Luv2fly From United States of America, joined May 2003, 12060 posts, RR: 50 Reply 2, posted (7 years 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 9798 times:
I think it should stay the way it is right now. We have gotten use to it this way. Also it helps the airline employees working the gate area to deal with just the flying pax and not Aunt Martha wondering where Jimmy's plane is!
ZschocheImages From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 143 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (7 years 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 9785 times:
I miss the days though when I could just go to an airport and wander around. For example, while I was on vacation I would go and just take pictures or just explore. The first time I couldn't do that, in Europe and then again in Asia, I was quite surprised. Then when 9/11 came around that all stopped. I was dissapointed. I know that the terminals will be more crowded, but maybe it will help airlines (at least in the US) return to their glory days by openind up their name to the non-traveler.
Antonovman From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 719 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (7 years 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 9786 times:
Its strange how the USA was almost the only country to ever allow this - non passengers airside -
Certainly none of the European airports did and I've been all round the world and never seen it anywhere else
AirEMS From United States of America, joined May 2004, 684 posts, RR: 3 Reply 7, posted (7 years 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 9738 times:
Doesn't this come up every year?
Well my thoughts are 1: Don't do it if it impacts the waits to get pax through security... But why couldn't they let non pax through during slow times... or what about places like DEN where you have multiple security points (The Main one and then the one over the bridge) Finally how many people would this add? other than a majority of A.Net patrons? I've never heard honey I'm bored lets go walk around the airport.... Is this a huge amount of people that this could add??
ANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (7 years 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 9733 times:
Quoting Stirling (Reply 6): Some non airline passengers are already allowed to be in the gate areas.
Also folks attending meetings with Club Members at the Airside Airline Clubs . . . quite a difference that than having a couple dozen visitors per departing 737 airside clamoring for space in the TSA lines.
Nwafflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1050 posts, RR: 2 Reply 9, posted (7 years 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 9719 times:
Not just unaccompanied minors, but also senior citizens with needs -- I have taken my mother, age 88, to the gate in a wheelchair several times. Yes, I have to take one wheelchair to security, and I have to have a pass, but after security, (and after I show my pass and ID) I just get her another wheel chair
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21320 posts, RR: 60 Reply 10, posted (7 years 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 9712 times:
Quoting Antonovman (Reply 4): Its strange how the USA was almost the only country to ever allow this - non passengers airside -
Certainly none of the European airports did and I've been all round the world and never seen it anywhere else
I remember as a kid that the New York airports would suspend gate access during holiday/peak times.
At EWR it wasn't such a big deal, since most of the concessions are outside of security, so the authorities there were quite happy to limit access. But most other USA airports were designed such that anyone waiting outside security has nowhere to sit, eat, etc.
The airports make money on "dwell time" (their term) and people waiting for customers to land is prime money making dwell time. I'm sure the airports are pushing for this rule change to maximize revenue, even if it makes lines longer and compromises safety.
After all, the dirty secret is the "3 hours" recommendation for arriving during peak times is NOT for logistical reason, at least not 3 hours worth of reasons, not at every airport in the USA. It's to encourage dwell time at many otherwise efficient airports, and thus more shopping. Seriously. IAH admitted as much on a news report in Houston when they recommended 3 hours recently for Thanksgiving. Security at IAH takes 15 minutes, tops, even during holiday times. Check-in the same. Getting to gate is 15 minutes max. Boarding starts max 45 minutes before departure. Where does that extra 1.5 hours come from? The desire to sell food and products to "hostage" customers...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
AADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 1971 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (7 years 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 9637 times:
The TSA should just go back to the old screening. There is little evidence that post 9/11/01 screening has improved security. It has only made air travel more of a hassle. Its only actual function is to give passengers the impression that they are being protected.
We're Nuts From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5722 posts, RR: 21 Reply 14, posted (7 years 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 9617 times:
A lot of you are against this for logistical reasons. Fair enough, but that isn't the TSA's concern. Can you think of a security problem? Honestly I can't. The "secure area" is secure no matter who is inside it.
SANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 5018 posts, RR: 15 Reply 16, posted (7 years 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 9562 times:
Many very good points brought up above. I think there's always been lots of pressure by many factions to start letting non-pax back into the concourses. I know there have been past experiments with it but I never seem to hear the outcome.
I think there are more reasons to change the restrictions than there are to continue the current policy. The whole assistance thing (to kids, seniors, handicapped, fearful-flyers, etc.), the empty stores and eateries, the pro-air-travel and subliminal advertising environment that exist in the gate areas, and the bottom-line factor, as mentioned earlier in the thread: how many additional people will this REALLY add to TSA's workload? are all, in my opinion, very valid reasons to change the policy.
Personally, from the stand-point of someone who's spent many years of his life at airports (inside and out), I would love to again be able to get thru security as a non-passenger. I applaud TSA for even considering this change of policy.
Thegooddoctor From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 523 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (7 years 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 9563 times:
I'll side with all of the people who say this is a bad idea. We've gotten used to it - and some of us actually like it better the way it is now! In some airports its crowded on the sterile side as it is.
If this does go through, it will make elite status really really pay off for a lot of fliers as the rest of the security checkpoints will be rediculously crowded (as in, more rediculously crowded...)
It's funny, this post made me think of the last flight I took before the new security procedures were put in place (NW 286 PHX-DTW, August 25, 2001). Flying then seemed a lot less complicated...
Why? It worked fine before 9/11 and PIT already does it.
Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 5): The lines and the TSA are bad enough at the moment . . .
Two things to blame for that. The TSA generally and the checking of IDs to boarding passes. One of the biggest reasons for security line bottle necks is the introduction of sterile zone rules that has people's IDs being checked to their boarding passes. Before 9/11, when LAX had 8 million or so more passengers a year, T1 didn't have insane security lines like today. The reason now is that the ID checkers create a massive bottle neck at the base of the escalators/staircase up to the check point. Get rid of them and you will actually help that line.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
Evan767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 2957 posts, RR: 2 Reply 23, posted (7 years 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 9427 times:
Will it really make that much of a difference? Who's going to stand in a long security line and strip down to go through just to see their relatives a few minutes earlier anyway? I know at most airports, excluding the big ones, security checkpoint is right next to the gates. I really don't think this would have a noticeable affect.
The proper term is "on final" not "on finals" bud...
Jcavinato From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 516 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (7 years 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 9421 times:
The interesting thing about PIT is in the mid-90s there were some Saturdays and Sundays at the inside concessions that earned as much as a third of their sales revenue from local people who just came to the airport as a destination. The food court was pretty good (I haven't been there since 2000), and you'd see families walking around. I thought that was a back-to-the-future airport at the time with that phenomenon.
25 N1120A: Big airports are where people notice these things the most. The biggest airport when it comes to O&D (where people will actually be going through the
26 DeltAirlines: Please don't let this happen. Security checkpoints are bad enough as it is, where there are plenty of people who don't realize that those coins or you
27 VEEREF: One thing I can say I truly don'y miss is the whole fam damily waiting RIGHT AT THE JETWAY DOOR to greet Aunt Mabel as she deplanes, completely blocki
28 Thomasphoto60: Well as both a frequent traveler and airline enthusiast, I am a little conflicted. On one hand I certainly do miss the days of freely strolling throug
29 AirframeAS: Wait a second....you work for TWO airlines?! I thought an airline employee was not allowed to work for the competition, that's pretty standard here i
30 Boeing7E7: 1. They already screen every bag with CTX machines. 2. The technology is there for sniffing pass through machines for passengers. 3. Anyone can read
31 Wdleiser: Apart from longer lines, ... it is no risk to me at all. it is up to the gate agent to make sure only ticketed passengers get on the plane, it shouldn
32 SirOmega: On the issues of longer lines, I honestly dont think it would be that big of a deal. Why? Simply because as someone who is not traveling, just going a
33 VEEREF: And it is true at the companies I work for as well. However, they do not compete with, nor do business with each other so it is within the guidlines
34 PanAmOldDC8: Remember the good old days when I could bring anyone I wanted on to the tarmac to meet family or friends as I worked for Pan Am. But that was the 60's
35 TPAnx: Bingo!! We have a winner! Some airports are reporting revenue losses because most of their concessions are "airside"--near the gates. They want to gi
36 MIAMIx707: There are airports (like MCO for example) that have nice facilities with ample space where one could go see the planes leave their gates and say goodb