Originally Posted by
JamesBigglesworth
What risk was there? Was the pax not screened? Was there any intent on the part of the pax? No on both: risk profile doesn't change in the slightest. It's an airline cockup, pure and simple. Over reaction and paranoia over security do more harm to actual security than good. (Look at the US for an example of the incredibly porous security they have due to their paranoia and inability to focus on actual (such as they are) threats.)
On the contrary, it was a failure on the part of the airline verification requirements. If the passenger had been screened/verified at checkin/boarding this would not have occurred. The duplication should have been picked up. It is not an over reaction to ensure that the correct person boards the aircraft. The intent of the passenger is irrelevant as one is not prosecuting a case and seeking to determine guilt. Your argument employs faulty logic. Why screen pax for prohibited items if the intent if most pax intent is not to do something negative. The prevention of a negative act does not occur if one waits until after the event occurs. The FA onboard was not too bright either.
The fact is that this should not have occurred. You are naive if you believe that the airline will investigate and act to prevent a reoccurrence. The Canadian airline industry as a whole has failed to self regulate. This is a reportable event and should be reported.