Regional security screening

Forums › Travel (planes, train, cruise) › Regional security screening

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2202518 20-Mar-2019 18:01

BlinkyBill: I travel a lot, they didn’t catch the shoe bomber, the lady with the knife, airport security hasn’t saved a single life. If you think it calms the travelling public, you are wrong. If you are reassured by airport security, you are simple-minded.

All it does is add cost and inconvenience. We wouldn’t do what we do if the US hadn’t over-reacted.

Also, NZ legislation allows for screening for any passenger aircraft, discretion to <90 is allowed, but legally they can apply screening at a change of policy.

1 million people get a vaccine and 10 people get the measles does not mean vaccines don't do anything.

I don't think that argument is logical.

Now I'm not saying that airport security does or doesn't work, but the argument is flawed.

If you want to use this argument then you should stop seeing your doctor, because everyone who sees a doctor dies.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2202523 20-Mar-2019 18:26

BlinkyBill: I travel a lot, they didn’t catch the shoe bomber, the lady with the knife, airport security hasn’t saved a single life. If you think it calms the travelling public, you are wrong. If you are reassured by airport security, you are simple-minded.

All it does is add cost and inconvenience. We wouldn’t do what we do if the US hadn’t over-reacted.

Also, NZ legislation allows for screening for any passenger aircraft, discretion to <90 is allowed, but legally they can apply screening at a change of policy.

I am sure you could have made your points without the insult

amiga500

1484 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2202567 20-Mar-2019 19:55

A little update about CHC. Black plastic sheeting has been added to the sides of the temporary fencing at the Regional Lounge departure area. A small indicator that it may be there for a while?

amiga500

1484 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2202569 20-Mar-2019 19:59

Technofreak:
amiga500:

http://www.traveller.com.au/airport-security-in-australia-why-are-the-rules-different-between-domestic-and-international-flights-gxnouj

This is an interesting article which discusses the state of aviation security in Australia.   While Australia and New Zealand are not unique in having less stringent practices re. liquids there seems to be no doubt that Britain, USA, and all of the EU are much stricter.   This is the conclusion after reading pages on websites belonging to Air France, British Airways, TSA, and others.

In fact a person travelling to Australia and New Zealand departing from France might be fairly confused by the time they got to say, Nelson or Napier. All through the EU, and Britain it seems that liquids are subject to international protocols whether the flight is domestic, within the EU, or further afield.   According to the Australian website the strict rule applies to all flights from an international airport regardless of whether it is domestic or international.   If the airport is not international the rule is similar to NZ.

So with all these little differences it might be easier for the person from the EU to assume that the strict EU standard for liquids apply everywhere.

I wonder how many tourists from the USA and Europe find it amazing that the visible security measures in NZ and Australia are so lax, especially if they are flying on the regional turbo props?   I am totally sure that this is something they talk about.

What is your point exacty? Why are you focussing on fluids?

At a lot of the airports in Europe it makes sense to have a uniform procedure. The spilt of domestic and international passengers will be very different to that in New Zealand or Australia. In Europe most airports will have international flights and I'm guessing the international passengers would make up at least 50% of the total passengers. We don't have anywhere the same number of international airports.

Because of our location and population we do a lot of things differently in New Zealand.

For example you may have noticed we drive on the opposite side of the road to manland Europe.

I don't agree there is a problem with the way we do our regional security here. In fact I'd go as far to say the requirement to screen domestic jet passengers is also over the top.

Screening of domestic turbo prop passengers isn't practical at any of the regoinal airports. If they aren't done at these airports it is a waste of time doing them at the main centres as screened passengers need to be segregated from non screened. Also domestic passengers from a non screened airport would not be able to be disembarked into the same area as domestic screened passengers. It gets very complicated.

Screening domestic turbo prop passengers isn't worth the cost for the very low risk involved. Thee are much better ways to protect the travelling public and the general population from those who may try to wreak havoc.

Well, the protection of our tourism industry is one good reason to make out aviation security seem very similar to that experienced in those countries with more comprehensive systems in place.

Technofreak

6530 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2202617 20-Mar-2019 20:59

amiga500:

Well, the protection of our tourism industry is one good reason to make out aviation security seem very similar to that experienced in those countries with more comprehensive systems in place.

I have worked in tourism industry and in the aviation industry. In my experience, percentage wise, very few tourists travel internally within New Zealand by scheduled airline. Further more there are a lot of other experiences within New Zealand that are different from their home country that any differences in aviation security procedures would most likely go unnoticed.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

BlinkyBill

1443 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2202678 21-Mar-2019 01:39

Batman:
BlinkyBill: I travel a lot, they didn’t catch the shoe bomber, the lady with the knife, airport security hasn’t saved a single life. If you think it calms the travelling public, you are wrong. If you are reassured by airport security, you are simple-minded.

All it does is add cost and inconvenience. We wouldn’t do what we do if the US hadn’t over-reacted.

Also, NZ legislation allows for screening for any passenger aircraft, discretion to <90 is allowed, but legally they can apply screening at a change of policy.

1 million people get a vaccine and 10 people get the measles does not mean vaccines don't do anything.

I don't think that argument is logical.

Now I'm not saying that airport security does or doesn't work, but the argument is flawed.

If you want to use this argument then you should stop seeing your doctor, because everyone who sees a doctor dies.

Vaccines work, airport security screening doesn’t. My argument might be wrong, but your counter-argument is not a logical rebuttal.

BlinkyBill

1443 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2202679 21-Mar-2019 01:40

MikeB4:
BlinkyBill: I travel a lot, they didn’t catch the shoe bomber, the lady with the knife, airport security hasn’t saved a single life. If you think it calms the travelling public, you are wrong. If you are reassured by airport security, you are simple-minded.

All it does is add cost and inconvenience. We wouldn’t do what we do if the US hadn’t over-reacted.

Also, NZ legislation allows for screening for any passenger aircraft, discretion to <90 is allowed, but legally they can apply screening at a change of policy.

I am sure you could have made your points without the insult

Fair enough.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#2202690 21-Mar-2019 07:19

amiga500:

A little update about CHC. Black plastic sheeting has been added to the sides of the temporary fencing at the Regional Lounge departure area. A small indicator that it may be there for a while?

Or more the fact it's essential to stop items being passed through the fence - but this doesn't stop things from being thrown over the top.

larknz

1689 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#2202694 21-Mar-2019 07:40

Or through the 300mm gap under the fence

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#2202695 21-Mar-2019 07:44

amiga500:

Well, the protection of our tourism industry is one good reason to make out aviation security seem very similar to that experienced in those countries with more comprehensive systems in place.

How often do you actually fly in other countries?

I can tell you from probably 40 odd flights outside NZ in the past 3-4 years within the US, Europe and Asia that our airport security is very good and the experience is world class. I dread TSA screening and dealing with many people who are simply not good at their job and have no pride in it. Their processes are broken and in many airports the experience is quite simply dreadful.

All I take from your comments is that you're suggesting NZ downgrade the our Avsec screening so it matches the experience of other countries such as the US and UK? Random 30 - 45 min delays for screening, broken processes and inefficient staff?

I'm sure most people who come to NZ are amazed at the fact Avsec do such a good job of processing passengers and bags. The only exception to this rule is Queenstown airport where it can be frustrating, but that's because of the airport design.

The fact screening is not mandatory for regionals is the law, and as I've mentioned above (and it's been discussed extensively by Avsec both privately and publicly over the past couple of years) this may change and Avsec are seeking law changes surrounding funding. From memory I think they were talking around an extra $30 million per year to provide services to all regional airports, and the cost recovery process may simply see passenger flights scrapped for any airlines looking to fly part 121 operations.

allan

2043 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#2202751 21-Mar-2019 09:45

sbiddle:

I dread TSA screening and dealing with many people who are simply not good at their job and have no pride in it. Their processes are broken and in many airports the experience is quite simply dreadful.

Kansas City a couple of years ago. Simply awful... 🤬

Goosey

2829 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#2202757 21-Mar-2019 09:50

Black sheeting is for aesthetics.

Looks nicer. less distracting. less confronting.

simple.

Technofreak

6530 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2202768 21-Mar-2019 10:35

sbiddle:

The fact screening is not mandatory for regionals is the law, and as I've mentioned above (and it's been discussed extensively by Avsec both privately and publicly over the past couple of years) this may change and Avsec are seeking law changes surrounding funding. From memory I think they were talking around an extra $30 million per year to provide services to all regional airports, and the cost recovery process may simply see passenger flights scrapped for any airlines looking to fly part 121 operations.

Personally I think any talk of expanding Avsec services to regional airports is more to do with growing an empire and exerting authority than it is to do with the safety of the travelling public.

How many terrorists have been caught anywhere in the world with the current security procedures? How much money has been spent in the process? Money that could have been better spent on other much more effective preventative measures.

We are paying a high price for incompetence and lack of cooperation within the various law enforcement and security agencies in the US and elsewhere that allowed the Sept 11 attacks to take place. These agencies already had the information to stop the attacks but lack of cooperation and incompetence stopped that information from being used.

Instead we have been saddled with an expensive and inefficient elephant in the form of airport security. It's turned into a major growth industry based on fear and political knee jerk reactions.

The cost burden of putting Avsec style security screening into regional airports will mean there will be no regional airport services. The travelling public is very price sensitive and the drop off in passenger numbers will mean most services will no longer be viable.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

nickb800

2715 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2202771 21-Mar-2019 11:01

I'm not that the empire building is the driver. The only calls seem to come from random members of the public without reference to the cost effectiveness of such a measure (e.g. this thread) and the Airline Pilots Association - they do so with an interest in protecting the safety of their pilots, although implementing it would probably cost some of their pilots their jobs as regional services would likely be reduced. The Transport Ministry is running a review - is there anything public about AVSEC asking for money?

https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/291462/warning-against-airport-security-over-reaction

Without running a cost-effectiveness assessment, the balance feels pretty good in New Zealand - there's a bit of security on larger planes, it runs pretty efficiently and isn't particularly disruptive. Certainly compared the US, I think we're pretty lucky to have the arrangements that we do.

floydbloke

3522 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#2202780 21-Mar-2019 11:23

Technofreak:

...

How many terrorists have been caught anywhere in the world with the current security procedures? How much money has been spent in the process? Money that could have been better spent on other much more effective preventative measures.

...

Therein lies the difficulty. If we change your question somewhat to "How many terrorists have been prevented from boarding a plane with the current security measures." then the answer is no-one knows. This doesn't mean people caught at the security gates but also a potential terrorist sitting at home keen to blow up a plane but dissuaded by current measures because he can't get his bomb on-board.

How then do you quantify it. E.g. "If we spend 25% less on aviation security, but 20% more on team-building to get the TSA, FBI, CIA, etc. on working together, the risk of another 911 type incident is reduced by 50%"??? This is a stupid example I know but it's the best my non-creative brain could come up with. I'm genuinely interested in how someone could tangibly represent that money spent elsewhere will provide better prevention.

Did Eric Clapton really think she looked wonderful...or was it after the 15th outfit she tried on and he just wanted to get to the party and get a drink?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4