Adam1222

Respectfully, no one is disagreeing with this. The app does not, however, know if the person at the airport attempting to board the plane has passed any screening.

4004

Given this has been moved to the Intl forum section out of UA, maybe others can chime in, but this sounds familiar to what I have to do going from the EU to the UK - get a "document checked" sticker on my (non UK) passport.
Only had to do it when connecting on LHG flights, and it's always been a flight-specific queue - so you won't be missing the flight, still not very convenient though. I assume it is to avoid having to repatriate someone not allowed entry into the destination country.
Don't know if this US-bound thing is different

diburning

This is a US security theater thing and I don’t know if there’s any rhyme or reason as to when it occurs and/or is enforced. It’s also not unique to Europe either.

FRA-BOS on LH - no questions, no sticker
MEX-JFK on AM - questions and sticker at gate by AM staff
ARN-JFK on DL - questions and sticker at check-in counter (OLCI did not give me a boarding pass) by contract ground staff (Swissport)

MeltingAlf

I'm not sure if the purpose and intent is the same, but the US-bound questions tend to be a lot more specific and intrusive, whereas UK checks seems to be more customary to ensure you have the right to enter the country via a visa/residence permit/visa-free facility .

LHG seems to like to do things in queues, I had it on LX in ZRH (pretty neat) and GVA (horrible and messy, GVA is not big enough for non-Schengen flights, and it didn't help LCY and LHR were departing at the same time). I can't remember my experience with OS. TK does it at check-in or pre-check-in at IST, and A3 sometimes does it by creating a barrier of sorts before getting to gate at ATH.

No stickers on my flights on BA, Icelandair, KLM, SAS, Luxair, or the LCCs (EasyJet, Wizz Air, Ryanair), though.

GUWonder

That “documents checked” thing for some LH Group airline flights from the EU/Schengen area to the UK sounds more like a passport/visa check by an airline rather than an airline security contractor check meant to direct some people to a secondary security screening of their cabin baggage and/or body.

diburning

Odd. The questions that they ask me are always something along the lines of "What was the purpose of your trip? Did you pack your own bags? Have the bags ever left your direct custody between packing and now? and sometimes "Are you carrying anything on behalf of another person who had asked you to do so?"

GUWonder

Not odd.

While some of my EU/Schengen to LHR flights used to have the kinds of questions mentioned above, that was more the exception than the norm, and it most commonly wasn’t part and parcel of sending a bunch of passengers for each flight to a pre-departure secondary security screening.

What you’re describing is more specific and intrusive than a simple passport and/or other international travel document check. And the TSA
-wanted-and-approved security contractors working US-bound flights do also ask even more intrusive and specific questions than that to some travelers but not all.

I’ve even seen some of the security contractors used by some US airlines try to demand non-existent, illegal ID from documented US citizens with valid US passports trying to fly back to the US. And that was the result of specific and intrusive questions beyond the ones mentioned above.

Repooc17

It is not really about the questions per se, but how you answer those questions. They are trying to detect hesitations, inconsistencies, body movements, etc.

I have found flying non-EU ex-Europe to EU to US to be a more pleasant experience. On my recent trip transiting CPH, no passport control (no stamps), new E gates was a ghost town, and I volunteered and had gate agents ask me those questions, all done in less than 30 seconds.

GUWonder

That’s what they want people to believe and what many others want to believe. But there should be great doubt that this detection of “hesitations, inconsistencies, body movements, etc.” is anything but a modern day version of snake oil being sold by salesmen with a magic “cure” — this time with “security” as the narrative rather than a miracle “cure” for whatever “health” ailment is the concern of the day.

It takes a good, very experienced FBI or CIA interrogator a lot of time of building rapport with an interrogation target and having a great deal of subject matter expertise in a target and a target’s associates in order to become a reliable judge of the responses from a particular individual. These contract security screeners working my US-bound flights from Europe are not positioned so as to be anywhere as close to competent like that. Even if they miraculously had at least the ability of a sensitive toddler in measuring human responses, these airline security contractors lack the opportunity and/or subject matter expertise to be much more than a dog and pony show when presented with plane loads of passengers.

Personally, I would rather trust the average toddler’s judgment about random passengers’ “hesitations, inconsistencies, body movements, etc.” in response to these questions than I would trust these contract security screeners at airports. Have you seen what they are typically paid? It’s part of the reason why these companies are more likely to import cheaper foreign origin labor — typically on the younger side than the local native labor pool average — to do these jobs. And still it’s like “the Magic 8 Ball says ….”.

diburning

I doubt that a poorly paid (by comparison to an actual airline employee who probably doesn't get paid much to begin with if they are ground staff) contract agent gets extensive training in such behavior detection.

Adam1222

I'm not sure what you're basing these suppositions on, but at many airports these positions are unionized, highly paid, and indeed require specific certifications.

GUWonder

The US airline security contractors that had been hitting me with questions on my Europe-US flights prior to mid-March 2020 were not highly paid — not even in the highest labor cost and most unionized countries in the EU/Schengen area. And they still are not this year. There is even some “social dumping” involved in the security contractors’ employment practices in these parts. Being an airline FA for a legacy major in these parts would be more “lucrative” than being a US airline security contractor’s “screener” for the same flights.

The airline contract ground handling agencies’ check-in staff used by airlines at EU/Schengen area outstations in the high-labor cost+high union density countries are also better paid on average than the airline contract security screeners, but there are various reasons for that and I wouldn’t take that to mean they are any better or worse with questioning passengers than the “professionals” employed by the airline security contractors.

Adam1222

It seems this thread has gone quite afield, but I get the sense that the majority of posters here who have shared their feelings about screening would have/share the same feelings whether or not the employees are trained or highly paid. Cheers.

Mats

First off, I think that it was rightful to be confused about "Travel Ready" versus a security sticker. These serve different purposes but appear the same to a passenger.
The airlines have not thought this through.
Likewise, airlines vary their own meanings: on some carriers, "DOCS OK" mean that one has answered security questions; on others, a sticker is still required. It is cumbersome and labor-intensive.

The threats to passengers, crew, and equipment have changed. These questions started in the 1980s, prior to Pan Am 103. This was during an era when attacks were largely coming from Abu Nidal and similar organisations. We have now moved on to the threats of viral diseases, "home grown" terrorists, and intoxicated/angry passengers. The threat changed, but the screening system never adapted. (I'm excluding El Al from this conversation as their security needs differ from US carriers.)

The questions have no basis in science; their underlying "behavioral detection" capability has been discredited. These questions might work as an intimidation plan, but I see these mostly as a job creation scheme for ICTS, Swissport, etc. This system requires personnel, time, administrative costs, without any clear benefit to the flying public. In this case, it created confusion rather than safety.

We are now looking toward some long overdue improvements in security screening:

• Elimination of liquid rules
• Changes in advanced imaging technology to reduce frisking
• Elimination of security questions at least for some passengers at some stations (Heathrow in particular)
• Increased discussion of One Stop Security (OSS) at more airports around the world

Perhaps I am unduly optimistic, but I hope we can also see the following:

• Abandon routine questioning, interviews, an stickers
• Apply Global Entry and PreCheck to selection algorithms such that trusted travellers are generally excluded from SSSS selectee treatment on flights TO the United States.
• Reduce the number of "random" selectees on flights TO the United State

The wheels turn slowly, but I think that the confusion about being "travel ready" was justifiable. Now we can hope to clean up an arcane and irksome system.

gmt4

No one should be confused. "Travel Ready" "Docs Ok" "ADOC" or whatever an airline puts on your BP has nothing to so with airport security. Questioning, bag screening and body scanning. Its really that simple. It comes down to people understanding the difference between what the airline itself is responsible for checking regarding passengers and security screening. They are entirely separate processes. Anyone who has traveled, let alone anyone who is an experienced flyer and has status, should know these things. The posted above assumed. That's where they went wrong. End of story.