for the FBI, it may soon find a wayward daddy who didnt pay his child support, it may someday find somebody who is late in paying his income tax or a parking ticket............. but it aint got much to do with "SECURITY". Itsa another "govt issued" white-wash job to cover up the problem, not fix it.

MisterNice

The requirement to present identification began during the unabomber scare when he threatened to detonate a bomb on a plane during a busy weekend. I believe the gov't had a list of possible suspects, and the idea was for the airlines to help the FBI catch him. His threat was a bluff so it did not work.

The airlines realized that the ID requirement added to their profits because it prevented people from transferring tickets, and resulted in wasted tickets and change fees. So the airlines kept this requirement.

The airlines will even tell you that ID is required by FAA regulations, which prior to Sept. 11 was an outright lie. It was only required by the airlines' own procedures. After Sept. 11 and the Patriot Act, ID may be requierd by law--I don't know.

The point is, the purpose of the ID requirement in teh airlines' mind is not for security but as an indirect revenue device and to hassle passengers.

Bravo lemonthrower! Well said!

Requiring ID also benefits passengers. I don't want someone showing up to the airport and using my ticket to fly for free without my permission. I also don't want someone using my FF miles without my permission.

Requiring ID also has security implications. Theoretically, many of the people who are on the watch list don't know it. As a result, they may fly under their real names, allowing the authorities to easily pick them up when they show up for their flights.

Traveling under a false name may also require people to buy tickets with cash. You can't show up the the airport with a fake ID under the name of John Smith, but a real credit card in a real person's name. As a result, people would have to use cash to purchase the ticket, which would probably result in them getting selected by CAPPS for a more indepth screening. Hopefully in this screening the fake ID would be discovered, which is a federal offense.

So, while the current system might not stop all bad people, it at least imposes some extra difficulties that possible wrong doers will have to circumvent.

And finally, just because today's IDs are too easy to fake, the solution isn't to stop checking IDs. Along those lines, we've determined that there are many security holes in air travel, so we should ground all air transportation, right?

No, the solution is that we patch holes, like developing a secure ID system.

I will agree that there is no benefit to requiring ID at the security checkpoint, but I think it's obvious that at ticketing and boarding it makes sense.

d

Doppy has it right

The "passenger" is to blame.

The screener is doing his/her job a told.

My solution, presented earlier is easy and none invasive to anyone.

Talking old rules and reasons or motivations is a waste of space.

NEW
Inconsistency COULD BE part of the key to good security. Given a base minimum, and an inability to do a complete job on everyone, the randomness is a deterrent that can be afforded ($'s, not safety).

In any case, an adult should not be roaming around this world, let alone an airport without ID. You do not have to belong to FT to know that. I believe the same to be true of children and infants (all should have some positive type id). Anyone can suffer a mishap, and should be immediately identifiable.

When the news reports a 80 year old lady being wand, they say this is stupid. This person is obviously not a terrorist. A Senator being "strip searched" is stupid because he obviously is not a terrorist inspite of the metal detector going on. When an arab in his teens is checked it is profiling and that is wrong.

I say we all lighten up. Obey the requests of the screeners. Comply with the rules, as the screeners suggest them, and move on. If we believe there is a problem, then we should write to the appropriate authority to suggest a change. SECURITY is not that good, we all know that. I just suggest we give it a rest and wait a year or two while the system takes shape and then take another look. Write the authorites with your suggestions in the meantiime, but give the screeners a break.

Doppy, I don't disagree with what you said, but you miss the point. From the airlines perspective, the point of requiring ID is to maximize revenue to the airline--not to provide any of the other benefits such as greater security or fraud protection. This is what too many passengers don't realize. If the passenger had realized this, they probably would have responded differently--ie not questioned how the ID request would add anything to the security of the flight.

Bravo lemonthrower! Well said!

Sadly, LemonThrower may well be on to something here regarding the additional new revenue source bit! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/frown.gif

What's really sad is how you all think the airlines are part of some big conspiracy to make your lives more miserable. The airlines are conspiring with god, or whatever supreme being you may or may not believe in, to add stress to your lives and make you more miserable. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by LemonThrower:
From the airlines perspective, the point of requiring ID is to maximize revenue to the airline--not to provide any of the other benefits such as greater security or fraud protection.</font>

Even if we accept your assertion as true, so what? Tickets are not transferable, and therefore, if someone's trying to use another person's tickets, then this practice prevents someone from circumventing the rules that the rest of us play by. If someone steals my tickets, then he ought not to be able to fly with them, correct?

I personally don't care whether or not it is a revenue generator. If this prevents someone from abusing the system by using his coworker's tickets or by stealing someone's tickets and flying with them, the fact that it makes the airlines money is totally irrelevant.

After all, buying a ticket helps the airlines make money. So if you don't want to generate any revenue for them, don't fly.

Regarding the transferability of tickets--people have different views on this. If I pay $1000 for a ticket and something comes up that prevents me from using it, I think it is nearly criminal for that money to go down the drain. Prior to the unabomber scare, I understand you could give the ticket to a relative or a friend (never did do this). While you are correct that this may have been a technical violation of the terms and conditions of the ticket, some might see this as merely gaining some value from your investment--after all, you did pay $1000. I acknowledge that reasonable people could view this differently.

Your comment about "abusing the system" is an intersting one. No doubt, travelers abused the prior system and it was these abuses that led the airlines to require ID. But the flip side of the coin is airlines who abuse the trust of travelers with onerous pricing and fine print. A good number of travelers are fed up with this sort of treatment--the Goldpoints/Valumags incident gives one a glimpse at the lengths some people will go to to circumvent the onerous pricing structures imposed by the airlines. I mean, it is quite easy to circumvent the checkout counter at the grocery store but the overwhelming majority of their customers find the pricing system to be fair and reasonable and thereby voluntarily comply.

The relevance of the revenue generation to the airline is that it explains the purpose of the rule as viewed from the perspective of the airline, and with this understanding a pasenger might interact with airlines more successfully. Its curious that the airlines previously were less than honest about the purpose of this rule, and falsely claimed that it was mandated by the FAA.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by AS Flyer:
What's really sad is how you all think the airlines are part of some big conspiracy to make your lives more miserable. The airlines are conspiring with god, or whatever supreme being you may or may not believe in, to add stress to your lives and make you more miserable. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif </font>

As Frank Burns once said on M*A*S*H "I wouldn't be so paranoid if eveyone didn't hate me."
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif



------------------
Hell hath no fury like that of an elite frequent flyer in coach.

I am not real smart, but I can lift heavy things.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">I say we all lighten up. Obey the requests of the screeners. Comply with the rules, as the screeners suggest them, and move on. </font>

I have a couple of random observations: First of all, it does occur to me that most of the security screeners are just working men and women trying to do a not particularly pleasant job, and should probably be given a break.

Quite a few times, I have seen complaints that some particular security rule has no logical reason, and more often than not, I've been able to figure out some good reason (which may or may not be the same reason it was imposed). And even if the rule has no good reason for existing, being unpleasant to the guy who is just doing his job probably won't do any good anyway.

On the other hand, I am somewhat concerned now that boarding an aircraft is becoming as an accepted place for random searches, that random searches will become accepted other places, which strikes me as a Bad Thing (r).

Therefore, while I have no desire to make life difficult for the screeners, I have personally vowed that I will not treat random searches as routine.

For example, a few weeks ago, I was the lucky recipient of a random search at IAH. (I had changed seats on the NW segment of a CO ticket and exchanged my CO boarding pass for a NW one. I suspect this might have made me look like a one-way NW passenger who just showed up in the system the same day as the flight.)

Despite the repeated PA announcements that jokes about security may result in arrest, apparently the screeners are allowed to tell jokes. (One screener jokingly told a passenger that he was he was going to confiscate a cake she was carrying aboard.) IMHO, if the passengers are not allowed to tell jokes, then the screeners should not be allowed to either.

I can understand that joking around with passengers in a stressful situation might make the experience appear less intimidating for some. But on the other hand, random searches ARE intimidating, and I don't think the screeners should act in such as way as to minimize this intrusion, whether or not it happens to be necessary.

On that particular search, I did not quite have the guts to do what I plan to do the next time. If I am selected, I will tell the screener in that official airline-speak voice, "before I consent to the search, I will need to see your government-issued photo ID." If I am questioned as to why I need to see it, I'll just tell them that this is America, and we don't have anonymous searches here.

On this particular search, they were trying to move everyone along as fast as possible (see first observation, that these were just working schmucks trying to do their job as fast as possible) and were trying to get an assembly line of sorts going. Screener #1 took my boarding pass and passport, and directed me to Screener #2 who had the unenviable job of hand-searching my shoes.

Screener #1 set my passport and boarding pass near his station and sent me to the other screener. I announced (loudly enough so that other passengers could hear and in an airline-speak voice) that I did not want to proceed with the search unless I could keep my personal possessions in view at all times.

I'm not sure I accomplished anything, but the screeners did seem to become more businesslike, and for a couple of minutes, it did become clear again that what was going on here was an intrusion on everyone's liberties. It might be necessary to have searches, but at the very least it should be remembered that what is going on here is an intrusion.

Perhaps someone who travels through IAH more often that I do can correct me on this, but it sure sounded like they kept announcing something like "please do not be DISSUADED to carry items onto the aircraft for strangers or persons you do not know well." The first time, I thought I had heard it wrong, but that's sure what it sounded like.

Finally, last night I was in DFW, and spent some time observing the security screener at my gate. Here are some helpful hints for any security screeners who might be reading this:

If you are indeed going to pick a random screenee, then please use some better criterion than "the first guy who boards". Last night, the poor screener was playing tag with three people waiting to board. I think First Class had boarded, and these three were Group 1. The screener approached this group, waiting for one of them to come forward. They saw him coming, and all moved away from him. They had probably moved 20 feet away from the gate by the time he finally caught the one who was closest, at which point this lucky passenger was escorted away, and normal boarding continued.

Second, please keep in mind that while rubber gloves might be a tool that is necessary to do your job, they should not in any way be considered part of your uniform. You will look less ridiculous if you wait to put them on until immediately prior to touching something that might contaminate you (or vice versa). You should not put them on ten minutes before boarding. They do *not* make you look more official. Again, the important thing to keep in mind is that they are a TOOL, and not part of your UNIFORM.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by LemonThrower:
Regarding the transferability of tickets--people have different views on this. If I pay $1000 for a ticket and something comes up that prevents me from using it, I think it is nearly criminal for that money to go down the drain.</font>

Well, it's likely that if you paid a grand for a ticket, it's the one that you can change at will. So you'll excuse me, I'm sure, if I don't buy that it's criminal to make me waste a grand. And even if you bought a non-refundable ticket, you knew the rules going in. In any case, the rules are simple. Tickets are not transferrable, period. Therefore, if you don't like the rules, don't fly, because the airlines probably aren't going to change that rule any time soon.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Your comment about "abusing the system" is an intersting one. But the flip side of the coin is airlines who abuse the trust of travelers with onerous pricing and fine print.</font>

The rules are all there for you to see. If you don't like them, don't buy the ticket. It's really that simple. If the price is too high for you, don't fly. If you don't like the rules, don't fly. Nobody is forcing you to fly.

You get the final word and you can vote with your wallet. I suggest that if you don't like the rules, you do so.

If you have ever called an airline to purchase a ticket over the phone, then you probably know that they do not tell you the rules over the phone. You pay the money and are usually not told it is non-transferable.

I understand the policy, and have never run into any serious problem with it. However, it does bother me that I could plan a flight a month in advance for in a company. I cannot hold a seat for a generic person, I need to have a name. And if the person who will travel changes, I cannot simply call and say "change the name of the passenger".

As LemonThrower suggests, the only reason for this is that the airlines can do it -and that doing it is to their financial advantage.

I think he has a right to think this sucks without forfeiting the right to fly.

I'm just glad that this policy doesn't spread to other areas of American life - imagine buying tickets to a baseball game and being required to name the people who will be accompanying you. I guess that would put an end to ticket scalping.

Anyone else have an interesting observation/story to tell, now that the one that started this thread has been beaten to death?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by mdtony:
The rules are all there for you to see. If you don't like them, don't buy the ticket. It's really that simple. If the price is too high for you, don't fly. If you don't like the rules, don't fly. Nobody is forcing you to fly.

You get the final word and you can vote with your wallet. I suggest that if you don't like the rules, you do so.</font>


I think the tax laws are poorly worded and onerous, too. Does this mean I should express my displeasure by refusing to pay taxes?

As part of my job, I have to fly. (Yeah, I guess I could always get another job, but let's leave that aside for a sec.) That doesn't mean I forfeit my right to call out what I see as being inconsistencies, problems, and outright duplicity etched in the system.

Personally, I don't have a problem with requiring ID at the gate so that someone can prove it's me flying in my name. But there's a LONG list of other complaints -- things that are de facto ground rules of airlines these days -- that are there for NO other purpose than to raise revenue.

Have you seen your banking agreement recently? It's just about as long, legalistic, and convoluted as the rules and regulations associated with an airplane ticket. But what are my alternatives? Storing my money in a cookie jar?

All the banks have virtually the same virtually indecipherable fine print, there only to maximize revenue, as do almost all the airlines. And in most cases, there ain't nothin' no one can do about it. Welcome to the wonderful world of oligopolies. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/frown.gif

LemonThrower brings up a valid point: corporations can pay for a "spot" at a convention, at a ballgame, at a trade show. Why not on an airplane?

SP

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by VolleyballFerd:
If you have ever called an airline to purchase a ticket over the phone, then you probably know that they do not tell you the rules over the phone. You pay the money and are usually not told it is non-transferable.

I understand the policy, and have never run into any serious problem with it. However, it does bother me that I could plan a flight a month in advance for in a company. I cannot hold a seat for a generic person, I need to have a name. And if the person who will travel changes, I cannot simply call and say "change the name of the passenger".
</font>

I don't know what airline you're calling, but AA reps always go through the basic rules - (1) change fee, (2) non-transferrable and (3) non-refundable. Though they know I have Platinum status (and thus should be relatively familiar with the rules) they always take the time to go through with them, even if I'm just making a reservation, not yet purchasing the tickets.

As far as transferrability - the less restrictive you want the rules to be, the less you pay. If you want the ultimate in freedom, you buy a full-Y ticket. If you want to save money, you buy a discount coach ticket, but agree to more rules. It's simple economics - you get what you pay for.

If the airlines didn't have such restrictive rules on their tickets, they'd lose a fortune. People would be calling every single day changing flights, dates, times, destinations, passengers, etc.. Each of those transactions costs the airlines money.

Let's not forget the airlines are in business. Of course they're trying to protect their revenue; they have owners who expect a reasonable rate of return on their investments. The hundreds of thousands of airline stockholders aren't wealthy philantropists, they're investors.

d

It seems possible that a few of the comments here fail the macro test.

Airlines ripping off people by asking for ID...Reality 1: most all airlines have lost money this year and several have or are at near bankrupcy. Reality 2: some passengers, many of which are represented on FT, fail to follow the rules set by the airlines. Reality 3: many of these people purposefully cheat the airlines and brag about it.

If the pricing is so out of wack, why is it that we do not have more successful start ups?

As an aside, lemonthrower, the grocery stores are constantly dealing with people stealing food, trying to pass expired coupons, trying to use coupons for items that they have not bought, eating product while in the stores without paying, switch price tags where bar codes are not involved, open product to touch/smell/ or whatever and have children that break stuff and move on.

One of America's strengths is one of its weaknesses. Anyone can complain, and we all do. There are few problem solvers, just complainers. (Note my first comment suggesting the lady be sent back to the front desk and have her husband paged, so that he could bring her ID was a solution, I believe). Rules are what make us civilized. Unfortunately, too many people believe themselves to be to good to obey the rules, they just cheat and complain. Not very civilized?

Security checks are unfair, they try to keep killers off our planes. Profiling is unfair, it tries to concentrate limited resources to solve a problem, instead of delaying everyone in the name of equality. ID checks are unfair, they try to keep people from defrauding airlines?...silly when you look at it.

None of these comments are aimed at anyone in particular (except the grocery example for which I am very familiar), but it will likely start a flame war from those who feel their right to cheat is being challenged.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ranles:

If the pricing is so out of wack, why is it that we do not have more successful start ups?</font>

Because the unions, stupid management and the FAA keep costs artificially high. I certainly don't mind taking advantage of that unholy trio.

I did not say requiring ID was an attempt by the airlines to rip you off. Rather, its their way to enforce their rules on transferability, etc. I don't mind showing ID to board a plane, but I do mind that the airlines pretend its for your benefit or safety. Apparently, a lot of you were fooled by the airlines on this rather small point.

As far as voting with my wallet, I generally agree with you. However, airlines are special in at least two respects. If an airline fails to honor its contract with me, I have very limited ability to sue them because they are protected by law. (lost or delayed baggage problems are a good example here.) Second, as a result of government regulation, they effectively are a monopoly or oligopoly meaning that one has little ability to vote with their wallet.

This is starting to get far off topic. The point I wanted to make is that the airlines require ID to enforce their non-transferability and other revenue generating rules, and they merely pretend that the ID is for your benefit or safety IMHO.

You ain't seen nothing yet...

http://www.sptimes.com/2002/01/23/TampaBay/Leaders_approve_devic.shtml

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by LemonThrower:
I did not say requiring ID was an attempt by the airlines to rip you off. Rather, its their way to enforce their rules on transferability, etc. I don't mind showing ID to board a plane, but I do mind that the airlines pretend its for your benefit or safety. Apparently, a lot of you were fooled by the airlines on this rather small point.</font>

Maybe it's because we've got more important things to worry about than whether or not the airlines are trying to enforce their rules on transfering tickets by making us show our IDs.

My concern is on getting from point a to point b. It isn't about whether or not the airlines make a few more bucks by catching a few folks who try to skate around the rules. Actually, I say more power to them. Cheaters drive up the fares for the rest of us who play by the rules.

VolleyballFerd I'd be interested to know what airline you are flying that doesn't ever tell you the rules over the phone. I'm a res agent and I personally say the words "these tickets are non refundable and non transferable" more times in a day than I'd like to recall. And even so, why do you need to be told everytime??Tickets just aren't transferable. The only transferable tickets I know of are Southwest Rapid Rewards.

As for the non being able to change the name on a business ticket... Thats what changeable and refundable fares are for. Yes, they are more expensive, but they afford much more flexibility than the discounted fares meant for those who know when, where, and who will be travelling.

As for Stimpy's reference to the artificially high cost of air travel.... I seem to recall purchasing a ticket between San Diego and Seattle 12 years ago for $198 plus taxes. Today, that same ticket costs $178 plus taxes. What else have you purchased lately other than maybe a computer that is cheaper than it was 12 years ago
------------------
Get treated like the Goddess that you
are

[This message has been edited by missydarlin (edited 01-23-2002).]