why is a box more threatening than a bag?

[CafeClub]

A friend just did me a favor and took delivery of a cardboard box stuffed with xmas presents for the kids. Fedexed to his hotel in London.

He then checked in for the flight back, and the bog standard brown cardboard box (sealed, labelled) went in with the rest of his cases at check-in. Check-in staff stuffed up because they didnt ask him to do the "special box check in process" that seems to apply at UK airports.

He was close to boarding when he was pulled aside and "quizzed" about THE BOX!

Short version: NINE hours later he (and the box) were on a flight home. :eek::ugh:

Made me think of the time recently when i had a similar brown cardboard box at MAN and had to go fill in some form and declare god knows what before being able to check it in.

WTF is this anti-box stuff at UK airports? Dont the scanners work on cardboard? I now know that if i have surplus stuff to get on a flight at a UK airport to find the cheapest crappiest suitcase and use that instead. But what is the logic (???) behind the box rule?

Do the bad guys only pack their tools of mischief in cardboard boxes - ones that cannot be penetrated by security scans?

[GrahamO]

He probably couldn't explain exactly what was in the box and where each item came from.

Do you really not realise that asking someone to carry a box of stuff, not knowing the contents 'because they belong to a friend' is exactly what someone trying to bring down an aircraft would do ?

[CafeClub]

Are you one of the people that draft these rules?? :ugh:

Perhaps my post wasn't clear enough. :rolleyes:

My friend was pulled over because the box hadn't been checked in at the special box check in counter or whatever it is called. The contents were irrelevant.

My own experience with my own box (on a different day / plane) was not dissimilar - just checking it in as baggage was NOT an option, it had to be carted halfway across the airport and i had to sign a dozen forms and have some security ape grill me...my other suitcases were just labelled and taken on board at the counter.

The BOX got special treatment. My question is why? Same person checking it in, same ticket, same aircraft, same (or similar) underpants in the box and suitcase....

As an aside, and to your conclusion re. "Bringing down a plane"... warnings about "did you pack this yourself sir?" have more to do with contraband than counter terrorism.

[grounded27]

If he was asked if he packed the goods and said no it becomes a security issue otherwise complete idiocracy!

[Tableview]

For years I used to arrive in South Africa with at least one suitcase full of old clothes for charity. Never had a problem, never got stopped by customs.

Then once I packed the stuff in a cardboard box as I'd run out of old suitcases to leave down there, and got stopped by customs, who were only interested in the contents of the box and not remotely concerned about what might have been in the suitcase.

[CafeClub]

Exactly Tableview. The contents are not relevant, but the form of packaging is. And this check in special box counter thing has only ever happened to me departing UK.

Am seriously considering taking an empty cardboard box to every check in i do around the world to see whether it is universal!

And PLEASE: my friend was not harassed about the contents... they said from the start it was coz the box hadn't been checked in at the special box check in counter place.

[edi_local]

I don't think there is a "special box check in area".

There is an outsized/fragile/out of gauge baggage area where odd shaped, extremely large, small, light or heavy bags can be taken because they are not suitable for the normal belts. I would also send something I consider to be poorly packed or a damaged suitcase. If I had a passenger present a box to me then this is exactly where I would send it because that is the safest option for the box and it's contents. The baggage belt system is meant to transport bags and suitcases which can take the odd knock and tumble. A box is usually cardboard and as such is not able to withstand such knocks and tumbles and will probably dent or tear, which could damage the contents. Hence why I always send boxes to the outsized belt where they are usually handled by a person, or at least have less conveyor belt to go around. I would do this with any baggage someone requests a fragile sticker for as there is no point in sending it down the normal belt with fragile contents.

I reckon your friend was pulled aside because something showed up on the xray which didn't look right and instead of ripping it to shreds they simply questioned him about it at the gate. Remember Christmas crackers are banned on a lot of airlines, so they would raise eyebrows, as would anything which looks like a weapon, even if it's a kids toy.

It's not as silly as you think it is and there are processes in place for a reason, to protect the contents of the box and ultimately ensure it is safe for travel on an aircraft!

[pwalhx]

The same would have been true at Manchester you probably were asked to take the goods to the out of guage counter, which is not half way across the airport. The forms you had to fill in were probably customs forms dependant on what you told them the box contained and there are not dozens of them. I sense a degree of exaggeration here.

The reason boxes/cartons are singled out are as stated, they are more likely to be damaged so are handled in a different way and however incorrect you may feel the assumption is they are more likely to contain commercial goods which require customs documentation.

He probably was stopped as the box went through the x ray machine in the baggage area and not because it was checked in at the wrong place. If the box was sent to him on your behalf and he was unable to verify the contents having not opened it, then maybe that is also why your friend had a problem with your christmas present box.

Finally the statement "As an aside, and to your conclusion re. "Bringing down a plane"... warnings about "did you pack this yourself sir?" have more to do with contraband than counter terrorism" is absolutely ridiculous, obviously you have never been involved in or trained in avaition security, contraband does not bring aircraft down.

[Basil]

Never heard of a 'box' check in; 'oversize', yes.
You absolutely MUST know what's in your baggage.
We were once asked to take presents on a trip and they duly arrived all gift wrapped.
We unwrapped and examined all of them, not so much because we distrusted the person for whom we were taking them but:
a. We didn't know if they had wrapped them themselves.
b. Those security questions are there for a reason and if it becomes clear that you don't know what you are carrying then stand by to miss your departure.

[PAXboy]

CafeClub
The contents were irrelevant.No - the contents are RELEVANT!
Asking someone to take items that they do not know has been used many times before. Mostly it's drugs.

If you are taking presents on an airline, always best to NOT wrap them, or put them in those pretty paper gift bags with handles. Then they can be fully inspected without damage and everyone goes on their way. Your friend is lucky to have been permitted to travel.

[Bealzebub]

There is no "special box check-in" process. There are however various procedures for non-standard or outsize baggage that vary from airport to airport.

Checking in a box of "presents" that you didn't pack yourself, by way of request from a third party, that were "fedexed" to your hotel, is clearly likely to arouse interest.

What were you thinking? Since they were being "fedexed" in the first place, why didn't you simply pay the required amount, and have them freighted directly to you? If they were accepted at check-in after primary inspection, your friend presumably answered "yes" to the question "did you pack this luggage yourself?"

If anybody carries something in their luggage for somebody else, they do so on the basis that the items are effectively theirs for the purpose of carriage, and they accept full responsibility for those items as regards the security and inspection of those items, as well as any customs, duty or other considerations that may apply.

A cardboard box at check-in doesn't in itself usually involve any additional screening procedures unless it is particulary fragile, heavy, unusual size or shape, or require special handling or labeling.

Similar procedures are in place in many other countries as well as the UK.

It is not particularly clear from your post if your friend inspected and accepted the contents of this "package" prior to checking them in. However, it is comforting to know that a cardboard box delivered to a hotel address in London and being carried on board an airliner on behalf of somebody else, is (and the courier) pulled for additional inspection.

Based purely on what you have said, it is good that secondary security stopped the package and passenger from boarding until they were satisfied that no risk existed. It is unfortunate that your friend was inconvenienced in this manner, but he has probably learned a lesson. It is unfortunate that you didn't consider the implications that can be inherent with saving a few dollars on shipping costs.

[CafeClub]

Please guys cut the patronizing tones here, and read the first post.

To sum it up:
- the example of my friend was just that, an example. He was well aware of the contents AND AT NO STAGE did anyone make that an issue. The issue he was told was to do with the fact that the box had simply gone down the same check-in route as his cases, and THAT was the problem.

- neither his example nor mine was to do with oversize anything. In fact both were smaller than a standard aisle trolley hand baggage bag.

- both examples at UK airports required additional steps. Neither were more or less heavy / fragile / imposing or whatever than the other bags checked in normally.

Yes i will fess up to some exageration re. MAN, but that airport sux and having to traipse through crowds of people and then fill in several forms all because of one not particularly significant box did nothing to make me happy.

Having flown many many times i can only recall the box thing happening at UK airports, which was the purpose of my initial question. If you enjoy having a whole bunch of silly rules and regulations in place, congrats. Me, i like to understand why something is, before i accept its validity.

I will accept that the fragility of a box might require some different attention, but elsewhere this is taken care of by signing a form that absolves the airline of responsibility. NOT having to check it in elsewhere.

[pwalhx]

I read your opening post very carefully hence my response.

Yes personally I much prefer feeling safe when I get on an aeroplane because of these silly regulations bearing in mind that the U.K. is a high risk target for terrorism because of our close relationship with our cousins across the Atlantic.

I am still puzzled about this raft of forms you had to sign because you were sending a box as I have never experienced it myself other then when I have had a commercial sample in a box and needed to fill in 1 Customs form.

I am also curious why your friend had to wait 9 hours to fly if there was nothing amiss, he would not have been stopped merely because the box was checked in at the desk.

[edi_local]

I will accept that the fragility of a box might require some different attention, but elsewhere this is taken care of by signing a form that absolves the airline of responsibility. NOT having to check it in elsewhere.

Just to clarify, are you suggesting that having belts for specialist luggage are a stupid idea?

You draw exception to the fact that an airline/airport would provide a special area where non-standard baggage can safely and efficiently be taken to the aircraft?

It may be a tiny bit more awkward than having it accepted at the normal check in desk but I have yet to have a passenger kick off or even moan about having to take their skis, snowboards, buggies, boxes, broken cases, oversized cases, backpacks, heavy cases or pets to the outside baggage belt and I doubt I ever will. They want their baggage to arrive in as good a condition as when they checked it in. The airline/airport wants to ensure that they don't have baggage falling off belts or getting lost or damaged on its journey to the plane.

The airport certainly doesn't want some box getting stuck on it's baggage belt system, or some backpack straps getting caught up in a belt somewhere, causing it to fail and requiring a member of staff to go down and untangle the whole thing. If a bag belt fails then the whole check in procedure is halted as no one can check in any bags. That is something that no airline or airport wants.

So yes, your box has to go to the special belt. I doubt that process will change any time soon.

[Bealzebub]

Your post was all there was to base an answer on? If you dont like the answers that is fine, but the premise of your question is flawed. Boxes are checked in and are loaded onto aircraft as baggage provided they satisfy all of the security and loading requirements.

Perhaps your friend could shed more light on the reasons this bag was pulled. You have already been given a number of prima facie reasons why it might well have caused an alert. You drew attention to the fact that the box was being carried by your friend, and you drew attention to the fact that it had been couriered to a London hotel. Presumably you felt it was relevant to the issue?

When your friend was "quizzed" about the box, did his answers match the answers he gave when he checked-in? In itself, provided the box was checked and labelled, it would have been in the ordinary course of events treated as any other piece of luggage. The fact that is wasn't would suggest something was amiss. Your posting raises a number of flags, which you chose to mention, but feel are irrelevant to the answers received.

I doubt anybody is going to be able to give you a definitive answer, and most of the obvious bases have been covered.

Do the bad guys only pack their tools of mischief in cardboard boxes - ones that cannot be penetrated by security scans?

Many of us receive refresher courses in aviation security on an annual basis, and are amazed at what the "bad guys" try. In fact is often amazing at what quite ordinary people try. There have been a lot of attempted (and a few successful,) security breaches. Some of the more serious ones have been targetted at the UK and involving airlines originating at UK airports. Many of the delivery methods involve seemingly quite inoccuous packaging or contents.

Yes, there a whole raft of regulations in place that are extremely inconvenient. Whether you or I find them acceptable or understandable is irrelevant to their validity. They are either complied with, or you risk falling foul of the system in place. The result being denied carriage or the sort of inconvenience you have highlighted.

I will accept that the fragility of a box might require some different attention, but elsewhere this is taken care of by signing a form that absolves the airline of responsibility. NOT having to check it in elsewhere.

No that isn't the case (excuse the pun!) Any fragile item of baggage will often require special handling. Not just fragile items, but any other items that require special handling, just as sports equipment, outsize or heavy luggage and even ordinary crew baggage. In my job as an airline pilot I travel all over the world, both as operating crew and as a passenger. These procedures are common everywhere.

[Hipennine]

"I will accept that the fragility of a box might require some different attention, but elsewhere this is taken care of by signing a form that absolves the airline of responsibility. NOT having to check it in elsewhere."

I absolutely refuse to sign such forms, unles the Ts&Cs specifically mention an item being checked in. I have had a stand-off a couple of times with check-in agents over skis, but always resolved when somebody with authority in the airline gets involved. I do wonder whether it is often a handling agent trying to trap the pax into absolving the agent.

However, I have no problem taking said skis to the out of gauge baggage belt, which seem to exist in most major euro and US airports, and queing there behind the various cardboard boxes, surf-boards, equipment cases, etc, that go that way.

[driftdown]

I always travel to my place in Spain with boxes from LGW.

Check them in at the normal desk, then take them to the oversize baggage belt where they disappear and so far have never failed to arrive in AGP.

The reason I have been told is that boxes equate to "cargo" and need to be scanned differently well that is what I was told. Anyways I don't see it as a problem.

Something does not add up here a nine hour delay really!!!

[t1grm]

As above: I ordered a Dell PC for a friend in Malta and had it delivered to my parents in the UK (Dell won’t ship to Malta and local importers are a rip off). On my next visit to the UK I drove the thing back to Brussels in the boot of my car then checked it in from BRU to MLA (two boxes – PC and printer – still sealed as originally shipped by Dell). Upon checking in I was asked “what is that”. I said “It’s a laptop and printer”. Thank you very much sir – job done – no problems. :ok: There must have been something up to get a 9 hour delay. :confused:

[pwalhx]

I think it is clearly obvious we have not had the full story so lets speculate.

The box went through the X Ray in the luggage area, something unexplained or untoward was seen on the X Ray. The passenger was asked at the gate to identify what was in the box he either made a statement that caused concern or was unable to identify what was in the box. He then had to go elsewhere whilst the contents where inspected and as a consequence this caused him to miss the flight. Therefore he was then offered a seat on the next available flight which happened to be nine hours later.

[CafeClub]

The flaming drove me away, but i do need to (continually) correct one assumption people are making, which is the entire reason for the initial question.

Pwahlx is part right. The 9 hour delay was caused by the fact that he was picked at boarding gate and asked to return to deal with the box. By this he missed the flight, next was full, got on the third one 9 hours later.

The issue was never about the contents - he never "failed" any questions about contents. The customs guys made it weepingly clear that he was asked to return to checkin because it had not been checked in "properly". You can keep droning on about failing to stand up to the scrutiny / "investigation" about the boxes contents, but sadly these ideas are moot IN THIS CASE. It was made quite clear to him that it was solely about the fact it had gone down the "normal" baggage route.

And i quoted 2 personal examples, one involving myself, - that in our great desire to prove the validity of the terror threat and ignorance of contents line - we seem to be ignoring.

Driftdown seems to have hit upon the one "logical" explanation - that in form 45f of article 17j of the UK baggage guide, a BOX is viewed as cargo, and so has different treatment.

t1grm, that has been my experience elsewhere which is what prompted my initial question.

I am going to conduct an experiment. Every flight from now on I will attempt to check in a plain, sealed box-sized box. Will report back on the different treatment around the world. LOL.

[TimGriff6]

The original question was 'why is a box more threatening than a bag?'

In an environment where security is sensitive and where there are well trained people operating it, the key to making it work is seeing the things that don't fit in where they should be and doing something about it.

Try these:

Why is a passenger in a winter coat more threatening than one in a t-shirt (in the summer)?
Why is a passenger without any luggage more threatening than one with a suit case (on an international flight)?
Why is a walking stick more threatening than an umbrella (in the hands of a young able bodied passenger)?

Boxes are treated differently in London for all of the reasons given here (and more). If a box turns up at the loading point amongst suitcases in London it is out of place and needs investigating. First - How did it get there? Second - Has it been screened? Third - What is in it?

Talking to the box doesn't get much of an answer and unless 100% sure it is probably sensible to treat it as suspicious and put it back through the system once some straightforward questions have been answered. It will need to be treated carefully until it's contents are known and it may take a little time to process it again. We all know that baggage only goes on the aircraft in the last few minutes of a turnaround and if taking the box and it's owner away and dealing with the problem is going to take more than a few minutes, it is a simple commercial decision to send the flight on its way without either.

All seems straightforward to me.

[givemewings]

Cafe, if as you say the box went through the 'normal' check in, then it would be very possible that it didn't have the requisite form/disclaimer filled (since they go as 'cargo' effectively) and they can't take it. So, a bit of the fault of the handling agent BUT the airline was doing the safe thing.

I've received many an item being taken as either accompanied luggage or as 'cargo' packed in a box. Many times the box was not adequate to secure the item concerned OR the descriptions given were vague therefore we needed to call the passenger back once they had checked in to determine a) the contents and b) if there were any dangerous goods. Some people have n idea they can't take certain things.

For example, "car parts" turned out to be a small petrol engine, still with small amount of petrol in the tank! := Of all the boxes of freight I ever processed, probably 60% did not contain what the dclaration said or had vague descriptions that needed to be re-written. So yes, a box 'can' be more threatening than a suitcase (purely because people seem to put things in a box they would never put in their own bags- bleach, fireworks, dynamite (!) etc...)

[CafeClub]

Indeed givemewings, that was the rub, and yes the handling agent blew it for not getting the disclaimers filled and the thing sent down (what i am calling) the special box check in place. :ok:

As to your second point i am 100% sure that the average travelling joe will throw everything into their luggage without thinking. But that is kind of my point. If i pack my small petrol engine plus fuel into a SUITCASE that is obviously just as much a risk.

Only in that situation you (it sounds like you are part of the handling folk) would not ask any additional / extra questions. It would be weighed, tagged and shunted of and scanned as per usual.

I find this somewhat odd - if not absurd. It means if joe the camper wanted to take 24 camping gas cylinders on holiday with him and popped them in a box, he'd more than likely find he couldn't cook when he reached the other end (sans box). But if joe's wife jenny packed her 24 cannisters in a suitcase, well no problems, the sausages will sizzle.

So timgriff6 the obvious becomes the stupid way out, doesn't it? If the ONLY check is of "odd one out", then it is no check at all. And if that is not the only check ( of which i am sure) whogivesa what the contents are packed in?

Many a cheap suitcase are made of cardboard too. :ok:

[givemewings]

You'll find camping cyclinders can travel under certain criteria but someone just chucking one in their case would be caught out at the xray scan...

the point is, MOST people only take personal items in suitcases, whereas MANY boxes tend to have stuff that is not classed as a personal effect (e.g. clothes household good etc) so the risk of something that should not travel being in a box is higher... therefore more screening. Also not every airport has xray screening (think rural/ oil & gas type) so the box check is to weed out many of the 'common' items which go to those places that would normally go by road.

When I was on the handling side of things, it was usual to ask every passenger if they had anything that could be a DG (camping cylinders and Napisan were common examples I gave) which was an additional check that seems to have gone by the wayside in this age of 'online check in' and kiosks. (Though the kiosks do ask, with a diagram, I doubt Joe Public actually reads it)

Hence the dynamite. It belonged to a guy with a shot-firer's cert travelling to a mine. To him it was a 'tool of trade' and not in the least bit dangerous.

Needless to say he had to find a different airline the next time he travelled. (Must add it was down to the questions I had asked that we knew it was in there at all! :uhoh:)

[TimGriff6]

'So timgriff6 the obvious becomes the stupid way out, doesn't it? If the ONLY check is of "odd one out", then it is no check at all. And if that is not the only check ( of which i am sure) whogivesa what the contents are packed in? '

Sorry, I was trying to give a logical explanation as to why this particular box was considered to be potentially 'more threatening than a bag'. I thought that was what caused the question to be asked. If the question was a simple one liner 'Are boxes more threatening than bags' without the story attached to it, my answer would be a lot different. If you want to check that out for yourself, perhaps you need to pack DG in both a suitcase and a box, check them both in every time you go flying and analyse what happens. Then you might get an answer to the general question. It could waste you a lot of time though!

[PAXboy]

TimGriff6 Sorry, I was trying to give a logical explanation as to why this particular box was considered to be potentially 'more threatening than a bag'.You did. Cogent and helpful.

[cockney steve]

Buy cheap new suitcase. Add contents wrap in cardboard sealed with brown tape.... you now have a "box"....
leave a slot with the handle projecting, you now have a cardboard-sheathed suitcase.( the cardboard, justifiably, protects your case from scuffs/damage.

Let the pedantic jobsworths spend their (bored) time and their boss' money arguing the minutiae of what makes a suitcase "not" a box-with-a-handle:8

Common-sense has flown right out of the window..."security" is a sham theatre by and for, a self-serving burocracy. it's rife with inconsistencies, petty tyrants abusing authority whilst being unanswerable.......GRRRR.

Perhaps if, like some fuel-station/ fast-food/ supermarket cashiers who are personally liable for shortfalls on their shift. -there was an appeals procedure, instant and independent,for aggrieved Pax and the "security Officer" was PERSONALLY responsible for "mistakes".........

I'm sure there would be a much more tempered approach to "on the spot" arbitrary confiscations/bans etc.

Last flew about 5 years ago and I, too , had a non-standard bag.....quick, simple and no hassle..."just take it to the far end where the sign says......"

no probs at Liverpool.....but the petty hassle and timewasting for the theatricals means in future i'll probably drive or most likely not bother again.

[edi_local]

No idea what you think flying is all about these days, Cockney, but if you turned up with a box at any of my staffs check in desks you'll get asks the same safety questions as anyone else and then be sent to drop the box off at the out of gauge bag area.

No forms, no special procedure, no arguments, just my staff doing what they are trained to do...get your baggage on the plane. I accept some airlines or handling agents may have more detailed procedures than the people I work for, but as far as we are concerned, if you carry a box then you put it down the out of gauge belt to protect it and it's contents. I've never had a passenger complain about that.

I don't even see what's "jobsworth" about doing stuff the way it's meant to be done. If an airline has a procedure for dealing with boxes and you enter an agreement with that airline (which you do when you buy your ticket) then you abide by their rules and regulations or you and your baggage don't travel with said airline. Quite why you think anyone should ignore rules when working is beyond me, especially in the aviation industry! To most people their job is literally worth more to them than not following the procedures they have been trained to follow! Not exactly a great time to be unemployed is it?!

[cockney steve]

Edi...perhaps I wasn't very explicit or clear.....A suitcase is a "box" with a handle.....there is very little difference between a Globetrotter fibreboard case and the industrial box with lid......in fact, it boils down to the handle.... the boxes can be had with hook-on lid and latches, so, if it's full of personal items. of standard suitcase dimensions and maybe has straps around it and a handle....common-sense would dictate it's a suitcase....just the same as kiddie's "trunki" cases are not standardtypical generic suitcases....but they're rightly treated as such (albeit they're carry-ons, technically.

I have no objection to using a different loading-point for non-standard packages (a suitcase IS a package!) it just gets me annoyed that all this ridiculous security charade is so badly administered......you should be annoyed too! It's YOUR livelihood that's affected.

Many people have stopped their foreign jaunts purely because the economics PLUS THE HASSLE make it not worthwhile.
I also refer you to the idiotic PC refusal to "risk-profile"potential security -risks.

Perhaps we should have a 2-tier system?

El-cheapo...minimal security, operator does their own screening, if Pax don't like their fellow travellers, they opt out and get another flight...sort of a 21st. Century Freddy Laker Skytrain.

System works for buses, coaches ,trains and ferries.....how much quicker, cheaper and more efficient would air-travel be, without all the current restrictions......I accept a huge relatively new "fear control"...sorry, Security industry would find itself back on the dole-queue overnight.

Premium Travel.. continue as now , with extensive checks, scrutiny and forfeiture of anything the staff decide you're not allowed...put up with the curent regime of delays, waiting around,etc but be assured that the system is all geared to your happiness and well-being.

Would it work? no Idea....but the present system is killing the industry.
Sometiing needs to be done if the industry wishes to regain some of it's pre-9/11 growth and pazazz.