Airport Security

[Danny]

As crew or as a passenger do you think airport security is good enough?

This is a simple straw poll and not intended to open another debate. You must be registered and logged in to vote and is intended for demonstration purposes only.

[saudipc-9]

Fish,
I'm with you 100%.
The deterent needs to be an the ground and well before we ever reach the aircraft! This runs into the other debate over firearms on aircraft. We shouldn't need to arm pilots if we had proper security!

[EyesToTheSkies]

"Sorry" said the security man, "I have to do this properly today. My guvnor's here conducting a check...."

It brings to mind a quote from Henry Ford....

"Quality is doing it right when no-one is looking".

[boofhead]

It depresses me to see those working or interested in aviation buying into the cobblers fed to us by the governments responsible for "security" at airports. Nothing they have done or are doing is going to make any difference to security, see the thread below about the attempted hijacking in Brazil for example. Treating honest passengers and crew as criminals does nothing but upset and hassle us, causing many to avoid flying, and therefore doing severe damage to the airlines. Which is us!
There are sensible steps that can be taken, but the authorities refuse to do them. The aim of the new game is empire building, pure and simple.
Look at what is being done in the US with the new Xray machines in the airport lobbies. Total waste of time, the job can be done much better and without shutting down the airports, which is likely if the Dec 31 deadline is not relaxed. But someone in control has an agenda most likely based on some sort of personal interest, and so the juggernaut rolls on.
In Aus, if you have a laptop you must send it through security with the battery removed and separate. What possible benefit is this giving the security staff? How many laptops have hijacked an airplane? I suspect the same number as have been hijacked by nailfiles...None!
Also in Aus, I now have to show my passport when traveling on duty and wearing an ID card and uniform, not only on arrival, but on departure as well. "What's this for," I asked last week, "Are you doing this for the tax man?"
"No, Mate, it is just to make a photo record." What, does he think I am as stupid as I look?
And how many hijackers have been stopped by security? None, because they are at least as smart as me and I know a dozen ways to beat the system, so why should they be deterred? A bottle of gas (as in Brazil) will not be detected, and a determined hijacker does not even need that; a threat is enough. The shoe bomber was not stopped, even though he was denied boarding once, and the Sep 11 hijackers were not stopped, even though they were singled out for extra security. But I am stopped, every time, because I am flying on a staff ticket.
For years we were asked "Have you packed your own bag, and have you had control of it since?" and we answered as we were expected to, knowing all along how stupid the questions were. Why don't they just ask us if we intend to hijack the airplane and take our word, as they did for so many years before?
And how many of those who have had guns or knives taken from them at security (about half of those actually carried, some say) were subsequently charged with a serious crime such as attempted hijacking? None! How many of the guns and knives that escape detection are used for crimes on airplanes? None!
How can anyone support this insanity?
What makes me most disgusted is the inference that if we give over our rights and freedoms to these incompetent fools we will get safety in return. The next time there is a criminal act on an airplane the security staff who were on duty, and the government that allows them to be there, should be held responsible and if anyone is killed they should all go to jail.
...yeah, sure.

[ComJam]

Short story:

Paris CDG last year.

Arrived CDG in preparation for annual sim course to discover that KLM had lost my bag (shock!). Baggage said it would arrive first flight the next day and that I should pitch up at the Arrival baggage office, ie on the "wrong" side of customs.

Hmmm says I, how do I do that when coming from land rather than air-side? "Oh that's OK", i'm assured, "just use the staff door behind the customs desk, if anyone challenges you show them your pass it'll be ok." Really?

And yes it was, nobody actually even questioned why this unidentified guy in civvies was entering the Airside part of the terminal, effectively "behind" ALL security, metal detectors, check-in etc

To say i was surprised would be an understatement and I'm not convinced it's any better now....

Cheers

[whatshouldiuse]

To stop determined terroists, absolutely not. To stop people who have had too much to drink or leave a hunting knive in their carry-on, absolutely.

Do I feel more comfortable since September 11th? No.

Will this feeling change? Probably not.


Living in the N.E. USA, somebody asked me a couple of weeks ago, why they don't search people getting on the Commuter Trains. I didn't have an answer then and still don't. Remember these babies carry around 700+ people at a crack going right into the heart of NY. I guess if somebody is truly determined, they'll find a way.

Thanks

Andy

[luchtzak]

Hi all,

as a flight attendant I can say that in all European airports security has been very strict nowadays. Maybe their are 2 or 3 airports who allow you to cross the scanner and -even if you bleeped- you can go further. That's only for flightcrew!

Maybe I can say that even with a plastic economy-class knife you can cut somebody's nek. Did you allready tried to cut a lemon with a plastic knife ? peace of cake....

Conclusion: even the security-control is very strict, I believe that their exist 1001 other ways to attack somebody inflight! Sad but true.....

greetings,

luchtzak
www.luchtzak.be

[El Grifo]

Luchtzak

I was stopped at NCL England the other day trying to board with a nailclipper with a 4.5 cm nailfile attached. They said snap off the nailfile, or forfeit the clipper. No Problem !!

However, I reckon if I was planning to do mischief on the aircraft, I would have went for one of the hundreds of lethal glass bottles happily carried on by the passengers, or the gallons of imflammable liquid contained therin. :confused:

[Localiser Green]

I found it rather amusing heading off to Puerto Vallarta last month for my partner's nail file being confiscated at security and eating our meals with plastic cutlery, only to be served Smirnoff Ice and wine with our meals in reasonably-sized glass bottles :rolleyes:

There is only so far you can take it I agree, and stopping these people getting on the plane in the first place must be the issue, but confiscating nail files and nail clippers is just a bit silly IMO.

[N380UA]

It all depends of what airport you’re talking about. A determined person will undoubtedly be able to bring something on board one way or another! The security in general is good and in some place had been made even better, I don’t even wanna know how many nail clippers, and small pocket knifes had be confiscated thus far (lol). I also believe that security in the US today is still worse that the security in central Europe pre 9/11. Rather, the hype has been jacked up and the sense for reality has gone out the window. Some have mentioned that they don’t feel secure anymore and probably never really will. I on the other hand feel no less secure today then pre 9/11.
A terrorist will not be deterred by plastic cutlery in the cabin, locked cockpit doors, or heavily armed, brainless (sorry) junior high dropouts, pot smoking (sorry again) security guards on our airports.
Perhaps as a reminder; Terrorism is an act of war, war is a continuation of politics where diplomacy has failed. Hence fighting terrorism should not be left up to the aviation industry, but must be conducted by our governments.
Of course, any security at all must be applied equally, be it PAX or crew, and for that matter any other person who has access to an AC. And while we’re at it, what about ATC? Couldn’t some loonies take control of the tower and start some major illsh!t; especially in IMC?
So where does it start and where does it end?

[GS-Alpha]

"It all depends of what airport you’re talking about"

If security is low at any airports, it is low everywhere. Once you have got airside at the weakest airport, you are airside in any airport.

[N380UA]

GS-Alpha

How is that? Transfer PAX has to recheck if that’s what you mean? If you have a security problem in XYZ, who does that influence the security in ZYX?

Besides, that’s my point in first place. Looking at security in Abidjan and security in Frankfurt, one will find that it’s incomparable.

So in answering Danny’s question “Is airport security enough?” I’m asking as to what AD he would be referring to.

Cheers

[divingduck]

Security here in the ME has always been of a pretty high standard.
Even after being scanned a few times getting to Dubai, you are still screened prior to leaving/transitting and then again at the gate boarding the next leg.

So hereabouts, yes, security, on the ground is good enough.

[daidalos]

divingduck
With all due respect, all this, in Dubai is after the hand grenade in the coca-cola and the high jacking of the Air India (If I remember correctly). There will be always a way to pass insecure items in an airport. Full proof security? Not yet. Maybe in a few years but not now.
Unfortunately. Have to keep trying though...

[RealFish]

I travelled from Man to Gib via Lgw earlier this year and was in a queue of half a dozen or more waiting for hand baggage to be scanned.

Not once in that time did the woman operating the equipment look at her screen. She was busy talking to colleagues standing behind her, chatting about the previous night's television.

This is my second such experience at Man.

[Basil]

N380UA
‘fighting terrorism - - - must be conducted by our governments’
Last time in the US, guard told me that security was being taken over by Federal Authority.

RealFish
Aahh, MAN – some sections of the airport are pervaded by an attitude problem reminiscent of the 50s/60s in the UK :mad:

[broadreach]

Overall, yes, security has improved and even if it's a bit flaky at some airports it's much more of a deterrent than was the case prior to 11 Sept.

So the opportunity cost for a terrorist act involving aircraft is now much higher and I suspect the focus of terrorist groups will have moved to other areas; whatshouldiuse mentioned commuter trains. And of course ports - just imagine the damage a nuclear device on board a ship could do if detonated entering a large port. The US are tackling that one now, at immense cost.

[low n' slow]

"Locks are for the honest" as we say in sweden.
What we mean by this is that airport security is to make the opertunist stay on the right side of the law. Those who are determined to highjack a plane will succede in doing this, security or no security!

I feel that all the added security is only to make things "look as if somethings being done to improve the situation". And it is all very contradictory to the fact that our industry is trying to become more effective! This show is simply working against growth.

If airport security is to do any good at all this would mean alterations to the extent that people most probably would find some other way to travel (domestic flights...). I mean fo example: Even tighter screenings and more limitations on what is allowed to bring onboard, no café's on airside, no shops on airside, security around the baggage belt, secuity in and around the gates, more security on the apron and perhaps even scanner just before entering the aircraft. It would be impossible both economically and physically to implemet these changes. If the job can't be done completely, it better not be done at all!

And, working as a caterer at ARN, I know pretty much what kind of stuff is onboard the aircraft that we work on and I can say that a lot of these items can be used to aid a highjack. Cockpit cuttlery for example... (usually metal).

best regards/lns

[niknak]

Airport security starts a long way before the departure gate, and I'm a bit suprised that a seasoned professional like Danny is prepared to treat the issue in the same way that a tabloid journalist would.

Dont forget that the provision of "front line" security screeners, is the last part of a very intricate process, a fact that Danny should be very well aware of.
Their major function is to prevent the people who may decide as a last resort, taking something on board an aeroplane, which may be used in acts of violence or terrorism.
They only follow orders from their employers, who follow orders from the UK TRANSEC or the appropriate authority.
Intelligence is the major source of prevention of terrorism, and it will frequently go unreported because either it is not newsworthy, or the news is not released because it's part of a bigger operation.

By all means bicker about having your nail clippers taken away from you, (when big signs before check - in tell you otherwise), but save your real gripes for when your plane is hijacked foloowing a failure of UK/European/US security procedures. :rolleyes: :mad:

[Puritan]

niknak – you’re either having a laugh or what you’ve written above is a wind-up, right ?!

I.e. w.r.t : Dont forget that the provision of "front line" security screeners, is the last part of a very intricate process.

Oh no it’s not.

And w.r.t : They only follow orders from their employers, who follow orders from the UK TRANSEC or the appropriate authority.

That’s as in “Ve ver only following ze orders !”, apart from which I suggest that you look up the meaning of words ‘appropriate authority’, e.g. I imagine that you’re implying that Government Mandarins are sufficiently ‘expert’ and well briefed w.r.t. what we do as to be able to enforce their self-invented policies upon us ?

If so, then please be so kind as to rearrange these words, ‘could not p1ss they a organise in brewery up’ - actually the flip-side of all this is that there follows from it a pervasive belief ( in our present Government ) that the transport industry ( and the CAA ) are too inept as to be able to put in place things which might actually work and / or be of benefit, and as such only the Government can be trusted to do a good job and know what's best for us !

E.g. Let’s have a look at recent edict from these self-assumed ‘authorities’ that our present flightdeck doors must be replaced ( at vast expense ) with ones that are armoured to a ballistic-level ( i.e. capable of not being broken down and also of resisting being shot-through ).

Now I know for a fact that even the CAA think it’s not a worthwhile move but they’ve been told to ‘follow ze orders !’.

I.e. The fact that a terrorist armed with a gun can’t shoot you through the flightdeck door ( coz it’s armoured ) will not prevent the said same terrorist from spraying the flightdeck with bullets from the forward toilet and / or galley – because these areas, adjacent to the newly armoured door, are NOT armoured – so is it me, or is this just plain stupid logic that’s being applied here by the Mandarins ?!

Nb. Their ( the authorities ) real need here is to be seen to be doing something ( in the eyes of the voters ), rather than that ‘something’ actually being properly thought through and / or of any value.

W.r.t : Intelligence is the major source of prevention of terrorism, and it will frequently go unreported because either it is not newsworthy, or the news is not released because it's part of a bigger operation.

What you’re are suggesting is that a level of cooperation and integration exists between the security services, which in fact it does not !

I.e. From my knowledge of it, the security services are riddled with self-serving and ( unsurprisingly ) secretive types who’re loath to disseminate information / data which they see as belonging only to them ( and this even after 911 ). As they say, “It’s a need to know basis, and nobody else needs to know !” And is it any wonder ? E.g. the histories our security services were awash with loathing and discrimination ( as per comments by Sir David Petrie (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2283743.stm) ), and still are ( imho ).

And certainly the mechanism by which information is promulgated between the various agencies is more by accident than design – i.e. there is NO formalised system for doing this.

E.g. You’d be fooling yourself if you think that MI6 feel that they should tell Special Branch ( and vice versa ) about covert operations which might be targeting terrorists albeit that both services are maybe watching the same people. Indeed one would imagine that the way that seems to work best is when MI6 types manage to leave their laptops in the back of London taxis for the police to find !

Nb. For some background w.r.t some of the above, see also:

BBC - Blair rebuked over security services (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1003646.stm)
BBC - Second spy loses laptop (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/693011.stm)
BBC - Spy chief doubted 'incompetent' police (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2283743.stm)

W.r.t. : By all means bicker about having your nail clippers taken away from you, (when big signs before check - in tell you otherwise), but save your real gripes for when your plane is hijacked foloowing a failure of UK/European/US security procedures.

Uhm, might I suggest that you’re obviously not seeing the bigger operation – I would be the first ( well, maybe not ) to hand over implements which might be used for acts of violence on-board ( say, anybody know the last time somebody used a pair of nail-clippers to perpetrate an act of air-piracy ? ) but let’s have a level playing-field shall we ?

I.e. Across many EU and other worldwide airports it’s possible to be searched / scanned, but then go airside and then purchase all manner of items that one might subsequently use in an aggressive manner ( e.g. Swiss arms knives, cutlery gift sets, glass bottles full of highly flammable spirits, etc… ), indeed one airline I recently flew with has very nice manicure sets for sale as part their in-flight sales stock ( complete with nail clippers & files ! ) – so as they say, ‘go figure ?!’

So in summary, what we've got are security forces that are loath to cooperate with each other, government departments issuing poorly researched edicts all done in the name of improved security ( but where in reality it’s purely ‘spin’ in order to be 'seen' to be doing something ). In the meantime airlines are having to spend vast amounts to comply with the new security policies, plus many of the front-line airline folks realise that it’s all a crock of ****, to say nothing that we’re all paying for it one way or another - so oh what a waste of money, energies, and time !

Ps. And don’t even start me on the so called ‘locked flight deck door’ policy !

[lardy]

N380UA: because arriving and departing pax aren't always separated airside. Take, for eg, LHR T3. An arriving pax could pass an item to a departing pax (already thru security).

[gulfstream1]

security is more than a joke at the mo! Have the same thing were i work, they only check your car and bag if they are being watched!!! Or the car gets checked (under the bonnet etc) but they dont take any notice of the bag in the back seat!!!!

[xsbank]

While travelling from CYUL to LSZH, I had just cleared the security gauntlet; while I was repacking my laptop, an Air France 747 crew arrived en masse (15 crew?) and attempted to clear. The security person stopped the captain and removed a small multi-tool screwdriver from his flight bag and began to interrogate him as to what he was planning to do with it and why did he need it (etc. etc), the captain explained carefully that it was for the usual screw-tightening that all pilots needed to do routinely (before the days of glass and pushbuttons; Years ago I used to carry a Buck knife on my belt to open oil cans, but that's a different story).
The security person confiscated the screwdriver and finally allowed the crew to continue, 15 minutes late. I guess the screener felt he had thwarted a hijack because we all know that a captain needs a tool to take control of his cockpit...interesting to see how they react when the captain attempts to carry his sidearm onboard.

I would like to see the end of carry-on baggage - minor exceptions perhaps, but why waste all that time zapping your luggage with x-rays? Spend more time screening the bags that go in the belly and allow the pax to go to the lounge.

[Danny]

I'm sorry, but which bit of:This is a simple straw poll and not intended to open another debate. You must be registered and logged in to vote and is intended for demonstration purposes only. don't some of you understand?
:rolleyes:

A straw poll is meant to gather a snapshot of opinion. It is not scientific and is not meant to influence others opinions. Treat it as such and we won't fall out over it... I hope. :p

[nick24]

I think I know the answer to this question, but I'm going to ask it anyway.

Why, on (some) domestic flights, do security insist on taking a picture of you and attach a bar code to your boarding card?
I flew from Manchester to Glasgow recently and this took place. I think it also happened when I flew from Bristol to a domestic airport. But, to the best of my knowledge, I didn't have to smile for Candid Camera when I went to Edinburgh from LHR.

What is the purpose of this? Is it a security feature? Surely, if I wanted to hijack a plane, I wouldn't care about my face being recorded as I would either be dead or spending a long time at Her Majesty's Pleasure.

On the flight from Man to Gla, I saw signs saying that you weren't allowed razor blades in carry on. Does this mean razor blades as in cut throat razors, or safety razors a la Gillette etc? If the sign refers to the latter, and if security is really doing their job properly, then there are going to be one hell of a lot of p!ssed off travellers who now can't take carry on on, and will have to stow it instead. The popularity of designer stubble may increase...

In light of the El Al incident, it just shows that despite (possibly) the best security of all airlines, determined potential hijackers can - and do - manage to get their weapons on board. Despite not being a regular flyer like many people who visit this site, my impression is that "publicity" security (ie the stuff which can be seen by all - xray etc) has increased but the effectiveness has yet to be proved.

[El Desperado]

The purpose of the photo is to make sure that the person boarding the aircraft is the same person who entered the airside lounge. You are scanned in the first time, and the second security guard at the gate checks the stored photo from the barscan which was printed out and attached to your ticket. Seems sensible enough to me.

As for GLA - grrr. There is a massive massive massive hole in the security at the domestic security screen which would allow anyone to take on board explosives, handguns, knives, machetes etc... in fact anything smaller than a rifle. An added bonus of this security 'feature' is that if anyone did catch the weapons, it wouldn't be the smuggler that would get fingered.

An f/o I was travelling with remarked on this. We had a chat with the security guy who agreed with us and called over his supervisor. Supervisor listens for a little while, and then, seriously (!), starts shouting and ranting at us in front of the bemused pax queuing up to have their baggage screened. Tells us to mind our own business and stop questioning things we know nothing about. Right. We walk away from that one....

On return we pop into the police station and have a chat - excellent bunch of guys, but they told us their responsibility for security stops at the airport perimeter. Speak to the BAA security manager they suggest and say they will do the same. Try to have a chat with the BAA man... 'not available', 'out to lunch', 'away on a trip', 'come back later'. Hmm..

Write a letter to BAA man. No reply.

Is security any better ? Nahhh... the people in charge don't want to listen. I bet there are hundreds of stories like the one above.

(P.S. I think the razor blades means cut-throat razors, but I suspect that will depend on the person at the x-ray machine on the day :) )

[slj]

Nick24

Good question. All it proves as EL Desparado shows is that it is the person who went through departures. It doesn't mean it is the person who checked for the flight, other than a person of the same sex.

I wonder just where the security is in that.

[Mister Geezer]

While improving Terminal security is all fine and well, the perimeter security at many airfields is poor in my point of view. I was driving past one UK airfield last week and all that separated landside from airside was a wooden fence, like you would see on a farm. The fence was right beside a busy road, therefore in clear public view. In reality such a fence is supposed to separate the villain from millions of pounds worth of aircraft and buildings. Suffice to say it will not take much effort to drive though it in a car or any able-bodied person could climb over it with not much effort. Airport operators have to practice what they preach and airfield security must come equal with terminal security. There is no point trying to find razor blades in hand baggage if a terrorist can gain access to the airfield with not too much trouble. Just as much damage, if not more can be caused when an aircraft is on stand and it seems that airlines and airport authorities are only focusing on what will happen in the terminal or in the air! At my local airport I can think of many ways in which any terrorist could gain airside access and cause damage. Needless to say a genius is not required!

[View From The Ground]

I am all for airport security where it ADDS to safety for crew and passengers, even if it involves extra hassle and even expense. A good example would be the excellent level of checked in baggage scanning at LHR and LGW and I am sure elsewhere in the UK. What absolutely frustrates me is security measures with no real benefit....examples would be:
(a) The police check points at LHR are always on the M4 spur, if I was looking to enter the airport with some terrorist intent I would simply enter using the perimiter road. In 10 years of coming to LHR I would never have been stopped there. I am sure any prospective terrorists would conduct a little research.
(b) Nail clippers etc being confiscated, when glass is sold duty free and used and sold on board.
(c) Plastic cutlery on board, pointless for the same reason as point (b) and the fact it can also be made into an efficient weapon
(d) Random searches of a set percentage of passengers, OK you may get lucky, but surely proper passenger profiling is the best way to screen out undesirables.
Most security is for appearance/avoiding litigation and last but not least to reassure, however falsely, the travelling public.
Over the years since Lockerbie real steps have been made to improve airport security, however all I would ask is that we concentrate and spend money on those with a REAL benefit and avoid wasting time, energy and money on pointless exercises for the sake of appearances.

[boofhead]

Sorry Captain Danny, I can't help myself:

Joe Sixpack went to visit his kin in San Francisco some time last year. Joe knows that 90% of all airline accidents are caused by pilot error but also knows that the chance of an accident on his flight is very small. He also knows that compared to pilot error, terrorist activity is even less likely, so unlikely that he can ignore it. He was able to arrive at LAX forty five minutes prior to the departure time, park his car and give his check-in bags to the Skycap. After going through security, he picked up a cup of coffee before arriving at the Gate, where he was issued a boarding pass. The flight departed on schedule, and Joe had a good time.
When he goes again in 2003, he will find confusion and delays. Joe now knows that there are terrorists out there who are willing to give their lives if they can take his, but he also knows that like other dangerous situations, he is responsible for his own safety and if anyone tries to take over HIS airplane that will be the last thing they ever do.
He will need to arrive hours before the departure time, and instead of the Skycap he will have to cart his bags to the CTX scanner that takes up most of the check-in area. If he is lucky his bag will go through easily, and he will only have to wait half an hour. There are a lot of people in the concourse, it is very hot and uncomforable, and Joe remembers the shoot out last year at the El Al counter. He looks around warily but there are so many people he cannot watch them all. He gives up, and waits his turn patiently. The security staff asks him to open his bag, and if he cannot find the key quickly, they will cut the lock off. His belongings will be tossed around, as the security staff are looking for the explosives they know Joe is carrying. When they don't find them, they will release Joe to proceed to the check-in counter, where he will hand over his bag and show several forms of ID. Another long line.
Next Joe has to join the conga line for personal security, and he has to empty his pockets, pull out his laptop and put it through separately, make sure his glasses, pen, coins and such are not in his pockets. Unfortunately for Joe, today the security staffers have turned up the sensitivity since they have been told they have not met their quota for the day. Joe's scanner beeps, and he now has to take off his shoes and stand on the spot while the man with the wand runs it over his body. "Do you mind if I frisk you?" asks the man, as he runs his hands up and down Joe's torso and legs, and puts the wand into his crotch. "Pull down your belt buckle," he is told. Joe knows that the man is aching to perform a cavity search so he bites his tongue.
Joe passes the check, the security wallah is disappointed that he did not turn out to be a criminal after all, and puts his shoes back on. He collects all his belongings, and suddenly is alarmed by the sounds of shouts "Clear the area! Security alert!" Joe and all the other potential pasengers are hustled out of the terminal building, onto the sidewalk, where they stand and wait for two hours. Apparently someone found that a scanner had had the power cord kicked out in the next-door terminal, and as a precaution the terminals on both sides, as well as the one affected, had to be evacuated while a search was made for the terrorist who had done the dirty deed. Of course it was not a terrorist, only a clumsy staffer who was afraid to admit it, and thousands of Joe's fellow passengers were inconvenienced but hey, that's what security is all about, right?
After Joe has repeated all the security stuff, with another, more intense body search, he finally makes it to the Gate. He has given up on the flight he had made the booking for, and will take any flight. Luckily for Joe there is a seat available soon, and Joe has to take off his shoes again for another body search (he has heard the security staffers discuss that they needed just four more passengers to make up the day's quota and it only seems right that they pick Joe. He is experienced, after all).
As Joe takes his seat and looks forward to buying a $4 beer, he reflects that the $35 security tax he paid on his ticket has been well spent.

Now tell me, how many times will Joe (and Josephine) put up with this cr@p? Don't you think that they will drive or go by train? Since Sep 11 United, for one, has seen a 20% drop in passenger numbers. After the full disaster of "Airport Security" Part Two kicks in, you better believe that this number will increase. If the aim is better security, it will not be achieved by treating passengers as criminals, and the present system is pure show. If the aim is to destroy the airlines, then it is going well.

[brain fade]

I agree with you but, as you hint, it's unlikely that (like lightning) they will try the airlines again. There are so many more targets.
What continues to amaze me is the manner in which the worlds media press on with their ever more alarming warnings about 'Global Terrorism' without even hinting at what might be at the root of it.
I had better not mention the quite correct grievences of the 'Former Occupents of Palestine'.
Just remember American cousin, if it had been North Carolina instead of Palestine, then it would be the NCLO, not the PLO

[PAXboy]

1) The plastic fork that I was given on VS last week, was sharper than any ordinary dining fork that I have at home.

2) Don't use the bottle of duty free as a weapon - when it breaks some of the glass might cut you. Take a Dell or Compaq lap top that weighs nearly 2Kgs and swing that at someone's head.

3) Trains, buses, ships will be next. They way in which we are tying ourselves in knots over 'security' and chucking money down the drain on expensive scanners - bin Laden must be very pleased with how we have fallen into his trap.

[Chopper-Pilot-AU]

instead of heaping the shi% on the security staff who are doing their job with the resourses available maybe you should be blaming the terrorists who have caused this.

What would you suggest airport security do ??

Having worked in Airport security during my time while training as a pilot i found most pax were only to happy to comply with security directions etc, after all its their safety we were concerned with!
every now and again we would get the odd dick head who would say " oh i have a bomb in my bag " ha h aha very funny well you just missed your flight...not so funny now huh..........................

better training is what is needed, not people like you complaining because you are delayed......:mad:

[El Desperado]

No one is complaining about the staff. No one is complaining about delays caused by good security practice.

What we are highlighting is poor security procedures that are forced on the security staff, and delays to passengers which will only further serve to drive them away from air travel for no discernable safety benefit .

It is reasonable to complain when your ETOPS plotting kit is taken off you time and time again at the x-ray machines.

'Sorry mate, you can't take a compass on to the aeroplane.'

'That's all right, I'll improvise with the crash axe....'

Duh.

It's not their fault... it's the management. If you would take a moment to re-read my post about my attempts to highlight a problem at GLA, you will see what I mean. Perhaps I should send the info to the Daily Record or the Sunday Mail and let their reporters have a crack at it. But.... then it will appear in the papers, and people will be even less inclined to travel so I'll have shot the entire aviation community in the foot by doing it. So... I can't do that, no one will listen....

Pop quiz.. what do you do ?

[betelnut]

I was on a flight from KACY the other day. I counted 6 TSA people plus 2 TSA trainees for a commuter flight with 19 pax onboard. The two "random" screening where myself and another pilot.

Personnally, I'd put 2 screeners at the gate and the rest in a vehicle patrolling the ramp.

[Chopper-Pilot-AU]

Funny you say WE ! i dont recall seeing your post on the subject, only your response to my post ???

I was in fact responding to BOOF HEAD.......................................

I can understand your concerns, when i was working Airport Security at a International Airport, i was asked by the Security Mgr to escort a 737 Cpt to his A/C as he was carrying a personal survival knife in his Pilot Bag! i was asked to take the Knife and return it to the Capt once on the flight deck... DUHHHH
Never undstood why and when i asked later i was informed this is the Airlines security procedure,, as are most of the Security requirements................................................ ...........................

Quite amazing that if you were travelling with Now defunct Ansett airlines you could board the A/C with a leatherman but if travelling with Qantas you were not!!

many airlines set the requirements and this is then overseen by the DOT ( Dept Of Transport )

it really does get quite confusing when you need to ask what airline are you travelling sir? may i see your boarding pass etc etc,

[boofhead]

Chopper.. not trying to slag off the staff, they are just doing their job and they probably believe they are doing some good.
My point is that what is going on is having the result of driving away those who pay our salaries: the passengers. If it also made flying safer that would be a good tradeoff, but it does not. Almost every week we hear about some security "breach" involving some passenger who has been caught with a knife, or who bypasses security, but on examination none of them were criminals, and if they had not been caught, so what? Those who do have a crimimal intent STILL get through (El AL for example) so what is the point?
We can never stop a determined criminal, and all this effort being made is doomed to fail. There is an element of risk in flying, we should set a reasonable level of security and stay with it. In the US the security was not as bad as it is now painted, just as security in Europe was not as good. We need a level around that of Europe, and what is going on in the US is counter-productive.
We do not need the big CTX machines in the airport lobbies, for example. Explosives in baggage is not a major problem, yet unreasonable resources are being given to protect us from a non-threat. Better to quietly upgrade the machines, leaving them in the baggage area, and go about the job. Breaking locks off bags without the knowledge of the passenger, risking belongings being stolen and broken, will not help security or passeneger relations.
What we need to do is accept that some bad guys will get through, and revise procedures to handle that situation. Training aircrew how to overcome a terrorist, for example (not the way the El Al stewardess was reported to have done: They say she saw the pocket knife and ran screamimg down the aisle! Hope that is not true). We need to make it clear that the old "cooperation" policy is dead and the flight deck door will not be opened for a threat. In fact as soon as the flight deck crew gets a call indicating a problem they should cut off all communications with the cabin, so they will not be subject to pressure, and land at the nearest suitable airport. Let the hijacker posture or even kill, the greater good is applicable. The cabin crew should have weapons, or trained how to make them from what is available. Passengers should be encouraged to help in this situation (not that they need to be encouraged, the response by most has been incredible so far).
But again, what we are doing now does not enhance flight safety, does not address the real issues, is only window dressing done by people who don't have a clue and are doing "something" just to make it appear that they are in control. Using the Sep 11 catastrophe as an excuse to make the biggest Federal department ever is as cynical and oppportunistic as it gets.
What we are doing is bin Laden's work: destroying aviation and destroying our own way of life.

[VMCA]

About 2 months ago a free lance camera man under cover for a current affairs program managed to sneak through security a microphone holder, which at first glance looks like a glock, and a made up ball of plasticine with wires poking out of it, to simulate an explosive device. This camerman flew from one international/domestic airport to another and back again. Only being questioned on his final leg about the contents.:rolleyes: makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside:(

[Chopper-Pilot-AU]

Once while i was working at Cairns Airport, passenger screening i was standing behind the Xray unit supervising a co-worker when i noticed a unusual item in a back pack, i removed the pack from the conveyor belt and on closer inspection found a 9mm Glock!

The male who owned this pack had boarded at Brisbane for Darwin transiting in Cairns! he wass legal to own the weapon just not bring it into the Sterile area.....

No one stopped him at Brisbane, also some time later found a Shotgun oh and one Cat! yes a pussy LOl she didnt want to pay to have her loved cat placed into cargo.......................................

there is no easy answer for the problem if i did i would be Rich!!!
I found that lack of training and wages was a problem as even the staff dont take it seriously, Oh and if you are a religious person you can bring religious idols through airport security with out being xrayed!!! seems crazy but true.....................................

personally i think we should just handcuff every pax to their seat!! that would work!!! no more smoking in the loo or rooting for that matter LOL

[boofhead]

Did you see the movie Con Air? They had everyone handcuffed to their seats and chained at the ankle, but still the bad guys won control of the airplane. Only a movie, yeah, but who would have believed in the attack on the WTC if they had not seen it live?
If a fellow stands up and claims to have a bomb, flight crews are required to take him seriously. So it is not necessary to smuggle anything on board.
We should be looking at what to do WHEN it happens, and back off a little on the airport security, lest there be no passengers to protect.

[nitefliteonly]

Manchester Airport Tribunals
Manchester Airport Group Alliance www.magalliance.com

Tribunal Hearings


The first steps in the legal challenge were made on 8 November 2002 when a Directions Hearing was held at the Employment Tribunal Offices in Manchester.

Because of the complex nature and number of claims submitted, the tribunal is expected to run for 15 days between the 8th and 26th September 2003.

The claims fall into several categories.

The Transport & General Workers Union are pursuing:

A Protective Award* for 590 Security Staff employed by Manchester Airport Plc.

15 claims for Unfair dismissal

15 claims for Breach of Contract

13 claims for Unlawful deductions

11 claims for Sex discrimination

3 claims for Trade Union Activities

*Section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 outlines the legal duty on an employer to consult. Failure to comply with these requirements can be challanged under a protective award

Hope to see the Airport directors there !

[Dimbleby]

As a flight crew member, who always takes it on the chin without complaint, when an individual ( and yes it is an observation ), in some official security uniform of dubious intellectual quality asks me the same inane childlike questions in halting english, I was little surprised to see the names of the security staff who were yesterday convicted of the Heathrow heist.

Of course it is politically uncorrect to say what I actually feel.

Our lives and careers are being directly affected by the current PC surrounding airport security.

:mad:

[Flightrider]

I have to say that I consider this thread and poll to be ill-considered and irresponsible.

People like the Daily Mail's Transport Correspondent specialise in making stories which are heavily anti-aviation from the slightest bit of information or smallest occurrence. The man had three front-page headlines in one week back in September, all of which I felt were scare-mongering in the extreme.

And so here we are.

"AVIATION PROFESSIONALS CONSIDER AIRPORT SECURITY INADEQUATE"
58% of respondents to a poll on the influential Professional Pilot's Rumour Network website, an internet chatroom frequented by pilots and aviation professionals, said that they did not think airport security was adequate. Several respondents cited plastic cutlery - introduced in place of metal cutlery after the September 11 attacks - as potential weapons which could be used in a hi-jacking. The effectiveness of airfield perimeter security fencing also came under question as a means of deterring unauthorised access at some UK airfields."

And you seriously expect people to keep getting on our aircraft to keep us all in a job after this? Frankly, it's no wonder the industry is in the mire. Security needs to be taken 110% seriously but all this thread is doing is loading the ammunition into a gun for the aviation industry's detractors to pull the trigger!

[25F]

It seems to be common belief here that profiling is better than random searches. In fact, if you have any profiling at all then random searches are essential. Otherwise Mr. Al Bad'Guy just sends volunteers on as many "test flights" as it takes until he finds the two or three he needs, that never get stopped and searched.

Unfortunately, that means that *everybody* going on the aircraft is subject to the random search.

If you want the first paragraph in more detail, try this page:
http://www.swiss.ai.mit.edu/6805/student-papers/spring02-papers/caps.htm

[PaperTiger]

Since when did a student's term paper become the definitive reference ? Ignoring factual errors in the opening (the terrorists did not hijack 'moments after takeoff', nor did any of them board at Providence, RI) the rest is pure sophistry, based on a flawed precept. When you have already decided the desired conclusion, constructing a 'model' to support it is a relatively simple exercise.

Have to do better than this for supporting documentation I'm afraid.

[25F]

PaperTiger - what is the "flawed precept"?

Meanwhile I'll try to improve the standard of my supporting documentation...

[RayDarHeadin]

Has anyone out there any thoughts on whether Pilots/Cabin Personnel should be subject to the same security measures as passengers. I am talking only in terms of operating crews.?? Has anyone experienced difficulties since 9/11. Have you been stopped by security and why. Are you more aware of what you may be carrying with you through Security. Should security be across the board or can it be selective, with total security not undermined.??


RaydarHeadin

:confused:

[Ghostflyer]

Aircrew are subject to the same security measures and are stopped and searched!!

[fatboy slim]

Interesting article in the Telegraph today (27NOV02) about the regional airports being a 'soft underbelly' of UK security - privately chartered light aircraft bringing in lethal material to GA or remote airports. This according to Lord Carlile QC reporting on the effectivness of Govt anti-terrorist laws.

Are we too focussed on another 9/11 style attack and missing the point??

[RayDarHeadin]

Does anyone think that Crews should be allowed to carry on board items such as pocketknives/tools as part of there personal equipment.

ray

:confused:

[boofhead]

As a result of the new upgraded airport security, a total of zero hijackers have been caught, but we still see crazies taking over or attempting to takeover airliners, and they don't seem to have any trouble taking weapons on board.
This could mean we are NOT doing it right, despite the effort put in. What it DOES mean is that we are doing the terrorists' job for them and destroying aviation.
But what I don't understand is what is in it for the various governments that are buying into this stupidity. Sure they get to grow their power and thus the money they take from us, but if they end up with nobody flying, and the airlines out of business, what will they gain then?

[fatboy slim]

Ray - in a word - yes.

I have an axe behind my seat. I would do much more harm with that than my (banned) leatherman. My Headset now needs engineering attention when it a screw comes loose.

Anyway the good old boys from the US will soon have handguns.

[giddy up]

Whilst I am sure the larger international airports have decent security, I tend to think that some of the smaller ones are lacking.

I am a charter pilot in Broome WA. It is a smaller international airport accepting nothing bigger than the 737-800 for now at least. For those of you who dont know, we are the closest international Australian airport to Bali. We have a number of corporate jets coming through each year.

The other day, I had to go around due to children running around on the runway. Perhaps they thought the name "runway" implied something for them however, if children can find their way onto the operational runway un noticed who knows what could find its way out there. To get to the operational runway from the direction they entered from, one must pass directly past the RPT apron. It is all too convenient to make a quick diversion past the 737 sitting 100 metres away.

Terrorism wouldnt be too hard hitting in Broome as their is sod all here to blow up however, how many other more popular destinations around Australia have a similar setup??

When terrorists decide that its too hard to hit the big stuff, there is nothing to stop them from going na na in a smaller yet popular tourist destination such as Broome or any other such place.

How far do we need to take Airport security?? And should it be to that extent at every single aerodrome around the world??

My point is in short, Airports such as Sydney or Melbourne are very secure, but we are ignoring smaller destinations like Broome. These smaller destinations are not the most likely places to cop a dose of terrorism however, like Bali, they are an easy place to kill alot of people.

I hope Im not giving anyone any ideas. ;)

[Pandora]

Had a commuting 777 pilot on my jumpseat last week who warned she had heard rumblings that security services around British and US airports were becoming increasingly worried about the number of people on aircraft claiming to have access to a fire axe. The solution to this, they say, may be move the fire axe/jemmy to a less accessible position so that no one could get at it to use it as a weapon :rolleyes:

Remember I am just the messenger - this is just the sort of thing that is going on in the brain of the type of person who confiscated my needle form a hotel sewing kit, leaving me with just the thread and spare button, because I "may use the needle to try and take control of the aircraft."

On a final note - 2 of my colleages had to use the jemmy recently for the reason it was put on the aircraft - to assist them in fighting a fire. Top marks to the smily boys all round - if you're reading, you know who you are :)

[GAZIN]

I find it very hard to accept that many of the security measures put in place at airports since the 11t Sept, or even Pan Am 103, are necessary or effective.
The current regime requires, unquestioning acceptance, of the most rediculous procedures. The end result is, or will be, that those of us who work on or around aircraft become fed up with the whole security issue & do our best to get around it.
I am not a pilot, but the the onboard security procedures at the airline who employs me are not far short of crazy.
Events today in Kenya show that inconveniencing everybody at airports, in the name of security, is no guarantee of safety. Thank goodness the terrorists in question were incompetent.

[Rollingthunder]

It always amazes me.

6839 views, 1125 votes.

All you have to do is click on the most appropriate radio button.

Do 5714 folks have no opinion on this? Or 5714 folks haven't been through an airport since (you know when)?

[babe1]

Ghostflyer...

Even Security Staff have to have the same checks as everyone else, they have there forks, knives, penknives etc removed by their 'workmates'
Every time they go from Landside to Airside, which in the course of a Long Day,10 or 12 hr shifts, can be a lot!
The D.F.T are the one's to have a go at, they set out the rules that the Poor Security Guards have to follow or their jobs are on the line.:(

[Rollingthunder]

Not Everywhere.

I go through a special entry for crew/staff. My Restricted Area Pass is inspected to make sure that my face matches the photo. I swipe the Pass by an electronic reader to confirm current validity. We are not subject to searches or questioning.

[sky9]

In any job you either pay people a small wage and tell them to follow rules, or pay them a decent salary and require them to use their initiative.
The problem with security in the UK is that they have chosen the former and driven the wages right down. But then people in uniform always give the punters confidence.

[luddite]

Two incidents in the last two weeks cause me grave concern about my base airport. I'd tell you which one it is but the terrorists might be reading.
As crew we are subject to much greater scrutiny than the passengers.

[whatshouldiuse]

Took my 1st trip with my girlfriend and her son (11) since the TSA took over control of security at US airports this past Tuesday. You think it was bad before.

At Newark, we were signalled out for a complete bag and body search at the gate prior to boarding which is fine with a couple of glaring exceptions. I quote here: " We don't need to search the boy and you can give him his bag too"...say what !! Secondly, when the inspector, maybe 22 or 23 searched my girlfriend's toiletry bag, a couple of tampax / pads fell out onto the floor and table. After fumbling with them and subsequently re-dropping them, the inspector turned beet-red and said everything looked fine. All he did was search her toiletry bag and nothing else.

If you thought this was bad, you have no idea what occured in Las Vegas. This time, we checked our luggage as opposed to carrying it on because we had no desire to see a sniffling nosed kid checking out our dirty clothes. All we put through the x-ray machine was a M&M bag full of gifts. We sailed through security. For those who don't know MaCarron, we were taking Continental out of Terminal A which is a good jaunt from the check-in terminal. It's interspersed with slot machines and smoking lounges on the way to the gate.

As we had time to spare, we stopped in one of the smoking lounges / gaming areas for that one last elusive jackpot. Shortly after, a couple of TSA employees came in and started looking in the garbage cans. There were 2 rather large ones...the cans and not the employees. We thought they were looking for explosives, incendiary devices etc. which is a good thing. But NO. They were looking for discarded empty boxes of Marlboro cigarettes. When the 1st lady found a "buy 2, get a 3rd one free carton", she almost came unglued once she found she would acquire double points by cutting off the bar-code on the wrapper. She became positively giddy when she found an additional 2 empty boxes in the 2nd trash-bin.

God Bless her though, she tore off the bar-codes, and then put the remaining trash back into the bins and sat down with her friend for a well deserved smoke break. No exaggeration as God is my judge. While I'm not trying to duplicate Danny's security theme topic (and feel free to move this if need be), I thought you might all want to know that sometimes new isn't necessarily better and sometimes it's far worse than it's predecessor.

[Biffer]

Having had a late hols for a week on the Red Sea I was discusted at the airport orocedures.
Not a million miles from Isreal, Jorden and a host of other dodgy areas to say the least, the security and the normal procedures where non existant.
Arrival was a do it yourself thing with baggage from 5 flights spread all over two halls.
Departure was even worse.
Arriving 30 mins prior to the transfer coach, antisipating delays, we arrived to a security check whith a long cue. Money however allowed bypass and entry into the departure hall.
Once inside it was obvious it was goinig to be anything but smooth.
For a fairly old airport it obviously had the technology with new air traffic tower and the lounges had large plasma screen notice boards etc but on no occassion were these used to indicate anything other than the previous flight pr even before.
Massive cues are fairly normal but these where not moving due to baggage not moving through the conveyor belts. This problem was solved by the whole line of passengers leaving their baggage in a pile in front of the check in desk and proceding to the passport control. Who knows what could of been placed on the aircraft not accompanied by a passengers bum in seat.
This was evident on about five occassions while we waited to check in and also happened to ourselves also.
This s not over reacting and I have photos to boot.
The actual check in was a pharse at which a passenger list was passed to us and we where asked to tick off our names. (DIY)
If indeed you where not sat next to each other then a small contribution would secure this pleasure to the disruption later to JMC crew who thought they wnew who was sat where for meals. minor I know but just goes to show a plan (OR PROCEDURE ) is only good if followed.
Thats my whine and as a an aircraft captain in the rotory world I feel very sorry for the fixed wing boys and girls out there who have to put up with this every day to allow the big companies to make cash.:mad: :mad: :mad:

[ExSimGuy]

2 incidents -

first, flying Mid-East airport to LON via Bucharest. Held up for an hour at transit while they tried to get an x-ray working. Finally took us to another X-ray to check our carry-ons ("what on earth for - we've already been checked first sector?")

A few days later I found a "Stanley knife" (box-cutter) in my laptop bag that I use as a carry-on, which had been in a side pocket since I bought it ages ago and forgot to transfer it to my tool box. Very startled, to say the least - I know the X-ray profile of these things must be quite small, with most of them being plastic, but I got it through X-ray twice! And that's what, I understand, was used on Sept 11th.

second, flying from UK to USA and last in the line to board. Most of the pax had their bags physically checked but I was just asked "anything sharp?", or words to that effect, and let on board.

Was that because I was holding a "staff ticket"? or because they were running late geting the plane boarded?

Still an awful lot to do before we can be sure there's no "bad boys" getting on with us I'm afraid.

[Wings]

I've just been reading Danny's straw poll thread that seems to have had a lot of us identifying places where security is not of the standard we would like.
I always like to "light a candle rather than curse the darkness"
so...

Are there any airports out there that are getting it right ?
(As far as security goes)

I don't mean things like not taking eye lash curlers out of ladies handbags - a security guard has orders to remove them even if thinks it's a silly order.

I'm talking about the entire system at the airport ;
Access to airside is genuinely secure.
Airport staff are actually 'security aware' in all things they do.
The Security guards are doing it right (how ? why ?)
And so on.

I would like to offer Hong Kong as a place that seems to be getting it right. Perhaps also Singapore.

Hong Kong's hand baggage checks really impress me. No guards chatting with their friends instead of looking at the X ray monitors. They have have supervisors right there checking the security guards to see they do their jobs properly, politely and thoroughly. The guys with machine guns also give the impression that they mean business.

Please, there will be loads of you ready to bad mouth Hong Kong. Don't lose the premise of this thread.

Lets find the good airports, see what they are doing right, and then try to get the other airports to change for the better.

Cheers

[whatshouldiuse]

The Government reported today that over Thanksgiving Week, they confisicated over

15,000 knives
9 box-cutters
6 guns
1 Brick

as well as over 20,00 items including

knitting needles
nail-clippers
ammonia
and Meat Cleavers !!

The icing on the cake was the confiscation of a toy cannon in O'Hare made out of live ammunition!! They are still studying why anybody would need a brick on a airplane !!

Don't these people who fly over a holiday weekend ever watch the news?


Andy

[brain fade]

Its rather obvious, but as no one has pointed it out on this thread, then please let me!
Airports are large, complicated facilities. Access to them is neccessarily unrestricted in order for the public to make use of them. There are a great many of them.
It is not possible, by ANY means to raise Airport Security to a level which will stop very determined men from doing what the want to do.
The only way to achieve this is by removing the very real grievances, by political means, which drive the terrorists to such extreme acts.

Unpalatable I know. But fact.

Thankyou. Now feel free to return to stories about the time you went through security and they didn't spot your pen knive.;)

[david viewing]

My Daughter and I flew PHX-LHR on Sunday and found the very heavy duty TSA presence polite, cheerful and professional. This despite my daughter having scissors in her hand luggage (again!!) and my failing to remove my laptop from my briefcase, evidently a misdemeanor that requires explosive sniffing and re-xray.

We just have to live with it and these guys had a good attitude. But I wonder what they do when their sniffer gets a false alarm?

[Bubbette]

Well what do you think of this:
Under the headline "Retarded Immigrant Strives for Independence," reporter Arthur Bovino notes approvingly that 21-year-old Kareen Dupervil, a mentally retarded Haitian woman "with a first-grade reading level," has applied for a job as a baggage handler at La Guardia Airport in Queens, N.Y.

The Times writer tells us that Dupervil "took a test at the airport with two other mentally retarded adults . Though Ms. Dupervil did not pass, the trainer who gave the test called (her job counselor) to encourage her to study and try again." Thanks to help from the Brooklyn Bureau of Community Service, a government-funded charity that provides disabled and "undocumented" persons with employment assistance and is supported by the Times's Neediest Cases Fund, Dupervil will be tutored "for the test twice a week. She will take the test again in a few months."

And she will take the test again and again, presumably, until she passes -- or sues under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act to get the job. Only the best and the brightest security professionals at our nation's airports . http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/mm20021204.shtml

[Rockhound]

As a passenger, I was distinctly underwhelmed by the security at Hong Kong earlier this week. Before checking in for my flight just before 7 am on Dec 2, I noticed a large suitcase standing unattended by the seats near the Cathay Pacific counters. Twenty minutes later, it was still there, in solitary splendour. I pointed this out to one of the CX staff, who inanely responded that it probably belonged to a passenger who had been called away. I agreed that this was the likely explanation but asked her if she didn't think it still should be pointed out to Security. She then said she would do so. I went through to my gate, so don't know if she did.
I passed through CLK several times during the last two weeks and don't recall ever hearing announcements concerning unattended baggage.
Rockhound

[Apollo101]

Rockhound,

Does it make sense to be announcing unattended luggage over the terminal loudspeakers to already nervous travlers?

Is this the normal procedure for airport staff to be alerting security services to the fact that baggage has been left unattended?

[Rockhound]

Apollo,
What I meant was regular admonitions over the loudspeaker to not leave baggage unattended and warning that such items would be removed. Such announcements are common in airports (eg Toronto), train stations, bus terminals, etc.
Rockhound

[LOWCONEINBOUND]

American airport security was a "Connected Crime" scam before 9-11; and a very profitable one, at that. Huge cashflow - low overhead.

In the year prior to 9-11, the American security companies were merged into three, then sold to European investors at a discount; implying a foreknowledge of 9-11.

As it now stands, American airport security is programmed to go back to private hands in 3 years; per the American Nazi-like "Patriot Act."

The scammed American "Homeland Security Act" (complementing the "Patriot Act") provides the funding for the alleged airport security.

For those who don't know the story, the original "Homeland Security" law was known as H.R. 5005, containing 230 pages. In the background was H.R. 5710, containing 484 pages. The difference was billions of dollars in corporate "pork."

At the last second, the numbers on the two bills were switched; the "pork" version was passed. The White House advertised only the smaller of the two bills. Thus, an example of neo-American corruption.

For a decent account on American Airport Security, see:

http://home.attbi.com/~skydrifter/asn.htm

Look toward the bottom of the page for the "9-11 REDUX" account. It's quite interesting. Especially when you note that no viable measures are being taken, as opposed to the obvious sabotage of 'government' security, versus "privatised."