Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
How Long Will It Be Only Ticketed Passengers  
User currently offlineLeopold From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (11 years 12 months 12 hours ago) and read 3346 times:

Does anyone know how long access to the terminals in the USA will be limited to only ticketed passengers? I know that they have been doing that for years in europe, but that was never the custom here. will it ever change or are is that likely to be a permanent new fixture in our airports?

55 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBrons2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3007 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (11 years 12 months 12 hours ago) and read 3335 times:

I don't think it will go back. There's no real rational reason for it. People can meet outside security in the baggage claim area, or any other place.


Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
User currently offlineFlynavy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (11 years 12 months 11 hours ago) and read 3289 times:

Brons2 is correct. Don't hold your breath. Security takes priority over someone wanting to meet their loved one 2 minutes earlier or someone wanting to take photographs of airplanes. Non-ticketed access to gates will never return, and if it does I will be thoroughly pissed and disappointed with the legislator that makes that decision. Also, expect in the near future security check-points at the entrances to terminals and a much greater presence from the U.S. Military at all U.S. airports.

Later,
Chris in Orlando


User currently offlineTom in NO From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 7194 posts, RR: 33
Reply 3, posted (11 years 12 months 11 hours ago) and read 3261 times:

Regarding moving security check-points to terminal entrances, I spoke with our director the other day on this issue, and he doesn't see it happening anytime soon, at least not at MSY.

The rationale of keeping terrorists, or at least those with criminal intent from committing crimes in ticket lobbies doesn't completely justify moving checkpoints. In our minds, moving checkpoints further forward in the terminal simply means that a criminal would simply conduct his business on the departure/arrival ramps, etc. Simply stated, if you move the checkpoints, you are simply moving the problem to another area.

As for lessening the restrictions on visitors going down concourses, we don't see it happening, either.

Tom in NO (at MSY)



"The criminal ineptitude makes you furious"-Bruce Springsteen, after seeing firsthand the damage from Hurricane Katrina
User currently offlineSAS23 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (11 years 12 months 11 hours ago) and read 3254 times:

It's ticketed passengers only beyond security everywhere else in the world ... why should the US be different?

User currently offlineScottysAir From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (11 years 12 months 11 hours ago) and read 3251 times:

Now, It's is TIME to bring with the visitors are back into the concourses right now!!!! I hate to said something with an the Only Ticketed Passengers sign at the checkpoint and I did take it away from the checkpoint. This is exactly way I do not want to see it anyone at the airports. This must completed is finished with sign at the checkpoints. Let's have chance bring with the gate area is back!!!!! Said with the customers are very happy to be back again and don't even need to be all of US airports about this one. Just only some of the US Airports.

VOTE NOW WITH SAID NO TO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER AT THE AIRPORTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


User currently offlineFlynavy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (11 years 12 months 11 hours ago) and read 3244 times:

I'm sorry, what was that?

User currently offlineUal777contrail From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (11 years 12 months 10 hours ago) and read 3234 times:

i hope it never changes.it is much easier this way,as an agent it helps.



ual 777 contrail


User currently offlineNonrevman From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1291 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (11 years 12 months 10 hours ago) and read 3228 times:

The only objection I have (along with many others) is that security is often a congested hassle as it stands. Even with only ticketed passengers going through, there is still a lot of gridlock in place. I have seen some improvement, but we have a way to go yet with improving the process of going through security. They just simply cannot accomodate all of those extra people going through the checkpoint. It looks like the present situation of employees and ticketed passengers only will continue. Yes, it is bad for spotting and that is unfortunate. Airline CEO's have stated that the "hassle factor" with the check in process and security has hurt the airline industry very much. The last thing we need right now is for the security process to become even more of a pain.

User currently offlineNebFlyer From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 45 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (11 years 12 months 10 hours ago) and read 3223 times:

I said this in the "9/11 Excuse" thread, but I'll say it here too... the terrorists on that awful day FOLLOWED THE RULES. They were TICKETED PASSENGERS. They did NOT bring any "weapons" on board, or at least "weapons" as defined that day.
From what I can see, the "security" measures we have implemented in airports since 9/11 would NOT have stopped those terrorists. The only thing the new "security" measures have done is to create a false sense of security, and of course make traveling a huge hassle.
We are losing our civil liberties, and like obedient sheep, the majority of the American public is going along with it in the name of "security."


User currently offlineRickB From United Kingdom, joined May 2003, 243 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (11 years 12 months 10 hours ago) and read 3218 times:

If I translated that correctly - I think he was in favour of visitors being allowed past security check points.

That being the case I would have to disagree - without visitors the concourses are less crowded, security checkpoints are less busy (and lets face it the queues at security are bad enough at the moment) and its generally safer.

As I have said in the past, a terrorist could come and go through security checkpoints as often as he wants unarmed (since he no longer needs a ticket he could travel through the same checkpoint multiple times - he would be unarmed so would not be stopped as he is doing nothing wrong) and its possible he could spot potential lapses in security. These lapses could be exploited later on by an armed terrorist. Letting visitors back in would reduce security overall and its something I'm not in favour of.

RickB


User currently offlineSeiple From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (11 years 12 months 10 hours ago) and read 3202 times:

Alright.
Now, It's is TIME to bring with the visitors are back into the concourses right now!!!! I hate to said something with an the Only Ticketed Passengers sign at the checkpoint and I did take it away from the checkpoint. This is exactly way I do not want to see it anyone at the airports. This must completed is finished with sign at the checkpoints. Let's have chance bring with the gate area is back!!!!! Said with the customers are very happy to be back again and don't even need to be all of US airports about this one. Just only some of the US Airports.

Why do non-passengers deserve to be let down to the gates? As others have previously said, it is this way everywhere else in the world. With the additional procedures at security checkpoints, it takes additional time to process passengers. The lines are already much longer than they were prior to 11 Sept. when everybody and their mother was clearing security on a daily basis to either meet people at the jetway or just loiter around the gates. There are less people clearing security now and it takes longer. Why should somebody rushing to make their flight miss it because there is a line full of people who have no purpose at the airport other than to photograph airplanes from the windows and otherwise loiter without contributing business to the airlines? The intent of the new security regulations is not to say that those who aren't traveling are a danger if let behind security. It is simply to limit the volume of people needing to be processed at checkpoints to allow the expanded and indepth process to move at a more expeditious rate thanks to less waiting in line.

VOTE NOW WITH SAID NO TO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER AT THE AIRPORTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why is this? The federal takeover of airport security is an improvement. They are implimenting many new processes and procedures that the airlines would not pay for if security was once again left up to them and their individual contracts with private independant security firms. Pay people more, give them some incentive to do well with advancement opportunities and they will be better workers. This is what the federal government is doing with its new TSA troops at the nation's airports. Many travelers prefer these new federal workers to the previous mostly rude and unmotivated minimum-wagers.


User currently offlineFlynavy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (11 years 12 months 10 hours ago) and read 3199 times:

I am preaching to the choir here (perhaps over-reacting as well), but how many people have to die in order for some people to stop whining about the supposed "inconvenience" security checkpoints present, and racial profiling (which is justified)?!

DO NOT FORGET what happened on September 11, 2001.

Chris in Orlando


User currently offlineNonrevman From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1291 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (11 years 12 months 10 hours ago) and read 3197 times:

Flynavy,

Read the rest of my paragraph, please. I was trying to explain that if everyone else was allowed through the checkpoint would create even more of a jam than exists now.

Note the sentence that you quoted from me and read my next sentence. It says:

It looks like the present situation of employees and ticketed passengers only will continue

Read the whole thing before you respond. Lord!

Nonrevman


User currently offlineSeiple From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (11 years 12 months 10 hours ago) and read 3191 times:

NebFlyer,
From what I can see, the "security" measures we have implemented in airports since 9/11 would NOT have stopped those terrorists. The only thing the new "security" measures have done is to create a false sense of security, and of course make traveling a huge hassle.

Actually, new security measures would have made it more difficult for the 11 Sept terrorists on several points:
1.) Their box cutters would not have been allowed.
2.) Purchasing one way tickets day of departure with cash would have flagged for additional security and background checks.
3.) Additional security in passenger manifests is flagging some persons as potential threats.... no doubt some of these persons in question would have been flagged due to their being on immigration watch lists.
4.) More thorough searches and secondary searches caused by the one-way/cash flag would probably have disarmed the terrorists due to stricter regulations as far as items permissible in carry-on baggage. If not readily apparent in a cursory search, the bags opened and searched at the gate with their secondary examination would have increased the chances of finding the items.


User currently offlineTrvlr From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4430 posts, RR: 21
Reply 15, posted (11 years 12 months 10 hours ago) and read 3177 times:

It is my firm belief that non-ticketholders should be allowed inside the terminals.

However, I don't recommend their readmittance until security procedures are stringet yet efficient enough to accomodate them without endangering the terminal.

Removing non-ticketholders from terminals is a good band-aid measure in that it allows for an easier overhaul of aviation security due to reduced volumes of people going through checkpoints. However, making it a permanent measure hurts airports' economies, inconveniences travelers, and, most of all, betrays confidence in the air security system.

So I say: BRING BACK VISITORS! But only when the time is right.

Aaron G.


User currently offlineTwaneedsnohelp From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (11 years 12 months 10 hours ago) and read 3175 times:

Why do non-passengers deserve to be let down to the gates?

Well for one reason, its their money building the place.

Purchasing one way tickets day of departure with cash would have flagged for additional security and background checks.

thats bullshit and you know it. Very few if any background checks are being performed on passengers.

TNNH


User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 23
Reply 17, posted (11 years 12 months 10 hours ago) and read 3169 times:

It has very little if anything to do with security. It has to do with efficiently and convenience. Right now if 5-10 times the number of people wanted to go through the security checkpoints, you would have even longer lines and even more delays. Then you would have people b*tching and whining about it. The only way it will happen is if a way is found to make the screening process as close to perfect as possible and where it only take 30 seconds or less per person. Don’t count on that for a while.


"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineSeiple From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (11 years 12 months 10 hours ago) and read 3164 times:

Removing non-ticketholders from terminals is a good band-aid measure in that it allows for an easier overhaul of aviation security due to reduced volumes of people going through checkpoints. However, making it a permanent measure hurts airports' economies, inconveniences travelers, and, most of all, betrays confidence in the air security system.

However, many airports have repositioned security to allow greater access to retail outlets without having to clear security. Jacksonville, FL, for example.... moved security from a central point and replaced it with three individual checkpoints (one for each concourse). Now, the food court and shops are open to all. I'd be interested to see sales number comparisons before and after the new regulations were initiated. I put forward a guess that there is not much change in sales for retail outlets far out in the gate concourses. Most using them were passengers anyway. Many departing passengers and those with them already ate together before security out of pure convenience. Also, more passengers are staying inside of security on connections instead of straying outside and using those restaurants. It all evens out in the end.

As far as inconveniencing passengers.... the new regulations are more an inconvenience to non-passengers. They can't go behind security for whatever purpose. Passengers still can go everywhere they need to go. The biggest inconvenience is that they'll have to meet people (in most airports) just a few hundred feet from where they would previously. As for departing passengers being seen off by others.... they just have to say their good-byes a few minutes earlier. I see the only real inconvenience is to aviation enthusiasts (which is probably why this is such a hot issue on these boards).


User currently offlineSeiple From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (11 years 12 months 10 hours ago) and read 3159 times:

Twaneedsnohelp,

Well for one reason, its their money building the place.
Well, our taxpayer money is being used to build police stations, military bases, prisons, government office buildings, power plants, etc. I guess by your logic we should have free reign of all of these places.

thats bull and you know it. Very few if any background checks are being performed on passengers.

I should have said "in theory." Supposedly this happens. Supposedly passenger lists are checked against things like terrorist and immigration watch lists. But, we don't all know for sure as it is top secret, after all. (by the way, sorry for editing you in my quote, but I don't want some petty moderator deleting this post for the silly reason of a commonplace not-so-obscene obscenity)


User currently offlineAndie007 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 861 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (11 years 12 months 10 hours ago) and read 3137 times:

At Germany non-ticketed passengers were never allowed at the transit zones, gates, etc.
I never understand why this was allowed im America.
I was very confused at L.A. where lots of people were in the after-security zone...


User currently offlineWn700driver From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (11 years 12 months 9 hours ago) and read 3110 times:

Worrying about PAX being a security concern is a complete waste of time. My experiences show me that a well motivated flight-crew is a much more likely source of mayhem in the skies of the future. If someone is motivated enough to kill themselves for a cause, what's a year or two of flight school?
Anyways, the only reason I am bothered by all this is that

A. I pay for it with increased surcharges added to the price of passage

B. I can be unduly harrassed because a security guard (read: school bully who couldn't get a job with the local PD) is curious, bored, or paranoid.

C. I am not at all safer than I was on the 10th of last September.

All we are doing is breeding smarter terrorists while conscientiously avoiding dealing with the actual problem --i.e., the ony real security.

Cheers


User currently offlineFlynavy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (11 years 12 months 9 hours ago) and read 3092 times:

The following two, count them two, paragraphs are non directed at any one user. They are generalized statements.

Some people feel that post-September 11 security measures aren't working and may be a waste of "tax-payer" dollars, and they have a right to feel that way. However, since they are such a waste of time and money, let's have the Federal government remove all of the post-September 11 security measures. Would you feel safer then? And, you being the critic, let's hear some of your brilliant ideas. Could YOU do a better job?

Further, (and this is in no way directed towards any one individual) do not claim to be a tax-payer unless you file Federal and/or state income tax each year. A 16 year-old, who's parents must buy his airline tickets for him, and who only pays sales tax for a candybar, is NOT a tax-payer.

Sarcasm aside, in response to my now deleted post, I must apologize to nonrevman. I am for current security measures and I am for a future increase in security measures, 100%. Non-ticketed individuals have no logical or valid reason to be let past security check-points. This is the way it should be.

Later,
Chris in Orlando  Big thumbs up


User currently offlineSrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (11 years 12 months 9 hours ago) and read 3088 times:

In some ways, the FAA allowed the hijackings to take place because they wouldn't enact more serious security measure because the airlines whined to them about the costs associated with them. After Pan Am 103, it was suggested that all flights in the U.S. (domestics and international) go to a positive bag match system. The airlines balked at this, citing that it would require more time and expenses to roll out such programs systemwide, so they managed to only get it applied to International flights only. Yes, this wouldn't have stopped the hijackers in that respect, which leads to my next point. The bag matching system is based on the idea that a bomber wouldn't travel on a plane that contained the bomb they had placed in baggage; this as we all know is utter bull****, just look at the suicide bombings that take place in many parts of the world. The boxcutters. This little loophole turned out to be quite large. Tools such as these were waived from the security requirements by not only the airlines, but by the various pilot's unions. They argued that the knives they carried (at the time the Swiss Army Knife was the one of choice) were essential to their work in case they needed to so any minor flightdeck mx (Or so they say. I think they were using it for the corkscrew.......), and so with that in mind, all knives with blades of less than 3" were allowed to be carried onboard. The FAA basically thought, "Who's going to hijack a plane with a pocketknife?" Boy, they definitely paid for that thought. The airlines now have no problem with the regs placed upon them post-9/11; it's a shame that so many lives had to be lost in order to drive some sense into the airlines and into the FAA. As for allowing non-ticketed persons into the sterile (i.e., gates, etc.) areas, I say yes, with some reservation. People should be able to see people off at the gate and be able to meet them at the gate when their flight arrives. Since the airports in the U.S. have in general been designed with passengers and non-traveling companions in mind, most do not have the arrivals areas like at many airports around the world, save at international concourses, and at many airports, those areas are off imits to non-ticket passengers as well, defeating some part of the design of the concourse. Retail shops in many airports have suffered as well. It used to be people dropping off passengers would have a drink, a snack or a meal at the airport before the flight, now with the new regs, those businesses are seeing revenue drop. Perhaps making portions of the concourses "sterile" and keeping the main areas open to the general public would be the best idea.

User currently offlinePROSA From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5628 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (11 years 12 months 9 hours ago) and read 3077 times:

Some U.S. airports had ticketed-pax-only restrictions in effect even before September 11th. An example was the AA terminals at JFK.


"Let me think about it" = the coward's way of saying "no"
25 Greg : Don't bring them back! It's much nicer without all the extra people. Shorter lines at the bars, shops, etc... Also...less children!
26 ScottysAir : Greg, Just please bring them back with the visitors are goes into the concourse again as for possible. It's is time to be bring it back go through of
27 Seiple : ScottysAir, I'm sorry, but I still don't see any legitimate reason why security checkpoints should be reopened to everybody. Should they be opened to
28 Post contains images TWAneedsnohelp : ScottysAir, I'm sorry, I know you are hard of hearing, but I can't understand one goddamn thing you wrote. Why did they make sign language so differen
29 Seiple : Russ, Having spoken with a few people, apparently passenger manifests are checked against a government-compiled list of "question passengers" which in
30 Flyboy36y : When I was in LBB my flight jut landed. I went to get my bags and tried to re enter the security area. THey would not let me. I was stuck for hours wi
31 Flynavy : I would call it smart, personally. Jacob: First of all, you KNEW that you couldn't get past security if you weren't a ticketed passenger. You created
32 SJCguy : Could you only imagine what the wait and lines would be if everybody and anybody was allowed thru security!?!? It takes forever for just ticketed pax
33 Krags : I have to admit that right now I am undecided about allowing everyone into the secured areas. I can certainly understand the reasons for allowing tick
34 Seiple : I have to admit that right now I am undecided about allowing everyone into the secured areas. I can certainly understand the reasons for allowing tic
35 Jjbiv : At TOL, passengers need to have a boarding pass (or priority verification) issued at the airport on the day of departure to pass through security. Our
36 Flyboy36y : Jacob: First of all, you KNEW that you couldn't get past security if you weren't a ticketed passenger. You created the inconvinience for yourself. Thi
37 Flynavy : Again, you KNEW that you couldn't get past security if you weren't a ticketed passenger. You created the inconvinience for yourself.
38 Jhooper : Some U.S. airports had ticketed-pax-only restrictions in effect even before September 11th. An example was the AA terminals at JFK. Yea, my local airp
39 ILUV767 : I'll say what has already been said but, if non ticketed passengers were presently allowed past the checkpoint, lines would me much longer and more pe
40 Jhooper : We need to see some real reform in security. Most of the procedures in place right now (i.e. checking photo IDs two and three times) do little to enha
41 Kcle : At CLE, I think it should be like this: We have a Spectator Deck, where a good portion of all the A.net photos from CLE were taken. Since the deck is
42 RickB : The point I think people are missing is this:- If a terrorist can walk through a checkpoint 100's of times (rather than just each time he buys a ticke
43 Greg : It's just been SO much nicer with less crowds in the terminals. You can find a place to sit and their are only half as many screaming babies. Although
44 Kwbl : My 2 cents for whatever it's worth: 1. I think non-pax should be allowed back down the concourses. At least in the airports I have been to, this numbe
45 Seiple : Kwbl, Your points are well taken. However, I have yet to see a real convincing argument out of most other than "I want to watch airplanes so they shou
46 Tom in NO : #1) I agree with Seiple, I have also yet to read a single convincing argument for allowing non-ticketed passengers through the checkpoints. The "I jus
47 Post contains images Mr. Mof : I work as an inner-city school teacher in NJ. Pardon my analogy: There is a sure-fire way to cut back on problems in our hallways and that is to LIMIT
48 Eugdog : many shops in the airport concourse are paying huge rents - now that only ticketed passengers are allowed pass the check in desk these shops must be s
49 Nonrevman : Concerning the businesses that operate on the secured side: Even before 9-11, it seems that most of the business came from passengers and employees at
50 Eugdog : As a business man myself I can tell you that the profits are made at the margin - it the last 10-20% of sales that make the profits - the earlier sale
51 Flynavy : Nonrevman is correct. These shops are geared towards the traveling public. Why? Because they are in an AIRPORT. It seems to me like there are two reas
52 ScottysAir : Hey Guys, How about getting ready to chance bring with the visitors are back at concourses and gate area again. It's is TIME to let bring it back! I w
53 Tom in NO : I think people are missing my point a little bit when I mention secured-area retail shops post-9/11. Fact is, most shops did see a loss in revenue (as
54 MD88Captain : Getting through security now is a time consuming process. Allowing non-ticketed passengers through to the gates will increase the hassle factor for al
55 Seiple : ScottysAir, How about getting ready to chance bring with the visitors are back at concourses and gate area again. It's is TIME to let bring it back! I
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...
How Long Will It Be Before... posted Sun Apr 30 2000 01:32:48 by Flying_727
Ghana International - How Long Will It Last? posted Wed Apr 5 2006 15:24:33 by ChiefT
The 787 Interior - How Successful Will It Be? posted Mon Nov 21 2005 21:06:22 by 1337Delta764
Kingfisher - How Sucessfull Will It Be posted Wed Sep 22 2004 12:03:41 by HAWK21m
UPS DC-8s----how long will they be used? posted Mon Oct 6 2003 22:42:29 by Cancidas
Midwest MCI-SFO: How Long Will It Last? posted Mon Apr 28 2003 20:58:14 by MSYtristar
How Long Will Pilots Be Needed? posted Thu Aug 16 2001 19:37:59 by 28flyer
DC-8s And 707s-how Long Will They Still Be Around? posted Thu Nov 9 2006 20:04:33 by Ferret
How Long Will The 747SP Be Around? posted Sun Apr 9 2006 22:07:52 by SmithAir747
How Long Will SQ154/5/162/3 Be Op By 345? posted Mon Nov 22 2004 12:23:58 by Pe@rson