This is plausible at major connecting airports like HKG, NRT, or SIN. The treatment is also inequitable sometimes depending on what language is spoken. For instance, reading a post on the other thread about Cathay Pacific's questions, the 'interview' was a joke if you speak Cantonese and more extensive if conducted in English.

Wonder what will be the case when you Answer "oh I just flew in from SFO to Singapore, went to the lounge, showered and I am flying back to LAX, This is more like transit for me"

I am a U.S. citizen traveling on a U.S. passport. My family has been here since roughly 1680, which predates the USA. What is the POINT of all of this except to cause fear, create chaos & encourage people to stay where they are.

Do all the questions apply to US citizens too? Surely they cant refuse you entry if you dont answer them?

Yes. Denying transport is separate from denying admissibility. They even let the shoebomber fly, but they did delay him by a day once. That was not as a US national.

Update: DL477 BCN-JFK, "interview" consisted of making sure I packed/watched my bags. Nothing new here except it was asked at the gate.

--Jon

[my bolding]

Can you not see the internal inconsistency in your post, and indeed this whole charade?

There are different ways this can and has been done. Some ways this can be done:

1. inhibit onward check-in so a boarding pass has to be claimed at a transit desk with personnel there (or available via call) to perform this charade prior to issuing the onward boarding pass;

2. have gate-area/jetbridge staff perform this charade prior to allowing passengers to board (or even enter the gate waiting area) even if having a boarding pass for the onward flight.

As someone who has been at airports enough to see a huge number of international mileage runs/positioning flights done, saying that you are flying to qualify/re-qualify for airline status works just fine most of the times. And in my experience when it comes to this kind of security charade -- as either a passenger or observer at the airports -- mileage running (or positioning flights for cheaper travel) as the reason for the trip (and as the basis to answer questions) works at least as well as -- or frequently better than -- when doing a typical VFR trip (of the sort that someone may do multiple times a year for years and years) and answering questions on that basis.

I'm going to have lots of fun with these questions this week and next; and I don't mind dragging out the process as entertainment on the cheap. Knowing my luck and as usual again, the questioning characters probably won't know what the heck to make of my responses other than to let me board pretty much as usual.

"Asking me questions makes me so much safer." :rolleyes:

If instead of wasting resources on these questions they would instead have the money/time for such questioning used to do explosives testing on a basis independent of questioning passengers, then the USG would more likely have my support with our unilateral "security" demand made upon airlines serving the US.

GUWonder,
I really didn't articulate myself very well.
I was speaking of carriers that participate in PreCheck.

I'm quite sure that AAmerican's software can "ping" for PreCheck status on flights from overseas to the US. I'm not thinking of "managed inclusion," but if the passenger has PreCheck through a Trusted Traveler Program (TTP), he or she should really be exempt from extensive questioning, or at least limit it to the most basic ("did you pack your bags yourself?")

--
I just cannot overcome the hubris. An interviewer makes £7.95 per hour (http://www.icts.co.uk/uploaded_image...chester(1).pdf) They don't specify the duration of training. I"m guessing four to eight hours (two shifts).

Not even a high school diploma is required.
But these "officers" are entrusted with making decisions about who presents a risk to an aircraft, its crew, and its passengers?

Isn't this just a little bit astonishing? With almost no qualifications other than "own transport," this person is given free range to ask, "Who is looking after your children?" "What are the names of your children?" "How much money do you make?" "How do you get to your house?" and then conduct an analysis of the responses.

Something is terribly wrong with this scenario, but I doubt anyone will fight back. Getting on a flight now requires virtual strip search, an interrogation about one's children, job, finances, and pets, and then to be reminded that there is no "congregating" aboard the plane. The amount of psychological control does not seem to match the threat.

Will anyone be the voice of reason and influence?

Having a KTN certainly doesn't exclude the average GE member from being potentially flagged for haraSSSSment for flights to the US on US carriers; and so I wouldn't expect it to even lead to being spared from these ridiculous questions regardless of carrier flown.

Truly random, additional screening for contraband WEIs would be a way better use of resources than this ridiculous charade being performed by those taking home even less than $15/hour for this "enhanced" "security" work.

Planning a pure mileage run to SIN ( UA challenge), two day , catch up on movies, check longest United flight, etc.
Now kind of wondering about return security check at Singapore. Any thoughts?

It appears, according to Affection's link to a TSA court filing, that there are no answers that the bad guys would give, that would ban them from the flight, so long as they "consent to search and inspection." So the worst that can happen during the interview itself, is you get the SSSS. Apparently. Thanks much to Affection for pushing the envelope on this.

They can delay travel and end up selecting people for haraSSSSment type screening treatment at the departure airport.

The wannabe shoe-bomber had just that kind of experience with AA's ICTS contractors at CDG when he was ticketed to fly CDG-MIA on AA. They didn't clear him to fly that flight that day and then he returned there another day and got to fly the same flight (just different date) without having to pay up additional money for a new ticket (or ticket change/cancel penalties).

I can let you know in about five hours.

This is interesting to me.

As a US citizen, I'm allowed to return and not technically required to answer questions from CBP.

But this seems like a loophole: if you don't answer additional questions, you can't get on the plane.

I would assume this could face a legal challenge.