Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Let Visitors Back In The Concourses  
User currently offlineJhooper From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 6202 posts, RR: 12
Posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3584 times:

OK, I know this issue is getting old for many people. I know it's controversial and may people don't agree with my viewpoint and I respect that. But I thought I would share a letter with you that I wrote to the TSA on this issue and would appreciate your feedback, good and bad.



==================================================


I am writing to request that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to consider a plan to allow visitors back into the concourses at U.S. airports.

Before September 11, 2001, we were allowed to pass security without an airline ticket to visit the airline lounges, watch airplanes, shop in the airport establishments, dine in the airport restaurants, meet visitors at the gate, and spend those last few minutes with our families at the gate before they had to board their flights. These are among the many benefits of allowing visitors back on the concourses. At many airports, all the worthwhile shops and restaurants are beyond security--and these establishments have suffered great economic loss due to this post-9/11 policy. A society as free as America shouldn't have to keep a permanent European-style policy of restricting the airside to ticket holders. The airports are financed by the taxpayers; therefore, it is fair that the taxpayers should be able to visit the airports whenever they want (not just when they need to travel).

Obviously the primary concern of the TSA is aviation security, which is completely understandable. I believe we can reopen the concourses to visitors given the established security objectives of the agency. Under the plan that I propose, each person who wants to pass security and go to the gates will be required to purchase a "gate pass" for a nominal fee of, say, $5.00. These gate passes could be sold via the TSA website or through an airline kiosk, and they would be required to collect the same information from the customer that is collected in a Passenger Name Record (PNR) for travelers. Essentially, they're purchasing a boarding pass without a destination. This accomplishes a few things:

First, security is maintained because the visitor will still be positively identified and the same CAPPS background checks will be done on him as is done for regular ticket holders. In addition, this positive identification process will prevent a ticket holder from using the visitor pass to bypass the "selectee" process currently in use at TSA checkpoints, because it will compare the name to the CAPPS-generated list of selectees to ensure the "visitor" doesn't also possess a current-day ticket with the intention of avoiding the secondary screening. Also, the visitor would not be allowed to carry any luggage through security (except maybe a purse for women); therefore, the screening process would be expedited.

Second, the gate pass fee would be collected to finance any costs associated with the additional screening that would be necessary, and may even generate enough revenue to reduce or eliminate the "AY" security fee charged to ticket-holders, or to finance other security initiatives.

I realize that one concern of implementing this plan is that an increased influx of people through the checkpoints will cause more delays for travelers. However, with few exceptions, in my recent travel experiences, I have found that the wait in lines at TSA checkpoints are seldom more than five minutes. At peak times at certain airports, it may be appropriate to suspend allowing visitors into the lines until the "rush" is over.

I don't believe that this plan would substantially increase the time needed for a traveler to get through security since they aren't allowed bring luggage, etc., through security, most will simply walk through the metal detector and be on their way. Also, the gate pass fee would discourage people from clogging up the lines unless they feel like they really "need" to go to the airside (to shop, eat, etc.)

I encourage TSA to adopt a plan such as this to allow visitors back into the concourses, through a 60-day trial period to ensure that this is a workable solution.

I thank you for considering my ideas.



Last year 1,944 New Yorkers saw something and said something.
58 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 47
Reply 1, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3558 times:

This proposal 1) makes sense, 2) would work, 3) would receive positive reception from the majority of the public.

Therefore it'll never happen.


User currently offlineCoTXDFW777AA From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 321 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3549 times:

When it was first heard the new policy that said no one would be allowed past security, I was angry and did not support. But now seeing it in action, I am for it. It keeps the terminal less crowded and makes catching connections easier. Also, if the current security procedures are kept in place, so will the policy. Could you imagine missing a flight because a family of fourteen had to go watch there 5th child leave for camp and backed up the security line? I do believe airports need to add airplane viewing areas so people can still spot.

-COTXDFW777AA



Texas- it's like a whole different country!
User currently offlineScottysAir From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3520 times:

Hey Jermey,

Did you wrote with the letter to TSA? How? Do you even think will another chance to bring visitors back into the concourses again soon. I already requested with permission from my friends at BCAD and will they let me go through into the concourses for me again. It would be very good to see watch with their airplanes again for me. Thanks!  Smile

Regards!


User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 47
Reply 4, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3519 times:

Could you imagine missing a flight because a family of fourteen had to go watch there 5th child leave for camp and backed up the security line?

This is the same tired old argument used by people who, for whatever reason refuse to allow just that five minutes of extra time for such contingencies. Most people who miss their flights do so as a result of their own stupidity, carelessness and tardiness.

What is so freaking hard about skipping that one extra hitting of the snooze bar on your alarm clock or dilly-dallying in front of the mirror and getting your damn ass to the airport on time?


User currently offlineJuanr From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3505 times:

In BOG, even before 9/11 non-passengers were not allowed in the concourses so for me nothing has changed.

Juan
SKBO


User currently offlineFlairport From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3486 times:

did you send it out yet? If not, I'd get a petition going and send that with the letter. Also, I'd send a copy o your congressmen.

Funny, I was thinking about this today as well!

the only addendum i can think of is that it should be the airports decision as to letting passengers behind security...

some airports (LGA for example) have always been ticketed pax only.....

also, some airports can handle the demand becasue:
1) they have smaller concourses and multiple checkpoints (FLL)
2) they have few flights

[Edited 2004-02-23 04:33:59]

User currently offlineGoboeing From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 2682 posts, RR: 14
Reply 7, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3479 times:

People, re-read this if you didn't see it in Matt D's post:

This is the same tired old argument used by people who, for whatever reason refuse to allow just that five minutes of extra time for such contingencies. Most people who miss their flights do so as a result of their own stupidity, carelessness and tardiness.

What is so freaking hard about skipping that one extra hitting of the snooze bar on your alarm clock or dilly-dallying in front of the mirror and getting your damn ass to the airport on time?


I couldn't say it better myself.

Nick


User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17281 posts, RR: 46
Reply 8, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3462 times:

Absolutely not. Not until TSA increases the efficiency of the screening process and/or staffs more screening lanes.

"Could you imagine missing a flight because a family of fourteen had to go watch there 5th child leave for camp and backed up the security line?

This is the same tired old argument used by people who, for whatever reason refuse to allow just that five minutes of extra time for such contingencies. Most people who miss their flights do so as a result of their own stupidity, carelessness and tardiness.

What is so freaking hard about skipping that one extra hitting of the snooze bar on your alarm clock or dilly-dallying in front of the mirror and getting your damn ass to the airport on time? "

Nonsense! In places like DEN, LAX, and LAS where security lines can approach upwards of 2 hours, a visitor:passenger ratio of 1:3 would increase wait times by 40 minutes. Simple math; until TSA can make the screening process efficient for passengers, absolutely no visitors in the concourses!

But on another note OPEN UP THE BLOODY VIEWING DECKS AGAIN!!!!



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineSsides From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4059 posts, RR: 21
Reply 9, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3459 times:

I'm sorry, but I disagree wholeheartedly. As a frequent traveler, I disliked the policy allowing non-passengers past security pre-9/11, and I like the new policy in place today.

Before 9/11, security was a nightmare at many major O&D airports because large families -- many of whom did not fly often -- would clog up clearance lines because their pockets were full of change, keys, and other metal items. All this because they had to see their overprotected 14-year-old to the gate. Today, security is still hairy, but this is due to the extensive procedures -- procedures which I cannot imagine if the policy were reversed.

Along these same lines, having non-pax in the security queues is a security issue itself. Rightly or wrongly, longer lines will make screeners more harried, and more likely to "speed up" the clearance process, usually due t the grumblings of passengers. Regardless of whether a "fee" is paid, screening non-passengers should not be a TSA responsibility. In this era of security, TSA screeners should focus solely on passengers, not those who will just be seeing off relatives or roaming the concourse.

As far as the concession issue is concerned, business behind the checkpoint hasn't slowed down as much as you would think. Revenues for most vendors are down, but they are only down in proportion to the decrease in air traffic. Hence, the elimination of non-travelers has not hurt business, but the overall decline in air travel has. However, studies have showed that as airlines de-peak their hub schedule (like AA at ORD and DFW), people have more time to patronize the shops, and things are getting better without the non-pax. From a personal standpoint, I've flown several times since 9/11 and I can definitely tell that the concourses are getting more crowded.

In short, the concourses should not be re-opened to non-passengers. The desires of families to see relatives for an additional 15 minutes, and the desires of avaition enthusiasts to see planes, should not play any role whatsoever in the TSA's decision on this issue. Security is infinitely more important than these. If you are a family, spend more time together when you can -- it won't kill you if you can't see Johnny walk onto the plane. If you're a spotter, go outside and watch planes take off and land, or get to the airport 4 hours early when you do have an actual flight. These privileges are not a matter of entitlement. I for one think the TSA will stand firm on the issue, and I hope that they do.




"Lose" is not spelled with two o's!!!!
User currently offlineCoTXDFW777AA From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 321 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3434 times:

"getting your damn ass to the airport on time?"
Yup, it is our fault, we should have to report 2 hours before a 50 minute express flight.

-COTXDFW777AA



Texas- it's like a whole different country!
User currently offlineLuv2fly From United States of America, joined May 2003, 12090 posts, RR: 49
Reply 11, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3430 times:

FWIW - Security is already hassled checking the travelling public, now add others to the mix is only going to strain a system already working at maximum out put.


You can cut the irony with a knife
User currently offlineCytz_pilot From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 568 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3423 times:

What is so freaking hard about skipping that one extra hitting of the snooze bar on your alarm clock or dilly-dallying in front of the mirror and getting your damn ass to the airport on time?

Yes yes yes I say for all of us who are punctual. I arrive 3+ hours early for every flight, and it's not so hard if you PLAN for being there 3 hours early, then a 15 minute delay is meaningless. People who arrive late generally plan for the minimum arrival time, and then after being delayed by things like traffic and queues have only complaints about flying. That's why I loved the european LCC's...you're late, you're walking.  Big grin


User currently offlineCaptaingomes From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 6413 posts, RR: 56
Reply 13, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3417 times:

Usually people who are delayed are not late because of their own laziness as was mentioned above, but rather circumstances out of their control. Late connections, traffic accident, car troubles, etc etc.

I have never travelled from an American airport, so I am very used to the system employed in Canada and Europe, where you have to go through security before going to the gate area. How will the same security measures be implemented? Will there be security at every single gate? Or will all visitors have to go through security just like the passengers? It really doesn't make any sense to me. Adding that line of defence between the general public and the aircraft is a good thing, in my opinion.



"it's kind of like an Airbus, it's an engineering marvel, but there's no sense of passion" -- J. Clarkson re: Coxster
User currently offlineUsairways85 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 3372 posts, RR: 7
Reply 14, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3389 times:

Very nice letter. One thing that i still can't stand is the "no taking pictures" unwritten law. I mean one of the reasons why i would go into the airport w/o flying is to just sit and relax while watchin the planes and maybe snap a picture here and there. But at some airports when you take a camera out it's like you have a weapon.

I also hate when some people get attacked by police just for simply spotting at the end of a runway. I wish this day pass could be implemented for spotting as well. So if the police try to make you leave you can simply show them the pass and know you are just simply spotting.


User currently offlineCaptaingomes From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 6413 posts, RR: 56
Reply 15, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3375 times:

After reading a few other posts, I see that there was security still, and those not traveling would still go through security. Sorry, but like others have suggested, it is a terrible idea to further slow down the security process.


"it's kind of like an Airbus, it's an engineering marvel, but there's no sense of passion" -- J. Clarkson re: Coxster
User currently offlineAirdude66 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 187 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3350 times:

Personally, I think there aare far too many people in airline terminals now. In fact, I would be all for taking this one step further...Only those with airline/airport business in the terminal period. Say your goodbye's and hello's at the curb or the parking deck.

User currently offlineORD2PHL From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 312 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3309 times:

Unnecessary.

Despite our love for the aviation world, etc., there is no reason to open the airside concourses up to the non-traveling public. Why open ourselves up to letting any unnecessary people at all airside given the state of the world post-9/11. As many have said before, there are already too many people crowding concourse as it is, not too mention the infrequent travelers family jamming and further clogging security lines. I think that we as enthusiasts should consider the safety/security of the industry rather than our own interests, the thought alone is pretty selfish.

Airports around the world (i.e. Europe) and certain International terminals in the states have had similar policies for years.

Do your spotting from another place other than airside....it's an airport...do they allow people at a sporting event access inside the stadium without a ticket.

I'm just about off the soap-box now, but let's be serious here.

ORD2PHL


User currently offlineUsairways85 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 3372 posts, RR: 7
Reply 18, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3257 times:

I do aggree that security proceedures have to continue to be upgraded, and then after that non-paxs may be allowed in. I think the problem is not enough airports are adjusting to the fact that more ppl are flying and the security guidlines have become much more strict.

Here in PHL most terminals only have 2-4 security lines per terminal, even one of the international terminals. That is insane. The airports need to add more lines and find better ways to create a better flow of ppl. I don't think the TSA has even taken this into consideration. All they are concerned about is tightening security, which is understandable, but they are not noticing the impact that it is having.

As for being crowded in the terminals, i really don't see that as a major problem like clogging up security is. Even when i am flying and walk through the airport when it's busy i just learn to walk quick and weave in and out of ppl if i need to. I don't think non-paxs are going to make the problem of over-crowded terminals much worse. The fact is that air travel has increased since many of these terminals were built and they are just becoming overcrowded with more ppl flying. I mean how many non-paxs do you think will go through some terminals a day, maybe 300-500, then how about how many ticketed paxs do you think will go through that same terminal, maybe 25,000-30,000. I dont think an extra 400 ppl will cause a terminal to be that much more overcrowded.

that's just my 2 cents


User currently offlineJhooper From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 6202 posts, RR: 12
Reply 19, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3215 times:

It's great to see such a lively discussion develop within mere minutes of posting this thread. I'm glad to see different points of view, and I respect them all.

Flairport ,

Yes, I did send the letter with a copy to my senator and congressman. If somebody would like to start a petition, then that would be great (but it's not going to be me  Big grin ) I agree with you that it should be left up to individual airports to decide whether or not to let visitors back in. Some airports have adaquate facilities outside security and lines that are way too long, and may choose to keep visitors out. On the other hand, other airports aren't quite as congested and may choose to allow visitors to take advantage of the airside shops and facilities.

Like I said, I am not for becoming lax on security. I firmly believe that security can still be held to the highest standards if certain precautions are taken. And more eyes and ears in the terminal can actually provide a benefit by reporting suspicious activity.



Last year 1,944 New Yorkers saw something and said something.
User currently offlineRampboy77 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 64 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3188 times:

Kicking the meeters and greeters out of the concourse was one of the good changes from 9/11. This change makes boarding a flight much easier. No more deciding at the last minute to say goodbye. You have to do this at home or prior to entering security. What a godsend. The last minute kissers and huggers really took alot of time to get onboard. Thank goodness for a good decision from the TSA.

User currently offlineNWAFA From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1893 posts, RR: 16
Reply 21, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3154 times:

I think we need to still keep NON FLYING people behind security.


THANK YOU FOR FLYING NORTHWEST AIRLINES, WE TRULY APPRECIATE YOUR BUSINESS!
User currently offlineTrnsWrld From United States of America, joined May 1999, 914 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3094 times:

Well you people must be travelling from some very in-efficient airports because I fly out of the worlds busiest airport Chicago O'Hare (and yes it is still rated at busiest for aircraft movements, ATL holds passenger movements) sometimes atleast once a week it seems and security is never a problem. I think the most I have waited to get into the AA concourses was maybe 6 minutes and this was during week days, weekends, and all times during the day and night
I must say that was a very well written letter and I agree with everything you have said. I must also say that besides security congestion at some airports gate areas do get full sometimes so some extra non-travelling passengers might make some travellers have to stand. I dunno its an excellent idea and overall I am 100% for it.


User currently offlineAndz From South Africa, joined Feb 2004, 8440 posts, RR: 10
Reply 23, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3070 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Having never lived in the USA I find it outrageous that non-flying people were ever allowed airside in the first place! In all the airports I've been to in Europe and here in South Africa you don't get much further than check-in without a boarding pass, and I believe it's the way it should be.


After Monday and Tuesday even the calendar says WTF...
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 24, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3004 times:

This is ONLY my opinion, but I know Im gonna get bashed for it so here goes.....

1) Pre 9/11, SJC had their concourses closed off for ticketed pax only for YEARS. I also know that DLH had the same pre 9/11 policy as well.

2) Security Checkpoints are always, always clogged regardless if you are flying or not. There are ALWAYS people clogging up the waiting area for arriving pax and hardly any room to move around. This is the #1 thing that annoys me. I have always advised people picking up arriving pax to wait for their party in the baggage claim. They never listen. The thing is you never know what Security Checkpoint your arriving pax will come out of so thats why Ive always advised to meet your party at the baggage claim. IE: SEA & PHX. This clogging up of Security checkpoints are always going to be that way as long anyway.

3) Allowing non-pax purchase a checkpoint pass for $5 isnt going to solve anything. It will just make the security situation worse. (Security breaches come to mind....) What if bin-Laden was allowed into the sterile area for example?? Uh oh!! Not good!! And also hiring new extra port police officers isnt an option, thats a very expensive thing because of the additional babysitting they have to do with this, they have more important things to do. TSA doesnt have the manpower to do the extra screening with what they have now. They probably will never get any better.

4) What is so freaking hard about skipping that one extra hitting of the snooze bar on your alarm clock or dilly-dallying in front of the mirror and getting your damn ass to the airport on time?

I totally agree with this statement. Again, people just dont LISTEN!!!! Are they DEAF?!?! This is another thing that annoys me. EVERYTIME I travel, I always see at least 4-7 people behind me who ask the TSA for cuts in the line because their flight leaves in 10 minutes while my flight leave in an hour. Ive always wanted to tell paxs that he/she should have thought about getting here earlier when instructed at time of making their reservation to get their butt to the back of the line, put up and shut up but, its not my business so I just let the TSA deal with it. Majority of the time the TSA tells them 'Too bad! You snooze, you lose!' Honestly, I dont give a cockroach's butt if they are full coach fare or first class paying pax or MVP Gold members (AS for example), they need to get their butt to the airport if they want to make it to their desination on time or they can pay a change fee for all I care. Think about the OTHER pax on your flight...put yourself in their shoes, how would you feel if that person held your plane for 30 extra minutes and made a late departure?? Well, DUH!!

4) Even if a petition made to the TSA for allowing non-pax on concourses, I wouldnt sign it. Its too much of a risk and we dont want to take any chances at all. Im actually glad that the security procedures were improved with this one rule. Dont get me wrong, its a good idea to implement tax on the non-flying folks to save the flying folks some cash, but its just not going to work, too much hassle.

5) Finally but not least, I have to make a correction from the first post on this thread:
The airports are financed by the taxpayers; therefore, it is fair that the taxpayers should be able to visit the airports whenever they want (not just when they need to travel).

This is not true, the airports in the United States are NOT taxpayer ran. This is inaccurate info. In my ICSA 19/20 class with AS, we were told that the segment fees and Airport user fees pay to operate AND upgrade the airports involved in your PNR so thats not taxpayer monies BUT..it is taxable money to the IRS which is a totally different topic to go into. Remember, just like an airline....the airport itself is running a business by itself but follows F.A.R set forth by the F.A.A.

Disclaimer: I am not trying disrespect to anyone on this thread nor was I bashing anyone, this was only my opinion.

Ok go ahead and bash me all you want....Im ready for it!!!  Big thumbs up





A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
25 CainanUK : I am writing to request that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to consider a plan to allow visitors back into the concourses at U.S. ai
26 Artsyman : I do not think the people without tickets should be allowed through either. It is hard enough with the lines at security, and trying to keep things sa
27 Mir : If you want to go through, buy a ticket. Actually, you could do that too. Buy a fully-refundable ticket.
28 FoxBravo : As much as I support aviation enthusiasts and their rights (being one myself), as a frequent traveler I cannot support a plan that will make the secur
29 Post contains images B747Skipper : Just my opinion, sorry it may be against your own. I am supporting all aviation enthusiasts, but let us be practical. xxx I travel often as a passenge
30 AirframeAS : If you want to go through, buy a ticket. Actually, you could do that too. Buy a fully-refundable ticket. I forgot to add that in my last post. All of
31 Nonrevman : I am not against having visitors in the concourse if it was feasible, however the current situation is better than pre 9-11 in terms of congestion. Wh
32 Caetravlr : AirframeAS, And how would allowing non-paying pax back into the terminal affect the airlines? If you have to fly out of the same airport, it doesn't m
33 Contrails : I would love to go back to the days when visitors were allowed on the concourse, but a lot of things changed forever on September 11 and this is one o
34 AAJAXFlyer : I won't get involved with the argument for/against visitors in the concourse, but I do offer a solution for many of you.... Become an airport ambassad
35 Rb211 : I think it would be better if they had an observation room or platform with the binoculars you have to put a quarter in like at the Empire State Build
36 Flyboyaz : Oh hell no....it was a nightmare with all those people standing around asking questions. And when a flight was delayed, you not only had the passenger
37 LTBEWR : I think some kind of visitor access to outbound concoures should be allowed, with the fee/clearance requirements as JOOPER suggested, but only for lim
38 David T : This is truly a TOUGH debate. The Commander in Chief, President Bush tells Americans to go on about your lives, live a normal life but be guarded....
39 Luv2fly : AAJAXFlyer I suggested this very solution before! And I agree with you 110%
40 Cmckeithen : Will NEVER happen in our lifetime. I don't see why they were allowed to before 9/11.
41 Ckfred : I don't think that TSA is going to let non-passengers beyond the checkpoints for the forseeable futures. European security has been a lot tighter than
42 DTW757 : At ORD, the only concession outside of security in the domestic terminals is the Ty Beanie Baby store. Other than a few Starbucks carts, You're doing
43 Greg : Unless you have purchased a ticket to travel that day..or have some extraordinary reason for being on the concourse (unaccompanied child, etc..), Ther
44 Huskey8 : Dear TSA : I write this letter to implore you to increase security at all airports across the country. Implementation of this policy should start imme
45 NIKV69 : I believe in letting non ticketed pax in the concourse, only problem is this would involve hiring more security to screen more people. The lines to en
46 A3204eva : I visit MAN often and find plenty of places to spot, but I like your letter.
47 AirframeAS : Caetravlr: And how would allowing non-paying pax back into the terminal affect the airlines? If you have to fly out of the same airport, it doesn't ma
48 Jhooper : I don't see how a non-travelling passenger would cause another 9/11. Without a boarding pass, how are they going to get on the plane? And with a board
49 AirframeAS : There are people who have snuck thru security and have also gotten on a plane WITHOUT a boarding pass. But....those people have gotten caught and arre
50 PA110 : I'm sorry, but I don't see any compelling arguments for letting non-passengers past security (with the exception of special cases). I never liked the
51 Luv2fly : PA110 says it best. In this day and age there is no reason for it.
52 Alexchao : I side with "no" as well despite how much I would love to walk the terminals. TSA lines are long enough without non-travelling passengers. By allowing
53 Sllevin : I think not allowing visitors past security is a good thing. As it is, security lines can be long. Do we really need them longer? I don't think so! Co
54 VC745D : I believe in letting non ticketed pax in the concourse, only problem is this would involve hiring more security to screen more people. The lines to en
55 Asuflyer05 : Having non-passengers allowed past security poses a number of problems, 1.) Extended Security lines. Fly out of Terminal 2 in Phoenix at any time of d
56 NIKV69 : I dis-agree with you VC745D, I think if 9/11 never happened I think airport security would have remained the same. As for delays, I don't think there
57 StevenUhl777 : I'm glad that non-passengers aren't allowed in the gate/concourse areas. I always felt our security was a joke before 9/11 and wondered why it wasn't
58 Post contains images AirframeAS : PA110 is now on my respected users list He couldnt have said it any better than I ever can!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Seaplanes Are Back In The UK! posted Sun Apr 22 2007 19:38:44 by DHHornet
"Old Varig" Back In The Skies? posted Wed Apr 11 2007 15:41:57 by AF086
Equipment Change Compensation Back In The Day posted Sun Apr 1 2007 05:15:31 by Zippyjet
Pilotless Aircraft Concept Back In The News posted Thu Dec 21 2006 15:34:48 by Miller22
Jetways Used For The Classic Props Back In The Day posted Sun Nov 12 2006 08:12:31 by Zippyjet
America West To MLI? (Back In The Day) posted Sun Oct 22 2006 05:51:24 by B757capt
ORD Back In The Slot Business posted Fri Aug 25 2006 07:25:23 by MasseyBrown
Analysis: SIA Puts Airbus Back In The Game posted Sat Jul 22 2006 15:52:36 by Singapore_Air
707 Service To OKC Back In The Day? posted Tue Apr 11 2006 04:26:44 by Starstream707
Silly Turboprop Flights Back In The Day... posted Thu Mar 30 2006 18:45:56 by BDL2DCA