Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
My 2 Year Annniversary Of Airliners.net  
User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 47
Posted (12 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1620 times:

Cool!


Username: Matt D
Real Name: Withheld
E-mail: Withheld
Gender: Male
Age: 26-35
Country: United States
Location: Ticketed Passengers Only Beyond This Point
Occupation: Ticketed Passengers Only Beyond This Point
Hobbies: Ticketed Passengers Only Beyond This Point
Homepage: Ticketed Passengers Only Beyond This Point
Other info: No airline in this world will receive another dime from me as long as Ticketed Passengers Only Beyond This Point signage remains in place. FAA: Take note.
Joined Airliners.net: Exactly 2years ago! (November 18, 1999)
Last post: 21min 16sec ago (November 18, 2001)
Total Nr of posts: 3570
View posts by member Matt D in forum:
Civil Aviation: [All posts] [Only thread starters]

Tech/Ops: [All posts] [Only thread starters]

Aviation Hobby: [All posts] [Only thread starters]

Aviation Photography: [All posts] [Only thread starters]

Trip Reports: [All posts] [Only thread starters]

Photo Requests: [All posts] [Only thread starters]

Non Aviation: [All posts] [Only thread starters]

Military Aviation: [All posts] [Only thread starters]



Respected Users:
What's this? Starship, rotate777, DeltaRNOmd-80, superfly, N863DA, AWA320, chris28_17, iflycoach, USAir767, DG_pilot, flygga, redngold, N400QX, EGGD, AerLingus


Respected By: JWM AirTrans, Winair, Purdue Arrow, AWA320, DG_pilot, blink182, Tom in NO, awaramper, Starship, meister808, bacardi182, USAir767, 747-600X, MD-90, BA FOREVER, JetService, tacoboeing, AerLingus, redngold, N863DA, CVG777, KROC, C72, DeltaRNOmd-80, USAFHummer, Ericmetallica, JRodriguez136, Peter, Delta777-XXX, mx5_boy, jetblue26, Tupolev154B2, lowfareair, Chris28_17, endofdays, Greeneyes53787, iflycoach, jiml1126, N312RC, 747-451, apollo13, G Dubya, L-1011-500, Flight152, United_Fan, kevin, CrewChief32, AA767Boy, CleCO, MaxPowers, QuadstarA343E!, leftseat86, mrman_3k, fightingfalcon, EGGD, airbusluver, I Like To Fly, SunAir, Western727, VgnAtl747, SIA_B777, matt86, N400QX, Timmay, airlinelover, B757-223, 9V-SVA




23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 35
Reply 1, posted (12 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1598 times:

Congratulations:

Username: EGGD
Real Name: Dan Hamer
E-mail: flyto_eggd@yahoo.co.uk
Gender: Male
Age: 13-15
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Bristol
Occupation: No info
Hobbies:
Homepage: http://aircraft.8m.net
Other info:

Joined Airliners.net: 267 days ago (February 23, 2001)

Last post: 11h 53min ago (November 18, 2001)

Total Nr of posts: 3301

View posts by member EGGD in forum:
Civil Aviation: [All posts] [Only thread starters]

Tech/Ops: [All posts] [Only thread starters]

Aviation Hobby: [All posts] [Only thread starters]

Aviation Photography: [All posts] [Only thread starters]

Trip Reports: [All posts] [Only thread starters]

Photo Requests: [All posts] [Only thread starters]

Non Aviation: [All posts] [Only thread starters]

Military Aviation: [All posts] [Only thread starters]



Respected Users:
What's this? KLM747, GKirk, Staffan, englandair, AC320, Aloha 737-200, USAFHummer, Lindy, Matt D, Joona, Jetservice, Jan Mogren, Thom@s, 777gk, KLM672, N312RC, EGBB, ryanb741, NoUFO, Aviatsiya

Respected By: Lindy, KLM672, Matt D, BH346, VAMAN, JetService, CXA330-342, Delta717, DT11K, JAL, USAFHummer, We're Nuts, gkirk, 777gk, iflycoach, N312RC, OO-VEG, englandair, Thom@s, AC320, Ren41, US330, SESGDL, turbolet, leftseat86, KLM747, ryanb741, fightingfalcon, airbusluver, I Like To Fly, RoyalDutch, BY757, Aloha 737-200, NoUFO, Airplanelover, SIA_B777, Jaspike, high_flyr69, Joona, B747-436, airlinelover, OH-LZA, DELL_dude, pgh234, skymileman, hoons90, DeltaRules, EGFF, Staffan, HSVXJ, Wietse


hehe  Smokin cool


User currently offlineIainhol From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (12 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1573 times:

Matt D so you are not flying again?
Iain


User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 47
Reply 3, posted (12 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1568 times:

Matt D so you are not flying again?


I am not flying STILL.


User currently offlineLeftseat86 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (12 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1568 times:

Happy 2 years Matt!  Big thumbs up

Username: leftseat86
Real Name: Clovis
E-mail: leftseat86@hotmail.com
Gender: Male
Age: 16-20
Country: United States
Location: Los Angeles CA/Toulouse France
Occupation: Student, (10th grade)
Hobbies: Flying,models, drawing airports, music,basketballskateboarding
Homepage: www.cdbanzai.com
Other info: Want to be an airline pilot, not a big fan of autopilot
Joined Airliners.net: 294 days ago (January 27, 2001)
Last post: 1h 16min ago (November 18, 2001)
Total Nr of posts: 799
View posts by member leftseat86 in forum:
Civil Aviation: [All posts] [Only thread starters]

Tech/Ops: [All posts] [Only thread starters]

Aviation Hobby: [All posts] [Only thread starters]

Aviation Photography: [All posts] [Only thread starters]

Trip Reports: [All posts] [Only thread starters]

Photo Requests: [All posts] [Only thread starters]

Non Aviation: [All posts] [Only thread starters]

Military Aviation: [All posts] [Only thread starters]



Respected Users:
What's this? We're Nuts, Superfly, Hepkat, Matt D, Royal Dutch, Jaspike, heavymetal, EGGD, RealHigh, JetService, flpuck6, KROC, AFC_Ajax00, Goodbye, yazoo, ryanb741, Thom@s, Turbolet, ILS, SFOintern
Respected By: flpuck6, JetService, l'espace180, AFC_Ajax00, turbolet, PHX-LJU, RoyalDutch, Jaspike, dragogoalie, ILS
Photo Albums:
What's this? Create Photo Album


Close Window Edit Profile Add to Respected Users List


User currently offlineIrishFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (12 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1554 times:

I'm glad I'm not the only one who is pissed about "Ticketed Passengers Only Behind This Point". What the heck is that suppose to do? Does the FAA think we're gonna go run on a plane without a ticket and hijack it?

~IrishFlyer~


User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 47
Reply 6, posted (12 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1551 times:

This is why I'm so fumed about Bush and Co. and the way this has been handled.

Banning cars from curbside.
Eliminating Skycaps
Ticketed passengers only in gate areas
National Guardsmen at security areas


NONE of these measures would've prevented 9/11 from happening. I'm getting burned out saying this over and over again, but the US Gov't is bumbling around and chasing its own tail, or shadows, or both on this and are doing nothing but hurting the people (and economies) they purport to protect. And quite frankly, if they don't clean up their act, and clean it up soon, it will cost Mr Bush my vote in 2004. That's how strongly I feel about it. Although he is not directly responsible for these measures, the people that MAKE those decisions were put there by Mr Bush and he can always issue them an order.


They're stumbling their way now to do what should've been done 20 years ago: make security screeners Federal Employees, and hire competent (and I might add-awake) personnel and pay them a decent wage.

Second, the Air Marshall program was a stroke of genius. Not every flight had one, but you never knew which one did. Would've (and still could) worked great.

If there is a concern about bombs in cars, why not have the bomb sniffing dogs roaming about?

The "immediate loading and unloading of passengers only" clause with curbside parking would've worked....had it actually been enforced.


And the list goes on.

Like I said. Security can bee beefed up quite well and still be transparent and of minimum inconvenience to the travelling public.....if that's what the Gov't really wants.


But all this talk about "beefed up"?


....I'm thinking more "screwed up".


User currently offlineSQ325 From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 1451 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (12 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1543 times:



User currently offlineIainhol From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (12 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1538 times:

Matt D have you seen the lines to get through security?? When I was at EWR the other week the line was about 800 feet long. The reason for this was they where being extra vigilant on screening people and the contents of every bag. Can you imagine what it would have been like if non ticket holders where allowed past? Also with a less crowded concourse security will be able to identify suspicous looking people a lot easier. Also what good reason do you have for allowing non-passengers past? It just costs the airlines extra in security costs!
Also what the government has to do is make the general public feel safe using air-travel (even if the measures are more feel good measures), otherwise there are going to be 1000's more job losses, and the economy will go into decline more then it already is.
Think a little bit, and expand your mind!
Iain


User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13738 posts, RR: 19
Reply 9, posted (12 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1533 times:

Happy two years! And notice Kroc hasn't appeared! SHAME!  Smile/happy/getting dizzy


Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineLeftseat86 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (12 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1531 times:

Matt, I feel very much the same. What we are doing is ruining our lives and causing many to live in fear.
I live for the day when SOMEBODY will put things somewhat back to normal...


User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 47
Reply 11, posted (12 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1529 times:

Matt D have you seen the lines to get through security?? When I was at EWR the other week the line was about 800 feet long. The reason for this was they where being extra vigilant on screening people and the contents of every bag

I have not been to an airport since 9/11. However that doesn't surprise me. I would just respond to this with two questions. First, was EVERY available line open? Or were people being funneled through one detector?
Second, were they *really* being vigilant, or were they engaging in a slowdown so as to look like they were paying attention?

Also with a less crowded concourse security will be able to identify suspicous looking people a lot easier


Exactly what would a "suspicious" person look like? Do you think that if someone were to try and blow up the building that they are going to wear a sign that says "hey look at me! I'm a terrorist"?
Of course not. And if anyone WERE to try and sneak something in and try and create a ruckus, that comes back to the (in)effectiveness of screening way back at the checkpoint.
So IMO, your argument is not valid, or at least, very weak and far fetched.


Also what good reason do you have for allowing non-passengers past? It just costs the airlines extra in security costs!

Well why not? Friends....family seeing off/meeting people. I've had this discussion before. Maybe someone like many of us find that inside the gate areas is the best location for spotting/photography. Maybe daddy is taking junior to show him the planes....maybe someone is going to take their first airplane ride in a week, and they have never flown before and he is there to "expose" himself to the planes to put his mind at ease. Maybe there is a cool gift shop or diner with an awesome view of the planes. I mean the reasons go on and on.
How is that an added burden to the airlines? Isn't security a fixed cost? Wouldn't it cost the same if 1 person or 10,000 passed a screening station?





User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 47
Reply 12, posted (12 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1523 times:

And I would also like to add that in case you forgot, all 19 people that took those 4 planes down were ticketed passengers.

So tell me again how restricting NON ticketed passengers is a truly effective measure.....?


User currently offlineLeftseat86 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (12 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1519 times:

It isnt! !!!! !
 Smile


User currently offlineKROC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (12 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1515 times:

Singapore Air. Matt D gets a pass, because I rarely see him self-glossing. Unlike you, who starts a thread everytime you take a piss. Go see your thread, you won't be disappointed.

User currently offlineIainhol From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (12 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1512 times:

>>I have not been to an airport since 9/11. However that doesn't surprise me. I would just respond to this with two questions. First, was EVERY available line open? Or were people being funneled through one detector?
Second, were they *really* being vigilant, or were they engaging in a slowdown so as to look like they were paying attention?<<

All the metal detectors where operating.
As for them being more vigilant, I would say overal yes, especially with bags, I would say 40-50% where being checked.

There is no need for anyone apart from ticketed passengers past security, wanting to look at planes is no reason, you can do that from outside. There are plenty of good resturants, and shops outisde the airport you can go to. You can also say goodbye before then! Your whole spotter arguement is ridiculous, I have never really understood spotting in the form many people on this site do it. Yes I have gone down to the airport and take pictures on maybe 3-4 occasions, mainly for the photography; I would have been as happy to take pictures of something else that was equally as interesting. People on this site taking spotting too seriously, I honestly think spotting in the forms seen on this site is pretty sad!
Security is a fixed cost, however like most fixed costs if graphed it would be stepped (i.e. between 1-100 the cost is $1 between 100-200 it might be $2 [they have to open up another machine for the demand])
Iain


User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 47
Reply 16, posted (12 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1510 times:

Exactly what would a "suspicious" person look like? Do you think that if someone were to try and blow up the building that they are going to wear a sign that says "hey look at me! I'm a terrorist"?
Of course not. And if anyone WERE to try and sneak something in and try and create a ruckus, that comes back to the (in)effectiveness of screening way back at the checkpoint.
So IMO, your argument is not valid, or at least, very weak and far fetched.

And I would also like to add that in case you forgot, all 19 people that took those 4 planes down were ticketed passengers.


You still dodged all of these other points. It sounds to me like your only argument is that you don't understand what spotting is all about. That and you seem to be fixated on condemming people to meet/see off people in the parking lot. Fine. I understand that. Just like I don't understand why people attach cords to their waists and jump off of bridges or mountains. Does that mean that I think non-car driving people should be banned from bridges? Should all non geologists or non campers be banned from mountains?

Following your logic, I would think so.

But I don't agree with you.

Again, I remind you: the 19 people responsible for the hijackings of Sept 11 WERE ticketed passengers. If a person were to try and carry an M16 or 5 pounds of C4 into a terminal, he would/should be caught during the screening process.


To tell me again where the effectiveness is.






User currently offlineIainhol From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (12 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1501 times:

The point about the 19 people who bought down the aircraft is irrelivant. The reason people are not allowed passed security is becuase the lines would be too long, and it makes the terminal too crowded to spot suspicous people. I am not sure how they act, I am not involved in that. However my sister used to work for lost prevention, and she can spot suspected shop lifters in seconds of entering the store.
Also what about the case at JFK where a gunman ran aboard the National 757, he did not have a ticket, and held the crew hostage which could have turned into a hi-jacking.
Your point about only geologist and campers only being allowed up mountains shows a lack of thinking. An airport is a lot like a hospital, should everyone be allowed in operating rooms, maybe some people like observing them. Or should it just be the patient, and doctor or nurses?
Iain


User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 47
Reply 18, posted (12 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1497 times:

How did a gunman get all the way from the street to the inside of an airliner?

That is a security failure of the highest order. Why wasn't his gun confiscated at the X-ray and this man apprehended? That has nothing to do with whether or not he was allowed into the boarding area.

As for the terminals being "too crowded", well I'd say that is questionable at best. Again, you are looking to treat the symptom and not the disease. You don't have to worry about a non ticketed passenger detonating a grenade in the gate area if said grenade is caught where it was supposed to be-namely at the security check.

As for my mountain example, I don't think that is irrelevant or ignorant in the least.

That is not an apples to apples comparison. Clearly a hospital operating room SHOULD be limited because of certain clear cut and unambiguous reasons such as life and death, spreading germs/bacteria, and as a distraction to the surgeon(s). There is no argument there by any stretch of the imagination.

Your argument on the other hand is built simply on a foundation of questionable "convenience" and "security" that, rather than puts responsibility where it belongs-namely on the security people, you want to see a blanket policy that punishes everyone but.

So what are you worried about? A purse snatcher? Hey pal, those things happen. And it's not just limited to airports. What's to prevent someone lifting a suitcase out of a restroom while someone is on the crapper and then runs and boards his plane that is 30 seconds from departure?


100% "safety" and "security" is unattainable, and what few examples you point out, I'll be very frank with you-I've shot them all down in flames.

I mean seriously, your argument can be taken to any number of other avenues (some bordering on the absurd)

Take for instance the shopping malls.

Should non-shopping people not be allowed into them? Seriously, we can set up security checkpoints at all mall entrances and requirement for entry would be to show $250 or more in cash. And if you try and exit the mall without a same-day receipt indicating that you did, in fact shop there, would mean instant arrest. After all, what business do you have going to a mall if it isn't to shop? I mean if "window shopping" and browsing were to be eliminated, wouldn't that make the malls less crowded? I guess it would make a shoplifter or troublemaker easier to spot.


User currently offlineIainhol From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (12 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1491 times:

About my example of using an operating room. Before going into an operating room you have to clean up, put on a mask, etc. When going to the departure area you need to through security.
In regards to the national incident, the X-ray machine was right by the gate, so he basically just ran around them, and down the jettie.
Also I have been on numerous aircraft as a non-ticket holding pax. There was a time when the FO asked why I was going to Dallas (there destination), I said I was at the airport to pick up my dad. He was fine with it, but I could have easily stayed onboard, without anyone knowing I was!
IMHO and most of the public there is no need for non-passengers in the secure area.
Iain


User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 47
Reply 20, posted (12 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1489 times:

So what you are saying is that there is "no need" simply for the sake of "no need" as opposed to there being any concrete legitimate reason. Right?

User currently offlineWe're Nuts From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5722 posts, RR: 20
Reply 21, posted (12 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1486 times:

Well if KROC won't say it, I will.

Who gives a flying fuck-diddle-uck?



Dear moderators: No.
User currently offlineWe're Nuts From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5722 posts, RR: 20
Reply 22, posted (12 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1473 times:

Sorry, that should be fuck-DIDDLY-uck. Fuck-diddle-uck is an Afghan city.


Dear moderators: No.
User currently offlineAC_A340 From Canada, joined Sep 1999, 2251 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (12 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1470 times:

Congrats on the two years Matt, I celebrated mine back in September.

With regards to passanger screening, it's gonna hurt the airports big time financially. Just think of all the times you had to go pick someone up at the airport, you're wandering through shops while your waiting and see a magazine you want. Then you get hungry, etc. The thing is American Airports were designed to allow non-ticketed people past.


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...
5 Years Of Airliners. Net (Self Gloss) posted Fri Oct 14 2005 05:48:41 by Roadrunner165
Official Song Of Airliners.net posted Mon Oct 3 2005 09:17:00 by NWOrientDC10
The Good Old Days...of Airliners.net posted Tue Nov 30 2004 06:25:18 by Northwest_guy
This Is My 969th Day On Airliners.net! posted Sun Feb 1 2004 08:18:13 by Airlinelover
My 3936th Post On Airliners.net! posted Sat Jan 31 2004 08:05:55 by Sushka
My Post # 100 In AIRLINERS.NET posted Thu May 8 2003 22:56:40 by UKRAir
The Ghost Of Airliners.net Past.... posted Wed Dec 25 2002 06:58:40 by Kohflot
ATTN: Users Of Airliners.net From:174thfwff (mod) posted Sun Jun 23 2002 19:06:39 by 174thfwff
My Three Years On Airliners.net posted Tue May 21 2002 18:57:58 by Dufo
Space Program Equivalent Of Airliners.net? posted Sun May 19 2002 06:26:20 by Transactoid