DJ Web Check-In
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: East of Runway 21
Posts: 1,157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DJ Web Check-In
Hey all.
Saw an ad in The West today touting DJ's new 'web check-in' service.
I know this has been done o/s, but a few things concern me.
1) The DG challenge is apparently answered online. I don't know how detailed their questions are but it seems perhaps people might bring things that might otherwise be spotted or asked about by check-in staff.
2.) How do they ID the person? For example, say Joe Bloggs uses web check-in. Gets itinerary and boarding pass. Mr Terrorist wants to use Joe Bloggs' boarding pass to get on the plane. How do they authenticate the identity of the person travelling as opposed to the person who 'checked-in'? Does someone check ID at the airport before they get on the plane??
3) Hand luggage & weight limits. We've all seen what people try to get away with at the airport. So does anyone else think that perhaps this may mean that pax start trying to bring even more with them, because they don't have someone telling them their bags are too big/heavy? Or again is this checked on arrival at the airport?
Thanks for answering, any comments on this positive or negative appreciated!!
Sky
PS - I think it's funny that Adelaide is classed with SYD, MEL and BNE, but I'm guessing by 'regional ports' they mean Perth!!
Saw an ad in The West today touting DJ's new 'web check-in' service.
I know this has been done o/s, but a few things concern me.
1) The DG challenge is apparently answered online. I don't know how detailed their questions are but it seems perhaps people might bring things that might otherwise be spotted or asked about by check-in staff.
2.) How do they ID the person? For example, say Joe Bloggs uses web check-in. Gets itinerary and boarding pass. Mr Terrorist wants to use Joe Bloggs' boarding pass to get on the plane. How do they authenticate the identity of the person travelling as opposed to the person who 'checked-in'? Does someone check ID at the airport before they get on the plane??
3) Hand luggage & weight limits. We've all seen what people try to get away with at the airport. So does anyone else think that perhaps this may mean that pax start trying to bring even more with them, because they don't have someone telling them their bags are too big/heavy? Or again is this checked on arrival at the airport?
Thanks for answering, any comments on this positive or negative appreciated!!
Sky
PS - I think it's funny that Adelaide is classed with SYD, MEL and BNE, but I'm guessing by 'regional ports' they mean Perth!!
I used it this morning, MEL-SYD, and whilst it is a terrible nice time saver (rolled up at the gate 20 min before departure, no need for 30 min requirement), there is SFA in the way of ID check. Held up the boarding pass that I printed to be scanned, the same as all the other pax, not a word, no indication of a check.
On line DG statement makes no difference to what happens at check in, and carry on baggage is subject to the same cursory inspection regardless of how you check in.
Nice idea, but full of holes in this post 11th Sept world that we live in.
Oh yes, I forgot: it will allow Dickie B. to cut a few more jobs, and make some more profit. That makes it all OK
On line DG statement makes no difference to what happens at check in, and carry on baggage is subject to the same cursory inspection regardless of how you check in.
Nice idea, but full of holes in this post 11th Sept world that we live in.
Oh yes, I forgot: it will allow Dickie B. to cut a few more jobs, and make some more profit. That makes it all OK
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: East of Runway 21
Posts: 1,157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So basically, if your boarding pass gets blown out of your hand on the way into the terminal, any Joe blow could pick it up and waltz onto your flight?? Jeez, who thought of that one?
(I realise most wouldn't as you need to get back, but hey, all it takes is one person with doubtful motive....)
So by 'cursory inspection' I take it someone is at least checking what the baggage is....? Who takes the bags? Do they go direct onto a belt like with normal check-in? Just wondering as in the post Schapelle world you can't be too careful!
I think someone needs to take another look at this thing if the ID checks are as slack as they seem.... this is a 737 we're talking about, not some GA flight!!!
(I realise most wouldn't as you need to get back, but hey, all it takes is one person with doubtful motive....)
So by 'cursory inspection' I take it someone is at least checking what the baggage is....? Who takes the bags? Do they go direct onto a belt like with normal check-in? Just wondering as in the post Schapelle world you can't be too careful!
I think someone needs to take another look at this thing if the ID checks are as slack as they seem.... this is a 737 we're talking about, not some GA flight!!!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Online check-in and kiosks seem to work pretty well all over Europe. Can't recall the last time I used LHR and didn't use a machine. Indeed the best combination is online check-in, then just use the machine to collect boarding pass.
(Gasps heard from Qantas people: "Online check-in? What's that? Next they'll be letting people choose their seats before they show up at the airport!")
Haven't used BA's print-your-boarding-pass-at-home yet, but my first shot can't be far away.
Most airlines limit online check-in to situations where they can do checks - eg. member of FF scheme, paid with same card, etc. Sure it's not infallible but neither is the eyeball.
It does put more pressure on the guys at the gate (who do the final ID check throughout most of Europe, in my experience) - but that it where the pressure should be. That is, I really don't care if name & ID match at check-in; I DO care that the person who actually boards, is the one in front of me. The check-in ID match is a nice check, but at airports where there are lots of transit pax mingling, the chance of abuse is high. Best to check at boarding.
As for security, the whole airside area or gate area should be sterile (again, depending on transit arrangements) so checking ID doesn't really come up as an issue with respect to check-in arrangements.
I suspect the real weakness is how well the gate agent checks ID. I have had some sets of eyes look right into my soul whilst others may have been Ray Charles... but in both instances, the attention given to the check tended to be consistent with the apparent attitude to safety across the whole airport.
(Gasps heard from Qantas people: "Online check-in? What's that? Next they'll be letting people choose their seats before they show up at the airport!")
Haven't used BA's print-your-boarding-pass-at-home yet, but my first shot can't be far away.
Most airlines limit online check-in to situations where they can do checks - eg. member of FF scheme, paid with same card, etc. Sure it's not infallible but neither is the eyeball.
It does put more pressure on the guys at the gate (who do the final ID check throughout most of Europe, in my experience) - but that it where the pressure should be. That is, I really don't care if name & ID match at check-in; I DO care that the person who actually boards, is the one in front of me. The check-in ID match is a nice check, but at airports where there are lots of transit pax mingling, the chance of abuse is high. Best to check at boarding.
As for security, the whole airside area or gate area should be sterile (again, depending on transit arrangements) so checking ID doesn't really come up as an issue with respect to check-in arrangements.
I suspect the real weakness is how well the gate agent checks ID. I have had some sets of eyes look right into my soul whilst others may have been Ray Charles... but in both instances, the attention given to the check tended to be consistent with the apparent attitude to safety across the whole airport.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2.) How do they ID the person? For example, say Joe Bloggs uses web check-in. Gets itinerary and boarding pass. Mr Terrorist wants to use Joe Bloggs' boarding pass to get on the plane. How do they authenticate the identity of the person travelling as opposed to the person who 'checked-in'? Does someone check ID at the airport before they get on the plane??
The most "secure" method would be checking ID against boarding passes as they step on-board the plane.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From my experience it is virtually no different to normal checkin as with your question:
1) People will respond to the DG questions exactly the same and it does not matter if they are written or verbal. The checkin agent and airline has to go on the honesty of the pax with either method. The back up as approved by DOTARS is that all hand carry is screened and all checked baggage will be 100% screened very soon.
2) The ID check is by having to use the credit card that was used to purchase the ticket to obtain the boarding pass at a kiosk. With normal checkin you can book and pay for a ticket in your name, checkin and go to the gate then give the boarding pass to your mate who is seeing you off. This can happen with every domestic airline in Australia now.
The backup as okayed by DOTARS is that every person and their baggage is screened before getting on the plane.
3) As John says, hand carry is supposed to be checked for size and weight at the gate. Thats why every airline has or should have test units at every gate.
The only way to be 100% certain of who is travelling is to check ID at the gate like all US and UK airlines do for international flights. DOTARS has determined that the correct name/pax is the lowest risk because whoever and their baggage gets on the flight has been screened.
Receiving a printed barcode boarding pass at home is the same as above. Again, you have to be screened to get on the plane and all bags have to go through the same system no matter which way you checked in.
Web and kiosk checkin is mainly designed for the business traveller who have no checked in baggage.
1) People will respond to the DG questions exactly the same and it does not matter if they are written or verbal. The checkin agent and airline has to go on the honesty of the pax with either method. The back up as approved by DOTARS is that all hand carry is screened and all checked baggage will be 100% screened very soon.
2) The ID check is by having to use the credit card that was used to purchase the ticket to obtain the boarding pass at a kiosk. With normal checkin you can book and pay for a ticket in your name, checkin and go to the gate then give the boarding pass to your mate who is seeing you off. This can happen with every domestic airline in Australia now.
The backup as okayed by DOTARS is that every person and their baggage is screened before getting on the plane.
3) As John says, hand carry is supposed to be checked for size and weight at the gate. Thats why every airline has or should have test units at every gate.
The only way to be 100% certain of who is travelling is to check ID at the gate like all US and UK airlines do for international flights. DOTARS has determined that the correct name/pax is the lowest risk because whoever and their baggage gets on the flight has been screened.
Receiving a printed barcode boarding pass at home is the same as above. Again, you have to be screened to get on the plane and all bags have to go through the same system no matter which way you checked in.
Web and kiosk checkin is mainly designed for the business traveller who have no checked in baggage.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: australia
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I personally dont see how using the same CC at the kiosk to collect your boarding pass as was paid with is really a good measure of ID checking.
Not terribly difficult for someone with bad motives to use a fake/stolen credit card online and then bring that fake to the kiosk to swipe.
At least with a normal check-in the person at the counter has a chance to look at the id and see if it looks fake, person is nervous or whatever.
But hey, DOTARS says its safe so it must be so!
Zepth
Not terribly difficult for someone with bad motives to use a fake/stolen credit card online and then bring that fake to the kiosk to swipe.
At least with a normal check-in the person at the counter has a chance to look at the id and see if it looks fake, person is nervous or whatever.
But hey, DOTARS says its safe so it must be so!
Zepth
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southern england
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One other possible problem with DIY boarding cards, there is no "tear-off" strip, therefore whole A4 sheet remains with passenger. In event of headcount discrepancy, no longer possible to count the boarding cards!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I personally don't see how using the same CC at the kiosk to collect your boarding pass as was paid with is really a good measure of ID checking.
Might I just remind ppruners: The murderous criminals checked in on 9/11 using their own names and photo ID with tickets they had either paid for in cash or with their own credit cards.
So, they would have passed these same checks that pax go through when they check in even now. Nothing has changed. Except they could take on their box cutters, nail files, clippers and keep their shoes on when they went through security, but current pax can't.
More to the point, what SHOULD be done by way of security checks to prevent suicidal maniacs boarding an RPT flight with intent to take all on board to a crispy fried hell?
Frankly, I'm all for detailed, long-term profiling. And that would leave me waving through Prince Andrew, and the PMs of PNG and NZ because they just don't fit the profile of a suicidal murderous zealot. Proving "nobody is exempt from our tough Australian security checks" pays only lip service to the process, and distracts the left-wing crowd from coming up with proper solutions to solve this worrying problem.
"AAA" baggage and pax screening will help eliminate the cracks being discussed in this thread.
VHCU
Last edited by VH-Cheer Up; 6th Oct 2005 at 03:00.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: East of Runway 21
Posts: 1,157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks all for your replies. I guess perhaps I was also htinking of the other airlines where this happens, it seems to me though that there are big gaps in between check-in and boarding.
For example, as someone pointed out, really transit pax and deaprting pax should not mix, as with arr/dep pax. Anyone going through Perth recently would see the changes being made in the Virgin terminal to get in line with this requirement for no mixing of pax.
As for checking ID at the gate, I have to say that it would be as easy with the QF boarding cards as it would with the DJ barcodes to just give them to someone else. But I have never, ever seen any gate staff pull someone aside for over-the-top hand luggage. And there's been some stuff going through that shouldn't. i guess it's not practical as then would have to be screened and put in the hold which would cause dealys. AGain, down to the check-in staff.
Somehow though the thought of a person checking in at a desk is more comforting to me. Sure, the guys on 9/11 got through, but as pointed out a peron can at least pick up on visual cues like body language. Even if that stops one more incident, isn't that better??
I guess there will never be 100% certainty until ALL baggage and pax are screened and fully sterile lounges are introduced. WHich of course won't happen because the pax and beancounters won't like it.
For example, as someone pointed out, really transit pax and deaprting pax should not mix, as with arr/dep pax. Anyone going through Perth recently would see the changes being made in the Virgin terminal to get in line with this requirement for no mixing of pax.
As for checking ID at the gate, I have to say that it would be as easy with the QF boarding cards as it would with the DJ barcodes to just give them to someone else. But I have never, ever seen any gate staff pull someone aside for over-the-top hand luggage. And there's been some stuff going through that shouldn't. i guess it's not practical as then would have to be screened and put in the hold which would cause dealys. AGain, down to the check-in staff.
Somehow though the thought of a person checking in at a desk is more comforting to me. Sure, the guys on 9/11 got through, but as pointed out a peron can at least pick up on visual cues like body language. Even if that stops one more incident, isn't that better??
I guess there will never be 100% certainty until ALL baggage and pax are screened and fully sterile lounges are introduced. WHich of course won't happen because the pax and beancounters won't like it.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: 38,000 ft
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One other possible problem with DIY boarding cards, there is no "tear-off" strip, therefore whole A4 sheet remains with passenger. In event of headcount discrepancy, no longer possible to count the boarding cards!
. If there are fail to boards a seat check is done as part of the SOP's.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sure, the guys on 9/11 got through, but as pointed out a person can at least pick up on visual cues like body language.
And then do that 1,000 times in a shift! and then 200 days a year... Hard, isn't it?
The check-in desk jockey at Portland who checked in three of the 9/11 hijackers found them obnoxious, belligerent and incommunicative. "Full of hate" was how he described one of them. But they still got boarded.
Why don't we database all airline travellers, and flag those who may be potential hijackers, then check them out? And leave the unflagged ones (the usual non-suspects) for less frequent random checks, while giving the flagged ones a 100% check, every trip?
I would willingly sacrifice privacy of my personal data to ASIS, FedPol, ASIO or whomever if I thought it would help focus resources away from people like me and visiting dignitaries(where I know they are not required) and towards others (about whom I know nothing) if I thought it would help the sky a safer place.
Currently, the terrorists have won. We are all terrorised. Already, every day.
Losing a bit more data privacy won't mean much, except to those who have something to hide.
VHCU
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: East of Runway 21
Posts: 1,157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Try working a shift at the check-in counter at Bogan Domestic.
I guess what I was trying to say (not very clearly!) was that surely some human contact (traditional check-in) has got to be better than none (web check-in). At least being in front of a human gives that much more a chance of picking up something odd. As you say, they might get boarded, then again they might not. They'd get on anyway with a computer...
I can admit to knowing what you mean, shift after shift after shift, but even I know enough about body language to have a reasonable chance to pick up on someone telling fibs. I might not get 100%, but some is better than none!!
And we all know everyone will start making a fuss about ASIS etc having more information. Until another bomb hits Bali or the next plane gets blown up. Then all the bleating about 'not enough security' will start.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SkySista
Well, yes, but only if neither you nor your loved ones are on the aircraft containing the x% that slipped under your eagle eye.
It's not about whether someone, anyone, feels suspicious about a pax at the check-in desk. That is just far too loose and variable to be relied upon. Suppose you trusted yourself to pick out 100% of all possible terrorists during the check-in process - would you also trust the person at the next desk, or the next shift, all-day, everyday, always?
Right on. Now is a good time to bring this up - not when we are analysing wreckage wondering where we went wrong.
I think what is needed is a tougher, more rigorous and effective process that figures who is in the pool and who isn't. I get peeved when I see a family stopped at Mascot so the security gorilla can go through Mum's handbag, or the kiddies backpack, sniffing for explosives. That and the singling out of visiting pollies and dignitaries. Gimme a break. That's so obviously a complete waste of time and diversion of resources away from the real problem areas.
The system is broken. Problem is, until we have a disaster of our own, nobody will look at the system and say it's broken. They'll just say the current measures are working, and are necessary, and the inconvenience of the many is needed to prevent Australia having its own 9/11 type disaster.
I don't believe it, and I don't believe we can rely on the vigilance and alertness of a few good people to protect us. What we need is a better system that knows far more about pax than the present system.
Bugger privacy, give me the security of adequate personal information...
VHCU
I might not get 100%, but some is better than none!!
It's not about whether someone, anyone, feels suspicious about a pax at the check-in desk. That is just far too loose and variable to be relied upon. Suppose you trusted yourself to pick out 100% of all possible terrorists during the check-in process - would you also trust the person at the next desk, or the next shift, all-day, everyday, always?
Then all the bleating about 'not enough security' will start.
I think what is needed is a tougher, more rigorous and effective process that figures who is in the pool and who isn't. I get peeved when I see a family stopped at Mascot so the security gorilla can go through Mum's handbag, or the kiddies backpack, sniffing for explosives. That and the singling out of visiting pollies and dignitaries. Gimme a break. That's so obviously a complete waste of time and diversion of resources away from the real problem areas.
The system is broken. Problem is, until we have a disaster of our own, nobody will look at the system and say it's broken. They'll just say the current measures are working, and are necessary, and the inconvenience of the many is needed to prevent Australia having its own 9/11 type disaster.
I don't believe it, and I don't believe we can rely on the vigilance and alertness of a few good people to protect us. What we need is a better system that knows far more about pax than the present system.
Bugger privacy, give me the security of adequate personal information...
VHCU
I reckon that we should all get some perspective.
We are spending millions upon millions on airline security because a bunch of radicals killed 3000 odd people in an act of terrorism.
Tragic as it may have been, the reality is that 50000 people in Australia alone die from cardiovascular disease per year.
Add to that the rates of death and injury from motor vehicle accidents and it seems to me that the response from the government (and many other governments worldwide) is disproportional.
The reality is that even if there was NO security at an airport the greatest risk associated with flying is the drive to the airport or eating the food in the terminal!
If governments worldwide placed the same emphasis on solving some of these issues as they did terrorism and airport security the world would be a far better place - and we wouldn't have to go through the crap we have to to get to the aeroplane to do our days work.
We are spending millions upon millions on airline security because a bunch of radicals killed 3000 odd people in an act of terrorism.
Tragic as it may have been, the reality is that 50000 people in Australia alone die from cardiovascular disease per year.
Add to that the rates of death and injury from motor vehicle accidents and it seems to me that the response from the government (and many other governments worldwide) is disproportional.
The reality is that even if there was NO security at an airport the greatest risk associated with flying is the drive to the airport or eating the food in the terminal!
If governments worldwide placed the same emphasis on solving some of these issues as they did terrorism and airport security the world would be a far better place - and we wouldn't have to go through the crap we have to to get to the aeroplane to do our days work.
