In the US, they check your BP name against your ID at a checkpoint, then scribbles on your BP. After passing WTMD, they ask for BP again.

1. What's the scribble for (im assuming its a signature)? Nobody else seems to check for the scribble.
2. Why check your BP again after couple of minutes when you've been let in because you have a valid BP?!

Probably to mark that it has been checked and by whom.

To verify you do not have SSSS. Should it have been missed initially and not re-checked, you would not be able to board the aircraft. This normally means TSA will have to respond to the gate and screen you there, in front of everybody.

Thanks

Yes, the scribble identifies the checkpoint that you came thru in case there was a mistake (ie. missed SSSS, bad boarding pass that got thru) they know who to blame. Also, it becomes handy if a pax realizes they forgot something at the checkpoint, but can't remember which one they came thru.

As far as the multiple BP checks, yes they are a pain but they actually do serve some sort of a purpose. It is not just about double checking for SSSS. At my airport, our checkpoints are roped off with stanchions. Some people will try to bypass the initial BP/ID check by ducking under the ropes and butting in line for the WTMD. I have had people without boarding passes do this, and they get caught at the WTMD. If we only did a BP/ID check at the WTMD this would really hold up the lines.

Cee-

Interesting. Doesn't the ID checker see that people are skipping them? Or "SPOT"? Also, what happens if you catch someone without a "verified" boarding pass?

Just like so many other things the TSA does.... it's about placing blame.

But it is not consistent - there are many airports that do not examine the BP post-WTMD. I had a theory that this only happens at airports with dedicated haraSSSSment lanes. For example, SJC has common lanes, so those with haraSSSSment are flagged post-WTMD. IND has a dedicated lane, where you are directed once the ID checker notes the haraSSSSment.

it's a wast of time, effort, resources and money to have the bp checked a second time if the person verifying it at the first check does their job. if the checker can't find the quad on a bp, then they need another job as it ain't rocket science but it sure is, as i said before, a waste of time, effort, resources and (my hard earned taxpayer) money to have multiple bp checks-doesn't say much for the management and operations at a given airport if they do it this way.

now some pointed questions....

joe pax is a quad and is for whatever reason, he is not maSSSSaged at the checkpoint.

what system is in place to know that joe pax is on flight such and missed his maSSSSage. it's left up to the g/a to look at the bp for an "official tsa all clear stamp" which afaic, is not a g/a's job to fix a tsa mistake but the tsa's themselves-but who am i to poitn blame?

ok, so the g/a catches it and the tsa is called to give the maSSSSage-if joe pax misses his flight because the doors are closed while he is waiting for the tsa to show up, who's responsible?

also, let's say for sake of argument again, that joe pax is a quad, gets his maSSSSage as per procedure but then after entering the "secure area" of the terminal, for whatever reason, doesn't take the flight and leaves the airport (i.e. ms joe pax called and said come home, the baby is in the hospital). that to me is much more serious than a quad not getting their maSSSSage as now a selectee has gone thru the dog, pony and shoe show but then leaves and is to the airline, simply a no show. what is this type of pax to the tsa? i say the biggest security risk there is as there is now no record of this pax after they rec'd their maSSSSage. now let me guess, the official party line (oops, tsa response) would be "we followed our procedure and are not responsible for a pax actions once they clear the security checkpoint and enter into the secure are of the terminal" gmafb

The ID checkers do not have eyes in the back of their heads and SPOT is not always there.

Obviously, you have taken too many pucks to the head.

It's a simple concept: avoid a passenger from leaving the checkpoint without the determined amount of screening. Should a passenger arrive at the gate without it, they cannot be permitted to board. If someone chooses to miss their flight, nobody cares.

Haveaniceday answered this very well! And if we catch someone without a proper pass to enter security, they are sent away to go get one.

I will also add that passengers don't speak up in these situations either. If you are a pax waiting in line for the TDC, and you see someone duck under the ropes and bypass the TDC check...speak up!

At my airport, once a PAX clears the ticket-checker, he has 7 lanes to choose from! Yes, we direct selectees (SSSS) to the designated lane, but not all of them follow instructions. (For instance, some just make a dash for the shortest line! Can't blame them for that.) Even if we DID have the lane roped off, it would be easy for someone to slip under the ropes to avoid additional screening! Hence the 2nd BP check at the WTMD just makes sense.

Well thanks for dumbing it down , but, in reality this simple concept often isn't the case. Think about late stage transferrees who get flagged as SSSS behind the security check-point. This SSS is, IME most often ignored by GA's.

SSSS is really just a farcical addition to the basic airport security farce. The concept that you can use some sort of algorithm to determine what the "determined amount of screening" should be is laughable and worthy only of the deepest contempt.

The only problem with all of this is that, as we all know, ID checking is strictly for airline revenue protection and does zilch for enhancing security.

Wirelessly posted (bb: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0) BlackBerry8310/4.2.2 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/102)

Yes, of course we know this, but in trying to determine the reasoning behind something you have to take into account the thought processes of those making the policy. And they do not think of the ID check solely as revenue protection.