Yes. The 1K security line wasn't open at that time.

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"> ...Three of the 4 times I went through there in the last 2 weeks, a boarding pass was all it took.

I've been through the elite line twice and the regular line twice in the last three months at SFO, and was ask for both i.d. and b.p. every time.

My intention was not to "berate" her for not remembering the rules -- we all, I assume, make dumb mistakes even when doing something we know really well -- but for her attitude.

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"> 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.... Yes, most air passengers know that you must have photo ID to fly on a commercial plane. ... 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 [i]elitism...

My assumption was (given her comments) was that she'd already checked in once (SFO was a connection airport) and therefore knew from when she checked in for her originating flight that both documents were going to be required to enter security. Other posters have cited different experiences at other airports, though, and perhaps, indeed, the requirement in the SFO line caught her by surprise. But there's still the attitude thing...

Despite the many insightful replies, I think you've all missed the point.

To wit, if this (hopefully ex-) passenger's filthy nicotine habit were banned, this serious security issue never would have occurred in the first place.

Talk about missing the obvious!

It is indeed banned -- as it quite rightly should be -- inside a public space (SFO) which is partly your space and air. That's why she was going outside. What else would you like to ban? Self-righteousness?

What I meant was banned as in "tobacco should be made illegal and users should be subjected to lengthy prison terms."

Unfortunately, I hadn't (until now) figured out how to use "smilies" and thought that the usual wasn't necessary given my seemingly pompous (though no less exaulted, mind you) usage...

Simply a subtle ('tho apparently too much so) attempt to poke fun at the so-called security procedures that (and not to excuse the aforementioned woman) push passengers into hissy fits when they face stupid rules that are not only ineffective (see various posts re _real_ terrorists with _real_ IDs), but disruptive as well.

And as for banning self-righteousness, what fun would that be? (I can only assume that you don't mean MY self-righteousness...right?)

I do not believe having govt issued ID or lack of govt issued ID has ever stopped anyone from hijacking an airplane, a train, bus, car or golf cart. It did not stop the 9/11 crowd, the guy calling himself "Richard Reid" etc.

It does prevent my office staff from exchanging airline tickets and one coming home a littler earlier on the other ones ticket and v/v instead of paying 2 change fees. ID enhances the airlines bottom line, it may find a robbery fugitive for the FBI, it may soon find a wayward daddy who didnt pay his child support, it may someday find somebody who is late in paying his income tax or a parking ticket............. but it aint got much to do with "SECURITY". Itsa another "govt issued" white-wash job to cover up the problem, not fix it.

MisterNice

The requirement to present identification began during the unabomber scare when he threatened to detonate a bomb on a plane during a busy weekend. I believe the gov't had a list of possible suspects, and the idea was for the airlines to help the FBI catch him. His threat was a bluff so it did not work.

The airlines realized that the ID requirement added to their profits because it prevented people from transferring tickets, and resulted in wasted tickets and change fees. So the airlines kept this requirement.

The airlines will even tell you that ID is required by FAA regulations, which prior to Sept. 11 was an outright lie. It was only required by the airlines' own procedures. After Sept. 11 and the Patriot Act, ID may be requierd by law--I don't know.

The point is, the purpose of the ID requirement in teh airlines' mind is not for security but as an indirect revenue device and to hassle passengers.

Bravo lemonthrower! Well said!

Requiring ID also benefits passengers. I don't want someone showing up to the airport and using my ticket to fly for free without my permission. I also don't want someone using my FF miles without my permission.

Requiring ID also has security implications. Theoretically, many of the people who are on the watch list don't know it. As a result, they may fly under their real names, allowing the authorities to easily pick them up when they show up for their flights.

Traveling under a false name may also require people to buy tickets with cash. You can't show up the the airport with a fake ID under the name of John Smith, but a real credit card in a real person's name. As a result, people would have to use cash to purchase the ticket, which would probably result in them getting selected by CAPPS for a more indepth screening. Hopefully in this screening the fake ID would be discovered, which is a federal offense.

So, while the current system might not stop all bad people, it at least imposes some extra difficulties that possible wrong doers will have to circumvent.

And finally, just because today's IDs are too easy to fake, the solution isn't to stop checking IDs. Along those lines, we've determined that there are many security holes in air travel, so we should ground all air transportation, right?

No, the solution is that we patch holes, like developing a secure ID system.

I will agree that there is no benefit to requiring ID at the security checkpoint, but I think it's obvious that at ticketing and boarding it makes sense.

d

Doppy has it right

The "passenger" is to blame.

The screener is doing his/her job a told.

My solution, presented earlier is easy and none invasive to anyone.

Talking old rules and reasons or motivations is a waste of space.

NEW
Inconsistency COULD BE part of the key to good security. Given a base minimum, and an inability to do a complete job on everyone, the randomness is a deterrent that can be afforded ($'s, not safety).

In any case, an adult should not be roaming around this world, let alone an airport without ID. You do not have to belong to FT to know that. I believe the same to be true of children and infants (all should have some positive type id). Anyone can suffer a mishap, and should be immediately identifiable.

When the news reports a 80 year old lady being wand, they say this is stupid. This person is obviously not a terrorist. A Senator being "strip searched" is stupid because he obviously is not a terrorist inspite of the metal detector going on. When an arab in his teens is checked it is profiling and that is wrong.

I say we all lighten up. Obey the requests of the screeners. Comply with the rules, as the screeners suggest them, and move on. If we believe there is a problem, then we should write to the appropriate authority to suggest a change. SECURITY is not that good, we all know that. I just suggest we give it a rest and wait a year or two while the system takes shape and then take another look. Write the authorites with your suggestions in the meantiime, but give the screeners a break.

Doppy, I don't disagree with what you said, but you miss the point. From the airlines perspective, the point of requiring ID is to maximize revenue to the airline--not to provide any of the other benefits such as greater security or fraud protection. This is what too many passengers don't realize. If the passenger had realized this, they probably would have responded differently--ie not questioned how the ID request would add anything to the security of the flight.

Bravo lemonthrower! Well said!

Sadly, LemonThrower may well be on to something here regarding the additional new revenue source bit!

What's really sad is how you all think the airlines are part of some big conspiracy to make your lives more miserable. The airlines are conspiring with god, or whatever supreme being you may or may not believe in, to add stress to your lives and make you more miserable.

Even if we accept your assertion as true, so what? Tickets are not transferable, and therefore, if someone's trying to use another person's tickets, then this practice prevents someone from circumventing the rules that the rest of us play by. If someone steals my tickets, then he ought not to be able to fly with them, correct?

I personally don't care whether or not it is a revenue generator. If this prevents someone from abusing the system by using his coworker's tickets or by stealing someone's tickets and flying with them, the fact that it makes the airlines money is totally irrelevant.

After all, buying a ticket helps the airlines make money. So if you don't want to generate any revenue for them, don't fly.

Regarding the transferability of tickets--people have different views on this. If I pay $1000 for a ticket and something comes up that prevents me from using it, I think it is nearly criminal for that money to go down the drain. Prior to the unabomber scare, I understand you could give the ticket to a relative or a friend (never did do this). While you are correct that this may have been a technical violation of the terms and conditions of the ticket, some might see this as merely gaining some value from your investment--after all, you did pay $1000. I acknowledge that reasonable people could view this differently.

Your comment about "abusing the system" is an intersting one. No doubt, travelers abused the prior system and it was these abuses that led the airlines to require ID. But the flip side of the coin is airlines who abuse the trust of travelers with onerous pricing and fine print. A good number of travelers are fed up with this sort of treatment--the Goldpoints/Valumags incident gives one a glimpse at the lengths some people will go to to circumvent the onerous pricing structures imposed by the airlines. I mean, it is quite easy to circumvent the checkout counter at the grocery store but the overwhelming majority of their customers find the pricing system to be fair and reasonable and thereby voluntarily comply.

The relevance of the revenue generation to the airline is that it explains the purpose of the rule as viewed from the perspective of the airline, and with this understanding a pasenger might interact with airlines more successfully. Its curious that the airlines previously were less than honest about the purpose of this rule, and falsely claimed that it was mandated by the FAA.