Waiting for late passengers to board the plane

[BadaBing]

Why fine them , just make them eat 2 meals of shit instead of 1 or 4 instead of 3 , depending on flight distance... ::

[MooNoi]

Hi Zaad/BB et al,

 

I hate to break it to you, but not all checked baggage is screened before a flight. At some airports - eg. Bangkok where they do it before the check-in counter - it is. But others - eg. SYD/MEL/BNE in Australia, its not.

People working in the travel industry here have known this a long time. And checked baggage for domestic travel in Australia is not screened either.

 

The main rationale being that if someone checks-in but doesn't get on board their flight their bag can be removed. And, (this is the disturbing one for me), "who is going to check-in and board a flight, put a bomb in their luggage and blow themselves up?" But in these days when suicide bombers are common-place, I totally disagree with their thinking.

 

Here is an article below from last week's "THE AUSTRALIAN" national newspaper:

 

Baggage deadline in doubt

By Steve Creedy, Aviation writer

July 22, 2004

 

AUSTRALIA'S biggest airport has raised doubts that a baggage screening system designed to test every piece of checked baggage for explosives will be ready in time to meet a December deadline.

 

While other Australian airports believe they are on track to introduce the so-called checked-bag screening system by year's end, Sydney Airport chief executive Max Moore-Wilton said this week he doubted the airport would meet an 18-month-old government-imposed deadline to install the equipment by December 31.

 

Sydney handles about half of Australia's international air traffic and faces the biggest bill - up to $50million - to upgrade its baggage system.

 

"The problem, with checked-bag screening, is there are only two or three major suppliers around the world and everyone's putting it in," Mr Moore-Wilton said.

 

"So, of course, there's a lot of pressure in the supply line.

 

"But we're negotiating at the present time and we're trying to meet the Government's objectives and deadlines. But it's going to be very tight."

 

The federal Government said yesterday that it would enforce the deadline, set in December 2002.

 

"Our position is the deadline remains," a spokesman for Transport Minister John Anderson said.

 

"If Sydney Airport, or any other airport, can't physically fit the infrastructure needed in time, they'll have to use alternative methods of checked-bag screening. And they have said to us they are prepared to use these alternative methods."

 

Such methods are likely to include widespread use of electronic trace detection machines to scan bags individually, a move that could mean delays for passengers.

 

It is understood Sydney is the only airport so far to raise doubts about its ability to meet the deadline.

 

A check of Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth - the other members of the "big four" international airports - found all believed they were on track to introduce the system on time.

 

Checked bags from Sydney are already 100per cent screened to some destinations, notably the US, and random checks are made on other flights.

 

Even if Sydney's system is delayed, the Australian deadline for 100per cent screening is a year ahead of a global deadline set by the International Civil Aviation Organisation.

 

But it will lag behind the US - which began screening 100 per cent of its checked baggage in January last year - by two years.

 

The federal Government's 2002 security package also required domestic terminal operators to introduce permanent checked-bag screening at Adelaide, Melbourne, Brisbane, Sydney, Perth, Cairns, Canberra, Coolangatta and Darwin by December 31.

 

Passengers are expected to be slugged with a baggage screening levy of up to $5.

[Zaad]

The other thing is that I am not completely convinced that current baggage screening can detect every modern detonating device available on the current market.

I am not even convinced that current screening practices can detect every explosive device even if it is of the more primitive varitety.

Are you?

That's indeed "the other thing" as you say which is irrelevant to me.

 

You say it's too easy to blow up a plane that way...well it is then! Of course the luggage could contain anything...just because a passenger is late or whatever is no reason to suspect a bomb, can't rely on that. Too simple. That's panic talk.

The luggage would have served its purpose if it contained one long before you'd know about a missing passenger.

[Zaad]

Bottomline for me is that I dont mind 'wasting' a few hours at departure to make sure that all is right, so that I have all garantees that I will arrive at my destination in one piece.....

Sorry to disappoint you just before your upcoming flight to LOS, but there is and will never be a guarantee that you will arrive safely. Hope you will of course

Removing luggage won't increase that chance. It'll only eliminate panic in the plane because passengers will asume all sorts of nonsense.

 

Terrorists don't mind blowing themselves up nowadays.

What I'm saying is that the chance of a bag with no owner containing a bomb is as high as the bag of the guy sitting next to you in that plane.

[walletss]

" You say it's too easy to blow up a plane that way...well it is then! Of course the luggage could contain anything...just because a passenger is late or whatever is no reason to suspect a bomb, can't rely on that. Too simple. That's panic talk."

 

Panic talk or not. Most passengers would feel better if the missing passengers luggage was off the plane before they took off.

 

" The luggage would have served its purpose if it contained one long before you'd know about a missing passenger. "

 

I am not trying to argue that removing a missing passengers luggage is going to foil the most determined bomber.

It is just a deterrent which along with other security measures keep as a bit safer. There are never any guarantees.

[lopburi3]

Alaska Airlines September 18, 2003 last flight SEA-DEN of the day. Plane had delayed boarding and then held at gate (over 40 minutes with no aircon before pilot was able to get ground to re-attach) and had about another hour before takeoff. And I had heard such good things about this airline. At Denver was advised to immediately claim baggage as their ground staff were going home - took another hour to get bags into terminal (guess they already went home).

[lopburi3]

We are talking multi issues here. If Mr X is out to get Mr Y and checks his luggage on the same flight but fails to board a lot more people are going to die than just Mr Y. Removing baggage it not nonsense. Even most terrorists are not willing to die if they have another option. Don't let them have it!

 

Zaad said:

Bottomline for me is that I dont mind 'wasting' a few hours at departure to make sure that all is right, so that I have all garantees that I will arrive at my destination in one piece.....

Sorry to disappoint you just before your upcoming flight to LOS, but there is and will never be a guarantee that you will arrive safely. Hope you will of course

Removing luggage won't increase that chance. It'll only eliminate panic in the plane because passengers will asume all sorts of nonsense.

 

Terrorists don't mind blowing themselves up nowadays.

What I'm saying is that the chance of a bag with no owner containing a bomb is as high as the bag of the guy sitting next to you in that plane.

[ultras67]

stars99hk said:

I was watching a documentary about Hong Kong airport just two days ago. They were saying the sophisticated computer system they use allows them to find a any bag in about 5 or so minutes. They know exactly which cargo container each bag is in, and with hand held scanners can find a bag from a passeneger who has not showed up real quickly.

 

They also tie the boarding process into the baggage handling so if someone does not show up to board it tells them exactly which bag needs to be removed.

 

 

This seems to me to be a solution so simple yet effective. Whyarent more doing it.

 

On the subject of late boarding, its not always the passengers fault. When I was going to Manilla In April from Don Muang, they never once called the flight or changed the status of the flight on the screens from "Check In at.." to "Boarding" It was only when they put an announcement through "will the last three passengers please boarrd immediately... Mr & Mrs X and me" that I realised the time - I assumed because they hadnt done that the plane had been delayed. And when I got to the boarding gate, the flight status was still at "Check In.."

 

I much prefer to wait in the main lounge area until the last possible moment.

[Guest]

Those screens at Don Muang are a joke. I'm used to them regularly blinking "last call" well before they even start the boarding process.

[sayjann]

i will admit to being one of the Barstards who have caused an Aircraft to take off late.

my last day in Copenhagen and i was enjoying some sightseeing(WW2 Museum)and finally knew it was time to leave and make my way to the Airport.

all went well with the connections and i arrived at the check-in desk in plenty of time.

 

no,i was wrong.

i had mistaken the flight-time and the flight was due to take-off in 5 Minutes.

FUCK i thought,1 flight a Day and i had no money left for an extra Day in Denmark.

luckily the check-in Crew rang ahead and the Aircraft was held for me.

no checking in of Baggage and i had to haul all my stuff from one end of the Terminal to the other and i was totally fucked when i was ushered onto the Aircraft.

 

i had had no seat booked and i had to sit in a spare Flight Attendents seat with my Luggage strewn around me.

but i was first off the Aircraft when we landed in the UK...