Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Trying to contain nuts.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                   

Airport Pass

 Up to two airport passess given with each air travel ticket sold
  (+4, -2)
(+4, -2) 		  [vote for,
against]

Remember the days when you could walk through security at the airport and see your family off or hug them when they arrived at the gate. Well thanks to 911 that is a thing of the past. The following idea came to me while traveling this past week. There are always elderly people traveling that are mostly ignored by skycap while their families wait helplessly at the security check point for them. While I respect the increased security, here is an idea that may be able to solve both issues.

Simply put alow the purchase for about $10.00 each of up to two airport passes with each ticket sold. These passes are tied to the airline ticket that is sold with them and are only good for the day and time of the airline ticket. Two additional tickets can also be purchased for the arriving airport. If the ticket is round trip the tickets will also allow airport access for the returning date and time. The airport passes must be purchased at the same times as the airline ticket and must have the names of the people they are assighned to printed on them. The reason for the $10.00 charge is to offset the additional cost to the airline as well as providing another source of income for the struggeling airlines.

Please give me your oppinion on this idea as well as wheither it should be less or more restricted than my purposed idea.. Also is this something that you would use if available?

—dlapham, Aug 02 2004

Change Airport Security http://www.changeairportsecurity.org
End "Ticketed Passengers Only" at U.S. and Canadian airport security checkpoints! [averill, Oct 06 2006]

Please log in.
If you're not logged in, you can see what this page looks like, but you will not be able to add anything.
Short name, e.g., Bob's Coffee
Destination URL. E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)






       I worry that this could potentially mean that people who have no intention of travelling are going airside which has huge security implications.   

       If the problem is that the elderly or wheelchair bound don't get looked after properly by airside staff, then that's the issue that needs fixing.   

       If waving goodbye to my family at passport control and not the gate is the price I pay for increased security, then I'll happily pay it.
—jonthegeologist, Aug 02 2004
   

       we should forget 9/11.   

       we are really going too far with this. we should just change it back.
—FireElf, Jun 13 2006
   

       this is baked somewhat. when minors are traveling unaccompanied, someone cann get a pass and follow them out to the gate. because both parties have to go through security first, it is just as safe as otherwise. (which is still fairly ridiculous)   

       people with disabilities often have a member of the airport courtesy staff will help them through to the gate.
—tcarson, Jun 13 2006
   

       In truth, I think we need the ability to allow Americans to pay a fee to have a background check performed and tied to a secure idenification device. These people could then enter the airport like the old days. Let's face it for those of us who travel a lot, it would be nice to be able to pay extra for a pre-screening that establishes that you are not a risk. Airport personnel go through a similar process. Why not all of us. Those unwilling could then be given the current normal screening. This would allow for a more thorough screen because fewer people would not choose to be pre-screened.   

       Frankly, I seriously doubt another hijacker will ever pull off a 9/11 like crash. The passengers are not going to die while a Islamic terrorist takes over the plane. Flight 93 proved that. The current security measures are more like a over done case of closing the barn door after the horses have gotten out.
—HogHunter, Jun 13 2006
   

       [HogHunter] //I seriously doubt another hijacker will ever pull off a 9/11 like crash//   

       I think you are seriously, and I regret to say it as I fly quite a bit, mistaken in this belief... The "shoe bomber" was actually in the process of detonating a viable device hidden in his shoe when he was apprehended, and this was well after 9/11. He had managed to get this on board the plane undetected.   

       Determined terrorists, who care nothing for their own demise, will inevitably find a loop hole when they decide to. I lived through thirty years of terrorism and I have seen them running rings around the best that the British government had. ie MI5, MI6, Special Branch, SAS etc
—xenzag, Jun 13 2006
   

       //I worry that this could potentially mean that people who have no intention of travelling are going airside which has huge security implications.// Sorry, jon, but this is non-sense.   

       We had it this way for years and years and years and years with no problems.   

       All of the 9/11 hijackers were ticketed passengers.   

       I actually have over 15 years as an airport consultant, and I can tell you that the problems lie elsewhere. It's access to AIRCRAFT that is this security issue, and that CAN be controlled just fine on the end of a terminal regardless of who is out there.   

       The reasons we're doing it this way have more to do with creating the "appearance" of security -- not any real, specific, or defined threat.   

       Additionally, restricting the number of people that access the terminal areas saves serious MONEY on terminal building costs -- both in terms of maintenance and on new construction.   

       Nobody seems to get it that if I only have to design my terminal building for a flow of 750,000 people per year instead of 1.5 million, I've just built a lot cheaper building to accomodate those people and still have the same flight capacity. I assure you that security is far from the only reason for this policy.   

       BTW, Sorry if I'm coming across as harsh, but I've got first hand knowledge of a lot of waste and craziness related to all of this stuff at airports. It's late, I'm tired, and I guess I've just been in too many of these conversations over the years.   

       [+] for the idea.
—zigness, Jun 14 2006
   

       Having people go through security screening that are not going to get on a plane increases security costs by a certain amount. I see no other problem with allowing such people through security. If non-passengers that wish to go through security are willing to pay the extra costs resulting from their doing so, I see no reason they shouldn't be able to do so.
—supercat, Jun 14 2006
   

       I've started a web site to campaign against this stupidity of "ticketed passengers only" (please see link) I liked many of your comments. If you have annotated this page, written a comment, I really would like you to come visit my site and repost the comments you made here onto my blog, or give me permission to do it for you. Please email me at alhecht@comcast.net . Your help will REALLY be appreciated!!   

       Thanks' again, and have a great day. Averill
—averill, Oct 06 2006
   


 

back: main index
business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle