SEA has fixed this, IIRC:

http://www.portseattle.org/news/pres..._2003_56.shtml

It's only my opinion, but I believe the TSA wants to do a reverse screening at the destination airport to keep prohibited items from advancing into an aiport's sterile area. Having the police escort the passengers out of the terminal would most likely not endanger anyone, but the TSA wants total control of unscreened items entering the sterile area.

I know this is one reason they stopped letting passengers gate check bags with banned items in them.

You hit the nail on the head HugeAss. Many airports don't have enough police officers to properly escort all the passengers out of the airport. If passengers have connecting flights they need to be re-screened.

Screenerx, the process is usually the normal screening process. Passengers are escorted to the checkpoint, a lane is usually closed and used just for these passengers.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by HugeAss:
It's only my opinion, but I believe the TSA wants to do a reverse screening at the destination airport to keep prohibited items from advancing into an airport's sterile area. Having the police escort the passengers out of the terminal would most likely not endanger anyone, but the TSA wants total control of unscreened items entering the sterile area.

Advantage to working for a small airport. We have police to escort the passengers out.



BTW Thats one stupid a** procedure

Whether or not consent is implied or explicit, you can withdraw consent at any time; that's a long-standing legal rule. You just have to leave.
There is the real problem of lack of resources; they have to escort you out of the secured area or else the system breaks down. TSA has a partial justification if they say "we just don't have the manpower today, there is no other alternative, you must be screened. But it needs to be said loud and clear that "ordinarily, you have the right to say no, this is an extraordinary situation". None of this slippery-slope rationalization.

To the TSA folks: has anyone considered a bus on the tarmac to take passengers from the plane to baggage claim (which is outside the airport)? I realize the trip would take 20+ minutes, but compared to the 2 hours in some horror stories, it's a bargain.

This is the ideal solution, since the passengers have the choice not to be screened

>>To the TSA folks: has anyone considered a bus on the tarmac to take passengers from the plane to baggage claim (which is outside the airport)? I realize the trip would take 20+ minutes, but compared to the 2 hours in some horror stories, it's a bargain.<<

This is actually the airport's option. We can request but it is ultimately up to the airport. It may take a while to get the bus even with fair warning of an arriving flight. Once the flight lands the carrier and airport will want these people off the plane thus the escort to the checkpoint.

I'm still finding this more than a little weird. Let's see, a terrorist would have to get something past security, ride an airplane and not use whatever it is, then get on another flight and use it.

And, the technique we use to thwart this is to subject them to screening that they had previously passed.


[This message has been edited by whirledtraveler (edited Jan 10, 2004).]

I volunteer to refuse reverse screening if I'm at my destination airport.

If you look at it this way, reverse screening is just as legal as primary checkpoint screening:

Upon entering a checkpoint, you have given implied consent to have your luggage searched while in the sterile area.

Now, you have not left the sterile area until you have reached your destination and picked up your baggage in the public area.

You have went from one airport's sterile area to another. Along the way, you were aboard the aircraft which is "sterile", as well.

Yes, yes, well, if you look at it this way, the sun is tasty to eat and good with breakfast. The sun is the same color as an orange.

The thing that I was trying to highlight was the fact that if you refuse to screen prior to a flight, you just don't get to board it. I seriously suspect that if you refuse screening after a flight, you'd be arrested.

I'm still finding this more than a little weird. Let's see, a terrorist would have to get something past security, ride an airplane and not use whatever it is, then get on another flight and use it.

>I'm still finding this more than a little >weird. Let's see, a terrorist would have to >get something past security, ride an >airplane and not use whatever it is, then >get on another flight and use it.

You mean like they did on 9/11?

Terrorists didn't get anything past security on 9/11. They were carrying permitted items that were not and are not any more of a credible threat than objects that are already on board aircraft (glass bottles).

9/11 occurred because islamic wacko terrorists exploited USA aviation policy to cooperate with hijackers, not because of any breaches in security. The solution to 9/11 is to kill and threaten to kill existing and likely islamic wacko terrorists, not to confiscate knitting needles or scissors from innocent passengers.