> The airports in Orlando, Philadelphia, San Jose, and Miami put the restaurants (not counting junk food) outside of security. So you have to wonder, "Do I have

> The airports in Orlando, Philadelphia, San Jose, and Miami put the restaurants (not counting junk food) outside of security. So you have to wonder, "Do I have enough time to eat and then get through the line?" (Pittsburgh, Tampa, and Chicago Midway did it right.) This looks like there's three trade-offs to putting restaurants in the secure zone: - If a group is traveling together, and only a member or two is taking a flight, putting the restaurants behind security will prevent the group from dining together. - Put restaurants behind security will lock out local customers who live/work near the airport, but not actually needing to fly. In my experience, some restaurant chains will make better or more interesting locations at high traffic areas than more "locally" focused places. - Finally, putting these places behind security will increase potential bottlenecks in the way system, since now more employees will need to be monitored or tracked. Even with IDs and extra employee-only entrances, the increased chances of something going wrong with a forged ID, vengeful or absentminded employee, or "hidden" entrance increases risk of exposure to a terminal shut down event.