I searched Google News for the story, and got about 70 hits, including many US media outlets, but each of those was quoting the exact same Associated Press report. And, according to that report, news of the new TSA rule seems to be coming directly from Qantas itself. I’m not sure if this means that Qantas has received a special directive on the issue, or if it is simply the first airline to publicize the order. I can’t imagine any reason why Qantas would announce such a policy by itself, or lie about the alleged TSA directive.
The TSA website has nothing that i could find, but this may not mean anything, as it would not be surprising if the airline was told before the general public. The Qantas website has no information either.
I’ll keep an eye out and see if anything develops.
The requirement for armed police on flights demanded by the government of the USA is being discussed in this thread where I make the case that it was was done very clumsily by notifying the airlines and not their governments. In the end it has been a fiasco and the USA is no longer making it a requirement. They should have thought that it was not enforceable before they made the demand. It was done were clumsily and in the usual fashion for this government.
You should have seen my comment in context… as a response to the post before implying that other countries are crybabies for reacting to US measures… while its the US that keeps pushing the terrorism blah blah blah to get things done.
For quite awhile, flights into and out of DC required all passengers to remain in their seats within 30 minutes flight time of the capital - no exceptions.
Also, we pilots have had to put with with a lot of BS from the TSA, none of which I particularly care to review here. Suffice it to say that those making decisions about our nation’s aviation security are obviously NOT experts in aviation on any level.
Nor, on a certain level, do they care about the health and well-being of anyone other than themselves and a select few. If some Aussie tourists die from blood clots in their legs - oh, well, small sacrifice for security.*
Which is why a bunch of us keep beating the civil liberties drum - our freedom is being nibbled away, and occassionally consumed in large chunks.
Please note that this is SARCASM and does NOT reflect my personal opinion.
I believe that this method will eventually become a standard screening process in every country (that can afford it). And why not - if it helps to keep out criminals otherwise not identifiable, then I’m all for it.
Having said that, discounting certain countries from the process is just plain stupid. Even a simple SWOT analysis would have shown up the inherent flaws in that!
Also, why not implement this system at the point of departure, rather than at arrival? Make the fingerpriting, etc. a part of the vsia approval process.
You are missing the point which is to identify the person actually entering the country. passports and visas can be counterfeit but your face and fingerprints ar more difficult to do.
To a certain extent, it already is; name checks, and other security checks as DHS feels they become necessary (according to age, county of origin, and stuff listed on your application forms, which includes educational & professional background, military experience, and a host of other items) are run on visa applicants as part of the application process. This doesn’t include running fingerprint checks - yet - but I can certainly imagine things heading that way.
But then, as you mentioned, large numbers of people are exempt from applying for visas in advance (most Canadians and most short-term business or tourism visitors from some high-volume countries), so without renegotiating or voiding some pretty large bilateral and multilateral treaties, you’d still have some pretty large gaps to cover.
Well, how about fingerprinting, etc. at the exact point of departure, i.e. while checking in? IMO, people are more likely to accept a little more delay before boarding a flight, as opposed to at the end of a flight. This could easily be implemented for all flights landing in US territory.
Of course, this then means sharing intelligence data on known/wanted criminals with every nation that has a plane flying into the US. Maybe not so implementable, then…
This is done (at least, customs pre-clearance, not fingerprinting) in major Canadian airports. This is done because of the volume of international flights between Canada and the US. Flights pre-cleared in Canada are treated as domestic US flights. So it can be done, but it isn’t easy.
First, you need the cooperation of foreign governments to allow US customs into their country and their airport. Second, you need to have a separate, secure area in the terminal (or even a separate terminal) for passengers who have pre-cleared for flights to the US. Anything less and you have not assured pre-clearance.
This setup, although fairly convenient, does have its drawbacks. For one, lets say you are flying Sudbury -> Toronto -> New York. When your flight arrives in Toronto, you have to pick up your baggage and haul it through customs. This means that you can’t have a tight connection, and you will have to drop off your bags twice (Sudbury and Toronto) and pick up your bags twice (Toronto and New York). If it was a typical international flight, you’d just drop off your bags once (Sudbury) and pick them up once (New York).
Also, what happens if the plane you are on breaks down once it leaves the gate at Toronto. Let’s say it taxis out on one engine, but they can’t fire up the other engine. So the plane returns to the terminal to switch planes, but there’s no space at the US-bound gates. You either wait (perhaps a long time) for a spot to open up, or you get dropped off at a non-US-bound gate and get surrounded by security as you switch planes.