Airport Rail Link

[trogers]

There would now be quite a few baggage laden travelers using this rail link between the airport and the city. Are baggage being subjected to strict security checks like those in the airport against possible terrorist attacks?

[theoldgit]

Have travelled on it a few times and have seen no security checks whatsoever.

[whybother]

There is certainly no aiport like security checks. The line is used for commuters. Can you imagine the delay if they had to go through airport security checks?

[britmaveric]

Indeed it's a soft target like most everything in Thailand. What would make you think it would be any different?

[josephbloggs]

Indeed it's a soft target like most everything in Thailand. What would make you think it would be any different?

So in England, or the US, or anywhere else, you have to go through security checks before you get on a train do you? No, of course you don't. So why be so condescending towards Thailand? I don't understand what people are expecting, I really don't.

I can walk on to the Heathrow Express in London with no security checks at all. None. Same wth any other airport train I have ever used anywhere in the world. Why do you expect here to be different? I can just imagine all these same people whinging on TV if they were delayed on the train to have their bags scanned or to queue up to pass through metal detectors every time they wanted to board.

The only train I know of with security checks is the Eurostar, but the reason for that is obvious.

[theoldgit]

I don't think he is being condescending to Thailand at all, I personally would have thought in the current world security climate designing security features into a new system would have been sensible.

I know the MRT is not an airport train but they have security checks there, though I accept not on the BTS, are you saying that whilst the MRT is considered to be at risk the Airport Link isn't?

By the way they have trialed security checks on The Heathrow Express http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/security/sectionsocresearch/security/heathrowexpress/trialheathrowexpress

[trogers]

Indeed it's a soft target like most everything in Thailand. What would make you think it would be any different?

The soft target I have in mind is not the trains of the Airport Link, but the airport terminal.

What an easy way for a few hundred men with war weapons hidden in their backpacks to make their way into the airport area like in Die Hard 2.

Edited October 24, 2010 by trogers

[Hitch22]

If I were you I would't worry about bombs on the ARL, but rather worry about when the first train is going to derail .

[josephbloggs]

I don't think he is being condescending to Thailand at all, I personally would have thought in the current world security climate designing security features into a new system would have been sensible.

I know the MRT is not an airport train but they have security checks there, though I accept not on the BTS, are you saying that whilst the MRT is considered to be at risk the Airport Link isn't?

No, I'm not saying that at all. The "security" at the MRT stations is ludicrous - you may as well not have it. A cursory peek into your bag is not a security check. If you are in a hurry they don't bother you at all. And those metal detectors beep like mental but they never ever pull anyone over. So I don't consider it more at risk, I consider the pointless gesture they go through to be worthless. Likewise the metal detectors at shopping malls. Walk in through the carpark or (usually) anything but the main entrance and there is nothing. You have to love the entrance to Siam Centre from the Skytrain. There is a constantly beeping metal detector which you have to walk through - a stern man makes sure of it. Just to the right of this entrance is an escalator that goes about six foot to an entrance on the next floor. Here there is no "security" at all, and it is literally a few feet away.

Again, if you are going to have serious security on the train because it goes to the airport, then you need to also have it on all the buses that go there, and all the roads in and out. One of my favourite bits of pointless "security" is when entering the airport carparks. You have to open your boot, they look inside at a load of suitcases/boxes/bags, then wave you through. What is the point in that? If someone had a bomb then they'd just put it in a suitcase or a box or a bag. It is an airport carpark - of course people's boots are full of stuff!! Why do they want to look inside? Do they think a bomb would be labelled?

By the way they have trialed security checks on The Heathrow Express http://www.dft.gov.u...heathrowexpress

Yes, that was for about three weeks, nearly five years ago, when everyone was jittery after the awful July bombings.

Just to clarify, I am not against security - I Iove security!! I lock my doors, I have a safe, I think the more security you have inside an airport the better and I don't mind the delays because of it. Honestly, I will take off my shoes, belt, have a full body scan, whatever, if it leads to genuinely improved airport security. But people sneering because there are no security checks before boarding the train here because "it's Thailand, what else do you expect?" when there is no such thing on any airport train I have ever come across in my life is just ridiculous, condescending, and unfair. Seriously, I want to know what the poster who made that comment expects, and why he thinks the excellent system here is somehow behind the rest of the world.

Edited October 24, 2010 by josephbloggs

[josephbloggs]

If I were you I would't worry about bombs on the ARL, but rather worry about when the first train is going to derail .

Why? What have you seen that suggests this might happen?

[trogers]

Just to clarify, I am not against security - I Iove security!! I lock my doors, I have a safe, I think the more security you have inside an airport the better and I don't mind the delays because of it. Honestly, I will take off my shoes, belt, have a full body scan, whatever, if it leads to genuinely improved airport security. But people sneering because there are no security checks before boarding the train here because "it's Thailand, what else do you expect?" when there is no such thing on any airport train I have ever come across in my life is just ridiculous, condescending, and unfair. Seriously, I want to know what the poster who made that comment expects, and why he thinks the excellent system here is somehow behind the rest of the world.

I seem to recall that shoes was once never an item that was inspected in security checks... until someone was stopped from trying to set his ablazed. If he had succeeded, we probably will not be checking shoes even now because such an act is "just ridiculous, condescending, and unfair".

[josephbloggs]

Just to clarify, I am not against security - I Iove security!! I lock my doors, I have a safe, I think the more security you have inside an airport the better and I don't mind the delays because of it. Honestly, I will take off my shoes, belt, have a full body scan, whatever, if it leads to genuinely improved airport security. But people sneering because there are no security checks before boarding the train here because "it's Thailand, what else do you expect?" when there is no such thing on any airport train I have ever come across in my life is just ridiculous, condescending, and unfair. Seriously, I want to know what the poster who made that comment expects, and why he thinks the excellent system here is somehow behind the rest of the world.

I seem to recall that shoes was once never an item that was inspected in security checks... until someone was stopped from trying to set his ablazed. If he had succeeded, we probably will not be checking shoes even now because such an act is "just ridiculous, condescending, and unfair".

We're not talking about airport security here, we're talking about a train.

And the comment was ridiculous, condescending and unfair, because the poster was being derogatory towards Thai standards when the standards in this case are exactly the same as anywhere else in the world - perhaps even higher.

[trogers]

Just to clarify, I am not against security - I Iove security!! I lock my doors, I have a safe, I think the more security you have inside an airport the better and I don't mind the delays because of it. Honestly, I will take off my shoes, belt, have a full body scan, whatever, if it leads to genuinely improved airport security. But people sneering because there are no security checks before boarding the train here because "it's Thailand, what else do you expect?" when there is no such thing on any airport train I have ever come across in my life is just ridiculous, condescending, and unfair. Seriously, I want to know what the poster who made that comment expects, and why he thinks the excellent system here is somehow behind the rest of the world.

I seem to recall that shoes was once never an item that was inspected in security checks... until someone was stopped from trying to set his ablazed. If he had succeeded, we probably will not be checking shoes even now because such an act is "just ridiculous, condescending, and unfair".

We're not talking about airport security here, we're talking about a train.

And the comment was ridiculous, condescending and unfair, because the poster was being derogatory towards Thai standards when the standards in this case are exactly the same as anywhere else in the world - perhaps even higher.

Really? How many international airports elsewhere in the world have a rail link and at the same time have a case of a terrorist blowing up an apartment building along with himself?

[Lakegeneve]

Indeed it's a soft target like most everything in Thailand. What would make you think it would be any different?

The soft target I have in mind is not the trains of the Airport Link, but the airport terminal.

What an easy way for a few hundred men with war weapons hidden in their backpacks to make their way into the airport area like in Die Hard 2.

I think that you may have been watching too many B grade films.

Anyone wanting to hide weapons to undertake some operation in the terminal would not be bothered catching the train, just roll up to the terminal entrance in suitable vehicles (vans or buses) and walk in.

More likely, they would just use an appropriate uniform & ID to use one of the service gates and gain access. The PAD airport occupation experience and numerous security breaches have shown that it is not that difficult.

I don't see the relevence of the ARL to your concern.

[Lakegeneve]

I don't think he is being condescending to Thailand at all, I personally would have thought in the current world security climate designing security features into a new system would have been sensible.

I know the MRT is not an airport train but they have security checks there, though I accept not on the BTS, are you saying that whilst the MRT is considered to be at risk the Airport Link isn't?

No, I'm not saying that at all. The "security" at the MRT stations is ludicrous - you may as well not have it. A cursory peek into your bag is not a security check. If you are in a hurry they don't bother you at all. And those metal detectors beep like mental but they never ever pull anyone over. So I don't consider it more at risk, I consider the pointless gesture they go through to be worthless. Likewise the metal detectors at shopping malls. Walk in through the carpark or (usually) anything but the main entrance and there is nothing. You have to love the entrance to Siam Centre from the Skytrain. There is a constantly beeping metal detector which you have to walk through - a stern man makes sure of it. Just to the right of this entrance is an escalator that goes about six foot to an entrance on the next floor. Here there is no "security" at all, and it is literally a few feet away.

Again, if you are going to have serious security on the train because it goes to the airport, then you need to also have it on all the buses that go there, and all the roads in and out. One of my favourite bits of pointless "security" is when entering the airport carparks. You have to open your boot, they look inside at a load of suitcases/boxes/bags, then wave you through. What is the point in that? If someone had a bomb then they'd just put it in a suitcase or a box or a bag. It is an airport carpark - of course people's boots are full of stuff!! Why do they want to look inside? Do they think a bomb would be labelled?

Of course they should be labelled!!!

Standard SOPs for terrorists require that all explosive devices hidden within a container should be appropriately labelled,

"Explosives - handle with disregard for maximum carnage".

Completely agree with you on the MRT checks, shopping center 'security' and airport carpark checks. It is for a superficial feel good factor mainly and a useless deterrent any serious, well organised person.

Likewise, this thread is as silly as those shopping center security measures.

[barryFunk]

Really? How many international airports elsewhere in the world have a rail link and at the same time have a case of a terrorist blowing up an apartment building along with himself?

Airports with direct terminal-accessible rail links (heavy rail or metro/underground) that have had terrorist attacks within their home nation's borders in the last 15 years:

- London Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted

- Manchester

- Birmingham

- Tokyo Narita (and a particularly scary terrorist attack as it involved releasing sarin gas on an underground train)

- Tel Aviv Ben Gurion (which I don't believe has airport-style security even though it is the most terrorist-at-risk airport in the world but happy to be proven wrong)

- Madrid

- Istanbul (via Light Metro)

- Atlanta

- Washington Reagan Airport

- Moscow's three main airports

These are just some that I can think of off the top of my head - I'm sure there are lots more. I don't think any have any serious security checks on them - but happy to be proven wrong. Plenty of developed countries in that list as well.

Quite frankly I think the OP's post is ridiculous. Being so condescending towards Thailand because it doesn't implement security on a commuter rail line that happens to include an airport stop? Come on...

Though perhaps we can all cobble together a few baht to help cover the cost in packaging him in bubble wrap for every trip on public transport he takes just in case he's in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Bad people do bad things. This is reality. Security is a balance otherwise none of us would ever leave our homes. Bangkok has done nothing wrong in not implementing the ridiculous security checks the OP implies should be enforced.

Edited October 25, 2010 by barryFunk

[josephbloggs]

Really? How many international airports elsewhere in the world have a rail link and at the same time have a case of a terrorist blowing up an apartment building along with himself?

Airports with direct terminal-accessible rail links (heavy rail or metro/underground) that have had terrorist attacks within their home nation's borders in the last 15 years:

- London Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted

- Manchester

- Birmingham

- Tokyo Narita (and a particularly scary terrorist attack as it involved releasing sarin gas on an underground train)

- Tel Aviv Ben Gurion (which I don't believe has airport-style security even though it is the most terrorist-at-risk airport in the world but happy to be proven wrong)

- Madrid

- Istanbul (via Light Metro)

- Atlanta

- Washington Reagan Airport

- Moscow's three main airports

These are just some that I can think of off the top of my head - I'm sure there are lots more. I don't think any have any serious security checks on them - but happy to be proven wrong. Plenty of developed countries in that list as well.

Quite frankly I think the OP's post is ridiculous. Being so condescending towards Thailand because it doesn't implement security on a commuter rail line that happens to include an airport stop? Come on...

Though perhaps we can all cobble together a few baht to help cover the cost in packaging him in bubble wrap for every trip on public transport he takes just in case he's in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Bad people do bad things. This is reality. Security is a balance otherwise none of us would ever leave our homes. Bangkok has done nothing wrong in not implementing the ridiculous security checks the OP implies should be enforced.

Phew, you and LakeGeneve have restored my faith in Thai Visa!! I thought I was all alone in this thread.....now it seems there are at least two other sensible people. Hurrah!!

[trogers]

Really? How many international airports elsewhere in the world have a rail link and at the same time have a case of a terrorist blowing up an apartment building along with himself?

Airports with direct terminal-accessible rail links (heavy rail or metro/underground) that have had terrorist attacks within their home nation's borders in the last 15 years:

- London Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted

- Manchester

- Birmingham

- Tokyo Narita (and a particularly scary terrorist attack as it involved releasing sarin gas on an underground train)

- Tel Aviv Ben Gurion (which I don't believe has airport-style security even though it is the most terrorist-at-risk airport in the world but happy to be proven wrong)

- Madrid

- Istanbul (via Light Metro)

- Atlanta

- Washington Reagan Airport

- Moscow's three main airports

These are just some that I can think of off the top of my head - I'm sure there are lots more. I don't think any have any serious security checks on them - but happy to be proven wrong. Plenty of developed countries in that list as well.

Quite frankly I think the OP's post is ridiculous. Being so condescending towards Thailand because it doesn't implement security on a commuter rail line that happens to include an airport stop? Come on...

Though perhaps we can all cobble together a few baht to help cover the cost in packaging him in bubble wrap for every trip on public transport he takes just in case he's in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Bad people do bad things. This is reality. Security is a balance otherwise none of us would ever leave our homes. Bangkok has done nothing wrong in not implementing the ridiculous security checks the OP implies should be enforced.

So this is just a commuter line that happens to include an airport stop? Or was this a line built with the specific intention to link the city to the airport? Words twisting....tsk tsk.

All those cases you have mentioned were terrorist acts directed on to the train systems, and without any intention to take control (or part) of the airport area. As I have said, I am not considering the trains as the soft target. If this is so, I would have included the mass transit system as a whole.

And I doubt grade A or B movies would have taught a bomb maker how to blow himself up.

If you had follow the news with regards to the series of terror acts, the suspected source of funds, and the alleged training grounds, would the points that I have raised be ridiculous?

[josephbloggs]

Really? How many international airports elsewhere in the world have a rail link and at the same time have a case of a terrorist blowing up an apartment building along with himself?

Airports with direct terminal-accessible rail links (heavy rail or metro/underground) that have had terrorist attacks within their home nation's borders in the last 15 years:

- London Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted

- Manchester

- Birmingham

- Tokyo Narita (and a particularly scary terrorist attack as it involved releasing sarin gas on an underground train)

- Tel Aviv Ben Gurion (which I don't believe has airport-style security even though it is the most terrorist-at-risk airport in the world but happy to be proven wrong)

- Madrid

- Istanbul (via Light Metro)

- Atlanta

- Washington Reagan Airport

- Moscow's three main airports

These are just some that I can think of off the top of my head - I'm sure there are lots more. I don't think any have any serious security checks on them - but happy to be proven wrong. Plenty of developed countries in that list as well.

Quite frankly I think the OP's post is ridiculous. Being so condescending towards Thailand because it doesn't implement security on a commuter rail line that happens to include an airport stop? Come on...

Though perhaps we can all cobble together a few baht to help cover the cost in packaging him in bubble wrap for every trip on public transport he takes just in case he's in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Bad people do bad things. This is reality. Security is a balance otherwise none of us would ever leave our homes. Bangkok has done nothing wrong in not implementing the ridiculous security checks the OP implies should be enforced.

So this is just a commuter line that happens to include an airport stop? Or was this a line built with the specific intention to link the city to the airport? Words twisting....tsk tsk.

All those cases you have mentioned were terrorist acts directed on to the train systems, and without any intention to take control (or part) of the airport area. As I have said, I am not considering the trains as the soft target. If this is so, I would have included the mass transit system as a whole.

And I doubt grade A or B movies would have taught a bomb maker how to blow himself up.

If you had follow the news with regards to the series of terror acts, the suspected source of funds, and the alleged training grounds, would the points that I have raised be ridiculous?

So, if I've got this right, you think we need airport style security on the train because some bad person/people might use the train to go to the airport and take it over?

It is still ridiculous, regardless of the alleged training grounds in Cambodia, or where their funds came from. In fact that has nothing to do with anything. The train is a form of transport that goes to the airport. So are buses. So are private cars. Some people could reach it by motorbike! Therefore we need security everywhere and on everything in case someone goes to the airport and does a bad thing there.

[trogers]

Really? How many international airports elsewhere in the world have a rail link and at the same time have a case of a terrorist blowing up an apartment building along with himself?

Airports with direct terminal-accessible rail links (heavy rail or metro/underground) that have had terrorist attacks within their home nation's borders in the last 15 years:

- London Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted

- Manchester

- Birmingham

- Tokyo Narita (and a particularly scary terrorist attack as it involved releasing sarin gas on an underground train)

- Tel Aviv Ben Gurion (which I don't believe has airport-style security even though it is the most terrorist-at-risk airport in the world but happy to be proven wrong)

- Madrid

- Istanbul (via Light Metro)

- Atlanta

- Washington Reagan Airport

- Moscow's three main airports

These are just some that I can think of off the top of my head - I'm sure there are lots more. I don't think any have any serious security checks on them - but happy to be proven wrong. Plenty of developed countries in that list as well.

Quite frankly I think the OP's post is ridiculous. Being so condescending towards Thailand because it doesn't implement security on a commuter rail line that happens to include an airport stop? Come on...

Though perhaps we can all cobble together a few baht to help cover the cost in packaging him in bubble wrap for every trip on public transport he takes just in case he's in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Bad people do bad things. This is reality. Security is a balance otherwise none of us would ever leave our homes. Bangkok has done nothing wrong in not implementing the ridiculous security checks the OP implies should be enforced.

So this is just a commuter line that happens to include an airport stop? Or was this a line built with the specific intention to link the city to the airport? Words twisting....tsk tsk.

All those cases you have mentioned were terrorist acts directed on to the train systems, and without any intention to take control (or part) of the airport area. As I have said, I am not considering the trains as the soft target. If this is so, I would have included the mass transit system as a whole.

And I doubt grade A or B movies would have taught a bomb maker how to blow himself up.

If you had follow the news with regards to the series of terror acts, the suspected source of funds, and the alleged training grounds, would the points that I have raised be ridiculous?

So, if I've got this right, you think we need airport style security on the train because some bad person/people might use the train to go to the airport and take it over?

It is still ridiculous, regardless of the alleged training grounds in Cambodia, or where their funds came from. In fact that has nothing to do with anything. The train is a form of transport that goes to the airport. So are buses. So are private cars. Some people could reach it by motorbike! Therefore we need security everywhere and on everything in case someone goes to the airport and does a bad thing there.

Sure other modes of transport may also be used, in much the same way as weapons were brought into the protest site early this year. But the train system offers stealth should a final push for a large body of men in civilian clothes among the crowd of commuters.

Remember, the last battle was made by men hiding behind civilians.

[lomatopo]

and without any intention to take control (or part) of the airport area.

The Yellow Shirts seized control of the airport before the SARL opened.

I guess it would help if you were more clear on the scenario(s) you envision, and how the SARL would be used to facilitate your scenarios.

If it is just a form of transport then I think what most people here are saying is that it would be far easier for individuals or small groups to take taxis, mini-vans, private cars and buses to the airport. The airport property is huge and is far from secure. There are probably hundreds of ways to gain access to the property. Just disguising your group as RTP or RTA and rolling up to the Departures level might be less expensive than queuing up to buy tickets on the SARL?

FWIW I have seen walk-through metal detectors, off to the side and uninstalled, on some SARL stations so I sort of assumed they would implement MRT-style security, which includes bag checks. I agree that SARL security will probably not search every piece of luggage, but maybe pull people aside and randomly check some baggage?

Edited October 26, 2010 by lomatopo

[trogers]

and without any intention to take control (or part) of the airport area.

The Yellow Shirts seized control of the airport before the SARL opened.

I guess it would help if you were more clear on the scenario(s) you envision, and how the SARL would be used to facilitate your scenarios.

If it is just a form of transport then I think what most people here are saying is that it would be far easier for individuals or small groups to take taxis, mini-vans, private cars and buses to the airport. The airport property is huge and is far from secure. There are probably hundreds of ways to gain access to the property. Just disguising your group as RTP or RTA and rolling up to the Departures level might be less expensive than queuing up to buy tickets on the SARL?

FWIW I have seen walk-through metal detectors, off to the side and uninstalled, on some SARL stations so I sort of assumed they would implement MRT-style security, which includes bag checks. I agree that SARL security will probably not search every piece of luggage, but maybe pull people aside and randomly check some baggage?

Please do not bring red or yellow shirts into this thread. As to whether they are terrorists, the court has still to decide, though personally, I have not seen terrorists going about their business without arms. The small group of men in black who hid among the tens of thousands protestors remained inconspicuous. They did not wear black and rode in private cars, taxis or buses into the protest site.

[lomatopo]

Please do not bring red or yellow shirts into this thread.

My point, which you may have missed, was that SBIA was already seized (which I think is your primary fear) by a group who did not use the SARL.

I still do not comprehend your scenarios, how the SARL fits into them and how the lack of airport-style security somehow contributes to your concerns. Can you elaborate?

Once we understand your concerns we may be able to address them. I, for one, do not understand your obscure references to 20 year old action films, men in black, apartment buildings blowing up, off-shore funding of terrorists, etc.

Edited October 26, 2010 by lomatopo

[barryFunk]

Remember, the last battle was made by men hiding behind civilians.

So I just want to get this straight... You're advocating turning Suvarnabhumi Airport into a fortress - checking every passenger on every train that goes to the airport (including the tens of thousands who use it daily as a commuter service since I can't see how you'd filter them out), every suitcase in every car, coach or minibus that enters the airport grounds, every package in every delivery van that brings goods in to the premises and all 45 million passengers who travel through the airport this year.... before they even get to the drop off zone. All this because you have insider information that the terrorists who wear black shirts and have used recent protests as a cover to go about their dastardly ways are planning an operation to violently take over the airport like in Die Hard 2 (or if you prefer... Die Harder).

While I'm sure there's a small chance this could happen I think it would be more sensible to bring in Bruce Willis and put him up at the Airport Novotel.... just in case we need a little help. Probably a lot cheaper and would inconvenience fewer people that way. We could just get each of the 45 million people who pass through the airport annually to donate 50 baht to the 'Put Bruce Up at the Novotel' fund. I'm sure they'd rather donate the price of a beer rather than sit in a queue stretching from the airport to Salaya just to get through the security you would need to completely rule out any threat.

Edited October 26, 2010 by barryFunk

[sbk]

So, just out of curiosity, I read somewhere that the price was due to go up for the phayathai line, when is that, does anyone know?

And just to stay on topic, I think security checks would be a nightmare and pretty pointless anyway. And the likelihood of a die hard 2 being pulled off in Thailand seems, well, pretty remote really, when you think about it.

[josephbloggs]

So, just out of curiosity, I read somewhere that the price was due to go up for the phayathai line, when is that, does anyone know?

From the 1st Jan 2011 it will increase to 15-45 baht depending on journey length (from the flat rate of 15 baht now).

The Express will increase to 150 baht each way, as opposed to 100 baht (same day) return now.

[trogers]

Please do not bring red or yellow shirts into this thread.

My point, which you may have missed, was that SBIA was already seized (which I think is your primary fear) by a group who did not use the SARL.

I still do not comprehend your scenarios, how the SARL fits into them and how the lack of airport-style security somehow contributes to your concerns. Can you elaborate?

Once we understand your concerns we may be able to address them. I, for one, do not understand your obscure references to 20 year old action films, men in black, apartment buildings blowing up, off-shore funding of terrorists, etc.

My concern is not some people seizing the airport causing its closure for a period of time as had happened in the past. I will not elaborate in detail my concern, and leave it to you to read between the lines in the ongoing news reports. Just ask yourself what single event will have long lasting repercussion for Thailand.

To conclude, I hope to see some changes to the way security is being handled for this Airport Rail Link. If the intention is to restrict it to normal commuting, then enforce a luggage rule like that in Singapore MRT- cabin bag complying in quantity, dimensions and weight as those allowed on board an aircraft.

If the line wants to service air passengers, then have a separate express train like the one in HK, where baggage are checked in and the traveler will only get them back in his destination airport.

[Lakegeneve]

Please do not bring red or yellow shirts into this thread.

My point, which you may have missed, was that SBIA was already seized (which I think is your primary fear) by a group who did not use the SARL.

I still do not comprehend your scenarios, how the SARL fits into them and how the lack of airport-style security somehow contributes to your concerns. Can you elaborate?

Once we understand your concerns we may be able to address them. I, for one, do not understand your obscure references to 20 year old action films, men in black, apartment buildings blowing up, off-shore funding of terrorists, etc.

My concern is not some people seizing the airport causing its closure for a period of time as had happened in the past. I will not elaborate in detail my concern, and leave it to you to read between the lines in the ongoing news reports. Just ask yourself what single event will have long lasting repercussion for Thailand.

To conclude, I hope to see some changes to the way security is being handled for this Airport Rail Link. If the intention is to restrict it to normal commuting, then enforce a luggage rule like that in Singapore MRT- cabin bag complying in quantity, dimensions and weight as those allowed on board an aircraft.

If the line wants to service air passengers, then have a separate express train like the one in HK, where baggage are checked in and the traveler will only get them back in his destination airport.

The more you add to your nonsensical and illogical fears, the more it is obvious that you references points on not based on any objective facts or realistic security concerns. The operational reality in Singapore and HK do not support your statements.

Fact, unless it has changed in the last 8 months, anyone can board the Singapore East-West line to and from the Airport with large baggage which is NOT subject to security checks in any manner at any station, nor the airport station - it has been that way for years whenever I take the train to and from the airport. Now that may have recently changed but Singpore has not previously considered the risks you characterise as realistic to have had the sort of security procedures in place that you are suggesting. Even after the Madrid and Mumbai train bombings when they started showing security awareness videos at stations.

Fact, the HK Airport Line allows pax to take the baggage on board the train without being security screened at any of HK, Kowloon or the Airport stations. You don't have to check in your baggage at the station check in prior to boarding a train. From my numerous trips on the line over the years it seems that the overwhelming majority of people do not check in their baggage given that it must be done at least 3 hrs before flight time. So you misrepresenting the situation there.

Fact, when the check in for the ARL commences at Makkasan (CAT) they will use the same Airport infamous CTX scanners as currently exist at the airport (the reason why check in at the CAt will start late is due partially due to the belated procurement of the scanners by the SRT). However, similar to HK, there will be a time requirement for check in at the CAT prior to ones flight (I guess a similar 3 hr period?). Thus, anyone wishing to check in later than that prior to their flight will take their luggage onto the train and check in at the airport. This seems appropriate to me.

As for your general, unspecified apprehensions which seem to be only based on B grade movies from the 80s, as I suggested earlier IF someone wanted to transport weapons to the airport the Airport Line would be the worst way to do it. Anyone can just drive a private vehicle to the front door of the departures level and just offload their 'baggae' full of weapons (in your scenario) easily and promptly. Also, I am not sure if you have actually caught the train but one major impediment is the limited access of movement from the station level to the arrival level with some escalators barred from going up and limited lift capacity.

I can just foresee those Die Hard terrorists being confused and stuck on different levels whilst trying to make their way to the departure level thinking "why did we base our plan on Die Hard when we could have just driven in 2-3 vans to the front door of the airport for easy access"? You also neglect the reality that those who may carry out such attacks (whether from a 'black shirt' or south insurgent point of view) are well organised, would not want to be dependent on others transport and can call upon the resources of elements of the security forces in the case of the former.

In relation to "what single event will have long lasting repercussion", I would suggest there are dozens of more realistic security risks than your Die Hard inspired concern. As an obvious indicator of those more realistic risks you can see that CRES has deployed extra security personnel and increased measures at some locations around Bangkok. Nightclubs, some hotels, entertainment areas and some tourist areas are more of a risk. As we know from the last 20 months just going to a Bangkok Bank branch or a govt office or Ratchaprarop rd is much more of a risk based on where explosions have taken place.

Thankfully, there is no train station with a Bangkok Bank branch otherwise you would ask for every commuter using that station to be stripped searched!

[whybother]

Indeed it's a soft target like most everything in Thailand. What would make you think it would be any different?

The soft target I have in mind is not the trains of the Airport Link, but the airport terminal.

What an easy way for a few hundred men with war weapons hidden in their backpacks to make their way into the airport area like in Die Hard 2.

Why would they use the rail link, when they can just walk through the front door?