This is a spinoff of this thread, which has been locked by Mark Wimer.

The discussion in the other thread primarily focused on the decision to ban liquids from flights and the subsequent decision to allow them in small quantities. This thread can certainly be broader, though. For example, lots of airports don't allow non-passengers to go to the gates anymore. Can someone please explain to me what reasonable justification there is for that?

I think that people unflinchingly accept any measures taken in the name of security, even if they're burdensome and of little value. Hopefully we can have some reasoned discussion in this thread.

Take the train, it's much easier.

What about

Only until some terrorist tries to bomb a train. Then taking the train will suck too.

If non-passengers could go through security and go to the gates, the lines at security would be that much longer and TSA workers would have to screen that many more people. I am guessing that the error rate probably increases along with the volume of people to be screened. Basically, this policy reduces the number of people TSA has to screen on a daily basis, which makes it almost immediately justified just on a cost-cutting basis alone.

As a passenger, I like the fact that I don't have to worry about thieves stealing my carry-on and stuff once I clear security. Obviously that's not why they put it in place, but it's still a nice plus IMO.

1) Do we need to have a main security area far from the gates? Why couldn't we just have a security area for the people getting on the plane?

2) Thieves can't buy plane tickets?

1) At least in airports I've been in, there don't seem to be many good "bottlenecks" once you get into the gate area where you could easily set up a screening station. Granted, I don't travel that much, but it's hard for me to imagine how you could allow non-passengers to access the gates in MSP, for instance, and still do effective screening for passengers.

2) If somebody wants to spend $400 on a plane ticket so they can steal my carry-on bag with my valuable change-of-clothes and conference presentation, good for them.

I don't think it would be that difficult to do at most airports. And in the future, we would design airports differently to make it even easier.

Imagine the loading times.

"Ladies and gentlemen, it is now noon, we are loading the plane for the 2pm flight. Remember, once you are on board you will not be able to leave the plane or use the bathroom. Please pee before boarding. Thanks in advance."

I've travelled a bit as far as I've seen only in the US were non passengers allowed to the gates.
Let me turn it around - can't non passengers say goodbye away from the gates?
Sure, non passengers could hang out more and do funny things with the passengers while they are waiting for boarding, that would seem to be the only positive off hand - with the negatives as pointed out by IK

Why would it take longer to go through security than it does now?

We might want to design planes a little differently as well so we would not have to get on and off in single file.

It's not just about saying goodbye. For example, my wife recently flew with my two kids. It was a major pain in the ### for her to get from the security area to the gates without any help. Some airports are built in a way that makes the trip from security to gate a long trip.

But even for people not in that situation, it would be nice to be able to spend more time with friends and family rather than sitting alone by the gate. Is that valueless?

Part of me wants to say that they should inflate the emergency exit ramps so we could bounce out of the plane that way, but the drawback is that airlines would probably charge extra for that.

I have to hand it to you fatguy, you are the king of



If everyone would just leave this alone, he wouldn't get any joy from

Because of all the idiots that forget they left their watch on, Money clip in their pocket, or anything else that sets off the alarm.
It would be a nightmare trying to get everyone on board on time without giving significant lead time, therefore inconveniencing those that boarded early and have to wait for everyone to get through security.

They have been asking for the past 5 or 6 years that you arrive 2 hours before your flight to get through security. I don't see how moving the Security scanning area to the gates would reduce any time or solve anything.

Are you saying that the only way to do airport security is the way we do it now?

Also, how many extra TSA people would we have to hire to have a screening station literally right at each gate? How many extra x-rays and metal detectors?

It's hard to imagine that there aren't significant economies of scale from having ONE screening area serving a bunch of gates.

It's not that bad.
He has some question and so far hasn't got into his King of Smack Routine.

You know what....I was flying all this past weekend and noticed that there was MUCH MUCH more room in the overhead bin, which got me thinking....why not make everyone check everything?? I don't see the harm in making this a policy. Just don't allow people to carry any bags on. It would save a ton of time and money. It would also allow the airlines to employee more folks (to accomidate the extra bags).

You said it would add time. Now you're saying that it wouldn't reduce time. Which is it?

I have two kids as well and in general travelling with kids is a pain in the behind. Valueless - probably not. Sufficient value to rearrange present security requirements? Not to me.

How did I say it would add time??

Noon to 2pm still equals 2 hours....

doesn't it

Because what happens when my luggage gets lost and I have to meet a client (or whatever) in the jeans and t-shirt I wore on the plane?

And what happens if my prescription medicines get lost?

And what happens if I need to feed my baby while I'm on the plane?



The last statement contradicts the first. Employing more baggage handlers is expensive, and it's a poor use of scarce resources because the only reason you're employing them is to make life less convenient for people who would rather handle their own bags.

I am with fatguy on most of the security issues in airports and think that most are for show and are of very little substance. However, having only passengers go through the security line is nice, again more for the fact that the usually cramped gate areas and bars/restaurants would be worse with people lingering around there who have no business being there.

But as far as no liquids and the "random screening" and the TSA security morons who add no value, that is all a big joke.

Here another one:
What's with taking the shoes off?
Sometimes all have to. Sometimes no one. Sometimes only some. Most places outside of the world you are not asked to take the shoes off.

So which is it?
Does it improve security (would Richard Reed's bomb have been spotted by x-rays?) or not. If yes - why not mandatory and why not world wide?
Have at it.

Exactly. Coming home from WCOFF in Vegas this year Southwest lost half the plane's checked in baggage. Half.

Luckily I was coming home and it wasn't a big deal. However I did leave my car keys in my checked bag so I had to get my fiance to pick me up. But that is more of an issue with me being stupid.

the shoes thing is a joke too.

the problem with the "security" at airports is that it is completely reactionary. if before someone tried to blow up a plane with liquids the security did not allow them because they knew the threat was there, i could understand that. but only until after something is attempted does security change.

I think it should be 100% everywhere, at least in the USA.
Either everyone has to remove their shows, or no one does and it should be done the same way at all airports.

Randomizing who does and doesn't and not checking them at one airport and then checking them at a different one makes no sense.

Not arguing one way or the other as I don't know if it works or not. Just keep it consistent is all I ask.
TIA

Same as always - rush to the nearest clothing store for emergency stuff...

What gets to me now is not being able to bring toothpaste on the overnight intercontinental flights anymore - so you dump 300 people with poorly masked (if at all) bad breath on the immigrations officials. Most airports are really busy in the morning
Talk about a job that stinks...

Just ban Middle Easterners and Cubans from the airways, and then we don't have to have security at all.

It's not entirely clear to me that's true. For example, at Logan, there is one screening area, but there are like five or six metal detectors right next to each other in that area. If those five or six metal detectors were separated and each placed closer to the gate areas, I don't know that there would be any added cost.

Questions #1 and #3 are easily avoidable. If you are concerned about meeting your client in jeans and a t-shirt, don't wear jeans and a t-shirt. You can plan your schedule around baby feeding times, or don't take the baby, if you have to take the baby, find another alternative. We can come up with exceptions all day long and answers for them. Question #2 is tough, but this has happened to us. We called the Dr, had them fax a perscription to local drug store and they filled it. Is it conveinient, no....but you can get by and IMO, it's better than some toolbox blowing up a plane because he was able to get something in his carry-on bag.

I don't necessarily buy the less convenient argument either, but it would have to play out in order for us to really know. I usually spend more time in line at security than I do waiting for my bag. So if that line was reduced and your bag wait stayed the same, it's faster (more efficient). I don't know that this is what would happen, but I don't think it's unreasonable to think it would work this way.

Now we're getting somewhere.

I just flew out of Newark airport this weekend - in my terminal there were three point you could go through security - the one I went through had three x-ray machines serving 20-30 gates (I didn't walk through the whole area but by the signs the gates were numbered 111-139) - so that would mean up to ten times as many machines needed - most gates are paired though so you could get away with 3-5 time as many machines - maybe. Only two of the three were manned though, so you would need radically more staff to handle the same amount of passengers.

That's an awful lot of inconvenience. It's much easier for me to just carry a small bag with me, thanks.

FWIW, I would be cool with having one of the screening stations at an airport designated as a "no bags" lane, so that people who decide to check everything don't have to wait around while people like me have their carry-ons scanned. Otherwise, my carry-on doesn't affect you at all other than holding down ticket prices by economizing on the number of baggage-handlers we need.

Your points are valid for short flights. Try scheduling your baby meal time around a 12 hr transatlantic flight though (or meeting your client in the suit you just slept in). Not saying handluggage won't be banned one day and we'll all be required to wear colour coded paper coveralls and slippers - just don't see this changing any time soon

I could handle this scenario too. I'd be for a line for those with no bags vs those with bags. I almost always check my bag and just carry my ipod on the plane with me. I have had my bag lost once in the last 10 years and it was on the next flight coming in so I had to wait an extra 30 minutes.

Obviously this whole thing is about balance and the discussion is where that balance should be, i.e. more or less security screening.

Let me start off with this... there was a significant inslamic-radical group led terrorist attack on the trains of my present home city on March 11, 2004. A lot of people died and it was a significant impact upon society here. It likely affected the outcome of the nationwide elections soon thereafter. In any case, the people could have over reacted and demanded significantly higher security in and around the trains. They didn't. The gov't in power did overreact and they got the boot.

Every day I take public transport here and stop at the Atocha train station, the site of the bombings. While there are increased numbers of security guards, there is no impact on the wait time, or other draconian security measures.

There have not been any more public transport bombings since, and a potential bombing was twarted less than a month after the March 11 attacks.

Going further, I firmly believe that there won't be another "take over the plane and fly it into a building" type attacks for one all important reason. The passengers will not stand for it. They (as the passengers did aboard Flight 93) will fight to the death on board to not allow a plane to be used as a weapon. It's that simple.

Now, a potential bomb brought on board is a different story. I am fine with X-ray screening of my bags and explosive residue sniffing type stuff. I am not OK with no carry-ons, no liquids, or anything like that. It's silly and draconian.

I propose that any liquids carried through security must be opened and then drank by the passenger in front of security. I don't think there are many liquid explosive materials that can be ingested, but ocrrect me if I'm wrong.

Overall, the amount of security at airports is silly and a waste of money and time.

I like this idea. I never carry anything on. Personally I just don't like dragging a bag through the airport if someone is willing to do it for me...for free no less.

This is silly. I don't really feel like drinking shampoo.

You stink that badly you need to shampoo up in the Bathroom on the plane??

: never mind, don't answer that. :

What airline do you fly? I've yet to see any showers commercial aircraft...

Well then my good man you are missing out.

Exactly my point. You want that shampoo so bad sitting in the seat pocket in front of you on the plane? Drink it my man.

Also, don't hotels have free shampoo nowadays? If yours doesn't, you're stayin in a hostel and then don't really have a need to shower.

They screw mine up too - my bag was a day late.

Even breast milk and formula?

Some people require certain types of shampoo. Lots of people prefer to carry-on their entire set of toiletries so they'll have it in case their luggage gets lost.

ESPECIALLY breast milk.