Air travel security is retarded - why?

[BozMan82]

NTB - Thank you for your insight.

Regarding the accuracy of passenger manifests, what about security at the gate?

I remember getting a flight out of LAX last Christmas. When I got to my seat on the plane, some chick was already in it. We showed each other our boarding passes, and they were both for the same seat. Initially I thought a computer glitch assigned the same seat twice. The flight attendant eventually came over with the passenger manifest and inspected our boarding passes. It turned out that the girl was on the wrong plane!

The idiots working the gate for US Airways let someone on the plane without bothering to check that her boarding pass matched the flight! Looking back, it was not hard to see why passengers might mistakenly enter the wrong gate. The airline was constantly changing the gates around, and with all the noise in the terminal, it can be hard to hear the announcements.

Is this a security vulnerability? Could terrorists exploit this by stealing boarding passes or using fake ones?

Let's say a would-be terrorist makes it through the security checkpoint. Then, and only then, are authorities made aware of the security breach and able to identify the passenger. His flight is ordered not to take off. Undercover agents wait for him at his scheduled flight's gate, but he never shows. Turns out he boarded a completely different flight and has long since left the airport. Far fetched?

While it would be inconvenient, I think ID-verification at the gate would be helpful. At the very minimum, the airlines could require passengers to produce a photo ID at the gate and require their employees to verify all the flight information matches.

BTW, there is new technology in the pipeline to make going through security a lot less invasive. See here.

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
The idiots working the gate for US Airways let someone on the plane without bothering to check that her boarding pass matched the flight

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems extraordinary to me.

At all Australian airports boarding passes are checked at the entrance to the plane and once again onboard. The vast majority of checks at the entrance to the plane are through a computerised boarding pass scanning device.

If they're done manually, a flight attendant lists down the number of each boarding pass (a list to check off) as the passenger boards.

[Dale Dough]

Recently when flying from Amsterdam I was carrying a large bag with a smaller one inside.

Conversation at the security line:

'Sir, do you have any liquids still left in the bag? Because our scanner shows something strange, maybe a huge bottle of water!'

'No, I'm pretty sure I didn't take anything'

(take bag through scanner again) 'Yup, it's still there. Afraid we're gonna have to search your bag, sir'

At this point, I open the bag, and instinctively take out the small bag, that is laying on top, and hang it over my shoulder. I always do this before boarding, because it has my glasses, ipod, book/magazines etc that I want to have on me in the plane.

There were like three or four guys standing there, and NOBODY says anything. I was literally the last person to board the plane, too (yes, in time, you nits). Instead, they search through the large bag, which only has clothes.

'Hmm nothing. OK let's scan it one more time'

The suspicious image on their X-ray has mysteriously disappeared.

'OK sir you may go now, looks like we made a mistake'

[NewTeaBag]

WRT security at the gates:

All airlines should be using machine readable boarding passes that instantly detect whether or not the passenegr belongs on that particular flight.

If they are not using these than the airline reps should be doing another BP inspection and ID inspection. If this didn't happen, as in the example case, the airline fecked up.

WRT dale dough's "bag in bag" story, unfortunately idiots exist in all professions. It appears you found a group of them in Amsterdam that day.
Look back to one of my other post regarding somethings I used to do and you won't be surprised to know that Amsterdam was one of the airports I penetrated.

TSA cannot mandate what airports do in other countries. All HSD can do is issue upgrade and threat warnings. If a particular country's security is horrendously bad, then they have the option to disallow flights originating from that country landing rights within CONUS. This measure has only been threatened several times and used once I believe.

[TheWorstPlayer]

I see signs in places saying that the main airport in Indonesia does not use proper security measures and US citizens are not supposed to fly there. What's the deal with that?

[NewTeaBag]

[ QUOTE ]
I see signs in places saying that the main airport in Indonesia does not use proper security measures and US citizens are not supposed to fly there. What's the deal with that?

[/ QUOTE ]

That means Indonesia are just a step away from being blackballed and having flights originating from or passing through there losing landing rights within CONUS.

IOW, there security is weak sauce for various reasons, BUT the state Dept. WOn't allow HSD to completly blackball them ust yet, for politcal reasons.

[Emperor]

This can all be resolved by requiring everyone on the airplane to carry a handgun. Pass them out at the security point.

[Jay.]

I had the same thought as TWP about the liquid measures when traveling. That seems like it will do nothing to combat terrorism to me.

You're reason for why it was in place is,

'Yes there have been significant advances in explosive developments such that restricting liquids can be a significant help to flight security.'

You're allowed < 100ml per bottle. It's not a huge deterrent for a terrorist to pack extra bottles and/or have other members join them on the same flight.

'Also, it gives TSA a simple and explainable reason to do a more thorough search through your carry on luggage.'

That's a really minor reason. Their airline security, you agreed to their measures and they don't need any excuse.

I still have no idea how this works, i guess it obviously does since smarter people than i with more money on the line thought more than me about this, but someone please enlighten me.

I'm all in support of shoes in the x ray, random checks, etc. but the liquids one still doesn't make any sense to me even w/ your answer.

[Jay.]

Just another pointless pet peeve of mine but how is it possible with tons of signs, warnings and staff calling out the liquid rule that you still get TONS of idiots trying to walk through w/ their can of coke in hand or aftershave in bag.

And last one, the people who plead with security to just let them off and go through with their perfume. WTF do they expect! 'sure lady. i mean we spend lots of hours and money to put this policy in place to combat terrorists killing thousands of people but since you said 'aww come on, please' twice i'll make a special exception for you.'

[NewTeaBag]

[ QUOTE ]
I had the same thought as TWP about the liquid measures when traveling. That seems like it will do nothing to combat terrorism to me.

You're reason for why it was in place is,

'Yes there have been significant advances in explosive developments such that restricting liquids can be a significant help to flight security.'

You're allowed < 100ml per bottle. It's not a huge deterrent for a terrorist to pack extra bottles and/or have other members join them on the same flight.

'Also, it gives TSA a simple and explainable reason to do a more thorough search through your carry on luggage.'

That's a really minor reason. Their airline security, you agreed to their measures and they don't need any excuse.

I still have no idea how this works, i guess it obviously does since smarter people than i with more money on the line thought more than me about this, but someone please enlighten me.

I'm all in support of shoes in the x ray, random checks, etc. but the liquids one still doesn't make any sense to me even w/ your answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't like accepting what may seem "cover stories" or pretenses myself. As much as I know how it sounds and I hate sounding like an "I can't tell you the whole story" kind of prick, this below is the best answer I can give.


[ QUOTE ]
In closing, try and remember the big picture and the little picture as you get pissed off ye again at the delays. Not everything is exactly for it's stated purpose and you don't and shouldn't have to know the exact reasoning behind the security procedures as long as you understand the the overall goal/purpose. If I tell you exactly what I'm going to ask you on a test, and you are reasonably intelligent, you will study, and you will pass the test. If I tell you the basic subject and change the questions a bit now and again, and then force you to do annoying things, you may or may not pass the test BUT you're far more likely to fail if you have hidden intentions and don't know ll the answrs beforehand.


[/ QUOTE ]