If anyone else read the Travel page of the USA Today this morning, you probably noticed the same article I did. The Pittsburgh Intl Airport is considering a pilot program to allow non-ticketed passengers beyond security checkpoints for the first time since September 11.

Perhaps it is just me, but this seems like a bad idea for a thousand reasons, or at least a few:

My biggest concern is that it seems as though we're relaxing security again. I know that officials can say that everyone will be thoroughly screened, but we're still letting non-ticketed passengers that much closer to the flight line. Obviously Pittsburgh would like this new security procedure because of their "AirMall" shopping complex inside the terminal. For those who live in the Pittsburgh area, I'm interested to know how often did you drive to the airport to shop? Are there specialty stores or is there some attraction that drew you to the airport to shop? Most people I know hate large airports.

Another argument is that all of the hijackers on 9/11 were ticketed passengers! That's true, but now, it seems to me, terrorists are looking for any way possible to exploit our security system, so why give them even the slightest opportunity?

I do like the fact that, according to USA Today, families of soldiers leaving for the Middle East are allowed to accompany their loved ones to the departure gate. I suppose this is a limited number of people and they are properly screened.

Finally, I can't imagine the Monday and Saturday morning security delays at the nation's largest airports if ticketed passengers AND their family members were waiting in line. We already have to show up at the airport ridiculously early for a flight; why make our wait longer?

I would love to have my parents, girlfriend, etc... be able to sit with me until time to board my flight somewhere, especially if I would be gone for a while, but if it means less security and longer lines for everyone, it's not that important to me.

If anyone lives in the PIT area or other areas with airports that have shopping complexes, please let me know if you regularly used these services before Sept 11 and would you continue to drive to the airport to use them if they were available now?

As an aspiring airline pilot, I'm in favor of giving as many people as possible access to the world of aviation through large airports. I just think that it would be better if they all have boarding passes.

Any thoughts/suggestions appreciated.

Dave

I think exceptions are made to the "no ticketed passenger" rule but it's providing that the person who is being escorted through security is a child, handicapped or otherwise can't care for themselves, elderly, or doesn't speak (much) english. I think it's dependent on each airline as well to issue the "passes" but I only remember reading about this, but have never done it myself.

In principle I'm not opposed to it. As a practical matter, if there is any security line lasting more than a few minutes, it shouldn't be. As a further matter, allowing this will require a 100% positive ID check again at the boarding areas.

I think that they should allow anyone back into the terminal that is willing to go through the screening - they do that here in Australia and it works just fine. I have a few reasons for this, from the logical to the emotional:

logical: the hijackers on 9/11 were successful (in the first three cases) because up until that day when a plane was hijacked it was for reasons such as (a) take me to country X, (b) i want lots of money, (c) release my fellow prisoners (name your cause), etc. It was not to commit suicide. So, when the planes were hijacked, the people had no reason to fight, but rather to simply sit and wait it out.

Why is this important? Because, ask yourself this question: if someone stood up today with a butter knife, box cutter, or pair of cuticle scissors, and says "i'm hijacking this airplane", what do you think the response will be? I think 250 people would get out of their seats and beat that hijacker to death. Period.

Financial: the small businesses in the airport, especially in new terminals constructed in the 3-4 years prior to 9/11, really need the added patronage of non-passengers. It's about jobs and the economy.

Emotional: i fly ALOT. one of the things that used to make it more bearable, and that I sorely miss, is seeing my loved ones at the terminal waiting for me when I land.

Justa few thoughts...

Corbetti

Haha, right. Why in the world would you need that if you allowed non-passengers into the protected area? Certainly not for any security reason.

I think it's a very good idea to let anyone willing to be screened into the boarding area. There are any number of reasons you should support this change of procedure:

1. The parent escorting child exception has age limitations in some cases and is not allowed at all in some locations, including my home airport. It just makes no sense to have unsupervised children wandering through a busy airport alone "to ensure better security".

2. The families of travelers and travelers themselves will be happier if they are allowed the option of staying together until the flight leaves. If I've had to say goodbye to my family at the security line and then face a two or three hour delay that I'm only informed of once I reach my gate, that's two or three hours of together-time I'm cheated out of.

3. The lines ain't that long. Only once in my twenty most recent flights have I seen a wait longer than 15-20 minutes. Fine, if there's a real crunch, temporarily suspend non-ticketed screening.

4. The huge crowd of people meeting travelers all bunched up at the security exit is annoying. In my home airport there's a narrow hallway that gets completely blocked by Aunt Edna hugging little Joey while their luggage sprawls across the walkway. Let these reunions happen in distributed fashion at the gate where everyone isn't in everyone else's way.

5. (flame bait) Almost no frequent travelers believe this security screening nonsense anyway. It's just very expensive psychotherapy: makes people feel safer but doesn't make people safer.

But does anyone actually feel safer?... I'm all for the psychotherapy idea, god knows our leaders need it! But I don't actually feel safer. I don't think it makes anyone I know feel safer, however It does make screeners feel very important!

I would love for my loved ones to be able to meet me at the gate or see me off--just like in the old days!

As far as security, I definitely see both sides of the issue, so I'm undecided there. But, for people concerned about longer waiting times, isnt most of the delay now due to extra baggage scrutiny? Most people "visiting" the airport aren't going to have laptops that need to come out of their case through security, or have an entire family with carry-on luggage.

Well, not to put too fine a point on it - if the TSA screening/security does what it's supposed to do, then what does it matter if it's a passenger or someone meeting/sending off a passenger, or someone who wants to meet someone on a layover (i used to have a lot of biz mtgs at rcc when folk had layovers, or heck just met some for drinks). If all go through security, then i don't have a problem w/ it.

Yes there will be more folk, but they won't laptops etc so that might be a wash or not that big an issue on time (as long as we tell them no they don't all have to take off their shoes to go through .

And the shops/restaurants at the airport could use the revenue. Do folk go there only to shop? No. Will they if flights are delayed & they want a meal or souvenir or book? Yup.

I am all in favour of letting friends and relatives beyond security again. Especially now where the waiting times are so long.

I have fond memories of the times where my companion was able to come all the way to the gate in Concourse E. I am talking of ATL as departure point.

We were able to enjoy a drink together, shop for books etc. We were also able to discuss and organize all kinds of small matters.

Now everything has changed. The crunch on business is also letting itself be feeled. Much less to shop, bored people everywhere the eye can see. The concourse is empty and sad looking. Taking a plane has the feel of going to a funeral. The waiting time seems like double and one gets outraged at the slightest delay. When are we going to take off?

Do I feel better with the new security measures? No. IS it safer? I doubt it.

Nice to see them finally acknowledging it.

Many of us already routinely go airside when the need arises by purchasing fully-refundable tickets. It would be nice not to have money tied up on my CC for a few hours or days.

Hopefully, more people using the checkpoint will make them rethink some of the stupider screening policies (Shoe Carnival, Random Harassment, Great Sharp and Pointy Object Search) etc. to make sure the crowds keep moving.

Don't forget 'scumbagging'!

If TSA is so great, this should be no problem as long as everyone is screened. If they don't relax the rule, you can always go buy a refundable ticket, go meet your arrival and then get a refund on the ticket.

People without tickets are no more a security threat than people with tickets. (As has already been mentioned, all the 9/11 hijackers had tickets. Anyone intent on mischief won't be stopped by having to buy one.) Therefore, keeping them out does not enhance security.

If admitting people without tickets increases gate area congestion (perhaps to the point of impeding response to a real security issue) or waiting times in the security lines, let's deal with those issues on their merits. I personally doubt that there will be enough non-ticketed visitors to make a significant difference in either regard, especially when we consider that many of those who want to be there are already buying refundable tickets or getting gate passes, but in any case let's deal with the real issue(s) honestly.

Calling the exclusion of non-ticketed people a "security" issue is part of the current syndrome of invoking security as a mantra any time an airline or other authority wants to impose a rule without having to explain it. Its overuse reduces its credibility on those few occasions where it actually is the reason for something and where an explanation actually might be a bad idea.