why is a box more threatening than a bag?
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.
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.
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...)
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...)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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. 
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.
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.
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!
)
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!
)
'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!
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!
Paxing All Over The World
TimGriff6
You did. Cogent and helpful.
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'.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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.
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
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.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Edinburgh
Age: 39
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?!
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?!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
