Section 107

In the good old days pretty much anyone could transit a security checkpoint to visit what is now called the "sterile area." But currently only ticketed pax and a limited number of people with "special" authorization* may pass through a checkpoint and into the sterile area.

* such as folks that receive gate passes from an airline or that have passes to a club.

I think many people would like to once again be able to visit the sterile areas for a variety reasons (such as spending time with pax before departure, visiting a particular restaurant, shopping, plane spotting, greeting incoming pax, viewing art installations or architecturally historical sections of the terminals, etc.).

How do you feel about non-pax having the option of paying a modest fee (say $5) to be able to access the sterile areas when not a pox?

This would allow
a) non-pax to do all those things we used to be able to do,
b) airports to increase non-aviation revenue (parking fees, access fees, increased vendor rents/commissions) thereby reducing enplanement costs and theoretically resulting in lower airfares or possibly an increase in service/markets;
c) increase revenue for airport vendors and their workers, and
d) other positive impacts.

Yes, we already pay for TSA through taxes and we shouldn't have to further pay for the same service we have already paid for (although we are currently doing this via other fees built into tickets).

Yes, I know there are significant security concerns involved with such an idea; for the purposes of this discussion I am not worried about security - these concerns can be addressed.

I am just wondering if folks would be in favor of such an idea?

Boggie Dog

Not only No, but heck no!

petaluma1

NO! NO!

Randyk47

I'd have to also say no. I do remember and actually liked the old days when I could meet an arriving flight at the gate. In its time and place it worked well for me when aging parents were traveling in and out or my son from my first marriage was traveling as a unaccompanied minor for a visit. Right now somebody might be reading that and be thinking "Well, I'm in that situation so why shouldn't that still be the case?" Actually at some airports you still can get a pass to meet arriving flights under certain conditions. What I have noticed, and maybe it was the case back then too and it didn't matter to me then, is that the concourses seem much more crowded today than 20+ years ago. Just to name a few that I travel through regularly now the concourses at SAT, DCA, DFW, ATL, and PHL are crowded enough as it is.

WillCAD

The whole purpose of limiting the sterile area to ticketed passengers only has nothing to do with making them more secure, as everyone who enters the sterile area is subject to the same screening requirements, it had to do with limiting the number of people who need to be screened at any given time. It was one of the changes made in the post-9/11 panic, on the assumption that screening would be much more thoroughly conducted on each traveler, and so to keep the lines reasonable and the process moving efficiently, it was decided to limit the process only to those who really needed to go through it - the passengers themselves.

Fast forward fifteen years, and we find that screening does take far longer now than it did pre-9/11, thanks to NoS, ETD, and full-body rubdowns with genital contact, not to mention TSA staffing limits (i.e. staff who are limited in number, in motivation, and in intellectual capacity).

Although I have no problem with the theory of allowing a family of ten to go to the gate to see off Grandma, the logistical problems become overwhelming with the ways in which airports have changed over the years, first and foremost with the number of people traveling. The c/ps are already stretched to their limits and lines have become annoyingly long, and that's with only ticketed passengers going through. Allow others to go through, and the lines will increase even more; you'll find that you need three or four hours lead time instead of two, to make your flight.

Leaving aside the screening issues, there are also insufficient seats at the gates and in other airside areas to contain an extra fifty or hundred spectators per flight.

So no, I'm not in favor of allowing airside access to non-passengers for a modest fee. I'm not in favor of allowing it at all, except in the currently allowed exigent circumstances such as a traveler who needs special assistance - an elderly or handicapped person - or an unaccompanied minor.

Otherwise, the family can see Granny off at the c/p or the landside food court, and watch her plane taxi and take off from the landside observation deck.

Boggie Dog

TSA staffing is a problem, to many idle screeners, to many supervisors, and other non-productive employees. Screening operations could be improved considerably by better use of available bodies.

Look at the checkpoints and observe the clear inefficiencies.

chollie

Start by prohibiting TSO cellphones at the checkpoint.

Write up and suspend for a day any TSO who is caught standing and watching a grope.

To the OP: NO! to paid access to any area of the airport - now or at any time ever.

BTW, where did the hypothetical figure $5 come from? IIRC, I pay roughly $2.50 per flight segment - and like many pax, I have a carry-on and a personal item.

Why would you expect a non-pax with no carry-on besides a wallet or a purse to pay double for a minimal amount of screening?

One other tiny issue with this: do Pre pax being seen off by non-Pre friends have to use separate lanes? Will a Pre individual who is not traveling get access to Pre lanes (when and if available) and a reduction in the $5 fee?

Often1

It's not just checkpoint lines, but it's crowded gate areas, concourses and everything else. Even if the checkpoint were just a boarding pass check to keep out the non-travelers and had no security aspect, that would be a good thing.

Sorry, but you can say hello or goodbye to gramma at baggage claim or on the departures level.

Section 107

The amount didn't come from anywhere except as a WAG - it could be any amount - $1 or $100. (In practice, though, the fee would have to large enough to discourage simple loiterers and moping about while not so much that is prevents non-pax from visiting - $5 might be that amount. Or not.).

Actual passengers also pay other fees and taxes for airport security and infrastructure - so its more than $2.50.

What I am curious about is the opinion of the overall concept.

While there are many practical issues and challenges of the idea are many for the purpose of this thread I am only interested in general opinion about the idea of allowing non-pax to visit sterile areas for a fee.

chollie

OK, regardless of details, I am against this 100%.

Gate passes (FREE) are sufficient for non-flying folks who find it necessary or desirable to enter the sterile area. I see no reason to try to create a problem with a bad fix when there currently is no problem.

If someone were to charge for gate passes, I'd rather give the money to the airlines than to the government.

Night Owl

cbn42

Allowing non-ticketed passengers to go into the sterile area would require running their names through Secure Flight on the spot when they arrive and show ID. I don't know if this is feasible. Also, it might require airlines to check ID at the gate, in order to prevent someone from entering the sterile area and then using another person's boarding pass to get on the plane.

In principle, I have no problem with this. We already pay the TSA for screening, but we don't notice because it's included in the price of the ticket and the airline passes it on. Airports in the US aren't exactly known for top-notch terminals, so the number of people who choose to pay to go in will be minimal and unlikely to impact overall operations.

jkhuggins

They aren't known for it now --- because it doesn't fit anyone's business model to be a top-notch terminal.

The Pittsburgh Airport was re-designed in the 90s to include an AirMall, which boasted that it had prices that were competitive with ordinary commercial shopping malls. Their thought was that they could attract visitors to come and shop at the airport, even if they weren't flying. Then 9/11 happened, and their business model flew out the window. (Though I understand that the concept still is working well enough there.)

If there was reason to believe that a large number of non-passengers would want to visit the sterile side of the airport, one could design an airport with that business model in mind (e.g. more checkpoints, wider concourses, more seating areas, more shops and restaurants). But, as others have pointed out, the chance of airlines and TSA combining to make that possible is slim, and so there's no point in even contemplating a business model that relies on an impossible assumption.

cbn42

Prior to 9/11, airside access was open to anyone, but even then US airport terminals were generally mediocre at best.

Even if it became possible for anyone to go through security, I don't think there is any feasible business model that would work. Who would wait in line and go through TSA screening to shop at a mall, even if the prices are good, when they could just drive to another mall and get the same products?

After the new rules, the AirMall at PIT didn't get into trouble as many people predicted, probably because they weren't getting very many non-passengers in the first place.

jkhuggins

1) Much depends on how convenient it is to drive to the airport versus driving to "another mall". Some terrains are notably more difficult to navigate than others. (I know; I've driven around Pittsburgh enough to get thoroughly confused by everything.)

2) Obviously, you'd have to do better than simply offering "the same products". If there were at least some unique offerings to serve as attractions, that might make a difference.