Posted on 08/18/2004 6:00:16 AM PDT by Lady GOP
Positive passenger bag matching (PPBM) is done at origination, and for connecting flights at Washington National Reagan. This bag was related to a connecting flight (for this passenger) from O'Hare, and therefore was not in the scope of PPBM security activity.
Do you have a citation for the proposition that positive passenger bag matching (PPBM) is done for all passengers making connecting flights?
No. I'm unsure of specific regulations surrounding 'Connecting Flight PPBM'.
However, I would assume though that this would be a glaring loophole if they DIDN'T do the match. Unfortunately, owing to a lot of these protocols being enforced by the airlines themselves, I'm sure there are times when they get the flight in the air rather than lose $$$$ because of delays.
Neither am I. The research I've done so far indicates strongly that connecting flight PPBM is -NOT- done, and that fact has been widely reported.
Air Safety Week: Despite Risk, Terrorists Feared Less Than Security Measures <-- Link
The above link is to an article from early 2003. I haven't found any later reference. That article says, in part ...
All U.S. airlines began PPBM Jan. 18, 2002, for originating passengers. But the omission of connecting passengers was widely publicized and sharply criticized, as in this commentary in the April 20, 2002, edition of The Economist magazine ...
I thought, given the certainty with which you asserted that all bags are matched with passengers, that you had a more recent reference, e.g., to the TSA or FAA rule.
This does appear to be a 'glaring loophole', doesn't it.
Maybe, maybe not. But this incident has the potential to rekindle public debate on the subject.
Gate-checked bags are not subject to PPBM either, from what I've read. That is true for originating as well as connecting flights. Washington Reagan may have PPBM for gate check, I don't know. But gate checked bags are outside of the "checked bag" cross checks (between boarding pass and bag ticket, etc.).
hmmmm :) You would do well to read some of the other posts on this thread....I'm unable to comment directly as the relevant information is considered "sensitive security information" (even though much of it gets to the media anyway); suffice it to say that I'd be thoroughly happy if people (and by "people" I mean "terrorists") believe that what you say is entirely true in all cases....
Given these comments should this whole Thread be deleted?
Loose Lips Sink Ships...........................?
Not just this one, if that is your concern. There are several threads on the Baer Field closing, and all of them include discussion of PPBM.
The updated story now says it was a liquid.
How'd that happen?
Wouldn't entirely disagree....on the other hand, the guest on Fox News at the moment is discussing all the same things.... It'd be best if this information was just plain unavailable, but for the moment I'll enjoy the fact that much of the information out there on airline security is MISinformation....
On another note regarding PPBM, airlines have long argued (and I mostly agree) that it is ineffective as well as not cost-effective, given our enemies' demonstrated willingness to die as long as they can take some innocent people with them. The only thing it accomplishes is making sure the perp goes down with the rest; not entirely undesirable, but not necessarily worth the considerable cost.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.