Random gate checks to end
 

Here's some good news for fliers:

http://quote.bloomberg.com/fgcgi.cgi...uWJhVwVS5TLiB0

Thanks for the info, iahphx.

Do CEOs think that making stupid sounding comments like that improve their image?

Last time I checked they were "searching bags" not "dumping underwear." This idiot's comments make it sound like we shouldn't have any security at all.

d

No he's not an idiot, he's trying to keep planes on schedule. I supposed that at least once in the past 12 months some security agent dumped someone's underwear out of a suitcase at the gate and as a result departure was delayed while the passenger repacked things.

I wo0uld go along with a "voluntary intensive" security check well in advance of departure rather than be singled out at the gate and lose my boarding priority with airlines such as Southwest.

Why not select most of the passengers for underwear dumping earlier while they are sitting in the departure area before boarding, not after their row is called?

Travel tips:
http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/travel.htm

Other things that make the government look like the idiot:

The code "G" instead of a cents amount on postage stamps for both postcards and regular letters and the only distinction (except for color which most of us don't commit to memory) is tiny words "postcard rate" that most people can't see at a glance. Why not "G" for regular letters and "H" for postcards? Once I had to make a special trip to the post office to buy postcard stamps after accidentally using up all my 20 cent G-postcard-rate stamps mailing 32 cent regular letters. (I forget the actual postage rates, and incidentally none of them came back for insufficient postage.)

Referring to the place on the back of check where people should sign, as the "leading edge". Almost nobody knows that technobabble. (Most checks would be properly endorsed if people were told to notice where "Pay to the order of..." was printed and sign on the back at that end.)



[This message has been edited by AllanJ (edited 09-21-2002).]

Thank you, Doppy. I agree with you 100%.

The airlines know that neglecting security is a tried-and-true short-term method of increasing customer traffic. Prior to 9/11, the airline trade group lobbied Congress very hard NOT to adopt higher security standards (it will cost too much, will chase away time-pressed customers, etc.), despite news report after news report that security was not tight enough, and they won that battle. What we got was more flying convenience and more revenue for airlines, but that lack of security contributed to 9/11.

Now, there are some flyers clamoring for less security, and the airlines are going to give it to them. So the airlines have coined this stupid pseudo-scientific phrase, "hassle factor," to which they refer in every press release concerning poor revenue, as though onerous fees and penalties, rigid union work rules and excessive executive compensation are irrelevant to the bottom line. I've heard others refer to the "vast majority" of the flying public as "moronic idiots," and I feel certain that the airlines feel likewise, that they can throw around this rhetorical nonsense (like Bethune's "dumping underwear") and convince enough of the "moronic idiots" that everything's fine, and we no longer need to be doing all this.

I'm all for increasing air traffic but not at the expense of security, and I am not a moronic idiot. I am an idiot savant, thank you very much...

When I want to do something effective, I write letters to my representatives and let them know that castrating our security apparatus is not the way to go, but rather that there's a lot of room for improvement.

Well, I for one do not think that the logic decision to eliminate random gate harassment compromises security in the slightest. You want so-called 100% iron clad security? Fly El Al. It's not 100% secure, but it is quite intrusive if that's your bag. It's not mine, nor is it many other peoples'. If you like the random underwear dumps (finally Gordo and I agree on something) feel free to turn out yours at the gate if you think it will make you any safer.

I am now pressing for an elimination of any kind of random harassment at the check points. There's no point in calling ourselves American if we are going to act in a decidedly un-American manner at airports, even if it is in the name of "security".

BTW: 11 Sept occured not because of lax security on the ground. It occured because pax and crew cooperated w/terrorists and because pilots opened cockpit doors.

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

[This message has been edited by Spiff (edited 09-21-2002).]

Neither I nor anyone else to my knowledge ever stated they believed 100% security was possible. It's not.

Furthermore, if you are suggesting flying El Al from New York to Chicago via Tel Aviv, you are being outrageous. You make yourself look ridiculous debating this way. What is the point? I enjoy debating with people, but not being badgered and flamebaited.

Finally, how exactly is a random "harassment," better known as random security check, un-American? "It just is." Is that your argument? "Because I say so." "Because I'm louder than you."

As I've said before, I'm not the brightest person on FT, so I'm not getting the connection between lack of random security check and America. Please explain.

If the contention is it's illegal search and seizure, would you agree that yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is sanctioned by the First Amendment?

[This message has been edited by anonplz (edited 09-21-2002).]

Even if this is true, it's not time to fly off the handle and forget our history.

Ground security reduced the number of hijackings from 30+ per year for several years to 0.

That, you can not dispute. Do you really think that we would have been better off for the last 15 or so years having no security, but getting hijacked 3 times a month?

d

Perhaps the majority of people here who look upon this change as good either know something I don't or have a more realistic view on the situation today.

I can't control everything, so to some extent there always was and always will be an element of fate involved as to whether there will be a hijacking or not.

I certainly hope not, and I think I'm safe in saying that everyone else hopes not, also.

Time will tell. Perhaps the situation today is better, and I really do think that it is better today than it was before 9/11.

I know that personally, I am flying more than I was even BEFORE 9/11, so that says something...

I always assumed that the rationale for the gate checks was to catch cell members who had infiltrated the sterile zone. In other words, any weapons caught then would have been a presumption of an inside job.

If gate screening was intended as a second filter to catch the items missed the first time at security, I'd say it was unnecessary.

Terrorist profiling plus *truly* random checks at security works fine for me. I'm willing to assume that everyone at the gate area is legit.

Points Scrounger posts:
Excellent point.

kmc


------------------
"Aviation is proof that given the will,
we have the capacity to achieve the impossible."
-- Eddie Rickenbacker

[This message has been edited by kcvt750 (edited 09-21-2002).]

Obviously, since there is little cabotage in the US, you can't take El Al domestically. However, I used them as an example of security that is too extreme for the minute level of additional safety it provides.

How are random searches un-American? Because they are done without probable cause. This flies in the face of the principles "innocent until proven guilty" and "no search without probable cause". The Supreme Court has ruled that similar checks are constitutional, just as there is no absolute guarantee of free speech via the First Amendment. However, these random checks severely cut into the spirit of the Fourth Amendment, even more deeply than false theater outbursts. They violate a person and his/her belongings with little benefit, along with the stigma of a presumption of guilt. Furthermore, no one is inconvenienced by not being able to scream fire in a theater. Random harassment is a huge inconvenience and it is causing severe economic damage to the airlines.

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

[This message has been edited by Spiff (edited 09-21-2002).]

I have never suggested we eliminate all airport security. I have, however, on many occasions been the proponent of eliminating any searches that are random and not based upon probable cause. In my opinion, they add zero to effective security and are extremely un-American. We should (and it looks like we will) focus our attention and resources on effective, non-intrusive screening technology and end all random harassment of passengers and their belongings.



------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

Minor point, but I've never felt stigmatized by a random gate check, nor have I felt that there was an assumption of guilt.

Having said that, I believe you're within your rights to ask for probable cause before allowing the police to search your car, even if you're a group of medical students in Florida.

I guess I think there's less expectation for privacy when you're flying than driving your car. Not sure I can defend the distinction...

Posted here in error

[This message has been edited by monitor (edited 09-21-2002).]

Yes, that was part of the reason for the gate screening. They have been working to reduce the vunerability to this type of attack on a number of fronts so what they are saying is that they've tightened the security sufficently to eliminate the gate checks.

That was also part of the reason for the gate screening.

After the creation of the TSA, but before the TSA took over airport screening, they did a number of tests to see how well the screening system was working. The results were not good indicating that they needed some significant long-term changes in the way screening is accomplished. These long-term changes were going to take some time to impliment so they kept the gate screening in place during the implimentation period. We are now nearing the point where the TSA will staff all of the screening points.