|
ATL: Spirit Airlines Employees used Gate Passes to Bypass Security
Atlanta television station WSB-TV just broadcast a report that Spirit Airlines employees improperly used Gate Passes to get to work.
Employees are supposed to have their employee badges scanned when accessing the "sterile area"; instead, Spirit employees used gate passes to get thru the regular TSA security lines for passengers. |
How did they bypass security if they used regular TSA lines?
|
So they go to a sterile area without creating a log event? Much ado about nothing in my opinion. Much bigger problems out there in my opinion.
|
So they subjected themselves to more security? I wonder if this is really the story about the JetBlue employee who used their ID to get through security when they weren't on duty and either the OP or the TV station just got the facts a little mixed up.
Otherwise it makes no sense that an employee could use their SIDA badge and keep their shoes on etc, but instead decided a groping was more to their liking. :eek: |
The report is now posted on WSB-TV's website:
Spirit airlines employees behind security breach at Hartsfield-Jackson Airport (Thursday, Nov. 5, 2015) A short quote: "If you have a gate pass, that should get you no more than a boarding pass," security expert Brent Brown said. "People can malfunction equipment, they can jeopardize things. They don't have to be carrying guns or weapons through TSA." Spirit Airlines released the following statement: At this time, we are aware of 16 Team Members who travelled to Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport to support a transition from one Business Partner to another during approximately a two week period in late September to early October. Thirteen of these Team Members were fully SIDA badged at the airport and accessed the gate areas appropriately. Three of these Team Members used their Company-issued employee identification and gate passes to go through the normal TSA security screening checkpoint to perform their duties. These Team Members should not have used gate passes to access the gate areas. As soon as we became aware of this infraction, we ensured that it ceased immediately. However, it is important to note that these three Team Members all had passed ten-year FBI background checks and all were screened at the TSA checkpoint. -Paul Berry, Director of Communicaitons |
If this had appeared in April I'd have thought it was a j:rolleyes:ke. What security did these people bypass?
What on earth is this gibberish even supposed to mean? "If you have a gate pass, that should get you no more than a boarding pass," security expert Brent Brown said. "People can malfunction equipment, they can jeopardize things. They don't have to be carrying guns or weapons through TSA." |
Originally Posted by Xyzzy
(Post 25671072)
If this had appeared in April I'd have thought it was a j:rolleyes:ke. What security did these people bypass?
What on earth is this gibberish even supposed to mean? If you have a gate pass you DON'T get a boarding pass. The rest is just nonsense. |
Originally Posted by RatherBeOnATrain
(Post 25669540)
Atlanta television station WSB-TV just broadcast a report that Spirit Airlines employees improperly used Gate Passes to get to work.
Employees are supposed to have their employee badges scanned when accessing the "sterile area"; instead, Spirit employees used gate passes to get thru the regular TSA security lines for passengers. |
This is much ado about nothing. It's a violation of the rules and the employees should be appropriately disciplined.
But, it doesn't create a security risk because the employees were screened. |
Originally Posted by Often1
(Post 25674537)
This is much ado about nothing. It's a violation of the rules and the employees should be appropriately disciplined.
But, it doesn't create a security risk because the employees were screened. |
I guess the claim is that there was no record they went through the checkpoint (since they didn't scan their SIDA badges at the employee checkpoint). It doesn't matter that they went through normal screening, because once airside they can access the tarmac, etc., through their employee access.
It wouldn't have to be weapons they were bringing airside. That said, I don't get why it was a big "infraction" because even if they had access to areas pax do not, wouldn't they have had the same access had they used the employee checkpoint? There just would have been a record of it? That's a small protection if at all. |
There are a few violations here. One, the employees didn't have SIDA badges at all. That means no fingerprints and background checks. Two, their supervisor was badging them in, a violation that makes me absolutely cringe. Three, they were apparently wandering around the SIDA unchallenged, which is a violation against every other badged employee who saw them.
It doesn't matter that they were screened and weren't carrying guns or bombs. They had access to areas other than passengers normally see and could have accomplished all sorts of sabotage. No, background checks aren't a cure all, but let's not brush this off. |
Originally Posted by Kate2015
(Post 25698582)
There are a few violations here. One, the employees didn't have SIDA badges at all. That means no fingerprints and background checks. Two, their supervisor was badging them in, a violation that makes me absolutely cringe. Three, they were apparently wandering around the SIDA unchallenged, which is a violation against every other badged employee who saw them.
It doesn't matter that they were screened and weren't carrying guns or bombs. They had access to areas other than passengers normally see and could have accomplished all sorts of sabotage. No, background checks aren't a cure all, but let's not brush this off.
Originally Posted by exerda
(Post 25697481)
I guess the claim is that there was no record they went through the checkpoint (since they didn't scan their SIDA badges at the employee checkpoint). It doesn't matter that they went through normal screening, because once airside they can access the tarmac, etc., through their employee access.
It wouldn't have to be weapons they were bringing airside. That said, I don't get why it was a big "infraction" because even if they had access to areas pax do not, wouldn't they have had the same access had they used the employee checkpoint? There just would have been a record of it? That's a small protection if at all. They failed to go to badging office to do fingerprinted. You are required to go to badging office to get SIDA badge. You cannot go through at security without SIDA badge. You have to get SIDA badge unless when your background check is cleared. You must obey the regulations. You have wait for your background checks. They will tell you when. They will notify you. |
Originally Posted by Kate2015
(Post 25698582)
There are a few violations here. One, the employees didn't have SIDA badges at all. That means no fingerprints and background checks. Two, their supervisor was badging them in, a violation that makes me absolutely cringe. Three, they were apparently wandering around the SIDA unchallenged, which is a violation against every other badged employee who saw them.
It doesn't matter that they were screened and weren't carrying guns or bombs. They had access to areas other than passengers normally see and could have accomplished all sorts of sabotage. No, background checks aren't a cure all, but let's not brush this off. 2. Incorrect - not having an ATL SIDA badge does not mean these employees had not undergone fingerprint checks or BIs. In fact, as these were Spirit employees that means they absolutely did undergo fingerprint and background investigations as part of the adjudication of their suitability for employment process. 3. Incorrect (about it being a violation, not whether such a thing made you cringe :) ) - a badged person badging an unbadged person into a SIDA is, under most conditions, not only not a violation but exactly what security procedures dictate a badged person is supposed to do. Of course, there are certain conditions in which doing so is proscribed and a violation. With the limited information provided by the news report the proscribed conditions do not appear to apply in this situation. 4. On what evidence in the news report are you basing this assertion of them "wandering around the SIDA unchallenged"? 5. Incorrect - it is not a violation for a badged person to not challenge every other person they see on the SIDA without a SIDA badge, particularly if the unbadged person is under escort of a badged person. Almost assuredly there were some problems regarding following security procedures (these people should have been badged and each should have entered the SIDA on their individual badge). What gives the most cause for concern here is not that these particular employees were in the SIDA without a badge or even that someone badged them in but rather that Spirit seems to have a corporate practice of picking and choosing which procedures it will follow for expediency's sake AND will retaliate against anyone who calls points this out. I foresee a very nice settlement coming Mr. Dunham's way. |
Originally Posted by Section 107
(Post 25708042)
1. Incorrect - not having an ATL SIDA badge while in the ATL SIDA is not a violation in and of itself. Should these people have had ATL SIDA badges? Possibly, and likely even probably, which would be a violation but there is not enough information in the news report for us to make that determination.
2. Incorrect - not having an ATL SIDA badge does not mean these employees had not undergone fingerprint checks or BIs. In fact, as these were Spirit employees that means they absolutely did undergo fingerprint and background investigations as part of the adjudication of their suitability for employment process. 3. Incorrect (about it being a violation, not whether such a thing made you cringe :) ) - a badged person badging an unbadged person into a SIDA is, under most conditions, not only not a violation but exactly what security procedures dictate a badged person is supposed to do. Of course, there are certain conditions in which doing so is proscribed and a violation. With the limited information provided by the news report the proscribed conditions do not appear to apply in this situation. 4. On what evidence in the news report are you basing this assertion of them "wandering around the SIDA unchallenged"? 5. Incorrect - it is not a violation for a badged person to not challenge every other person they see on the SIDA without a SIDA badge, particularly if the unbadged person is under escort of a badged person. Almost assuredly there were some problems regarding following security procedures (these people should have been badged and each should have entered the SIDA on their individual badge). What gives the most cause for concern here is not that these particular employees were in the SIDA without a badge or even that someone badged them in but rather that Spirit seems to have a corporate practice of picking and choosing which procedures it will follow for expediency's sake AND will retaliate against anyone who calls points this out. I foresee a very nice settlement coming Mr. Dunham's way. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 2:36 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.