Good thing we have all of this "Security"

[Changes in Latitudes]

$100 Bribe to Ticket Agent Allows Unknown Package to Fly on JetBlue...but please strip search granny.

Although millions of dollars are spent on airline security each year in the United States, it only took $100.00 for a JetBlue ticket agent to allow a unknown package to go onto a flight, coming from an unknown person.

On November 19, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) was at Charlotte Douglas Airport testing out JetBlue's security. Their goal was to try and get an unaccompanied package onto a flight headed to Boston and unfortunately, they succeeded. An undercover TSA agent told a JetBlue ticket agent that he needed to get a package to Boston that day and would pay the agent $100.00 for helping. The agent took the $100, put it in his pocket and proceeded to follow the unknown person's instructions. The ticket agent chose a passenger's name at random, which just happened to be an unaccompanied minor, and the package went through the screening process with no problems. Although the package was harmless, the TSA pulled the package just before being loaded onto the aircraft.

"That's really alarming," Anthony Amore, a former high-ranking TSA official at Logan Airport told a local Boston CBS station. "When you have multiple layers in place you hope that they all stand in the way of a terrorist or someone who wishes us harm. In this instance, many of the layers were cast aside and we were left with this one layer of checked baggage screening."

When the local station asked the TSA for a comment, they were told, "While we cannot comment on the specifics of an open investigation, TSA can assure travelers that, like checked baggage, every package tendered at the airline counter is screened for explosives." JetBlue confirmed that they are "fully cooperating with the TSA's investigation" and "the involved crew member is no longer employed at JetBlue."

I do not share this story to cause additional security-related fear, nor do I want to "teach the terrorists" how to commit crimes against passengers. I share it, since I think it shows how spending so much money on the front door of airline security and so little attention on the back is a big mistake. Although JetBlue is partly to blame for training issues, this could have happened with almost any airline. They just happened to have a bad-seed-employee in the wrong place at the wrong time. Currently, the TSA is not talking about how often they conduct these sorts of tests and how often they get a package through.

Sadly, this story is just one of many that place many questions on back-door airport security. At the same exact airport, just a few days earlier, a teenager was able to sneak onto the airport secured area, illegally board a US Airways aircraft without being caught (unfortunately, he died en-route). There is also the story of the pilot who pointed out that airport security workers could by-pass security and caused him a lot of grief. Similar stories keep popping up and I have a feeling more will continue to do so. As passengers continue to give up their freedoms and are willing to put up with many annoyances to fly, while at the same time seeing how porous the security is behind the scenes, people will take note and demand for change.

[ogc]

So.... basically this package would have pretty much been the same as any piece of freight?

It went through all the "screening" anyways... so whats the big f'in deal?

[cdnpilot77]

So.... basically this package would have pretty much been the same as any piece of freight?

It went through all the "screening" anyways... so whats the big f'in deal?

I think its the principal of it...if this person was willing to take $100 for this, what would they do for $1000 or $10,000?

[felix0315]

TSA's revenge for viewtopic.php?f=54&t=70601?

[CPLMike89]

think its the principal of it...if this person was willing to take $100 for this, what would they do for $1000 or $10,000?

So.... basically this package would have pretty much been the same as any piece of freight?

It went through all the "screening" anyways... so whats the big f'in deal?

I think its the principal of it...if this person was willing to take $100 for this, what would they do for $1000 or $10,000?

+1 all this hype about the full body scanners and more invasive prodedures. Its all a moot point if there are more people like this willing to compromise everyones safety. But then again there are worse things.

[bizjets101]

People smuggle things on airplanes everyday, and pass through every single International airport on a daily basis. The more sophisticated the smugglers - the more likely they are connected - thus have people working on the inside.

Whenever you see something on the news - busted at an airport - is because these people didn't know anyone, or refused to pay someone.

A 'True' saying in Eastern Europe - 'Anything you can't buy with money - you can buy with more money'.

[Bushav8er]

"You always fight the last war," Rafi Sela told WNYC Radio host Leonard Lopate, "and you're not prepared for the next attack."

"When you're looking for a needle in a haystack, you don't go and examine every straw," he said. "I mean, that's what they do today, which is ridiculous. What you need to do is find a magnet, and some kind of system that will screen through the straws, and find the needle."

Sela explained, in Israel, a passenger can carry anything they want on board, including knives and guns, as long as personnel discern they have no intent to use them maliciously.

Full-body scanners, as far as Sela is concerned, are just "a marketing stunt."

Israel has avoided any airport-related terrorism since 1972, despite about 70 daily arrests due to threats, which makes the obsessive checking of bottles and shoes at North American airports seem increasingly ludicrous by comparison.

"You keep calling it airport security," said Sela. "You don't have airport security."

Source: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybre ... 2-227.html

[Hedley]

North american airport security ensures that if there are any terrorists & weapons on board, that the passengers are unarmed and unable to deal with them.

I know everyone here thinks I'm politically 8 points to the right of Atilla the Hun, but I think passengers should be issued pistols as they board, which they return as they get off. Of course not every pax would be eligible - you would have to have some kind of pistol qualification course or certification. Be over 18, etc. Military or ex-military, police, etc.

Put yourselves in the shoes of a terrorist. Which airplane would you rather hijack: one full of completely unarmed pax, that had their tweezers taken away from them, or facing 100 armed pax?

Anyone jumps up and waves a sword and starts ordering the airplane to Cuba is going to have a serious case of lead poisoning. And no, despite all the Hollywood nonsense you might believe, a bullet hole in the side of a pressurized aircraft will not cause it to suffer structural failure and explosive decompression

[hoptwoit]

If we remain ignorant of history we are doomed to repeat it.

Ladies and Gentlemen: Like any good history lesson, the best place to start teaching is the origin. “The people of ancient China sought security from the barbaric hordes that
swept down from the North,
So they erected The Great Wall of China.

The massive wall stretched for1500 miles. It was12 to40 feet wide and20 to50 feet high.
The wall was too thick to tear down, and too long to go round.
Indeed,

This became the only visible man-made feature on earth from space! Yet, During the first100 years of the wall’s existence, China was invaded 3 times. `How was the security breached?’ The enemies simply bribed a gate-keeper and then marched easily through the gate. The fatal flaw in China’ defense lay in spending its wealth to build a wall but paying much less to build the character of the gatekeepers.

[Shiny Side Up]

Put yourselves in the shoes of a terrorist. Which airplane would you rather hijack: one full of completely unarmed pax, that had their tweezers taken away from them, or facing 100 armed pax?

Statistically either way, the chances of a terrorist being on your airplane are incredibly small. If you were really worried about terrorists being on your airplane, the best way not to be getting on an airplane with a terrorist on board (aside from abstaining from air travel) is to be that terrorist. The odds of there being of course two terrorists with separate agendas on board the same airplane are even smaller.

You could be like a beneficial terrorist. Preemptively jump up and wave your box cutter around... "I demand you take this airplane to its destination that's on the ticket! No body else move!"

[RenegadeAV8R]

North american airport security ensures that if there are any terrorists & weapons on board, that the passengers are unarmed and unable to deal with them.

I think passengers should be issued pistols as they board, which they return as they get off.

Put yourselves in the shoes of a terrorist. Which airplane would you rather hijack: one full of completely unarmed pax, that had their tweezers taken away from them, or facing 100 armed pax?

This is a very good idea. And I suspect that Donuts Shops are not robbed very often for the same reason.

[Mostly Harmless]

North american airport security ensures that if there are any terrorists & weapons on board, that the passengers are unarmed and unable to deal with them.

I know everyone here thinks I'm politically 8 points to the right of Atilla the Hun, but I think passengers should be issued pistols as they board, which they return as they get off. Of course not every pax would be eligible - you would have to have some kind of pistol qualification course or certification. Be over 18, etc. Military or ex-military, police, etc.

Put yourselves in the shoes of a terrorist. Which airplane would you rather hijack: one full of completely unarmed pax, that had their tweezers taken away from them, or facing 100 armed pax?

Anyone jumps up and waves a sword and starts ordering the airplane to Cuba is going to have a serious case of lead poisoning. And no, despite all the Hollywood nonsense you might believe, a bullet hole in the side of a pressurized aircraft will not cause it to suffer structural failure and explosive decompression

Sure. Why not. I mean, it's not like the military or police have ever turned out any disturbed personalities. Hell, these people are all crack marksmen and have never missed a target in their lives. And no one would mind the extra bill on their airfare for the hole repairs in the fuselage and damage to related electronics, hydraulics, or pneumatics. None of which would ever be caused by a misfire, because those never happen either. It's not like you would have people shooting each other over stupid things like they do on LA freeways. I mean, it's not like there are a plethora of statistics showing most gun owners get shot by their own weapon. Who cares that there is a mountain of evidence showing countries with gun control have far less gun deaths than countries without gun control... it's all lies because the government is out to get you and can only do so if you are unarmed. There has never been an uprising of unarmed civilians that has overthrown a government in the history of man... never.

I completely agree with you. That is a very well thought out and fully examined point of view you have there and I think it should be enacted immediately.

[High Flyin]

Airport security is a joke, period!

I've worked the ramp for a few years and I've come to realize a few things:
1.) Turn over rate is approximately 3 weeks, depending on the company and location;
2.) These companies hire just about anyone. Doesn't matter the background, education level, or knowledge. All they're concerned about is does he/she have a criminal record, and can he/she pass TC's security profile and obtain a red pass;
3.) I show up to work, climb into a van, and head for the ramp. Oh ya, without ever passing once passing through a security checkpoint.

I always have a little laugh when people explain to me how much safer aviation is with these new security measures put in place. In reality, there's nothing stopping a guy from getting hired with a clean record, showing up to work with an explosive device stuffed down his pants and planting it on a few planes. Ya, he'll get caught...After he potentially kills thousands of people and causes hundreds of millions in damage.

[bizjets101]

I'm always hearing how well funded terror groups are - so what is to stop them (nothing) from chartering a corporate airliner. For example - most of the 911 hijackers traveled under their own ID's and where originally from Saudi Arabia.

So less than two hours ago, a private B767 based in Saudi Arabia - and available for private charter landed at YYZ - how much security checks do you think they got.

The owner - Mid East Jets - also has two B777's for hire, once clearing customs - they are now free to fly security free anywhere in Canada - no customs, no security, load whatever you want on the plane - to any destination.

I'm in no way suggesting this aircraft is up too no good, I'm just stating anyone with money can charter a freighter B747 or corporate B777 and do anything - regardless of airport security.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/VPCM ... /EINN/CYYZ

VP-CME B767 FlightAware.jpg (31.49 KiB) Viewed 1680 times

[Geo]

Put yourselves in the shoes of a terrorist. Which airplane would you rather hijack: one full of completely unarmed pax, that had their tweezers taken away from them, or facing 100 armed pax?

I think you're being facetious, but I'm going to tackle this one, which airplane to hijack?

Actually none at all. The stunt pulled on 9/11 was based on surprise, and it didn't even work for all of 9/11. (Some of) the passengers on flight 193, having been informed of what the other hijacked airliners were being used for, rebelled. Despite being unarmed, they forced the hijackers to crash into a field rather than their intended target (and perhaps came close to saving themselves...see the CVR transcript and form your own opinion).

The old SOP of "don't fight back, just let the plane land and the negotiating team take over" went obsolete on that day, and Al Queda knows it. All subsequent attacks on airliners (qualification: attacks that we know about) have been attempts to destroy the a/c, not hijack it.

So long as there are no guns on board, it is 50+ passengers and crew vs. 2-4 hijackers (probably). If everyone is armed only with what's between their ears, that fight will only have one outcome. Arming passengers would only give the hijackers somewhere to steal weapons from.

Leave the guns on the (locked) flight deck with the pilots, and with any (remaining) air marshalls.

g
<edited by author to correct dumb typo>

[complexintentions]

So much reactionary talk about guns. Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate the beauty of a Glock 18 as much as the next guy. But the whole airport security thing IS nonsense, at the very least a hugely wasteful exercise in optics.

Terrorism is an intelligence war. Period. The Israelis grasped this about, oh, 30 years ago. For some reason it escapes the Americans. If you gotta shoot someone on board, you've already failed.

[RenegadeAV8R]

Terrorism is an intelligence war. Period. The Israelis grasped this about, oh, 30 years ago. For some reason it escapes the Americans.

I have seen taxiing El Al Airliners being escorted by armored military vehicle (probably armed too) at some airports.

Their system may be effective, but they turned air travel into a military affair.

[Hedley]

If you gotta shoot someone on board, you've already failed

Not from the standpoint of a pax whom is personally looking at a hijacker

Completely politically unpalatable, of course. Canadians aren't even allowed to defend themselves in their homes with firearms. Why would they be allowed to protect themselves anywhere else?

(Some of) the passengers on flight 193, having been informed of what the other hijacked airliners were being used for, rebelled

You're happy with that outcome for the pax? An expedient sacrifice on your altar of gun control?

I am dumbfounded that so many politically-correct Canadians are horrified at the idea of people defending themselves when attacked. You may view yourself as a willing victim, but not everyone is quite like you.

[208Drvr]

When I used to work the ramp at YYZ, once I got my airside security clearance The only security I saw was the fingerprint reader to get through the door to airside. My duffle bag was never checked. I brough my backpack to work after a camping trip forgot my hunting knife was still in it. Didnt relize it was there till after my shift when I was at home. There are too many ways to get anything you want onto an airplane. Rampies are usually underpaid and would take any bribe.

[bizjets101]

Not a current story - but years ago I worked for a FBO at YYZ

I drove a passenger to the old Terminal Two, when I lost the forward gears in the transmission.
I did a u-turn in reverse - drove backyards all the way to the entrance of the tarmac for Terminal One.

Trying not to look stupid, I drove up to security backwards, and asked where Consolidated Fueling was (it was right there on the airside) he pointed right there, and I said thanks and drove thru backwards.

I then drove over to a gate at T1, and called ground for clearance back to the Skyport area. I was given clearance and drove down the runway the entire way in reverse!!, then past customs - where the customs guy and the passengers of a light aircraft just watched me go by.

I made it safely back to my FBO - and nobody called to as me anything!!!

[Geo]

You're happy with that outcome for the pax? An expedient sacrifice on your altar of gun control?

<tweet> two minutes for missing the point.

There were no guns on flight 193. The objective of the hijackers was defeated by a bunch of gutsy, ornery American civvies who decided they didn't want to be "expediently sacrificed" by religious extremeists. Good on 'em, they were a bunch of heros and they were not sacrificed by anyone. They went down fighting, and we should observe two minutes of silence in respect at their awesome bravery.

<pause>

You seemed to be making the point that guns on board would deter hi-jackers, or allow passengers to fight back.

How many people could shoot accurately if the hi-jackers pushed the plane over into a parabola? Or just maneuvered violently (see the case of Fed Ex flight 705 for example)

Or could get the controls back and save the plane if they did. I don't believe guns would have made any difference on 193...because the crew was taken by surprise. The solution for not losing control of the aircraft is cockpit security, and an armed flight crew (which has already been implemented).

I think that better screening technique (see the Isreali model) will do more for airliner security than increasing scanning, and certainly better than arming passengers. Either strategy is barking up the wrong tree.

I am dumbfounded that so many politically-correct Canadians are horrified at the idea of people defending themselves when attacked.

Who said anything about not defending yourself when attacked? (wasn't me! My argument was tactical, go back and read it again) The only armed people I want to see on a plane is the pilot and/or an air marshall (both trained in their use). This is for safety reasons - I believe that lots of people running around airports and on aircraft with guns are a BAD idea.

I mean, have you *seen* they way some people treat cabin crews? Gate agents?

What would happen if Joe Short-Fuse saw his luggage being tossed around on the tarmac out the window? [<bang> Hey! Be careful with that, it's got my wife's mother's china in there!]
Then buddy from the next aisle leans over and tells him to keep it down...his kid is trying to sleep.
Just then a baby starts crying...
chaos ensues.

(and where is Badgergirl when you need a clever headline to make a point?)

You may view yourself as a willing victim, but not everyone is quite like you.

And not all of us are willing to risk being in close company with some yahoo who managed to buy a gun without getting properly trained. But that's a gun control debate for another thread.

cheers
g

[I WAS Birddog]

This isn't any different than bribing a door-man at a club. Or asking a cop that pulled you over for speeding if he has change for $100

...none of which BTW I've ever...EVER done

[Shiny Side Up]

I am dumbfounded that so many politically-correct Canadians are horrified at the idea of people defending themselves when attacked. You may view yourself as a willing victim, but not everyone is quite like you.

I'm with you on the self defense thing, but one must admit that the potential for a fire fight to break out in an airplane cabin doesn't seem like a very good idea. Therefore I propose that that yes we should have guns on planes, but the standard issue passenger defense mk I we need to look at. If defense is all we're after here, everyone on board gets a one shot device. Maybe much like a muzzle loading pistol - we can't after all have people maybe smuggling more ammo on board to get an advantage. You get one shot, make it count - after all you can't really use it on the offense, you could only kill one other person (maybe a few if they were lined up right - but making the round a low velocity high caliber affair - a .60 ball maybe...) which would then put you at the mercy of the other people who were armed and still had their bullets.

But why are we obsessed with guns? There are quite a few non-lethal affairs one can equip with for defense.

If we feel the need for lethality though, we could also equip everyone for close quarters melee combat too. Maybe standard issue aviation cutlasses? Yarrr!

[fish4life]

But why are we obsessed with guns? There are quite a few non-lethal affairs one can equip with for defense.

If we feel the need for lethality though, we could also equip everyone for close quarters melee combat too. Maybe standard issue aviation cutlasses? Yarrr!

And it would keep whoever is hijacking the plane busy for a while with the sword fights

[bizjets101]

I recall the Air Canada pilot that took a hijacker out - with the blunt end of an axe!!!

Well done. In those days everybody wanted to hijack a plane to Cuba - how ironic - now
it's cheaper to book a flight to Cuba in the first place - and it comes with an all inclusive deal!!