Stupid passenger tricks at the security checkpoints....
 

In lots of threads, the folks staffing the security checkpoints have sometimes come in for more than a little derision. But let's give equal time to the stupid pax who add to the security staffers' woes. Here's one I saw today:

At SFO, I was in the UA security line ~ 7 p.m. The woman in front of me had only a boarding pass. No purse, no carry-on, no pockets (that I could discern). Only a boarding pass. The agent checking i.d.'s and b.p.'s before the x-ray said "I need to see your i.d." She said "It's with my husband at gate 78 -- we're just connecting here and I just ran out to have a smoke. He has my purse and i.d." The agent looked (and I think I would have too!) a bit baffled and said "But I need to see some identification to prove it's your boarding pass."

Now, I can understand someone making this kind of silly mistake, running outside for a nicotine hit and then having one of those oh-my-God moments at which you are truly embarrassed and chagrined and apologetic.

But this is where I lost all sympathy for her: She began to berate the agent, saying again (more loudly and more slowly this time, as if the agent was addled) I just went out for a cigarette; my husband has my i.d. at gate 78, and we already checked in once. So you need to let me in now."

At that point the agent called a supervisor over and I went on past her to the next machine; the last I heard the agent and supervisor were conferring about how they could page the husband at the gate quickly, and woman was getting more and more irate at the way she was being "treated."

Some people.

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

in some cases, it is simply not possible to save a person from themselves

maybe she will sue them

I have no sympathy for an idiot wandering around an airport without any ID.

.......

While this woman did put herself in this position, I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why letting someone through security without an ID is less safe than letting someone through with one.

Now that I think about it, I can't remember being asked for ID at security. They just ask for a boarding pass. IDs are only needed to get a boarding pass and to get on the plane.

This be true! ID at ticketing and gate. Boarding pass at security.

From the ual.com FAQ Thus far, ever security checkpoint has asked me for ID in the US. Less so in Asia.

It depends on the airport. Some check both, some check only one. It is UNIVERSAL that ID and BP are checked at check-in and at gate. Since this is the case, you could make the argument that anyone should be allowed through security. Either your systems work or they don't. Before 9-11, someone else could check-in and board since no one checked id at boarding. I believe that due to the long lines caused by increased security post 9-11 is why only people with BP are allowed beyond security.

They should have let her through after performing a cavity search.

It would seem appropriate for the supervisor to give her a warning to calm down or she will be arrested and may end up in jail or fined and definately miss her flight. She should also be asked to apologize.

Then he/she should suggest the passenger go back to the front and have her husband paged. She could then try yelling at him to bring her id, so she could properly clear security.

This solution inconveniences only the id-less passenger and keeps the line moving for the others. This one is easy!!!!1111

you mean no one has suggested the implanted-federal-government-issued-biometric-tell-the-airlines-what-you-ate-for-dinner-identity chip? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

This sounds to me like an extraordinarily stupid passenger, who really ought to have known better, and who really should have apologized for her lack of thinking rather than being upset over how she was "treated."

However, I think this story also (again) tells us something about the security procedures and the screeners. I completely fail to see the security aspect of correlating the name on the boarding pass with the name on an ID at the security check point. Checking at check-in and when boarding makes sense, but at the security screening? It's not like they are checking against a wanted list or making sure the ID is not fake, is it? Seems to me that the only thing they really are checking is that they are dealing with ticketed passengers, for the purpose of having to screen fewer people, thus making the screening quicker for everybody. In this case it seems like they wasted everybody's time unnecessarily by enforcing a rule whose purpose is mainly to speed up the screening.

However, again, no sympathy for the stupid woman...

do you really expect them to think? They have a hard time dealing with reality, thinking is beyond their capability.

The entire security screening process in the US airports, what is checked, when and where, is a joke. So many things make no sense, and done just to pretend something is done. I only hope it get better over time, as reflexive, knee-jerk, "oh-my-god-lets-do-something!" gives way to real improvements.

One can always dream, right?

Just passed through security at Terminal 3 (AA) at ORD. I was required to show government-issued ID and boarding pass before going through the magnetometer, and then AFTER going through the magenetometer. I feel much safer now.

PDX initially required the presentation of a photo ID shortly after September 11 but they most definitely eliminated this requirement several months ago. EWR terminal C requires an ID and I'll see what JFK does this coming Wednesday. Its hard to imagine why there should be so much inconsistency.

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 http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif ). 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. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif

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

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 http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif 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.