32 ms·

Catching a Flight? Budget Hours, Not Minutes, for Security

• rayiner 10y ago
  > At the same time, he said, the number of T.S.A. screeners has declined by about 5,800 because of tighter budgets. The agency currently has 42,350 agents assigned for security checks. Such a monumentally wasteful jobs program.
  • creshal 10y ago
    $7 billion a year just for the TSA budget. That's not counting all the indirect economic losses from the security theatre.
    • deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    • chrisbennet 10y ago
      Or deaths due to people driving instead of flying. "Increased delays and added costs at U.S. airports due to new security procedures provide incentive for many short-haul passengers to drive to their destination rather than flying, and, since driving is far riskier than air travel, the extra automobile traffic generated has been estimated in one study to result in 500 or more extra road fatalities per year." https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/09/excess_automobi.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/09/excess_automo...
      • brooklyndavs 10y ago
        Maybe this will get enough people to FINALLY start demanding funding for high speed rail corridors. I can't imaging getting to the airport, waiting in line for like 2 hours and then getting on a 45 min flight to Portland from Seattle. Its crazy that the US doesn't have true high speed rail on the northeast corridor and the other high speed rail corridors identified such as between Chicago and St. Louis. Many other counties have HSR so its obviously a matter of priorities. I know the current California HSR project is a bit of a mess but instead of abandoning HSR altogether we should find out why it's a mess and try to streamline projects like this going forward. Hyperloop will be cool once/if its built, but for now HSR is the only game in town for fast ground transportation that moves a lot of people.
      • cookiecaper 10y ago
        It's not really worth it to fly if your destination is < 4 hours away by car. Even the shortest flight is going to take about that long to complete if you're going through a major airport. Example itinerary: Flight leaves at 6:00pm, gotta be there bare minimum 1 hour early, preferably 2+, going to split the different and say 90 mins. Leave home at 4pm, drive 35 min to airport. Wait in line 15 mins to check bag. Allocate generous 20 mins for a quick security scan (this can blow up to 60 mins+ if it's a busy day and/or your airport sucks, but 20 mins is about the fastest you can really get through including time to walk to the checkpoint and be scanned). It's now 5:10. Sit around for 20 mins until your plane starts boarding. It's now 5:30. Sit on horrifyingly uncomfortable plane for 30 mins awaiting takeoff/other passengers to board. It's now 6. Your plane takes 10 mins to taxi and 45 mins to fly from point A to point B. It's now 6:55. Plane takes 10 min to taxi in (though I've waited 45 min+ before, especially at LAX). It takes 10 min for everyone to deplane. It's now 7:15. Once off plane, go wait at bag claim. We'll say it takes 20 mins to get there, wait for your flight to be unloaded, and wait for your bag. Now it's 7:35. Now you have to get from destination airport to actual destination, and you're probably looking at another 30 mins. That's 8:05. 4 hours and 5 minutes since you left your house. So it takes 4 hours to do a 45 minute flight, and that's assuming everything is running quickly at the airport, which is often not the case. We also didn't include any time involved in arranging rides to/from the airport and/or parking, carefully reviewing your bag to make sure you didn't accidentally pack any liquids or gels that are larger than 3oz, etc. It's faster to drive than to fly if your destination is within 4 hours' drive, and it's generally a no-brainer to drive due to the greater comfort it provides within 8 hours' drive. Flying is really only necessary once you get past that 8 hour drive barrier, and the only reason we tolerate flying being what it is is because it can turn a 24-hour+ drive into a 3 hour flight.
        • anarazel 10y ago
          > It's not really worth it to fly if your destination is < 4 hours away by car. Except if you don't have a car - which, in some cities, isn't unheard of even in the US. Renting a car, possibly across state lines, is a good bit of hassle too.
        • wutbrodo 10y ago
          It's 6-7 hours to drive home vs a 1 hour flight for me, and I _still_ sometimes prefer road travel. 7 hours of uninterrupted time is far better than the excruciating start-stop-wait-walk-wait-walk-shut_off_devices of air travel. Especially for a 1 hour flight, there's usually like a 20 minute window where I can actually use my laptop and even reading a book is a pain when you're standing in a line.
    • tgb 10y ago
      NSF budget is only $7.7 billion for 2016 FY. Sigh.
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  • strictnein 10y ago
    The budget stuff is absolute BS. They were given more than they requested for 2016: > "The agency charged with overseeing security at the nation's airports was given a $7.4 billion budget, which was $211 million more than it had in 2015 and $93 million more than was requested. The money, Klobuchar said, needs to be spent to hire more screeners." http://www.klobuchar.senate.gov/public/2016/3/relief-at-msp-security-checkpoints-in-the-form-of-dog-sniffing-teams-is-on-the-way http://www.klobuchar.senate.gov/public/2016/3/relief-at-msp-...
  • spinlock 10y ago
    This is why we need a guaranteed minimum income. Hopefully, TSA screeners would stop showing up to work.
    • undersuit 10y ago
      A cushy job with minimal responsibilities? Those will be the most wanted jobs. Hopefully someone would wise up and lower the compensation.
• jsnell 10y ago
  How is coming to the airport earlier supposed to solve what's obviously a throughput problem? Sure, for an individual it reduces the chances they'll miss their flight. But if everyone does it, there's obviously no change. The only way showing up earlier would help with throughput is if there are periods of time where the security is under-utilized with absolutely no queues. Which, from my experience with US airports, is a laughable idea.
  • freehunter 10y ago
    This is one of the reasons I love the Midwest and living in smaller cities. My airport is international and flies just about anywhere you want to go, but 90% of the time I walk up to an empty line and I'm told "we don't have a precheck lane open, just walk on through". As a consultant, I fly the busiest times (monday and thursday), but the only trouble I've ever had was in Denver where I waited almost an hour and a half in a security line before I got my precheck approval.
    • buzzdenver 10y ago
      Most people do not realize, but Denver is a very busy airport. It has dropped from it's #10 worldwide ranking in 2010 to #19, but it's still #6 in the US and was just last year overtaken by JFK. Short lines are nice, but it's also not bad the have direct flights to Europe and many US cities, and pretty low ticket prices.
    • geerlingguy 10y ago
      With the exception of Chicago, I agree. St. Louis, Indianapolis, KC, and many other airports have direct flights to most parts of the US (or connect through Chicago almost anywhere in the world), and I've never waited more than 20 minutes in the TSA lines. Due to the frequency of travel, I do have Pre-Check, but I hate that I had to pay extra money to get what I think should be the normal experience for all domestic travelers.
      • maxerickson 10y ago
        If 0 people had signed up for Pre-Check it would get shut down. It's nicely described by the Prisoner's dilemma.
• vincefutr23 10y ago
  Blaming volume? How about 1) the switch from metal detectors to less numerous and slower body scanners? 2) the allocation of employee resources to the "pre check" line leaving less staff for 90% of travelers. 3) still having to take belts and shoes off even with a full body scan? This program has gotten seriously out of hand and is incredibly frustrating. I don't care if it's 3 hours or "75 minutes" anything over 15 minutes is absurd.
  • sneak 10y ago
    Body searches to travel without suspicion of wrongdoing are absurd, period.
    • hashkb 10y ago
      Just go get pre check?
      • vincefutr23 10y ago
        Why should we all pay more for a side line? Shouldn't the government make the main one effective ?
        • warfangle 10y ago
          But then we wouldn't be applying the invisible hand of the market to fix things!
      • raldi 10y ago
        A lot of travelers can barely afford to fly as it is. The only way this fast lane can function is if it's exclusive to a small segment of flyers. Do we really need to keep widening the gap between the haves and have-nots?
        • malka 10y ago
          > Do we really need to keep widening the gap between the haves and have-nots? The cynical and nihilistic me says 'yes'. Let's push it to see at what point it crumbles.
• tibbon 10y ago
  I hit this at SeaTac recently. I showed up my normal "1 hour on a Tuesday afternoon should be more than enough" and encountered a nearly 3 hour line. They said it was the new normal.
• jessriedel 10y ago
  Why does the NYTimes quote tweets -- essentially publishing the shouts of strangers on the street -- before they report actual data like the change in the number of TSA screeners?
  • rubidium 10y ago
    Because most people like stories more than data.
    • wutbrodo 10y ago
      Yea, and "most people" like racy pictures too. That doesn't mean news organizations like the NY Times that still have some dignity left to shred should start putting racy photos in every article. Just as "most people like stories" doesn't mean they should be quoting random tweets.
      • randyrand 10y ago
        That's actually a good idea. I vote for racy photos alongside new articles.
        • kalleboo 10y ago
          The Sun along with their Page Three is that way →🇬🇧
  • pessimizer 10y ago
    Because, since no one would expect you to publish every relevant tweet, it makes it more defensible to cherry-pick references that are editorially on-the-nose. It's pretty reprehensible; I've seen WaPo, NYT, and the Guardian publish (editorial, not eyewitness) tweets in stories that had been retweeted less than a dozen times before making the paper.
• cm2187 10y ago
  That's a lot of hassle for what is little more than a placebo. In the 40y that terrorists have been targetting planes, I am not aware of a single major terrorist attack that has been stopped by passenger checks.
  • JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    The theory is, because of the checks no further attempts will be made. Its one thing to die for your cause; another to be arrested for your cause and disappear forever anonymously.
    • cm2187 10y ago
      I can also carry a clown hat all day long and it will keep the pink elephants away. But there are not pink elephant! Then it means my hat is working! My theory on planes hijacking is rather that if you have a bunch of arabs taking over a plane today (after 9/11, the Paris attacks, etc), the passengers will think that doing nothing will lead to certain death, and therefore it will be impossible for the terrorists to contain the passengers. The only rational reaction for the passengers is to over power the terrorists at all risks.
      • JoeAltmaier 10y ago
        That's been tried - that was the plane that crashed on 9/11 heading for Washington(?) Not an ideal outcome.
        • cm2187 10y ago
          One can argue that the passenger have reacted too late, after hearing what happened to the other planes.
      • gerbilly 10y ago
        >I can also carry a clown hat all day long and it will keep the pink elephants away. Not if you just _carry_ it it won't. Everyone knows you have to wear it.
• brianbreslin 10y ago
  $99 for global entry for 5 years, includes tsa-pre was such a no brainer. I've noticed in MIA airport, one security line might be packed , then you walk 4 minutes to the next one and its nearly empty (same staff at both). Toronto security heading back to the US is fascinating, tons of passengers, but the screening process is broken up into multiple human touch points. Felt more fluid.
• esoteric_nonces 10y ago
  Why not give a 'security line' time (like the current gateline time). If the passenger is there before that time, then the flight waits for them, or they're put on the next flight. That seems to sidestep the issue neatly. As a passenger, security is not a discrete part of the process. I'm actually surprised that airlines haven't done more to make the security experience more streamlined.
  • lostgame 10y ago
    O_o Really? I always just figured it was a blatant disregard for human life. Go figure.
  • frogpelt 10y ago
    Do you know if the airlines pay the TSA for the security? It seems like adding some direct private funding and influence would help alleviate some of these issues. Of courses that would affect ticket prices, but an extra hundred per passenger wouldn't be such a bad thing if it drastically improved the situation.
    • jschwartzi 10y ago
      The airport contracts wee with the TSA. US airports can contract with private security as long as the procedure is TSA-approved.
    • lg 10y ago
      the government does not need private funding when it can just reach into your pocket, in this case to collect the September 11 Security Fee which airlines attach to your ticket on behalf of TSA.
• frogpelt 10y ago
  I will usually drive unless it takes more than 12 hours to get to the destination. If I'm bringing my wife and kids I would probably drive anywhere that's on the same continent, rather than fly. I do not enjoy being treated like cattle at the airport.
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
• dccoolgai 10y ago
  Seems like a perverse incentive to let them slow down the lines so you have to buy a "membership" in their precheck program. "Nice flight you have there...be a shame if you missed it."
  • nemo44x 10y ago
    Even the precheck lines have gotten out of hand in a few places I've been lately. In some cases it has been slower with so many people signed up and far less capacity to serve them.
  • jessriedel 10y ago
    It's worse than just membership fees. To join a precheck program, you need to submit personal information that they constitutionally can't force American citizens to provide, even at international borders: fingerprints and retina scans. So basically they hold huge amounts of your time hostage in order to force you to provide what ought to be protected info. It's similar to incentives for long-term contraception. The government can't fine you for not taking contraception -- that would obviously be monstrous -- but they can raise taxes and then offer rebates to people who submit to it. It's lunacy. https://www.aclu.org/norplant-new-contraceptive-potential-abuse https://www.aclu.org/norplant-new-contraceptive-potential-ab...
    • spdustin 10y ago
      No retina scan for PreCheck, that's for Global Entry / Nexus.
      • jessriedel 10y ago
        Yea, thanks. I was being sloppy and using "a precheck program" to refer collectively to Global Entry, Nexus, and PreCheck. Obviously, the argument still applies to PreCheck with regard to fingerprints.
      • grkvlt 10y ago
        No retina scan for anything, actually. NEXUS uses iris scanners [1] for biometric identification. In fact, pretty much anything that is reported as using a 'retina' scan is probably not, and is also an iris scan. Retinas are pretty useless as a biometric, and are quite hard to scan without opthamological equipment. Irises have the dual benefits of being unique to the individual, and visible on the outside of an individual. [1] http://usa.immigrationvisaforms.com/travel/nexus-iris-scan-locations http://usa.immigrationvisaforms.com/travel/nexus-iris-scan-l...
• sbarre 10y ago
  The fact that you would spend more time in line than in the air is mind-boggling. I fly from Toronto to Newark on business semi-regularly and it's a 1h15m flight. I haven't quite experienced a 3-hour wait in Newark but I did have a ~1h30m line earlier this year. I know for a fact a bunch of people in line with me (many who complained about showing up at the airport 2+ hours ahead of time) missed an international flight to India that day. I immediately signed up for Global Entry after that.
• danieltillett 10y ago
  How many hours does the security theatre have to take before the number of human lives lost waiting in line equals a plane blown up a month?
  • sneak 10y ago
    We passed that long ago.
  • oh_sigh 10y ago
    Is wasting 1 minute for 42,000,000 people equivalent to just killing a newborn baby?
    • seizethecheese 10y ago
      It would be more like forcing a baby to spend her whole life going through airport security.
      • morgante 10y ago
        Killing them would be altogether kinder.
• simmons 10y ago
  It's strange that the security lines are suddenly getting worse everywhere, the last several months. I regularly fly Denver->San Jose. While the lines at Denver can be quite awful, I used to be able to count on getting through San Jose security quickly. Lately, though, even San Jose has been getting backed up, and the airport has resorted to putting signs in the security line encouraging passengers to complain to TSA. I'm quite nervous about what time I need to get to Denver airport tomorrow morning. :(
  • leesalminen 10y ago
    Same. Early fight out of DEN and am just seeing this (and packing) now.
• CaptainZapp 10y ago
  This, in combination with American airports being completely ignorant to the transit concept must cost American airline companies dozens, if not hundreds of millions a year in lost revenues. Case in point: if I want to to fly from Zurich to Lima I have essentially two choices: I can connect either in Amsterdam, or in Madrid. Madrids legal connection time is 55 minutes max (on Iberia). In AMS on KLM it's a maximum of 50 minutes. Another option would be to fly via an US airport. For example Miami. Only that I would have to be crazy. Start with the fact that I can't check my luggage through to Lima. I must go through immigration in Miami, pick up my luggage, go through customs, re-check my luggage and then endure the security hassle. Even if the US connection would save me a couple hundred $ I would have to be crazy to chose the hassle, the annoyance and the risk of missing my connection. And I don't think I'm alone with such thoughts. Edited: Added actual legal connection times for AMS and MAD
  • smoe 10y ago
    I once flew back from Costa Rica to Zürich via Miami, because I wasn't aware that unlike every other airport I have ever been, the US doesn't do transit. Since that horrific day I never went to Latin America via the US again, no matter how much cheaper it would have been.
  • Havoc 10y ago
    What is this "legal connection time"? Never heard of it before - despite being in Europe.
    • burkaman 10y ago
      It just means the minimum amount of time between flights that an airline will require. They will try not to let you book a connecting flight 10 minutes after the first one lands; that would be an "illegal connection". Not an actual law, just airline policy.
      • buro9 10y ago
        I have the fun of going through Secondary every time I touch US soil... for me, if I have a connecting flight on the way from LHR to SFO (via Dallas, LA or Chicago) then I need to allow 3 hours for the connection. It is very hard to book such flights, and if booked as 2 single hops I've once before missed the connection due to being in security and United argued that the second flight was not a connection and so they didn't have to put me on the next flight. My baggage of course had gone ahead.
• tehwebguy 10y ago
  Here's an awesome TSA story for you: Late last year while trying to fly out of LAX a TSA employee thought I was carrying a throwing star. They called the police, who correctly identified as a toy in seconds. I thought the whole ordeal was over until I got a "notice of violation" in the mail from TSA 45 days later. Now I'm banned from pre-check for three years, even though I have global entry and even though the fine was thrown out. It's a kangaroo court were the only two options are you pay the fine or they convert it to a warning. Some shit head got a gold star for "finding a weapon" and I get fucked. Please defund these 0-terrorist-catching losers.
  • raldi 10y ago
    What kind of toy was it?
    • tehwebguy 10y ago
      It was from League of Leagends (Sivir). It's not sharp or aerodynamic, just a "spinner" toy. One of the vendors from the League convention I put on gave it to me as a token of thanks just before the event ended. I dropped it in my bag and forgot it until flying a few weeks later. Bonus: My business partner was given the same one and the same thing happened at BUR. TSA asked if she wanted to mail it home, she said "toss it" and never heard another word! Bonus 2: Cop asks me "who do you main?" (as in, what champion do you mainly play in LoL)
      • koolba 10y ago
        > Bonus: My business partner was given the same one and the same thing happened at BUR. TSA asked if she wanted to mail it home, she said "toss it" and never heard another word! Free business idea! UPS/FedEx/USPS packaging site at the end of the TSA line. When they say you can't take your cologne, knife, or toothbrush because it's too dangerous, you can immediately give it one of our helpful agents and they'll instead mail it your home!
        • tehwebguy 10y ago
• grandalf 10y ago
  Some suggestions for how to improve the situation: 1) Set up a large booth where people can sign up for the TSA pre-check program inside the airport, while they are waiting for their delayed flight, etc. 2) Institute fees for carry-on baggage and reduce fees for checked baggage to reduce the number of bags being screened. 3) Have a separate line for passengers with no carry-on bag that moves 5x faster. 4) Publish statistics about security checkpoint failures, and the overall ineffectiveness of the program. Allow public outrage to result in the TSA being shut down. 5) Offer a free, high throughput lane guaranteed to take under 10 minutes, and a slow lane where passengers are given a $10 meal voucher for putting up with the wait, which could be up to 2 hours. 6) Claim victory over terrorism, and drastically scale back the TSA and the foreign wars/occupations.
  • danieltillett 10y ago
    The best solution is to have everyone go through it. No fast lane, no special categories, just eveyone lined up including those in private jets. If the powerful had to stand in line with the plebes then the TSA would be history before the end of the month.
    • grandalf 10y ago
      Excellent point. I forgot that private aircraft travelers get to skip it.
      • spdustin 10y ago
        As much as I despise the whole TSA process, it is ostensibly to prevent terrorists from using an aircraft as a weapon, or destroying it and killing hundreds of passengers. I don't know of any private jets with the amount of chemical or kinetic energy necessary to destroy a skyscraper, nor would the bombing of one result in the deaths of hundreds of passengers. In other words, private jet passengers are not covered under their mandate because their ability to cause harm is limited by the diminutive size of their aircraft.
        • 10y ago
• dzhiurgis 10y ago
  I love how this process was reengineered in London Gatwick airport. Each scanner has 6 pods where you can pack and unpack your stuff; you've got a dedicated person assigning you to the pod. The process felt much more parallel rather than serial. Edit: managed to find more info on it http://airlines.iata.org/analysis/smart-security-getting-smarter http://airlines.iata.org/analysis/smart-security-getting-sma...
  • calgoo 10y ago
    Yea i was stopped, and had my computer etc wiped down. Line was long, but moved along quickly, and stopping and searching my stuff did not stop any other passengers from moving. Done in about 15 min from start to end.
  • bkor 10y ago
    That sounds like how AMS works since a year or so. I managed 4 minutes from sitting on the train to being after security (I timed it :-P). This includes: getting off the train, walking to security and opening up my backpack (no clue why it went off and they spent maybe 45 secs to verify this). Unfortunately this is not as quick anymore because more of the security people have now been diverted to do border checks. E.g. Ferry to England, highway checks, etc. Less people, bigger queues.
    • zzalpha 10y ago
      You clearly weren't flying to North America. Yes, they have that pod system (although it's a glorified serial security scanner so I'm not sure of the benefit), and then they herd you through the full body scanner. The line was as bad as any I've seen on this side of the pond.
      • sokoloff 10y ago
        The secondary screening at D1 for North America bound pax is well after that point.
  • youngtaff 10y ago
• viperscape 10y ago
  I fly out of ewr often, security is fast and easy. What sucks is flight delays.
• sneak 10y ago
  7) Hang all responsible for the creation and continued funding of the TSA from low branches in the middle of Central Park. The loss of life will be a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the person-hours burned by the meaningless and expensive folly that is airport security theater, I assure you.
  • dang 10y ago
    Please don't do this here. We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11611215 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11611215 and marked it off-topic.
    • riffic 10y ago
      Afraid of an NSL?
      • scoot 10y ago
        Hardly. OP's profile has more means of contact than just about any I've seen. There are genuine means of protest if the TSA offends or inconveniences you. Death threats and incitement of violence, whether general or specific are not helpful - here or anywhere else, and may be illegal, depending on your jurisdiction.
        • sneak 10y ago
          Death threats against specific individuals and incitements to revolt against illegal and oppressive regimes are entirely different things, and you well know it. Could you please specify precisely that which I should not be doing? I wish to abide by all of HN's rules for participation.
      • dang 10y ago
        Afraid of HN deteriorating.
• draw_down 10y ago
  Inevitably I find the behavior of my fellow passengers much more insufferable than the TSA.
• Hondor 10y ago
  If a terrorist wanted to kill a lot of people confined into too small space to run away, what better target than these densely packed zig-zag queues? Really, what's the point of protecting a plane carrying hundreds of people by putting those same people into harm's way like that? It already happened in China - Muslim terrorists killed dozens of people waiting in a ticket hall a couple of years ago.
  • danieltillett 10y ago
    Isn't that exactly what happened in Belgium.
    • bglazer 10y ago
      Yes, and in Moscow as well. If the actual mission of the TSA was preventing terrorist acts, then they would have done something about this massive and completely obvious vulnerability. My opinion, however, is that the TSA has become an arm of the DEA and the "war on drugs". They make a big security theater production in the name of stopping terrorists but 99% of their daily activities are centered on seizing drugs.
      • spdustin 10y ago
        You stated a fact alongside your opinion, that a large portion of the TSA's operation includes seizing drugs. Do you have a source for this?
        • mikey_p 10y ago
          Not sure about other places, but who do you think is enforcing this in Portland? http://kptv.images.worldnow.com/images/8324399_G.jpg http://kptv.images.worldnow.com/images/8324399_G.jpg
          • spdustin 10y ago
            I wouldn't think they'd have the authority to seize the drugs themselves, since the warning sign is from the Port of Portland, the governmental authority that oversees PDX as well as marine ports. My feeling is that they would be obligated to attempt to hold the bag (less likely) or flag the bag and passenger (more likely) for a Port Authority Police officer to handle. EDIT: According to one story [0], the TSA cooperated as, essentially, an "informant" for the DEA, flagging those with large quantities of cash, for the DEA to then seize or investigate. EDIT 2: In fact, the TSA policy is to keep dangerous materials off aircraft, but they have no real enforcement authority. Law enforcement gets involved when, for example, narcotics are found. "While TSA works to keep dangerous items off of commercial aircraft, when contraband is found, it must be reported to local law enforcement. Here are a few of the more notable narcotics discoveries:" [1]. 0: http://dailysignal.com/2016/01/21/how-the-tsa-and-drug-enforcement-administration-joined-forces-to-seize-cash-at-airports/ http://dailysignal.com/2016/01/21/how-the-tsa-and-drug-enfor... 1: http://blog.tsa.gov/2015/01/tsa-2014-year-in-review.html http://blog.tsa.gov/2015/01/tsa-2014-year-in-review.html
• MichaelBurge 10y ago
  I think Trump would abolish the TSA. Cruz has said he would, too. I'd like to see either one get in, though I wonder if the President should be able to just decide on his own to shut down an agency that Congress has approved. Why has Congress not shut it down? I don't think anybody really likes the TSA, so I can't imagine there'd be too much opposition to a bill abolishing them. It affects so many people you could probably get elected just on this issue alone.
  • spyspy 10y ago
    But any politician that supported such a bill would be crucified if and when another terrorist attack occurs.
    • knowaveragejoe 10y ago
      Additionally, they'd be vilified by the people who de facto support things like the TSA as "soft on security".
  • brown9-2 10y ago
    Why has Congress not shut it down? I don't think anybody really likes the TSA, so I can't imagine there'd be too much opposition to a bill abolishing them Good luck finding someone who wants to be the anti-airport-security candidate.
    • crystalmeph 10y ago
      I don't know. Is there anyone who isn't a politician or employed by the TSA who thinks the TSA is doing a job worthy of their funding? Even though you have to take it as a fact that the status quo is a powerful force in politics, it seems like there is room for someone who wants to get elected on a populist platform to make this a banner issue.
      • mikestew 10y ago
        Is there anyone who isn't a politician or employed by the TSA who thinks the TSA is doing a job worthy of their funding? Yes. By some counts that group would include the majority of Americans. Personally, I've heard the words, "it makes me feel safer" come out of the mouths of what appear to be otherwise competent adult humans.
• rjsw 10y ago
  Why hasn't the TSA reacted to the Brussels Airport bombing and stopped herding passengers together so that they present a big target to terrorists ?
  • scurvy 10y ago
    I doubt that this will ever change. They're been herding passengers like this even after several check-in counter/queue terrorist attacks in the 60's and 70's.
  • a3n 10y ago
    Have they stopped doing that at Brussels?
    • ctx 10y ago
      Not yet. People were in line for hours today [0], simply waiting to get to the first security checkpoint. Some even missed their flight. [0]: http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws.english/News/1.2645825 http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws.english/News/1.2645825
• larrik 10y ago
  I just flew out of Newark, and other family members flew out of LaGuardia, we didn't experience this at all. In fact, on the way back I had Precheck for reason, and I'm waiting in that line, looking at the completely regular security line wondering if the regular one would have been faster. (and even in precheck I get "randomly selected" to go through the body scanner...)
• kirvyteo 10y ago
  The list of stuff to check for just keeps getting longer. First were the belt and shoes, then the laptop, then liquids. The latest seems to be portable batteries. Every time a crazy guy hatches a new plot with plans to hide dangerous stuff in everyday items, the list will get longer. Someone needs to work on prioritizing that list or reducing it. In Asia, where there are more bullet trains, I often pick the trains over flight if it is within 3 hours time difference. (Factor in the wait time and the distance to airport) Bigger seats, leg room and you don't need to off your electronics during "takeoff"!
  • gaius 10y ago
    The batteries thing is because cheap Chinese knock-off Lithiums have a habit of randomly catching fire. Its why so-called hoverboards are banned from air travel too.
• scurvy 10y ago
  Isn't there a TSA fee on every ticket issued in the US? How are they claiming budget setbacks then claim that more people are flying? Shouldn't more people flying mean more revenue / budget for the TSA?
  • KMag 10y ago
    Just because the fee says it's for the TSA doesn't mean that it directly goes to the TSA without legislators getting their grubby hands on it first.
• lmcnish14 10y ago
  Reasons I've been chosen for extra screening by the TSA: - They saw something in my bag (I didn't bring a bag) - They needed to confiscate contraband (granola bar) - My sweatshirt zipper "interfered with scanning my breasts thoroughly enough" - They "randomly selected me" 15 times in a row At this point, I make sure to budget lots of extra time to get through their nonsense procedures in order to make my flight.
• intrasight 10y ago
  I rarely fly, so consider my statement in that context. I actually approve of the TSA making flying more onerous. Flying comes at a very high environmental and economic cost to society. We need more trains, more hyperloops, and more VR.
  • borvo 10y ago
    Not going to work in low density regions like all of the USA aside from the coasts. Flying is less polluting per mile than driving btw. Also, why don't the rest of us get together and punish your choices?
    • mac01021 10y ago
      > Flying is less polluting per mile than driving Flying emits less CO2 per passenger mile than a person driving a car without any passengers, but more than a car with one passenger in addition to the driver[1]. But if people can't fly then they probably just won't travel very far, which is even better. > why don't the rest of us get together and punish your choices? Perhaps you should, in cases where the GP's choices impose a significant cost on you. In general, it is absolutely in everyone's best interest for everyone else to fly less often. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_transport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_transp...
• peterwwillis 10y ago
  FWIW, there's a MyTSA app for iPhone & Android that estimates delays, and http://www.whatsbusy.com/airport http://www.whatsbusy.com/airport can also give you a delay heads up. In my experience flying domestically & internationally every month for the past 6 months, plan to get there 2 hours early for domestic, and 3 hours before for international, and you'll make it on time. This also depends greatly on the time of your flight and the airport, as both have peak times. When flying early, there is no rush. Red-eye, it can be stressful as some people are trying to make the last flight. When flying at more "convenient" times, expect the abbatoir line. And when you have to make connections and they may be the last flights of the day, remember that the super-cheap internet-deal ticket you got probably does not include any refunds for delays. Certain airports are _constantly_ delayed, so check all your connecting airports and the connection times before you buy.
• velox_io 10y ago
  I really do wonder how many terrorist plots have actually been foiled by TSA/ security staff. They seem to just be following guidelines with ZERO common sense. E.g. most screw drivers ok, but not safety scissors. My biggest pet-hate is the ban on liquids over 100ml, anybody with a basic knowledge of chemistry knows that explosives (by their very definition) are volatile and you really do not want to start drinking any.
  • grkvlt 10y ago
    I don't think the prospective terrorists would be chugging away at their bottles of Exploditall (tm) liquid though. The fear is that the smarter terrorists (i.e. the ones that didn't start the day with a celebratory shot of Exploditall) will put their volatile dangerous liquid explosives in harmless looking bottles of Irn-Bru or Vimto or something.
    • astrodust 10y ago
      The good news is that "smarter terrorist" tends to be an oxymoron.
  • astrodust 10y ago
    You're completely wrong about explosives. They're not necessarily volatile, and in fact the best ones aren't. Dynamite will burn slowly and without any explosion. Other materials like C-4 are ridiculously stable under most circumstances to the point where there are stories of troops using it to light fires. Without a proper initiator most explosives are basically safe. An initiator usually introduces a lot of heat, a large amount of shock, or both, which kicks off the explosion. Likewise, many liquid explosives are totally harmless until the two components are mixed together, at which point it becomes extremely dangerous. I'm not sure what would happen if you drank either component, but my guess is you might become ill a few hours later. If your goal is more short-term in nature that is probably irrelevant. My biggest gripe about the liquid limit is that dangerous explosives come in many forms, liquid is just one. You could probably smuggle a kilogram of thermite on the plane and nobody would notice, yet if ignited that would be extremely dangerous.
• spdustin 10y ago
  I have PreCheck, first due to my frequent traveler status with my (at the time) favored airline (which, as I understand it, PreCheck doesn't offer any longer) and then as a paid member, when I noticed that over ten consecutive entries, I was redirected to the non-PreCheck screening side 8 times (it now happens much less). When I fly out of Houston's IAH (Terminal A), I routinely get mixed into the same screening area as non-PreCheck travelers (after a shorter line for the travel document checks). I show my boarding pass on my phone or my watch with the little check mark when I enter the screening area to an agent that never scanned my boarding pass, nor have they been in communication to the agent who did scan my boarding pass. They visually check that the checkmark logo is there, then orally call out to the machine operators that I'm PreCheck, and I don't have to take out my laptop or take off my shoes/jacket. I also got grandfathered with a tiny membership rate into the CLEAR program in its current (second) generation, a program that doesn't hide its commercial status at all, and says clearly "pay for this and you'll have zero wait". I get to IAH Terminal A, tell the CLEAR agent I'm a member, and they quickly computer-scan my pass and verify my fingerprint. They walk me to the TSA podium, flash their CLEAR ID badge, and tell them my identity and boarding pass was verified (and that I'm PreCheck, since my known traveler number is associated with my CLEAR account as well). One more quick scan of my pass and I'm through the longest part of the wait: waiting for them to check my ID. I'm through security even on the busiest of days in about 15 minutes, mostly in 5 minutes. I know the wait time would grow again if everyone had CLEAR, but the ID verification part would be super fast. Security lines themselves only seem clogged up by people who don't follow the rules (because they aren't frequent travelers) or who object to them. I don't agree with the rules, I write my congressperson to object to them, and I'm embarrassed by them when I'm speaking with people who don't live in this country. But until my letters to my congressperson (the method by which "We The People" can actually influence our government) are joined with millions more, security theater will remain. CLEAR showed me that ID verification with PreCheck (since they have your fingerprints anyway) could be quick and efficient. It isn't. Some US airports have security lines that move quickly even in the busiest times, because agents are helping passengers comply in advance with rules with which many travelers are unfamiliar. So it can be better there, too. But to effect change in our government, we have to participate in our government, which goes beyond voting every four years; it means writing to the representatives you or your neighbors have voted into office.
• lbaskin 10y ago
  It's not only TSA personnel (who are, on the whole, so incompetent I wouldn't hire most of the ones I meet to do ANYTHING), it's policy itself. Security policy in much of the world today is reactive and shortsighted - shoe bomber? take off your shoes, Underwear bomber, let's x-ray everyone, etc. etc. - all just to be able to say they "did something," whether or not is effective or efficient in any way at all. I remember several years back when the shoe-removal policy has just been relatively new, and I was flying out of Israel. The security personnel there had someone devoted solely to going around telling people NOT to remove their shoes, in order to make sure the lines keep moving. TSA just could not care less whether people actually make their flights, or whether terrorists get through, as long as they don't get blamed for missing something they should have caught.
• Havoc 10y ago
  Why is this so much worse state-side though? All the European airports seem fine & I don't think they're significantly less thorough (or effective). One thing I did notice EU side is that procedures differ wildly not just from airport to airport but also from day to day. e.g. Last flight they took particular interest in my DSLR - switched it on & wanted to look through the viewfinder to make sure the lens is an actual optical lens. Flight before they didn't even make me take it out the bag.
• btbuildem 10y ago
  It's only a matter of time until some asshole blows up a security line. If you look at countries with real terrorism problems (eg Israel) they handle their airport security very, very differently.
  • beachstartup 10y ago
    isn't that what they did in brussels?
• brandon272 10y ago
  Why are Canadians (who are often flying to U.S. cities) not required to take their shoes off in the security line whereas U.S. travellers are required to do so?
  • jayhuang 10y ago
    Canadian here, I most certainly am required to take off my shoes every time I go to the states. Though I don't use NEXUS and always have to go through secondary screening.
• cowardlydragon 10y ago
  A highway self-driving car, almost a technological layup at this point, becomes a lot more attractive for short-distance flights. Would you rather sit in a car and have it drive itself 6 hours to a city while you nap, eat, or read? Or take two hours at each end of a one-hour flight and deal with the airport. ... and you have your car there to use once you get there if you take the car.
• JustinAiken 10y ago
  Catching a Flight? Budget Hours, Not Minutes, for an Absurd Waste of Incompetent Theatrics ^^ Made the title more accurate ^^
• fblp 10y ago
  I find it absurd that a central agency manages the hiring of tsa agents. In Canada and Australia the airports hire private security to do the checks. They are more competent and friendly than tsa agents. It's also not obvious how a government run tsa could be trusted any more than regulated private security contractors (overseen and kept accountable by a smaller government agency).
  • nobody_nowhere 10y ago
    Ironic that the "smaller government" party implemented this system after 9/11 then, no?
    • AndrewUnmuted 10y ago
      No, you actually have it very wrong. George W. Bush was not a 'smaller government' president. It was the grassroots conservative reaction to the GWB administration's "progressive" Republican administration that leads you to even think of the modern GOP as the 'smaller government' party in the first place.
      • dragonwriter 10y ago
        > It was the grassroots conservative reaction to the GWB administration's "progressive" Republican administration that leads you to even think of the modern GOP as the 'smaller government' party in the first place. The GOP (including the both of W.'s campaigns, and his administration) has been beating the "smaller government" drum for decades (pretty consistently since at least Reagan's first campaign). Its not exactly a new rhetorical position (substantively, like the Democrats -- though virtually a mirror image on the specific programs -- there are areas of government that, in practice, they work to expand and areas that the seek to shrink.)
        • AndrewUnmuted 10y ago
          So what? Bill Clinton also ran on a platform of smaller government and cutting expenses in order to balance the budget. The fact is that Bush (and the US population) spent very little time or intellectual effort on matters of monetary policy during that election cycle, compared with where we are today. Bush, in 2000, ran on a platform of relatively progressive positions such as his 'no child left behind' proposal, tax breaks for small businesses, criticizing Clinton's several foreign policy gaffs, getting the US off of its foreign oil reliance, etc. The size and scope of government was not a major talking point for either campaign. Thus, the suggested 'irony' mentioned in the OP to which I was replying is misplaced.
• 6stringmerc 10y ago
  Whenever in line for TSA security, there's a little trick that you can try to increase your patience level by a good margin: Remember the large mass of people in front of you will, more than likely, resemble a bell curve of intelligence. This means some of these people are smarter than average, and shouldn't have much of any trouble with the process. This also means half the people are dumber than average, and will find new and innovative ways to mess things up because they didn't read, plan ahead, or are otherwise obvlivious to higher-level thought. It doesn't help with the cause of the problem, but certainly helps with the symptoms.
• tacon 10y ago
  This is the part that really ticks me off: >Charlotte Douglas International Airport in North Carolina recently said it had experienced three-hour wait times. [...] (T.S.A. officials denied that the wait had ever been that long, telling local reporters that it had been 75 minutes for a short time.) Will someone, anyone, please write the simple app that you punch in as you start the line, you punch out as you leave screening, with some simple checks with GPS so we know you are really in one location for that time? Aggregate the data and let people coming to the airport have an idea of how long the wait will be. Use the data as political leverage so the TSA cannot claim "well, the wait wasn't that long". Tell people in line to install the app while they wait, and assure them that their politicians will see the data. Probably not much money in this, but your app will go viral this summer, apparently...
  • shawkinaw 10y ago
    That's pretty much what this app does: http://gomiflight.com http://gomiflight.com
    • tacon 10y ago
      Great, thanks! Can they generate press releases and statistics about average and peak wait times per airport? Maybe their penetration isn't hitting a critical mass. I'd love to see a live dashboard that shows "X number of people have been standing in line for Y minutes in city Z", or "the worst lines in the US airport system right now are A, B, and C". Reporters could then just show that display to the TSA press shill and call them out on their bad data in real time.
      • wutbrodo 10y ago
        There are plenty of great applications of crowdsourced data but the problem with this stuff is always incentivizing people to contribute instead of just consume. It's a non-trivial marketing trick that products like Waze have managed (a big part of why Google didn't fold them into Maps entirely was to maintain the community), but it's certainly not a surefire thing.
    • 10y ago
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• jayhuang 10y ago
  To this day, I still have "SSSS" (Secondary Security Screening Selection) printed on my boarding pass and have to go through advanced screening every time I go to the U.S (relatively frequently) as a Canadian. Swab my clothing, dump my backpack, open my laptop up and mess around with it, rub up and down my arms and legs, rough up my privates, the whole shebang. I can imagine I'm probably on some list somewhere so I have to go through this "random" and time consuming screening every time. I was once asked why I had a laptop with me, and why such a device was justifiable and necessary for a young male who works in this industry. Seriously though, it's common knowledge that "SSSS" on your boarding pass means you're going through advanced security screening. What's the point of this if a malicious person can simply see the label and decide not to go through with the flight afterall?
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• asciimo 10y ago
  This article (and mainstream discussions, generally) doesn't question the existence of the TSA. The TSA is expensive, ineffective, and anticonstitutional. Yet most people are ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ about it.
  • ocdtrekkie 10y ago
    To be honest, I am ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ about it, because it never takes me as long as everyone on the Internet says it does. I know there are people that get pretty screwed by the system, but for most people, it's not that bad.
• ck2 10y ago
  73 guns in carry-ons in ONE WEEK and that is only what they found, so at least double that, probably quadruple wtf is wrong with people my last plane flight was in 1999, I doubt I am ever flying again, not because of terrorists, but because of the other people flying and the TSA terrorizing people
• kidsthesedays 10y ago
  Story time! I once wore a glitter sweatshirt through airport security. It made the backscanner machine go crazy and mark my entire shirt area as suspect, back and front. TSA was like "oh, it's the glitter on your shirt." As a result I was subjected to the most ineffective "pat down" ever. The TSA agent ran her hands across my shoulders and clavicle area and that's it. I could have hidden a small arsenal of weapons inside my bra, strapped to my arms, or strapped to my belly. It would be funny if we weren't paying millions for that "security."
  • cookiecaper 10y ago
    Yes, I wore a shirt with raised lettering and could clearly see its arc highlighted as red on the machine after I went through. The agents cleared me without further investigation. High false positive rate can lead to a lot of unsafe situations.
• ww520 10y ago
  Somehow I automatically got TSA Pre that last time I passed security and moved through the Pre line, which is much faster. I'm thinking to just get Global Entry which covers TSA Pre and lasts five years.
  • wutbrodo 10y ago
    You should definitely get Global Entry; it's incredible. It was extremely low-hassle to get and worth 10x the cost. I got it for the TSA Pre but coming off of a 25-hour flight and not having to fill out any form or go through immigration AT ALL is amazing.
• jasonjei 10y ago
  SFO is one of the better TSA operations. The employees of the TSA presence aren't directly employees of DHS; they are employed by a contractor of the TSA. I've found them to be professional and efficient (granted that I have Global Entry). In fact, one of the guards let me keep my Chinese papaya soup with liquid (the papaya cavity was filled with a Chinese birds nest soup). She simply told me that technically she should confiscate my papaya, but that she was going to look the other way, and I left the checkpoint with decent airplane food.
  • yompers888 10y ago
    Last time I flew (SFO), it took me 25 minutes to get from my car at the South SF Bart station to beyond security. I still hate the TSA, but I've never had the delays that people talk about as commonplace.
• Azkar 10y ago
  At sea-tac the other day, I watched them completely close a screening line so that they could perform a shift change. Really? You have to shut down the ENTIRE LINE in order to change out a few people? These people need lessons in efficiency. If time were money to them, this crap wouldn't happen.
• logn 10y ago
  It would be more efficient if everyone got a little cart as soon as they got in line where they can put their shoes, belts, laptops, etc. Then when you get to the x-ray, the whole cart is inserted. The slow down is always at the point where people are taking out all their stuff. And maybe add some courtesy, unstaffed metal detectors along the route to the checkpoint so you get a heads up metal stuff is in your pockets. However, I think locked cockpit doors and air marshals have solved most of the airline problems (versus security screening). Also, pre-9/11 most people assumed those hi-jacking planes had some demands and then everyone would be let go without harm. No one thinks that anymore, so passengers will fight.
• tn13 10y ago
  Am I the only one who thinks telling an online community about how you managed to sneak X past TSA is a bad idea ? People at TSA are doing their duty which is essentially completely pointless. Also it is the case everywhere. When I was in India I by mistake carried my wife passport and boarding pass and she carried mine when we entered the security post. The security guard carefully matched the boarding pass name with the passport name and let us pass!
• mindcrime 10y ago
  I just now completed the online application for TSA PRE, but I am curious about something... I've been VERY, (very) vocally critical of the US government, the DHS, TSA, FBI, NSA, CIA, etc., here, on my blog, on Twitter, on Facebook, etc. I've always wondered if that would affect me if I applied for PRE. So, have any of you experienced any issues getting accepted for PRE, based on your political positions/ statements/whatever? Or even heard of anybody who did? Just curious about what to expect...
• linux_girl 10y ago
  Until I ran out of time, I used to run a blog which tracked TSA Agent arrests. On average, a TSA agent is arrested _every day_ for stealing from passengers (400/year) Here's one "rogues gallery": http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/photos/photos-rogues-gallery-tsa-agents-17333169/image-17333240 http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/photos/photos-rogues-gallery-t... The TSA does not make us safer.
• bsder 10y ago
  Good. Perhaps the airlines will start fighting to get rid of TSA if they start losing money.
• hobs 10y ago
  My cousin just got sent back to Europe this morning for no specified reason and was given 90 seconds to call his family before being ejected from the USA. Just on vacation and going to house sit for my mom. Still waiting on him landing so I can get more details. What a dumb world.
  • ibejoeb 10y ago
    That's Customs and Border Protection.
• Matt3o12_ 10y ago
  What happens when you miss your flight due to screening? I mean if you really had to wait for over 30 minutes for a domestic flight and did not book any expensive ticket which allows rescheduling. Are you allowed to catch the next flight or do you have to buy a new ticket. Furthermore, how do airlines handle your baggage. They won't know that your too late until everybody is in the plane (because you are already checked in). As far as I know, they may not fly with your baggage if you're not in the plane. So if I was late, wouldn't it delay the flight another 20 minutes to find my bags?
  • ______53 10y ago
    The airlines usually reschedule you for the next flight. However, your baggage gets sent on the original flight anyway. It is held in the destination airport's baggage office until you get there on the later flight.
    • phil21 10y ago
      While this is the general outcome, it should be noted that the airlines are under no legal obligation to help you out. For the most part they will try to accommodate, but it's not a sure thing and I wouldn't rely on it.
• PeterisP 10y ago
  Just had multiple-leg international travel, all the involved airports from different countries ran a set of security and customs checks that were comprehensive enough for real threats (document verification, metal detectors, scanning all luggage, even drug dogs). No security theater though e.g. removal of shoes. In all cases the process (including queues) took less than 15 minutes. What is the problem in USA? If some of your checking procedures are unreasonably long or require more workforce than you have, then change those procedures. Arriving for an international trip (either from outside of from another plane) an hour before takeoff is sufficient if airport can organize things properly.
  • ocdtrekkie 10y ago
    For the vast majority of people, it's not actually that bad. I've never spent more than 15 minutes going through security, and that includes international trips. And I come and go primarily through O'Hare, one of the busiest airports in the country. The Internet allows everyone to see every one of the small percentage of cases that take longer, with nobody noticing how many still aren't that big a deal.
• joelhooks 10y ago
  It's really nice to go through the "premium screening" line. Generally it means that you probably fly too much, but it is still nice.
• ibejoeb 10y ago
  PSA on "trusted traveller" programs: enroll in NEXUS. It is the cheapest of the generally available programs at $50 for 5 years, versus $85 for Pre-Check and $100 for Global Entry. It is also the most privileged, affording all of the benefits of Global Entry and Pre-Check, and additionally allows expedited entry into Canada. It is available to citizens and permanent residents of the US and Canada. The only downside is that the interview must be conducted at one of the enrollment centers that are in US/Canadian border cities (e.g., Seattle, Vancouver, Detroit...) or major Canadian airports, so you'd have to make a trip if you're not nearby.
• imgabe 10y ago
  My global entry interview is in 9 days. It can't come fast enough. It sucks you have to pay $100 to be treated like a human being, but here we are.
• thruthmore 10y ago
  Some people can't afford to fly, ya know. And if you can, hey, enjoy your time! Seems like spoiled brats to me.
• chiaro 10y ago
  Horrific. For comparison, when I flew Sydney/Melbourne recently it took me 2 minutes in line and 30 seconds through security, and that's including being singled out for the bomb-residue swab. Never needed to present an ID, either.
• baby 10y ago
  As someone who fly quite often, fuck the TSA. Seeing that O'Hare picture in the article makes me so angry (as that's when I fly the most to/from). Last times it took 3 hours to pass the border. Here's an idea: boo people who are in the "TSA pre" lines.
  • barbs 10y ago
    > Here's an idea: boo people who are in the "TSA pre" lines. What does that solve?
    • baby 10y ago
      people will top giving their money to the TSA.
      • yompers888 10y ago
        *People will be glad they spent money to more quickly pass the weird people booing from the normal line. Doesn't TSA pre cost $80 for 5 years? That's gotta be worth it if you fly even once per year.
        • baby 10y ago
          Out of principles, not giving money to the TSA. Call me weird if you want.
• StillBored 10y ago
  Security theater, especially since anyone with 1/2 a brain saw what happened in Brussels, and understands that if there actually were any terrorists, the most dangerous part of flying would be the hoard of people packed together in a twisty line waiting to go through security. Frequently either in a contained area, or right next to a public drop-off area. Said theoretical terrorists could just buy an ak47, convert it to full auto, walk into the airport and start spraying bullets into the cluster of people. Or for bonus points, load up a baggage cart with suitcases full of explosives and push them right into the people standing in line. The enclosed area near security at some of the airports would significantly increase the effectiveness, and/or the people escaping would likely trample a few more. Worse, the general inefficiency of the whole thing pisses me off too. I flew 3 legs on an international trip recently, and had to go through security 4 times even though I either never left the secured area, or in the case of Dallas the international arrival dumps people outside of the terminal rather than into it. Like really? I'm safe enough to fly a 15 hour leg into the US, but i'm not safe enough to fly a 1/2 hour domestic flight from Dallas to a little town? two words: "Jobs Program" Only I wish the result of said jobs program was better infrastructure, even if its just stone bridges on hiking trails ala the WPA/CCC.
• bbarn 10y ago
  What's going to finally change this is when there's a particularly bad day, and security lines are likely to make enough people late, that a swarm effect happens and a mass of people just says "no more" and walks through. Just like the fences at outdoor concerts. It takes a few fearless/stupid people to break through, and progressively less fearless/stupid individuals to follow, having watched enough ahead of them follow. Once the video of this gets out, it'll happen again, and again, "like that time in that other airport!", and eventually, we'll end up with sane rules, or no one will fly because it'll become so prohibitively expensive to fund the theater (and then the airlines will get government bailouts)
  • toothbrush 10y ago
    Ugh, i just fat-fingered the downvote button. Now i'll have to unmask myself to show my amusement and almost-wishing-it'd-happen at this idea.
• devishard 10y ago
  There are two improvements to airline security that have occurred since the world trade center attacks: 1. Blast-proof cockpit doors 2. Better passenger awareness Let's put in perspective why this is: a terrorist with resources can easily get weapons on a plane. You blackmail and bribe a bunch of security people, tell them it's drugs, and you're in. But then they run into problems. They can threaten passengers, but the passengers know that if they let the terrorists take over the plane they're dying anyway, so they're going to fight to the death: this realization was enough that by itself passenger awareness prevented whatever attack was intended with the plane that went down in central Pennsylvania. And if somehow the terrorists kill all the passengers, they come up against the blast-proof door. It's probably possible to get past that if they smuggle some truly gigantic fireworks on board, but whatever they do to get through the door is probably going to take down the plane; not exactly a targeted attack. So at the very worst, you're looking at them killing max 120 people on a plane? Let's be generous and say they kill 300. Let's do some back-of-the-napkin math here: There were 9,074,185 revenue departures on planes in 2015[1]. There were no crashes. So even if a terrorist hijiacking happened every year you'd have a 300 in 9,074,185 chance, or about 1 in 30,000 chance, of dying on a plane. In 2013 there were 10.345 motor vehicle deaths per 100,000 people[2]. So just by living in a society where people drive, you have about a 1 in 10,000 chance of dying from a car. Not in a car, from a car. If you're in a car, your chances are probably significantly higher. In other words, we could let a real hijacking attempt get as successful as one can get once a year and planes would be more than three times safer than cars. At that rate, we could probably get rid of TSA security completely and devote all that funding to car safety, and it would make us safer. [1] http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/acts http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/acts [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_i...
• bogomipz 10y ago
  And yet every time you wait in the line theres at least 2 TSA agents standing around not doing anything. Here's an idea why don't we give all Americans a free TSA screening instead of charging $85.00. Then we can reduce their work force even further and actually make some progress in reducing wait times. What's amazing is that in the 15 years since this agency was created there has been no visible innovation in expediting this process. None. The only innovation I have seen is someone in the agency did took the initiative to sell advertising spots on the inside of the gray bins. This agency seems to have completely forgotten their mandate. Their job was to look out for us no make us miss our flights and humiliate us. I also like that they claim its due to an increase in air travelers. Really? Is everyone just flying more because money is just burning a hole in their pocket. The TSA is really the most absurd bit of theater.