coachrowsey

Spiff:
I agree with you on 99.9% of the things you post, but why are you so against airline employees bypassing ? On a side note just got my UScustoms seal to go on the sida id as my airport is making all of us get one. I had to fill out something like 6-8 pages of stuff for whatever extra background check they do for that to submit to Customs.
Now again I understand people with no record do stupid stuff like the guy who killed his family then himself but why not search everyone at the malls or where ever?

Liquid ban.....GET RID OF IT FOR EVERYONE ITS WRONG PERIOD.

B747-437B

I'm not Spiff, but I am an airline manager who among other things is accountable to the CAAs of the various foreign countries we operate to for maintaining an adequate security program in compliance with their regulations.

One thing I have learned is that it is not neccessarily the trusted person who bypasses security that intends harm, but the fact that there is a recognised workaround in the system creates a weak point that may be targeted either intentionally by those with malafide intent or accidently via a combination of factors.

Anything entering the RZ needs to be screened, whether it is passenger baggage, cargo, passengers, staff, liquid, gel or paste. Any exceptions to the system make the entire system vulnerable and risks it degenerating into a charade.

Boggie Dog

I'm not Spiff but you asked a really good question. Why should Airline employees bypass security?

I say they should not!

I think the simple answer is that either an area is secure or is not secure.

The current system is decidely against security.

From another angle, would you lock the front door to your home but leave the rear door open? Why not?

With the number of people who have access to the so called sterile area of airports there is no question than a certain percentage are potential bad guys. Letting in unscreened people is just stupid policy. (Kip must have had a hand in this decision)

Now I agree that the liquids ban is pretty much stupid, but if TSA wants to ban liquids over a certain amount then that should be the rule.

No exceptions for anyone!

Accommadation could be made for obtaining liquids airside at a reasonable price but that hasn't been done, and that is why people smuggle liquids through every day.

Now, such a strict policy could have a chilling effect on commercial air travel but I'm sure the airlines would support all security efforts even if it hurts revenue, right? Can't be to secure now, can we?

Now, a question for you, why should anyone not be screened?

skylady

Are you including FFDOs in this insanity?

skylady

There was also a time not long ago when "crew" bypassed security altogether. It was an employee of PSA that fucocked that up.

NY-FLA

The exceptions to the system propel it further into charade territory, but looking for chemical properties based on physical characteristics is, by definition, a charade right from the outset. (Think fool's errand) Need to find explosives? Here's a hint; Look for explosives. Use a known, verified, reliable method.

Interesting; The employee that caused the PSA incident was part of ground crew (passenger agent per NYT). The Wikipedia entry for PSA 1771, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSA_Flight_1771 states that "Several federal laws were passed after the crash, including a law that required "immediate seizure of all airline employee credentials" after termination from an airline position. A policy was also put into place stipulating that all airline flight crew were to be subject to the same security measures as passengers."
Clearly this policy was/is a little less than absolute. Although infrequent, I've personally observed flight crew completely bypassing airport check-point security. It seems to depend on the carrier and, apparently the local airport rules, and some crew (Delta?) seem to never get to bypass. Ground crew, the source of this particular incident, would seem to bypass TSA "security" at every airport in the country.

Boggie Dog

Coach Rowsey had asked what I thought was a pretty solid question.

A couple of anwers followed. I asked a follow up of why anyone should bypass security. Really thought a few airline, airport or TSA types would respond. I was disappointed.

So again, I ask why should anyone bypass security?

DoubleHaul

This is my first post other than my introduction!

I suspect that one of the reasons for the "flight crew" exemption from the liquids ban was because the FA's and the Pilots are actually organized work groups, in most cases unionized, that could have pretty effectively caused a stink that would have actually been smelled by someone who mattered. Rather than fight that fight, it would have been much more expedient just to tell them "oh, never mind...doesn't apply to you" and have them shut up.

I have no idea if this was the case at all, but I certainly would not be surprised if it was.

BTW, the absurd liquids rule was one of the last straws of me imposing my own personal "no-fly" rule.

NY-FLA

Well, I'm not an airline, airport or TSA type, and don't believe I ever will be, but I have to ask how you would allow building maintenance in the sterile area, without allowing those maintenance personnel to have cutting equipment and a full set of the tools that are banned for us mere pax, in other words without allowing them to bypass security?

NY-FLA

Possibly. A similar dynamic was at work for the medical and infant exception to this purposeless rule. Specifically, TSA did not want weepy media stories of those perceived to be in need of protection from the more invasive requirements of this idiocy being hurt by strict or rigid interpetation of the "rule".

Boggie Dog

In the case you mentioned these type of workers need to be screened entering and departing the secure area ensuring that all of what they brought in is accounted for on the way out and no extras like CNN Video Equipment.

NY-FLA

Right And if there's n-1 carpet knives on exit, what then? Terminal evacuation?
I don't like security bypasses, either, but it's totally impractical to insist on imposing the passenger level "security" idiocy, on everyone behind the "sterile line."

GoingAway

Sorry but if it's my stuff they've lifted in that 'secure' area (and it happens all too often), then they should be subjected to as much if not more of a security check than me as a passenger. They are a direct threat to the personal safety and financial security of the passengers and their belongs, and can easily create more havoc than most any passenger is likely to.

NY-FLA

Airport building maintenance personnel are lifting your stuff while you're in the sterile area? That's new.
Assuming you're grumbling about TSA and ground personnel taking items from checked bags (not at all clear from what you wrote) that's an issue unlikely to be resolved by checking workers at entrance to and exit from the sterile area. Any time I've looked, checked baggage inspection, where most of this theft is likely to be happening, takes place, by necessity, outside the sterile area.

Boggie Dog

A tool left in the wrong place on an airplane can easily cause an in-flight emergency. An airport worker could also mule something in to be placed on an aircraft.

If transportation security is what is desired then no one should be exempted. For those people who enter and leave the secure area there is no excuse to not screen them in both directions.

When looking at who has the greater opportunity to cause harm I would pick the people who have the most access.