J_hallgren From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1507 posts, RR: 0 Posted (14 years 5 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2537 times:
Ok, so bear with me...I don't get it...what makes curb check-in any more risky than at counter? Just because of quality of people who do that work? And will that mean end of sky-caps? Someone who checks a bag at counter could also not get on plane, right? So what is reason? Maybe answer is buried in another topic...if so, where? Thanks!
Bicoastal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (14 years 5 months 4 hours ago) and read 2371 times:
I agree that it doesn't seem to be a problem. Once things settle down and cooler heads prevail, many of these new procedures could be reconsidered. But, for the next few weeks, it's stiff upper lip time. Be patient and enjoy your flight.
Contrails From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 1845 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (14 years 5 months 4 hours ago) and read 2363 times:
I think it is because the skycaps don't issue boarding passes. The FAA wants the holder of the baggage to be asked if they have packed their own baggage, etc., although those questions would never deter a terrorist.
Goingboeing From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4875 posts, RR: 15
Reply 7, posted (14 years 5 months 3 hours ago) and read 2360 times:
It's eye candy, pure and simple. Supposedly the bags are going to get scanned. What difference does it make if the bag is checked curbside or in the terminal? It doesn't. It's all done so that when you go to the airport and find these security delays, you might think that they really stepped up security, when in fact, the only thing that was changed was the shine on the security guards shoes, and they can't drink a coke while on duty. Other than that, it's pretty much the same as it was.
KAL_LM From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 497 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (14 years 5 months 3 hours ago) and read 2350 times:
"Goingboeing", you make a great point (and the others too for that matter).
By now we've either seen or heard about the news story with the security screener sleeping on duty at the x-ray machine. Whether it is true or not doesn't matter, it illustrates how little is actually being done to promote our safety. They figure that making some cosmetic changes will make the traveling public more trusting.
Sure, the FAA will say that reducing curbside eliminates the possibility of somone slipping something on your bag while you're not looking, or about the proximity of the cars to the terminal and car-bombs and on and on...
I'd almost be willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that a year from now it will be back to the way it was (if not sooner!). Hopefully, I'm wrong.
anyways, just my 2 cents,
is that a light at the end of the tunnel or just a train?
DfwRjCapt From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 16 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (14 years 5 months 1 hour ago) and read 2320 times:
A week before the disaster, after our aircraft had been boarded and was ready to leave the gate in SAT, the gate agent handed me the paperwork and commented offhand that there were two bags in the baggage compartment whose owner was going to miss the flight. Without hesitating, I said, "okay, get them off the airplane." I was told that I didn't understand: these bags belonged to a Skymiles gold medalion customer, and that they routinely ship checked bags for these people without them being aboard. I replied, "B.S. Get those bags off my airplane."
Does it really take a rocket scientist to realize what it COULD mean if someone puts something on an airplane and then doesn't board himself?
The problem with curbside check-in is that it makes doing that even easier. You wouldn't even have to enter the terminal. Suppose there had been an explosive device in one of those bags, and the agent and I hadn't done anything about it?