response 51 of 167:

Apr 27 21:24 UTC 2002

Some people are "randomly" flagged by the computer system for those gate-side
searches.  It comes up on the monitor when their boarding pass is scanned.

In Denver a few months ago they had different lines for people with briefcases
vs. backpacks.  All people with backpacks got searched.

response 53 of 167:

Apr 28 04:00 UTC 2002

re #48
I'd rather not disclose it just to be on the safe side.
re #49,50
Yes, i've seen them force people to wait to be searched but this
is more of an outlying case than the norm.
re #51
If you see S* on your boarding pass, it means you have been picked for
the "bend over and use the lube" check.  I've been pre-selected for
this once.  It was my first time flying after the new DTW airport
and when you're flagged like this you can't check-in online,
nor at an e-ticket machine.  you must check-in with a human because
they want to flag your luggage.  I never check luggage so it was a
big PITA as nobody could tell the difference between the
first-class line and the normal line and they never staff all the new
ticketing positions at the new airport.  (i manged to fly
sufficently enough last year that northwest loves me enough
to auto-ugprade me to 1st class.  it means that i'm the person
in 1st class wearing the jeans+t-shirt and the duffel bag)
re #52
I've never seen them discriminate that much between people.  There are
easy-to-find stories of the 5-year-old being checked for bombs and
other things.  I find this completely unecessary.  While I do agree
that they would make great "carriers" of banned items because they are
not going to spend any (real) time in jail, searching them is mostly a
waste of time.

I think they need better profiling of people to be searched.  Having
flown ~20k miles in 2000, 50k+ in 2001 and i'm looking to break 30k
this year (at least) the system still needs some tuning.  I've already
told NW that once there is some sort of 'trusted traveler' program
i'll want to participate.  I already pay them for access to their
WorldClubs(tm) (which trust me, when you're stuck someplace for a few
hours due to weather or some nasty delay pays for itself fairly quick)
paying a one-time-fee for a backgorund check that will turn up nothing but
some speeding tickets and the fact that I fly to the same places
all the time which will allow them to not turn on every electronic gadget
I travel with would be nice.  (Access-point, laptop, pager, cell, 
scanner, gps, etc..)

I've never found someone that can find all my electronic devices and check
them all in the same sitting.  They always miss something.  The people
that got the closest to finding them all I complimented on being so
rigirous in their checking of my 2 carry on bags.  (the aforementioned
duffel bag as well as my laptop bag).

response 55 of 167:

Apr 28 06:36 UTC 2002

I've heard enough stories of using ultra-non-suspicious people to smuggle
stuff to make me to think searching small children and grandmothers is
probably a good idea.

response 57 of 167:

Apr 28 14:39 UTC 2002

I'm aware that any system is not perfect.  I'm also not attempting to
guess what the requirements for such a system will be.  I feel that
this will put less of a resource strain on checkpoints that can see peak
wait times of an hour or more.

I know i'm not a threat so am willing to submit myself to the system.
people who are a threat will probally submit themselves also and be
rejected as long as the requirements are based on common sense.

Yes, there are those that have stated that if one is well financed one
could spend a few years building up a "good" reputation for traveling
then use it to foil the system.  I promise you that is not my intent. :)

response 59 of 167:

Apr 28 18:24 UTC 2002

They could use the same kind of background checks they use for the 
people who work in secure areas of the airport. It wouldnt cost the 
airlines anything as the folks who want this status the most, the ones 
who fly often, would likely be willing to pay for the background 
checks. This would benefit everyone since the security folks would have 
more time to check everyone else.

response 61 of 167:

Apr 28 21:35 UTC 2002

Yeah, just like if a terrorist really wanted to, they could bribe the 
right clerks to get a security clearance to be a baggage handler where 
they would be able to load a package with a bomb onto a plane  pretty 
easily or they could bribe the right clerks to get some of their people 
into those $6/security jobs with the really high turnover where they 
could then let certain people through the checkpoints with little 
knives like boxcutters. There is no security that is 100%. 

response 63 of 167:

Apr 29 03:37 UTC 2002

No, they weren't.  El Al would have stopped those box cutters, as well as
whatever they were using to pretend they had a bomb.  Not only that, El Al
would have screened at least some of those guys out -- as Arabs, they would
have gotten the most extensive grade of questioning.

And finally, an El Al pilot would have let the 9/11 terrorists murder every
flight attendant and passenger on the plane rather than come out of the
cockpit and turn over the controls.  In fact, the hijackings wouldn't have
gotten that far, because El Al pilots are trained to do a variety of
exciting things with the plane if someone's dumb enough to try to hijack
it.

The basic point that measures like blocking tweezers and stuff won't do
anything except make people think they're accomplishing something is
valid.

response 65 of 167:

Apr 29 04:22 UTC 2002

The El Al attempted bombing case several years ago presumably wouldn't have
been stopped by the questions asked on check-in at American airports.  They
ask if "anybody unknown to you" has asked you to take something on the plane.
The boyfriend presumably wouldn't be unknown.  I've carried stuff for family
and close friends (people I trust) before, and not had to lie to get past that
question.

The second question is whether your baggage has been "under your control"
since it was packed.  That's probably the more often fudged one, given taht
lots of people tend to check their baggage at a hotel for most of a day before
heading to the airport.  However, since everybody knows what the "right"
answer to the question, very few people who checked their luggage at a hotel
are likely to say so.

I've decided at this point I should at least appear to be taking the questions
seriously.  I used to answer "no and yes," before they'd even had a chance
to finish asking the questions.  This seemed to satisfy the check-in people.
I've generally assumed the questions were to prompt people to think, not to
actually catch anybody.

I've heard a really large number of smuggling stories involving presumably
innocent looking people.  A supply of heavy water was smuggled out of occupied
France in World War II under a sleeping baby, on the assumption that if the
Nazis (the real Nazis) searched the ship, they would probably give up before
waking up and moving the baby.  I heard a story several years ago from
somebody who had smulgged an antique pipe organ out of Italy (a violation of
Italian law) by having a couple "doing embarrassing things" in the back of
the truck.  The customes agent opened the truck, said whatever the Italian
equivalent of "oh, sorry" is, and very quickly closed the door of the truck
without doing a further examination of its contents.

response 67 of 167:

Apr 29 07:07 UTC 2002

I think most of the "increased security measures" are achieving their
objective -- a boost in consumer confidence.

response 69 of 167:

Apr 29 14:38 UTC 2002

I'm with slynne on that one.. no way they'd sell box cutters.. but
they might sell straight razors for people with older equipment for
trimming their beards.

The system needs some tuning.  I for one am upset that I can't just
show up 20-30 mins before my flight and now due to variable security
times have to show-up 1-2 hours prior to insure that I don't get held
up by them.

Btw, good website if you've not seen it yet.  Lots of information,
photos, etc..

http://www.airdisaster.com/statistics/yearly.shtml
(yearly accident stats) -- obviously drop the part after the .com
to see the main site.

response 71 of 167:

Apr 29 16:59 UTC 2002

HAHAHAHA. He didnt use tweezers though, he used his thumb and 
forefinger so if they dont want any heads to get squished, they will 
have to cut everyone's thumb and forefingers off at the gate ;)

response 73 of 167:

Apr 29 19:43 UTC 2002

/slaps forehead. 

OH it all makes sense now. Peeeeench