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.

Isreal is a country that experiences terrorist attacks as often as on a weekly basis. El Al's security procedures have effectively stopped all attack on the airline. I don't see how anyone could conclude that they are only providing a minute level of additional safety.

So then why suggest it in the first place if it's not even an option? That's part of what I object to about your debating methods. You offer an extreme example which isn't even a real option in order to prove a separate point. It's confusing and unfair.

As to the degree of security El Al's system provides, as Israel's airline, they have obviously provided an enormously greater amount of security than an American style system would have provided. As to the degree of security such a system would provide here, it could not be justified in an identical form economically or constitutionally. If it were workable here, however, it's not clear to me that the extra degree of security provided by that system would be what you could call minute.

As I've pointed out before, al Qaida declared war on the US, and until hostilities cease, extraordinary measures are called for, after which, these revolting security practices can be discontinued. I for one will give the TSA the benefit of the doubt, although I admit that I am in the minority. That's just the way it goes.

Security checks play a minor role in the economic damage airlines are experiencing right now. People aren't flying for lots of reasons, among them fear, stupid, expensive rules, a bad economy and yes, there is probably a "hassle factor" involved.

But if the airlines are smart, which we all know they mostly aren't, they'll try to strike a balance between security and convenience, because if there is another hijacking, God forbid, there is no doubt in my mind that the weaker airlines will go belly up as a result, independent of any Hassle Factor. (That sounds like a television program - starring David Duchovny and Linda Hassle...) http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...orum/smile.gif

If it were an inside job the weapons would already be on the plane.

It was there to catch what the initial screeners miseed.

Their planes are safe, their country is a war zone. However, I would never fly El Al despite their safety record because their security measures are too intrusive for my taste. Still, number of El Al hijackings since 11 Sept: 0.

US Airlines' security measures, now that passengers will never allow another hijacking are just as effective by this metric. Dropping random harassment will not negatively affect security. Number of US airlines hijackings since 11 Sept: 0.



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

I completely disagree. We are not at war and trying to justify these un-American Gestapo tactics currently used by the TSA by saying that "extraordinary measures for extraordinary times" are justified is ludicrous. Until Congress declares War, we are not justified in using "extraordinary measures", especially not against our own citizens. The TSA lost all credibility and respect the moment they started acting like thugs.

And I must also disagree with your point that the "hassle factor" is playing a minor role in the economic hardships that US airlines are experiencing. Even if the estimated 3.8 billion dollars per year that the airlines are losing to the "hassle factor" is overestimated by a factor of two, that would still leave nearly 2 billion dollars worth of losses to the airlines. These losses persist because we insist upon making airline travel a miserable, intrusive experience. Hardly a minor role in the overall loss picture. The nearly-criminal thing is that we, the US, are accomplishing the terrorists' mission for them with these un-American and economically suicidal measures.



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

Well, we are at war, if not technically, then effectively. That's the reality. You can also deny the sun will rise tomorrow, to the same effect.

Your statistics about losses of 3.8 billion to the "hassle factor" was provided from a single source, the airline industry group, hardly an uninterested group. I have seen that statistic nowhere else, and I don't believe it. They are losing money hand over fist because people are afraid of flying, and also because of excessive executive pay, rigid union work rules, an incomprehensible fare structure, and a bad economy. Those are facts I can back up from multiple, credible sources, not the airline industry lobby group alone.

Losses to "hassle factor" are way overblown. They can blame no one but themselves for their losses.

Arguably the most American thing our American government can do is protect American lives. We need security for that.

I believe random gate screenings should only go away when they stop finding things that the people up front missed.

There isn't any way the airplane can be safer if the people up front are the only line of defense in their current configuration. Every time that the random gate agents found something in all the highly publicized stories and all the noes we never heard about, they found something that was missed up front.

Remove them without getting better up front, and you have less security.

You also get the cattle line back to be the first to board the plane.

Possible, but not as likely as the weapons being somewhere in the terminal.

The easiest way to get a weapon planted inside of the terminal is to find a low-paid worker with access and trick them into doing it for you. You'd want a low-paid worker as they'd be more likely to want to earn a few bucks and would be less likely to report it. The airline employees with access to the interior of the airplane have pensions, benefits, good wages, etc. that they'd be less inclided to risk for a few hundred bucks.

The tactic would be to find a low-paid contract employee and offer him a couple hundred bucks for planting a box of "pot" inside of the terminal. He'd be told that an acomplice would pick it up and carry it to wherever it's being smuggled. A person who wouldn't knowingly help a hijacker might be willing to help a pot smuggler if it meant a some bucks in his own pocket.

There are some contract employees with access to the aircraft cabins but the timing is more difficult, there are fewer places to hide the box and they don't really have the run of the airplanes as a janitor does of the terminal.

The chief defense to this type of attack is educating the ID holders, thorough background checks, frequent monitoring of likely hiding places in the terminal and aircraft and monitoring the ID swipes of employees looking for accesses that don't match the employees work pattern. The TSA has increased efforts in all areas.

The gate checks were put in place as a short-term measure while more permanant precautions could be implimented.

Are you really stupid enough to think that it's that simple?

The enemy has proven that they are very good planners and aren't afraid to spend many months training for a major attack. If we leave any holes, they will find a way to resist a passenger rebellion.

I'm not a lawyer or even close to that area of expertise, but the discussion connecting the security checks and the Constitution seem doubtful at best. Once you buy a ticket, as we all know, we agree to the terms and conditions on said ticket. We also know that this includes the possibility of a random security inspection. Why is this any different than random drug screening at work locations or a random point of inspection that police erect at certain junctions on a weekend night to catch possible DUI's?

Hey, I'm more willing to accept this than to stupidly accept every edict the TSA spills forth.

If we waste all our resources on plugging the most improbable attack possibilities, we expose ourselves elsewhere. Stupidity aside all around, we do not have unlimited resources, though the TSA seems to act like we do.

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

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

The stuff being found at the gate can no longer be used to hijack a plane, yet we persist in celebrating these nail file confiscations via random gate harassment.

I will be throwing a party the day these un-American screenings die the death they have so richly deserved since their inception.



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

I have unhappily accepted that the current Supreme Court would probably uphold these random harassments of passengers. However, I still maintain that these random searches are decidedly un-American.

I absolutely hate random checkpoints of motorists and random drug screening in the workplace as well. The ends do not justify the means. This is not to say I am opposed to police pulling over suspected drunk (or reckless) drivers, nor am I opposed to drug tests being administered to those in the workplace who have exhibited some behavior that constitutes probable cause for such a test.



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

Are you really stupid enough to think that it's that simple?

Nail files are specifically PERMITTED. See http://www.tsa.gov/trav_consumers/permitted_items.shtm

Yes, they are. I used them as an example of items that were once thought to be "dangerous".

"we persist in celebrating these Metal scissors with pointed tips confiscations via random gate harassment."

Better now?

Also, like I said... I question the TSA's credibility and common sense and I think that just believing everything the TSA says is even stupider than relying on the passengers to prevent another hijacking. Furthermore, I restate my other comment: it's stupid to think we have endless resources and can afford to keep trying to plug the smallest and most improbable of holes.

As far as I am concerned, the probability of the passengers not stopping another hijacking is extremely low. So low that I am willing to drop these asinine (stupid) random harassments at both the gate and at the checkpoints.

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

[This message has been edited by Spiff (edited 09-22-2002).]

Agree 100%.



------------------
~ Glen ~ Calling all United 1K Members - please join .. www.1Kflyers.com

I recently took a flight in which the plane was half empty. As I recall, the other 25-30 passengers ran the gamut of typical passengers: black, white, latino, old, young, strong, weak. The FA's were two older females and one older man. The plane was half-full. Assuming that a team of hijackers of 5 (or even more) people board, armed with nail clippers or even simply their own brawn, trained in martial arts, it is not far-fetched to envision them taking out every single passenger resisting, then breaking down the cockpit door and taking over the plane.

Characterizing as extremely low the possibility that passengers would NOT be able to stop the hijackers is wishful thinking. The possibility is indeed present, unfortunately.

And in your scenario, random gate/checkpoint harassment would help... how?

Moreover, as it has been shown, these passengers will fight for their lives as they now know that hijackers no longer have demands and that cooperation is pointless. 30 pax vs. 5 Bruce Lees will still result in victory for the pax, even if not all the pax are in the prime of their lives. Also, the pilots will land the plane immediately and one pilot will use the crash-axe to defend the cockpit. I'm sorry, but I still think it's extremely improbable that your scenario could happen to the extent that we need to devote huge resources that could better be spent elsewhere (like catching the 5 terrorists at the ticket counter).

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

[This message has been edited by Spiff (edited 09-22-2002).]

Well, in the scenario where the hijackers are unarmed, it doesn't help that much, if at all, so that doesn't support my case, I guess.

However, let me ask you this: we've all seen the reports about how investigative journalists today have managed to sneak weapons, guns and knives onto planes past the TSA security personnel, with degrees of success varying from airport to airport. If we eliminate security checks altogether, how does that improve security at airports with low degrees of success at catching loaded guns/knives/weapons/contraband?

The problem is that the checkpoints need to have their technology strengthened and need to stop wasting resources randomly harassing passengers and actually pay attention to the x-ray machine. If there's something amiss, ask to open the bag. However, too much time and resources are diverted checking passengers' bags without probable cause.

Also, most of the items that are getting by are no longer credible threats. I'm sorry, but no one is going to hijack a plane with a screwdriver or a pool cue. Every item that is on that list of banned items diverts resources from keeping out real threats: guns and bombs.



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

Well, I guess I have my answer.

In 1993 they increased the World Trade Center's defenses against car bombs and many figured that they wouldn't try attacking there again. Al Queda adjusted their tactics and attacked again.

In order to give the passengers of a hijacked airplane the best chance possible it is important to limit the effectiveness of the weapons that can be brought onboard.

There is another aspect that Spiff's one dimentional thinking is missing. Prior to 9/11, the primary goal of airport security was to protect the crew and passengers on the airplane. After 9/11 the protection of important targets on the ground has become the primary goal but the protection of the crew and passengers is still a very close second.



[This message has been edited by LarryJ (edited 09-22-2002).]

I'm 100% with you on strengthening technology.

Let me ask you another question: as to security checks, you focus on "probable cause" and that it would be permissible to search if probable cause were shown.

Give me an example of a typical case when you think there is probable cause, i.e., what are the questions which need to be answered affirmatively before the TSA can argue successfully that they have "probable cause" to search?

I was actually thinking about the several instances of loaged guns (in White Plains and others) and knives (Chicago and others) not nail files.

Yes, but your point must be deconstructed. They had to approach their attack externally to find success. The airplane equivalency would be a missile attack against the plane. I am unaware of any security checkpoint at the airport that would address this issue.

Remember, you can be harmed anywhere (geographically speaking) a terrorist makes an attack. Do you think you are completely safe on an airplane? Once the notion that the airplane can be commandeered and projected as a weapon itself was dispelled by the ingrained psyche of a society of determined passengers crew, terrorists were forced to find another venue.

In addition, please remember that violence on an airplane is always a possibility regardless of security screening. Weapons can be created and modified easily from so-called "acceptable" items permitted on an airplane as has been detailed thoroughly in other postings. The only weapons of any concern should be firearms and explosives. Pocketknives, tweezers, and the like are rudimentary and should be accurately viewed as ineffective in a terrorist attack.

In the end, once pilots are armed and the cockpit door better fortified, a repeat of 9/11 will be virtually impossible much like it already is.

If there are holes they will find them. I'm sure they won't limit themselves to surface to air missles just to maintain the parallel with the WTV attacks. If we assume that they can't adapt and succeed again then we will be leaving holes that they can exploit as they have done in the past.


So since they could attack anywhere we should just let them have easy access for attacks on airline flights? I don't follow that logic.

The goal of airport security is to get them to move their attempts away from airlines to targets that are less leathal and where they have a greater chance of being caught.

You couldn't be more wrong. The terrorists will train with whatever weapons are available and will be quite effective with them. We made it easy for the 9/11 hijackers by allowing them to have box cutters. A person well trained with a pocket knife can be very dangerous. Put eight or ten of them on a lightly loaded flight and they'll have a real chance of success.

If only it were that simple.