Passenger Immigration status checked for clearance to take-off
Aug 20th, 2006, 06:56 AM
#21
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,000
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. The same PNR is indexed into the other flight.
2. The same PNR is indexed into the other flight.
3. The no-shows (who were cleared when the PNR name entry was made) are known to the system when the cabin door is closed. Anyway, who cares whether they show up if they didn't check any luggage?
Posit some more "etc. etc." cases, and I will be happy to address them.
2. The same PNR is indexed into the other flight.
3. The no-shows (who were cleared when the PNR name entry was made) are known to the system when the cabin door is closed. Anyway, who cares whether they show up if they didn't check any luggage?
Posit some more "etc. etc." cases, and I will be happy to address them.
Aug 20th, 2006, 07:13 AM
#22
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It ought to be possible to check the names at check-in, either through a kiosk or the desk. If a name is on a no-fly list, presumably that means a 'no-boarding-card' list. (Check-in is already the point where it is confirmed that the person travelling is indeed the person in whose name the reservation has been made - even the kiosks require one to insert one's passport for scanning.)
Prior to check-in, it doesn't matter if the passenger doesn't show up - the point is not to fly the passenger, and a passenger that doesn't show, doesn't fly. As for changing flights, if they can't check in, presumably they can't simply change flights (unless it is to a flight with a destination other than the countries affected.)
As a backup, there is already a second scanning of boarding passes and passports at the boarding lounge location in many airports.
Okay, I'm thinking on the fly (no pun intended) and I have probably missed a few details. The point is, one shouldn't have to wait until after everyone is aboard to do this kind of check.
Prior to check-in, it doesn't matter if the passenger doesn't show up - the point is not to fly the passenger, and a passenger that doesn't show, doesn't fly. As for changing flights, if they can't check in, presumably they can't simply change flights (unless it is to a flight with a destination other than the countries affected.)
As a backup, there is already a second scanning of boarding passes and passports at the boarding lounge location in many airports.
Okay, I'm thinking on the fly (no pun intended) and I have probably missed a few details. The point is, one shouldn't have to wait until after everyone is aboard to do this kind of check.
Aug 20th, 2006, 07:18 AM
#23
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,067
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<i>what happens when the passengers, do the following? ...</i>
One solution - Differential checks. Boarding/check in is another point of electronic input to do checks. Any record that matches the no-fly earlier check automatically is eliminated from further checks. Split second comparison as the pre-manifest is no mpre than a couple hundred records.
One solution - Differential checks. Boarding/check in is another point of electronic input to do checks. Any record that matches the no-fly earlier check automatically is eliminated from further checks. Split second comparison as the pre-manifest is no mpre than a couple hundred records.
Aug 20th, 2006, 07:22 AM
#24
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,000
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sue and Clifton - there is no reason to do "downstream" checks if the passenger is never allowed to make a reservation.
If the name is matched to the no-fly database at PNR creation time, there is no
If the name is matched to the no-fly database at PNR creation time, there is no
Aug 20th, 2006, 07:24 AM
#26
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was called CAPPS II:
"Airline Security Grounded by Paranoia"
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/h...ne_securit.htm
CAPPS II Is Dead, But Door Open for CAPPS III
http://www.informationweek.com/story...cleID=23901115
In the near future, DHS is hoping that this program: "Secure Flight" will, in fact, take flight, however, the USG is dogged at every turn when it wants to introduce new technology that will truly help keep the traveling public safe from terrorist attacks, before anyone or anything gets to the airport, -because aviation security matters, as everyone knows, are everyone's favorite whipping post:
"Secure Flight Gets Wary Welcome"
www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,64748,00.html
TSA "Secure Flight Gets Incomplete Review"
news.airwise.com/story/view/1112087627.html
"Airline Security Grounded by Paranoia"
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/h...ne_securit.htm
CAPPS II Is Dead, But Door Open for CAPPS III
http://www.informationweek.com/story...cleID=23901115
In the near future, DHS is hoping that this program: "Secure Flight" will, in fact, take flight, however, the USG is dogged at every turn when it wants to introduce new technology that will truly help keep the traveling public safe from terrorist attacks, before anyone or anything gets to the airport, -because aviation security matters, as everyone knows, are everyone's favorite whipping post:
"Secure Flight Gets Wary Welcome"
www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,64748,00.html
TSA "Secure Flight Gets Incomplete Review"
news.airwise.com/story/view/1112087627.html
Aug 20th, 2006, 07:33 AM
#27
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 8,379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AAFF you sound hysterical. To compare on any level the German/Nazi extermination of 6 million people to having to sit in the plane for an hour is absurd and diminishes what happenened in WWII. And to be spitting mad at bureaucratic inefficiency is a real time-waster, do you think? Thank you to the FA who reports improvement in manifest clearing.
