At EWR this week, security instructed all passengers to remove their shoes. At SLC on my return, no one was told to do so. At ORD, the security screener at the gate told my wife she was only pulling unaccompanied travelers aside. At another ORD gate, the security screener wandered into the boarding area and asked the only African American to join her behind the screen.

It prevents somebody from finding a boarding pass, or being handed one from an accomplice, or using one that was just lifted off somebody in the bathroom from getting into the secure area. Anybody who flies knows if you want a boarding pass there are lots of people who either lose them, or whatnot, and anybody with a printer and a third of a brain can print up an acceptable e-ticket receipt to get past at the airports you don't need a boarding pass from (or the places that let you print your own at home).

Right!

But...

so what?

Supposedly, the only "weapon" somebody gets through the security check point is themselves, if they are suicidal. Now, to make use of their suicidal nature they have to get on a plane, it's probably fairly difficult for someone unarmed to hijack an airport terminal building and use as a missile. Given that the ID is checked at the gate when boarding, I still fail to see the purpose of checking the ID at the screening point.

Perfect. You took the words right out of my mouth!

Cordelli- Exactly what does checking the ID against the BP do to make us safer? So what if they found one, stole one, or printed one. Does that put the plane at greater risk? If they wanted to do some evil, couldn't they just BUY THEIR OWN TICKET? As for all the potential terrorists that may be in this country trying to blow up the next plane, I am quite confident that getting on the plane using someone eles's boarding pass is not one of their problems that they are attempting to work through. Why would someone else go throught security, then hand their BP to someone else? Yes it could be done, but to what end? What does it accomplish? Nothing other than the second person would be able to fly on the first's ticket.
And does anyone think that a person or group attempting anything would have any problem obtaining an ID under a different name if they wanted to. I can list at least a dozen websites right now where you can buy a perfectly legal ID for about 50 bucks that will get you through any airport ticketing agent, security screen, and gate check.
Again, it's not really necessary. If you plan on killing yourself, you could just use your own ID.

And what has all this to do with either of the following two scenarios?:

* the bad guy has a fake ID - not hard to get
or
* the bad guy plans on a suicide mission - such as Sept 11th.

This is a waste of time.

You guys are right. We should definitely have better IDs which are a lot more difficult to fake.

And, whether you agree with the policy or not, you shouldn't be arguing with the security screeners. If you don't agree with rules/laws, complain to the people who have the authority to change them. This would be the FAA and Congress, not the security screeners.

d

[This message has been edited by Doppy (edited 01-20-2002).]

As a number of people have observed it is rather silly to wander the airport without id. However, the real issue is with the lack of consistency. There are lots of airports that don't require an id check at security and certainly she could be used to using those. The only real purpose of the boarding pass requirement at security is to reduce the volume of people going through security. It does not serve a direct security purpose. Anyone can buy a refundable ticket if they really want to get to a gate. The checks at check-in and the gate are the security ones. The inconsistency currently in place at security checkpoints is absurd and getting worse. One airport (MRY which has only prop flights) requires everyone to remove shoes and wallet - most including all the big ones don't in general. Last week at PDX I had a screener tell me the same e-ticket printout that I had been using since 9/11 all around the country was no good because it didn't have an airline logo on it! I politely requested a supervisor on that one. This nonsense needs to stop and some consistent approaches adopted that will let us travel predictably.

As we all know, real terrorists never carry ID.

Boy did this topic bring out some strong feelings....

At every airport through which I've gone through security post 9/11, I have been asked for i.d. and b.p. at the security check in order to be allowed to the x-ray machines (SMF, SBA, ONT, RNO, SFO, SJC, STL, MSY, SNA)

To my perhaps overly simple mind, it is the way to ensure compliance with the statement (that I hear over the p.a. ad nauseum at every airport it seems) that "Only ticketed passengers will be allowed beyong the security checkpoint." I.e., the b.p. and the i.d. is the way the confirm that it is indeed you who are the ticketed passenger who is seeking to go airside.

I think that's an unneccesary and over-general slam. There are those who do try to do their job with dignity and thoughtfulness.

Agreed. It makes no sense to argue with the folks who have no discretion about the policy itself. The carrying out of this particular policy isn't a matter of interpretation (like whether a such-and-such size nail clipper with or sans file is a "potential weapon") about which there can indeed be legitimate complaints of unfairness, capriciousness, etc. The i.d. and b.p. (or official itin, etc.) policy seems pretty easy to understand and enforce -- either you have both or you don't -- and leaves the screener with little need or room for discretion or interpretation. As to whether the policy itself makes any sense, see my next comment. But complaining to the security folks about a policy's senselessness isn't going to be effective.

Absolutely.

I don't know. I went on -- I had a plane to catch. But I would like to know too.



[This message has been edited by cblaisd (edited 01-21-2002).]

This was UA domestic at SFO??

Well obviously she went through the wrong line ... I've noticed UA's SFO elite bypass line has been quite happy to let people through to the metal detectors & X-rays by simply showing a boarding pass, no ID (just like the letter of regs say). Three of the 4 times I went through there in the last 2 weeks, a boarding pass was all it took.

Now the elite queues at UA LAX are a different matter. At LAX everyone first goes through the same boarding pass/itinerary checkpoint and they insist on IDs there. Then there was a separate queue for elites after the boarding pass check to wait for the metal detectors.



[This message has been edited by Quokka (edited 01-21-2002).]

Why is the elite line the "wrong" line? Ummm, not everyone, in fact, not even everyone on FT, has elite FF status.

. . . . . . . .

Reading through this thread, it looks like FT'ers berating a fellow FT'er for neglecting to have photo ID with oneself at all times. Those of us who know what the "security" rules are (including the large variance in said rules), and who fly very often, or at least pay attention when we do fly, are unlikely to do such a thing.

Reality check -- not everyone reads FlyerTalk! In fact, most people haven't ever heard of FlyerTalk. I know this site is popular, but come on, let's look at this from the perspective of the typical air passenger.

Yes, most air passengers know that you must have photo ID to fly on a commercial plane. That's because the requirement has been around for a few years, and it's always been required at check-in, and now recently also at the gate. Naturally, if you have photo ID at check-in, you also have photo ID at the gate, unless you give your ID to your husband and he takes a different flight, which is quite uncommon.

It's perfectly logical for one person in a traveling party of two to keep both ID's, when one of them has a purse with lots and lots of "stuff" in it (I'm not a woman, but I'm married, so I know how much junk you gals can stuff in there ). My wife and I do exactly the same thing -- I put her NY driver's license right under mine in my wallet. I have never lost my driver's license or credit card; my wife has lost both of them, twice, so far.

Calling someone an idiot for not being 100% up-to-date on the "security" rules of flying, which seem to change from day to day, smacks of elitism, and I'm not talking about 25,000 credited miles per annum on a single carrier.

Depends on the airport.
I've been through security at ORD and DTW where no ID was required. At BOS, though, it's been required every time in the last 120 days.

As most folks around here probably remember, the only reason for an ID check at all was to allow the airlines to prevent sale of tickets between individuals, which allows them to enforce the non-refundable ticket policy. The new multiple ID-check requirement is just a multiplication of a practice that never was an element of security in the first place (and still isn't). Until the checkers actually do something with the name information, like an insta-check aginst an INS/FBI/CIA watch list, the ID check is meaningless. They could better spend the salaries on additional bag screeners, performing real baggage screening, which would actually provide a real security benefit (if done correctly).

[This message has been edited by fcrit (edited 01-21-2002).]

A fake driver's license is still cheaper than a walkup fare.

All passenger manifests are being checked against a government watch list, which includes names from the INS, FBI and CIA. Checking IDs is supposed to ensure that someone who's not on the watch list doesn't buy a ticket and give it to his friend who is on the watch list (and thus couldn't fly or would be arrested).

While I don't see the necessity of checking IDs at security (boarding pass should be enough - the point is to keep lollygaggers and other unecessary people from clogging the security lines), there are obvious and legitimate reasons for checking it at the ticket counter and at boarding.

d