Feds to loosen Post 9/11 Airport Restriction

Status
Not open for further replies.

BenW

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
1,116
Location
CA
To begin -- I am no friend of the Patriot Act, nor do I think much of most of the airport security measures that have been introduced since 9/11. Given that, of all the security measures we would want to do away with, wouldn't the one mentioned here be pretty far down the list?

I am open to anyone explaining to me why I would be wrong here, but it seems the simple separation of ticketed passengers and non-flying public is one of the most effective, least obtrusive ways to reduce potential threats on the gate side of the terminal. I rather live with this than most of the other measures introduced since 9/11.

--------------

U.S. National - AP
Feds Might Ease Post-9/11 Airport Rule
1 hour, 48 minutes ago

Add U.S. National - AP to My Yahoo!

By JOE MANDAK, Associated Press Writer

PITTSBURGH - Pittsburgh International could become the nation's first major airport to get the OK to abandon the post-Sept. 11 rule that says only ticketed passengers are allowed past security checkpoints.


AP Photo


AP Photo
Slideshow: Homeland Security



Federal security officials are considering allowing people once more to say their hellos and goodbyes to friends and loved ones at the gate.

Airport officials and western Pennsylvania's congressional delegation have pushed for two years for the change for reasons of money and passenger convenience.

What happens here could become a model for other airports.

"This is new, this is exciting, because we're basically rewriting the security directives in order to allow nonticketed passengers to go through security," said JoAnn Jenny, spokeswoman for the Allegheny County Airport Authority, which runs the airport.

Pittsburgh is a strong candidate for the experiment for two reasons: It has a centralized security checkpoint in one terminal. And it has a full-scale shopping mall that has suffered a drop-off in business because it is reachable only by ticketed passengers.

If the change is approved, people without tickets will have to go through security just like passengers. They will be checked with metal detectors and may have to empty their pockets and handbags and take off their shoes.

"I think you'd find most Americans would agree and go along with this idea," said Brian Muth of Reynoldsville.

Muth and his wife are hosting an exchange student from Ecuador, Lorena Lopez. On Tuesday, Sharon Muth bid a tearful farewell, on this side of security, to the girl's parents after they paid a short visit.

And Muth cried again when she thought of bringing Lorena back to the airport in June, knowing the teen might be alone when she boards her flight home.

"Lorena's just become part of our family," she said, dabbing tears with a tissue.

Officials with the federal Transportation Security Administration met recently with Pittsburgh officials and expect to review a rough draft of the plan later this spring. It could take effect by summer if approved by the Homeland Security Department, Jenny said.

Certain issues still need to be worked out, such as how to prevent the people without tickets from holding up passengers during peak travel times.

"There's a customer service benefit to be had here, but at the end of the day, the security of the flying public at the Pittsburgh airport is going to come before anything else," said Ann Davis, TSA's Northeast regional spokeswoman. "And I think passengers appreciate that."

In the security crackdown in the weeks after Sept. 11, the Federal Aviation Administration (news - web sites) said the nation's airports may no longer allow people without tickets past security checkpoints. It was among several security measures, some of which have since been relaxed, such as a ban on curbside pickups and the parking of cars close to terminals.

In certain hardship cases — say, if an airline passenger is disabled, cannot speak English or is a child — a friend or family member can get a pass to go through security and accompany the traveler.

At the Pittsburgh airport, for example, Lorena Lopez accompanied her parents Tuesday because they do not speak English. And Jackie Crusan was allowed to go through security with her friend, Devin Seeger, because he broke both his legs while performing in a dirt bike show in Pennsylvania.



And in January, the TSA started allowing military families to accompany soldiers to airline gates.

But everybody else still says their goodbyes on this side of the security apparatus, which experts say discourages some people from traveling and keeps well-wishers from spending more money in the nation's airports.

One industry expert said the Pittsburgh plan makes sense because airports need all the revenue they can find.

If the airport can make more money from merchant leases and parking fees, it can cut the rates airlines are charged to use the terminal, said Stephen Van Beek of the Airport Councils International-North America, a trade group.

That revenue is especially important in Pittsburgh, where US Airways, which controls about 80 percent of the gates, has been threatening to leave because of higher-than-average gate fees.

The Pittsburgh airport has a genuine shopping mall, Airmall, inside the main terminal, with 100 stores and restaurants — not just concession stands and souvenir shops, but brand-name establishments with the kind of prices found at an ordinary shopping center.

Mark Knight, regional manager for Airmall operator BAA USA Inc., said business is down about 12 percent in the past year. He said nearly half of that that is due to the security rule, while the rest is attributable to a drop in passengers caused by US Airways, which is cutting flights because of the gate fees.

"In this economy that other 4 or 5 percent could mean the difference between success and failure" for an Airmall business, Knight said.

edited for grammar
 
The Pittsburgh Airport is designed to handle more people going through security because they have a mall and several good restaurants past the security checkpoint.

I wouldn't personally deal with TSA to go shopping, but that particular airport was designed to allow non-passengers access to those shops. If the security screening works, there's no reason not to let non-passengers through security.

If the screening doesn't work, it really doesn't matter if non-passengers are allowed or not.
 
TSA already allows some unticketed people past the security checkpoint. Those people with a legitimate excuse-like unaccompanied minors flying, or to escort someone with no English-are issued a pass at the airline's discretion.

This is solely about lost revenues. Very few major airports have been built since 9/11, and almost all the big airports have 99% of their retail space beyond the checkpoints.

This is going to make today's lines seem like a welcome memory. TSA is already grossly understaffed (at least at the checkpoint and baggage level; management staffing seems quite comfortable :rolleyes:). But hey, money talks.
 
Does any store sell nail clippers in that mall?

Or hair spray and a lighter?
Or Clorox?
Or silverware?
Or a silver plated cake server?
Or any of the thousands of ridiculous things confiscated from honest citizens in the past 3 years?

:rolleyes:

Searches to board airplanes violate the 4th amendment, that's my stance.
If it were a condition of the private company, like no ccw at Disneyland, that wouldn't be the case. But when a government agency requires a citizen be searched in order to perform lawful business, that violates the 4th.
It's why I don't, and will not fly. I have everything I need here in the good ole USA. Except more freedom, and I'm working on that. I'll drive, or take a bus, thanks.

Darn government.
:cuss: :fire:
(End rant)
 
The 9/11 comission might as well fold up their tent.

Because we have discovered the basic reason for the success of the attacks.

***NEWS FLASH***

Americans value money and convenience over safety!



Now we can fix things....as long as the answers are not expensive or inconvenient.

Hint: the more TSA inspectors you need the more expense...and remember...WE PAY FOR THEM.

Seriously...we can have an intelligent discussion about how effective different measures are..(some of us)....but notice...

We went from NO nail clippers /no non passengers/supplemental screening/ID check at the door/National Guard hanging around....

To the same old plan.....in less than three years.

We have short memories indeed...

In spite of the pain that some survivors/family members might feel...I can't help thinking we need to show the video of the towers collapse on a more regular (daily) basis
 
I don't get it. People complain about some of the unreasonable restrictions about things that can be carried on an airplane, and then complain when they drop restrictions that aren't providing any real extra security.

Do you really think the expense of buying an airline ticket will prevent a terrorist from going through security?

Americans value money and convenience over safety!
Now we can fix things....as long as the answers are not expensive or inconvenient.

I doubt the employees of those stores inside the airport who have lost their jobs view things the same way you do. I doubt the store owners that invested their life savings in a business there and are seeing the business fail because customers are kept out are quite as willing to have restrictions that don't really increase safety, but cost them their source of income.

Yes it's about money. Of course it's easy to criticize when it's not your money.

Personally I'd be pretty pissed off if I lost my job over peopleimplementing security rules that don't add security.
 
"Do you really think the expense of buying an airline ticket will prevent a terrorist from going through security?"


Nope....but logic dictates that greater security is possible with less people to secure.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Personally I'd be pretty pissed off if I lost my job over people implementing security rules that don't add security."

I'd be pissed no matter what the reason...and there are lots of days where I don't even like my job.:D

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lots of businesses don't make it...for lots of reasons....

But I was discussing our fleeting concerns for safety...not Airport economics.

I keep hearing about how we didn't do enough given our "knowledge" of terrorist intentions...and from that comes this??..don't think so...

And as someone that flies A LOT...I don't want longer lines at the screening points...
 
It's the right thing to do- keeping people who aren't flying away from the gates doesn't make it any more secure.

Our whole f'ing mind-frame is that the criminals want to do crime and get away with it- the guys we're worried the most about don't mind getting
-killed- in the process and we need to examine our regulations in light of that fact.

Inconveniences like this don't prevent terrorism.
 
OK...Assuming that we all still want to keep bad guys from taking weapons/explosives onto aircraft.

And assuming that we want to SCREEN people before entering the gate area to prevent that.

Does anyone really think that increasing the number of people passing through screening...for no other reason than to say hello or goodbye in a different location...is a good thing????


By that logic, we should probably let people on the planes to greet people or say goodbye.

(Heck....it is a free country...my friends should get to go into the cockpit to say goodbye to me AND the pilots)...no ticket...just visiting!


People....read the article....12% reductions in business...and they admit that part of that is reduced flights....

For that we need to slow down the whole process???

Making the lines longer is an inconvenience!

Changing where people say hello and goodbye is geography.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top