aksai oiler

They are scanning your boarding card and taking information they are not entitled to. As I stated earlier the reason for them wanting to scan a second time is to monitor numbers - it is nothing related to the passengers security and there is no legal obligation for any passenger to agree to this if they so wish. They can threaten as much as they like it will not stand up, and if it means denial of boarding then they are legally responsible.

We live in an environment where information security is key, they are potentially violating this - because you don't know what they are doing with this information after your boarding pass has been scanned.

From my point of view I politely decline, if they don't like it I call for the supervisor.

itsmeitisss

I think it was the knucklehad comment that UKtravelbear was referring to.

Oaxaca

You're right that there is no legal obligation to agree the second scan, and this has been discussed at length in other threads, though I don't think there is much to worry about from an information security perspective. They already have all the BP info from the first scan, the only extra info I can see they gain from the second is the time between the two scans, which they use for CAA stats.

Some people view the position of the scan as massaging the stats (though in their defence that is how the CAA measures these things, for better or worse), and they don't have a right to tell you it is mandatory, but I'm not sure there is any data theft conspiracy on the part of HAL.

Worcester

The problem is that HAL use the time from the first scan to the second scan to show the CAA that processing times are low and thus justify their understaffing.

Not sure how this relates to hang baggage but I personally stick to the rules as far as I am aware.

BOH

What a load of bollox. Exactly why are they not entitled to it? If you use the airport facilities you play by their rules. If HAL or CAA or whoever require it as part of monitoring to improve service then so be it. Life is too short to get all pompous.

Maybe it is simply used for timing purposes from entering security to arriving at the scanner to give HAL advance warning when the time taken is starting to increase? To be able to better predict pax flows through security and deploy more resources accordingly? Gosh, how incredibly sinister is that, am petrified

Worcester

You may be right. I suspect not as HAL had assigned a staff member to make sure every card was scanned, while only two staff members were on duty on that lane.

Anyway to try and minimize my pomposity I did end up handing over my boarding scan for the second scan. But in an petulant display of windbaggery I did lodge a complaint with the CAA.

silonic

I think most people who are anti the 2nd scan haven't got any worries about data protection issues. The biggest objection is the 2nd scan is meant to be used to see how long the average person waits in line. However, they often get you to scan it when there are still people in front of you waiting to use the trays and countless others queuing to go through the body scanner/detector - thus fudging the wait times.

Now if they had the 2nd boarding pass scanner as soon as you went through the body scanner, think that would give the most accurate timing.

As for made up rules - the lady in WH Smith T5 who told me I couldn't buy a pack of chewing gum without scanning my boarding pass.

BOH

But that is still a valid measurement though because it is between two fixed points in the security queing system and the same for every pax. There may be a small variance if one pax scans when there is no-one in between themselves and the scanner trays and a few minutes later, another pax scans when there are 3 people ahead.

But overall these things will tend to average out and it is still a valid measurement because it is no doubt intended to be used as an indication of current queing time - as opposed to an absolute and precise measurement.

Worcester

As I said you may be right but I believe LHR is one of the worst airports to clear security through outside North America. I am not sure if anyone would agree?

I personally feel this is in large part due to insufficient staffing.

gcuk

My objection to the 2nd scan is nothing to do with data protection or my personal info. After all, Tesco know more about me than any government department thanks to their Clubcard scheme.
I object to the flagrant manipulation of the data as I'm only ever asked to scan the boarding pass the second time when the queue is short. Recently Fasttrack tailed back to the first scanning gate, and I queued for over 30 minutes. I tried to scan my boarding pass at the second scan but was told it wasn't working. When I asked why, I was told the keep moving because I was holding up the line.

CKBA

Had an EMPTY 250ml water bottle taken off me at Warsaw - did think about telling them about the multi-millilitre liquid contents of my bladder, but my Polish isn't that good!

Oaxaca

Not so sure about that, these timings are submitted to the CAA as the recorded queuing times for security. Hence the suspicions about data manipulation.

The point in relation to this thread is that when operatives tell pax that it is a legal requirement to do the 2nd scan, and/or that they will not be allowed to fly if they don't, they are making it up (whether deliberately or through ignorance).

PoincianaKings

At MIA this evening. TSA told me you can only step up to the boarding pass check (once you have finished queuing just before the scanners) together if you have a child traveling with you. If you are married and traveling with no children (or part of the same group but with no children) you have to step forward one at a time to have your boarding pass checked. Never happened at MIA, MCO, TPA, JFK, EWR or BOS before.

Also told that you could not decline to go through the nude-o-scope.

carrotjuice

Is this made up? I thought everything purchased post security requires boarding pass?

Flyingfox

This thing looks about as moronic as a selfie stick.