Passengers Can Expect Double Screening

[stephen_s]

WASHINGTON (AP) - Beginning Friday, airline passengers will go through double screening to make sure they're not carrying liquids onto planes, the head of the airline industry's largest trade group said.

Passengers and their carry-on luggage will be checked not only at the main security checkpoint, but also a second time at the boarding gate. The stepped-up screening in response to a new terrorist threat began Thursday at 25 airports where planes leave for Britain.

"It's going to spread across the whole system tomorrow," James May, president of the Air Transport Association, said Thursday.

The response to the terrorist threat produced long lines at airports Thursday as security officials scrambled to put new measures in place and passengers faced perplexing new restrictions - including the ban on carrying liquids onto aircraft.

Intelligence had indicated the terror plot unfolding in Britain involved using benign liquids that could be mixed inside an airplane cabin to make an explosive.

While plots to blow up airliners using liquid explosives are nothing new - such an attempt was foiled more than a decade ago - the government has been slow to upgrade its security equipment at airport checkpoints so that it can detect explosives on passengers.

Transportation Security Administration chief Kip Hawley said the need to tighten security came as a surprise and the changes were difficult to implement.

"It normally takes us about four weeks to roll out a change at a security checkpoint, and this one came about in a little bit more than four hours in the middle of last night," Hawley said.

Duane Woerth, president of the Air Line Pilots Association, said the government was overreacting. "They paralyzed the system with the hassle factor again," Woerth said.

During the first few hours of the alert, the TSA was taking toiletries away from flight crews, he said. "Then they said, 'This is stupid. We're taking toothpaste away from the guy who's going to fly the plane.' It didn't take them long to back down."

But Frank Cilluffo, director of the Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University, said it makes sense to insert "uncertainty and randomness into the system so we can't let the adversary game the system."

Still, he said, coordination among agencies and the industry remains a problem.

Denis Breslin, spokesman for the American Airlines pilots union, faulted nagging communication shortcomings among intelligence, law enforcement and homeland security agencies.

"There's a whole lot of people making rules up right now, and until they get it all sorted out, every passenger is going to have to go through the nightmarish procedures that they're putting together right now," said Breslin.

David Mackett, a pilot who heads the Airline Pilots Security Alliance, said flight crews are treated as part of the problem.

"We're not happy that every time there's a threat we find out from the media, and that there's almost a complete vacuum of information when it comes to the air crews," Mackett said.

It was after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that box cutters and other sharp objects were banned, bulletproof cockpit doors installed and air marshals rushed into service.

And it was after Richard Reid, the confessed shoe bomber, tried to blow up a trans-Atlantic flight in December 2001 that security officials made passengers remove their shoes. Lighters were later banned from passenger cabins.

Members of Congress have for several years criticized the TSA for using 1970s-era X-ray technology to screen carry-on bags at security checkpoints.

Rafi Ron, former head of security at Israel's Ben Gurion Airport and now a security consultant in Washington, said part of the problem is that terrorists always try to exploit new vulnerabilities.

"Weapons and explosives are various and you can expect new types of weapons as well as tactics," Ron said.

Douglas Laird, an aviation security expert and former security chief for Northwest Airlines, said the plot described Thursday resembled a 1994-1995 attempt, codenamed "Bojinka," to blow up a dozen airliners simultaneously over the Pacific Ocean using liquid explosives smuggled onto planes in bottles of contact lens solution.[/b]

[Ned]

Thanks for the post Stephen. I was expecting this in light of the ability of passengers to purchase food, supplies, gifts, and duty free merchandise after passing through security. I hope they start boarding an hour before the flight (of course they can't because often the planes aren't at the airport that much before the flight) or every flight is going to be very late. It's necessary at this point, but I think Homeland security has to really evaluate what they're doing at the airports as a total program, and work things out a lot better, for security and for passengers, as soon as possible. Right now their system isn't working very well for anyone, in my opinion.

[jfrenaye]

The solution is an expensive one! The area beyone security needs to be sterile. So the stores and cafes need to be BEFORE security. Of course this will anger the merchants and HMS Host, but if we are going to be safe, this is what we need to do.

TSA also really needs to look at the back door. As someone said, a low wage person loading stuff on the plane (provisioning not necessarily baggage) would be a likely person to take a $100 tip to load something.

And don't even get me started on our ports!

[AaronK]

John, as much as I agree about the back end being sterile, I would have to seriously rethink travel if I had to go through security on a layover because I decided I wanted to go get a hot dog or something.

Personally, I think the TSA went overboard with banning liquids. However, it is what it is. I'm just glad I don't have any flights scheduled soon.

[Kairho]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jfrenaye @ Aug 11 2006, 06:58 AM) 34150</div>
The solution is an expensive one! The area beyone security needs to be sterile. So the stores and cafes need to be BEFORE security. [/b]Not necessarily. They just have to put all products going to those stores through screening before going on sale. And certain products would no longer be allowed to be sold (lip balm comes to mind). I believe they are already doing this to some extent.

What I do see are enclosed gate areas as in many non-US airports. Glassed off waiting areas with security prior to entering will allow the secondary screening to start way before the aircraft reaches the gate.

[Ned]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AaronK @ Aug 11 2006, 07:17 AM) 34151</div>
John, as much as I agree about the back end being sterile, I would have to seriously rethink travel if I had to go through security on a layover because I decided I wanted to go get a hot dog or something.

Personally, I think the TSA went overboard with banning liquids. However, it is what it is. I'm just glad I don't have any flights scheduled soon.
[/b]
AAron, I don't know what else Homeland Security could do in the short term, in light of the way they've been doing security all along, however, as I've said before, they have to make lots of changes, because they way they're headed will not work. For one thig, the current restrictions and double screening, which goes into effect today, are going to cause short haul passengers to rethink whether or not they're going to use air transportation to get to their destination and back, especially in the northeast, where not only can people choose to drive, but Amtrak becomes a viable alternative too. Short Haul Service, such as provided by US Air Express and United Express, under the new rules, don't look very good, at least to me and many others with whom I spoke yesterday, compared to alternatives.

For example, if I'm going to Richmond, VA, from PHL, it looks as though I'm going to have to be at the airport at least 2 hours ahead of time. That means I'm going to have to leave about 2.5 hours before the flight to get to the airport. With secondary security in place, I'm guessing that the flight will leave at least a half hour late. The flight takes an hour. Now that I have to check in my bag because I need things such as contact lens solution and my non-allergenic shampoo, it's going to cost me another half hour to get my bag. It will take me about a half hour to get to Richmond from the airport. Add that all up and I get 5 hours. Driving will take me about 4.5 hours and Amtrak will take me about 4.25 hours, plus 15 minutes to get to the train station in PHL and 15 minutes to get to almost anywhere in Richmond from the station there. In other words, to start, I can get from PHL to Richmond by car or train faster than by plane these days. Under the new rules I think that will be about par for the course on many short haul flights of 350 miles or less.

Plus, you won't have the hassle of the airport if you go by car or train. You don't have to worry about what you can take with you and where you have to pack it. You don't have to worry about power crazy TSA employees. You can have your own food and beverage on your trip. You don't have to worry about lost baggage on a baggage handling system that will now be burdened with a significant additional volume of luggage every day, due to the new rules. If you take a train you have a trip which is easy and pleasant, letting someone else take you, like the planes. These regulations can spell economic disaster for airlines who depend on short haul flights for substantial income.

Another problem I see immediately is that the baggage handling system, under the new rules, is going to be overwhelmed. The system is not designed to handle the new extra baggage which used to be carry-on, neither are the plane. The airlines have designed the system, planes and baggage handling to include a significant amount of carry-on. They need that carry-on verus more checked-in luggage. I'm predicting that lost and delayed baggage will now be going through the roof. In addition, I'm predicting that those 30-45 minutes waits at the baggage claim carousels are going to routinely extend to more than an hour.

Finally, these new procedures are absolutely not family friendly. I think anyone can see that. I think that's going to hurt tourism and the airlines, if these new security measures or more draconian ones last for any significant amount of time.

John, they can make the terminal after security as sterile as they want, and in my opinion, it's not going to solve the problems, but it will drive away passengers in droves. It make be a workable security model, on the surface at least, but I don't think it's a workable business model for the airlines. It will put people in cars, and trains, or just not traveling. People will more and more look to vacation close to home. Think what the implications to the overall travel and leisure industry are from that. Think about what could happen to employment in the travel agent business. I think it could put a lot of people out of work, and not just in the airports themselves.

While I'm on my soapbox, I think TSA's approach to security is wrong headed. The approach of El Al and other successful high security companies and nations is completely different than TSA. They're on the lookout for terrorists, and only in a periphery way look for things. Somehow that seems to work significantly better. On CNN there's a new article about this entitled Terror Plot Highlights Passenger Screening System (http://www.cnn.com/2006/TRAVEL/08/10/us.security.reax/index.html). The main premise of the experts interviewed for the article is that security experts, who I believe are correct in their evaluation of the TSA security system, say the whole system is looking in the wrong places. They believe TSA is looking for objects, not terrorists, and I concur. The TSA system makes little sense to me. We're not safer for it, and the impact of the system is extremely negative to the transportation system and passengers.

In the article Michael Boyd, president of the Boyd Group, an aviation consulting firm in Evergreen, Colorado said, "Standing there looking to make sure no one has a tube of toothpaste is patently ridiculous, because now we're looking for objects again -- we're not looking for threats."

"Remember Richard Reid, the guy who tried to light up his shoe on the airplane? After that we had to take off our shoes. Imagine what would have happened if he had hid that bomb in his pants," Boyd said.

Even one of the country's top experts who doesn't think TSA's idea about looking at objects is all that wrong has said, "It's inadequate to meet all the reasonably required capabilities," according to Aaron Gellman, a professor at the Transportation Center and the McCormick School of Engineering at Northwestern University. "They ought to be capable of finding the kind of things that are offensive with much more reliability and much quicker than they do. The government's got to rethink both what it needs to procure and how it needs to buy it,"

I think that's right, the government's got to rethink what its doing, and they have to change quickly or we might see a lot of trouble ahead for the airlines and the people who depend on the airlines for travel and employment.

Thanks for listening guys and gals. Sorry for the length of my diatribe.

[Ned]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kairho @ Aug 11 2006, 08:10 AM) 34157</div>
Not necessarily. They just have to put all products going to those stores through screening before going on sale. And certain products would no longer be allowed to be sold (lip balm comes to mind). I believe they are already doing this to some extent.

What I do see are enclosed gate areas as in many non-US airports. Glassed off waiting areas with security prior to entering will allow the secondary screening to start way before the aircraft reaches the gate.
[/b]
I'm not sure I understand about "lip balm." It's not a liquid and it's not a gel. It's a solid, like my deodorant in a "stick" form. It's not really a product which is mixable, so why would it be banned under the system. That brings up the question about lipstick. A couple of news reports have said lipstick is banned, while others have said it's ok. I can understand lip gloss (it's a gel) and some eyeliner (liquid kind (my wife won't use that kind)), but not lipstick. If lipstick is banned than stick deodorant must be banned too.

As I've said earlier, the whole system that is being envisioned makes no sense to me. I was in Heathrow once in an enclosed gate area, past customs, and the plane was 5 hours late. It was an unmitigated disaster. We had to even ask permission to go to the bathroom and then we were escorted there. I think the way TSA is headed is the same, a disaster. To retrofit all the airports in the country will take not millions, not billions, but perhaps a trillion dollars or more. This is already getting quickly out of hand. Take a look at my post above and tell me what you think. You're a very logical thinker whose opinion can be counted on to make sense (even when you don't agree with me :lol: ).

[Kairho]

Although lip balm itself was not the point, I did read somewhere it was banned. It does come in several forms ... I have a container of it here which is a gel. Nonetheless, replace it with lip gel (or any explicitly banned substance) and the statement still works.

And I didn't say the enclosed gates are perfect ... just that I see more compartmentalization (read false security) in our future. And regardless of cost as TPTB will be reluctant to use cost as a reason for not providing "security." (Remember the days when managers bought expensive IBM equipment because they could not be faulted for not buying the best?)

[Arizona Road Warrior]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jfrenaye @ Aug 11 2006, 03:58 AM) 34150</div>
The solution is an expensive one! The area beyone security needs to be sterile. So the stores and cafes need to be BEFORE security. Of course this will anger the merchants and HMS Host, but if we are going to be safe, this is what we need to do.

TSA also really needs to look at the back door. As someone said, a low wage person loading stuff on the plane (provisioning not necessarily baggage) would be a likely person to take a $100 tip to load something.

And don't even get me started on our ports!
[/b]

According to the news report that I saw on CNN, one of the persons arrested in England was an airport employee. I can't recall but I think that person was employed in an area where he could access the luggage and etc.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ned @ Aug 11 2006, 06:18 AM) 34173</div>
I'm not sure I understand about "lip balm." It's not a liquid and it's not a gel. It's a solid, like my deodorant in a "stick" form. It's not really a product which is mixable, so why would it be banned under the system. That brings up the question about lipstick. A couple of news reports have said lipstick is banned, while others have said it's ok. I can understand lip gloss (it's a gel) and some eyeliner (liquid kind (my wife won't use that kind)), but not lipstick. If lipstick is banned than stick deodorant must be banned too.
[/b]

On the news reports that I have seen on CNN, HLN, ABC, CBS and etc., deodorant is banned.

[Ned]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kairho @ Aug 11 2006, 09:37 AM) 34178</div>
Although lip balm itself was not the point, I did read somewhere it was banned. It does come in several forms ... I have a container of it here which is a gel. Nonetheless, replace it with lip gel (or any explicitly banned substance) and the statement still works.[/b]

Thanks, I didn't know lip balm came in tubes.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kairho @ Aug 11 2006, 09:37 AM) 34178</div>And I didn't say the enclosed gates are perfect ... just that I see more compartmentalization (read false security) in our future. And regardless of cost as TPTB will be reluctant to use cost as a reason for not providing "security." (Remember the days when managers bought expensive IBM equipment because they could not be faulted for not buying the best?)
[/b]

I didn't mean to imply you said the enclosed gates are perfect. As I read it, all you did was speculate on what the future might hold. If I did imply that I'm sorry. I agree that everyone will be reluctant to use cost as an excuse for not providing security. I just think that whether they say it or not, cost will be a huge factor. The industry as a whole is barely out of bankruptcy. The government is broke primarily because of Iraq. I don't think Congress is going to be willing to add billions to an already out of control national debt, and the Bush administration wants to cut taxes more. Where's the money going to come from?

[Kairho]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ned @ Aug 11 2006, 10:22 AM) 34184</div>
Thanks, I didn't know lip balm came in tubes.
[/b]

Here's the kind I am referring to. Many brands available. (http://www.amazon.com/EXTREME-EXPOSURE-LIP-BALM/dp/B00016WOGG/sr=8-17/qid=1155308560/ref=sr_1_17/103-7475694-7766232?ie=UTF8)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ned @ Aug 11 2006, 10:22 AM) 34184</div>
I just think that whether they say it or not, cost will be a huge factor. . . . Where's the money going to come from?
[/b]
Now there's the rub. I guess it depends on what the public in general wants...

[bodega]

I think that everything happened rather quickly yesterday and things will get reviewed and changes will be made on what can or can't be carried on. I just hope we do not get to the point that London is in right now, where everything but your wallet and ticket is allowed.

I agree with John about safety in places that we do not see. Back in 1999, we were able to check in with BA at Zurich Airport at 6pm for our flight that we were taking first thing the following morning. After checking our luggage in, someone cut off our lock and got into our luggage and stole items from it. When we picked up our luggage at SFO to go through immigration, we checked our bags for tears and such, but we never saw the cut until we got home. What reaaly bothered us was the possiblity of something being placed inside.

I wrote BA a letter about their security and of course they never addressed it when I got a reply along with replacement cost for our damaged bag and lost items. Ever since, I have wondered how much security is behind the scenes at the airports. There must be security cameras, but does anyone watch them or are they there just to view in case of an incident?

Just this morning, a reporter, with a camera person, was filming at a gate and she showed her bag to the camera and a water bottle was right on top and was never taken at security. Scary!

[mercwyn]

When I worked at the airport some years ago security was a joke in terms of who had access to "secured" areas as opposed to those who were supposed to have access. Because I was known to 80% of the people who worked the ticket counters and at screening I had pretty much unfettered access to the entire airport. I grant you that was a few years ago however I still know people who will let me in secured areas so I can get cheap sodas, chat with friends, etc.

As for theft, etc. my friend who worked as a contract bag handler for UA in ORD told me that when he reported his co-workers for theft to mind his own business. When he pressed the issue his boss told him that he was aware of the theft but he couldn't get enough help as is and he wasn't going to fire all of his employees. In otherwords theft is rampant and systemic and no one is willing to do anything about it.

Now for the really good news, if the ban on electronics holds on flights to and from the UK, people will have to check their laptops, ipods, dvd players, cell phones and cameras. And since they can't lock their luggage it has very good odds of going missing. The TSA will say that they aren't responsible for it and the airlines specifically list in their contract of carriage, electronics as items excluded from any coverage for damage or loss.

This is going to be a blow to the travel industry.

[bodega]

If this becomes the norm, of no electonics, then I would think they could set up luggage inspection and allow you to lock your bags after the inspection. At some airport they do do this already in some fashion. SFO for one, but it is random how they do it. At MIA, they have plastic wrap for bags, but I do not how a passenger is allowed to use it. After having my bags cut into after checking them, I would want more that just that tiny lock protecting my more expensive items... which sometimes are needed or I would be leaving them home.

[Eileen Sellers]

One of my clients had to give up his chapstick to board at Norfolk to Chicago...but I didn't think to ask him
if it was a stick for squish form.

[GregR]

I think our foreign policy has succeeded in irritating friends and foes alike. It has made our world infinitely more dangerous as virtually everybody (Tony Blair excepted) now has a negative image of the United States and looks upon us as bullies and aggressors. The ludicrous assertions of our administration that fighting in Iraq keeps terrorists from fighting us on our own soil has certainly been shown for what it is, stupidity.

Having said that, our TSA certainly doesn't make me feel any safer. What they do succeed in doing is explicitly telling terrorists exactly what they're looking for so the terrorists can come up with something new. Having a report they commissioned tell them that current X-ray technology cannot identify explosives in shoes, but requiring everybody to put shoes through an X-ray unit just inspires confidence in their judgement.

[Cindy]

I am flying out tomorrow morning..I am checking everything except my purse with just the essentials like my wallet, a book, my cell phone and keys..
I have been told to get to the airport 2 hours in advance but I am not sure at this point if that is early enough if I will have to go thru 2 screening..
Problem to me is the people that have to try and test the system and hold everyone else up..
I don't like having to check EVERYTHING any more than anyone else but I do have to get somewhere and I don't intend to drive so I guess I just have to deal with whatever the new rules might be..
Maybe there should be 2 lines...1 for people with no more than the essentials and another for the others that want to test the system and hold the rest of us up..
Just my 2 cents for what its worth!
Cindy

[Spexis]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cindy @ Aug 16 2006, 02:10 PM) 34644</div>
I am flying out tomorrow morning..I am checking everything except my purse with just the essentials like my wallet, a book, my cell phone and keys..
I have been told to get to the airport 2 hours in advance but I am not sure at this point if that is early enough if I will have to go thru 2 screening..
Problem to me is the people that have to try and test the system and hold everyone else up..
I don't like having to check EVERYTHING any more than anyone else but I do have to get somewhere and I don't intend to drive so I guess I just have to deal with whatever the new rules might be..
Maybe there should be 2 lines...1 for people with no more than the essentials and another for the others that want to test the system and hold the rest of us up..
Just my 2 cents for what its worth!
Cindy
[/b]

Cindy has the right idea with 2 lines.
Are you listening TSA and Airport Authorities???

[lyngengr]

I've always thought that there should be two lines for just about anything associated with airline travel. One for people who know what they're doing, and the other for great mass of clueless individuals. If you get in the "expert" line and fumble, then you go to the end of the other line. This could also apply to places like Starbucks, movie theaters, etc.

However, to get back on topic, several have pointed out in this forum the current US airline security policy is way too focused on things rather than people. I have flown on El Al (the Israeli airline), and I really think their procedures are the way to go. They do a very cursory search of your luggage, but mostly ask you questions. This happens 3 times before you get into the boarding area. Anyone who replies to the questions with suspicious answers gets additional screening. Despite being an obvious target, they have not had any incidents. Of course, implementing this kind of screening would involve retraining the current TSA agents, and would also require these people to think, but I believe it would be substantially more proactive than the current reactive screening we have now.

[marielmsheen]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mercwyn @ Aug 11 2006, 02:22 PM) 34227</div>
When I worked at the airport some years ago security was a joke in terms of who had access to "secured" areas as opposed to those who were supposed to have access. Because I was known to 80% of the people who worked the ticket counters and at screening I had pretty much unfettered access to the entire airport. I grant you that was a few years ago however I still know people who will let me in secured areas so I can get cheap sodas, chat with friends, etc.

As for theft, etc. my friend who worked as a contract bag handler for UA in ORD told me that when he reported his co-workers for theft to mind his own business. When he pressed the issue his boss told him that he was aware of the theft but he couldn't get enough help as is and he wasn't going to fire all of his employees. In otherwords theft is rampant and systemic and no one is willing to do anything about it.

Now for the really good news, if the ban on electronics holds on flights to and from the UK, people will have to check their laptops, ipods, dvd players, cell phones and cameras. And since they can't lock their luggage it has very good odds of going missing. The TSA will say that they aren't responsible for it and the airlines specifically list in their contract of carriage, electronics as items excluded from any coverage for damage or loss.

This is going to be a blow to the travel industry.
[/b]
But a boon to the travel insurance people. I know I am buying travel insurance. I pay for my own tickets. Not employed and traveling for a company.

[shiloh629]

honestly the big thing is that if everyone actually listened to what they can not take and did not wear all their jewelry to fly most of this would be smooth sailing. The problem is most people feel the rules do not apply to them. I work in healthcare and I have found when I fly I wear my scrub pants and my plastic clogs and usually a t shirt --- I fly right through security

If we all just plan ahead and stick everything that is metal in outr carry ons before we fly -- rings watches, ect ---- this would make all of our lives so much easier

As far as debating if it is liquid or solid --- put it all in your stowed luggage --- we should all only carry on what we need for the flight and that is it.

If we all realize that all of these regulations are for our good --- If I have to not carry liquids on so that some crazy wont and this keeps me from being identified by DNA or becomeing fish food I will do it.

[clarkef]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GregR @ Aug 16 2006, 11:48 AM) 34636</div>
I think our foreign policy has succeeded in irritating friends and foes alike. It has made our world infinitely more dangerous as virtually everybody (Tony Blair excepted) now has a negative image of the United States and looks upon us as bullies and aggressors.
[/b]

The point that many American miss is that the terrorist hate us because of who we are and what we represent far more than any action on our part. Its like the Klan hating someone because he's black or Jewish. Its a paradigm that exists outside of logic and sense.

I mean really. You must really hate someone with all of your heart and mind to blow yourself up just to get them.

[Carchar]

I think many who blow themselves up don't believe they are actually ending their existence or their awareness. Their lives will continue on some other plain. Thus, to get back at us, they are not really ending it all.