4 ms·

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 the

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 11y 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 11y ago
  Excellent point. I forgot that private aircraft travelers get to skip it.
  - spdustin 11y 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.
    - grandalf 11y ago
      Some private (corporate) jets are the same size as typical commercial aircraft. We learned on 9/11 that as soon as word got out about the possibility of terrorists using aircraft as a weapon, the passengers are ready to tackle anyone who appears to be doing this, so the threat was already gone months before the TSA was formed. Similarly, the military would now shoot down an aircraft in similar circumstances. This does not address the loss-of-life concerns, but does redundantly prevent the use of an aircraft as a weapon. Also, since it is easy to get weapons through TSA security (it's done often by other government agencies as part of various audits)... There is no reason to believe that the TSA line makes anyone any safer (though the above points do make people safer). And, as Bruce Schneier points out, one could simply put explosive liquid in a tomato sauce container and attempt to go through security. If it's found, it would be thrown away and the passenger would board without being caught. If it's missed, the system has been thwarted and an attack can occur. So aside from the initials in TSA reminding of us the concept of security, the agency does little to actually make anyone safer. I'd argue that we have a false sense of security against all but the most unsophisticated attacker. Also, the main reason the TSA was created was to shield private firms from risk if a banned item got through security and did result in an attack. There was a big restructuring of the terrorism insurance market post 9/11, and the government now "owns" much of the risk. This was thought to be necessary to keep planes flying after 9/11, since the market price of insurance (and flights) would go through the roof if an airline would be held accountable for a 9/11 style attack if one of its minimum wage employees missed a box cutter in someone's bag. So now we have the TSA and an absurdly regulated public/private partnership that fails in every measurable way and as others have pointed out wastes a tremendous amount of time and resources. I apologize for the rant, I'm sure you have heard this argument before.
      - spdustin 11y ago
        No need to apologize, there's great information there for many readers, I'm sure. I myself benefited from the reminder that the TSA serves to deflect liability away from carriers in the event of a dangerous device getting through a security checkpoint.
    - randyrand 11y ago
- jlg23 11y ago
  Then you just have more small airports offering connection flights to the next hub. At least some years ago that was how the people who could afford it circumvented LAX' security: Check in in Santa Monica, fly 5 minutes to LAX in a small plane, go directly to your international flight in LAX.
- spdustin 11y ago
  There are no powerful people going through those lines. Just semi-rich ones. The GP's list would be more effective. And only if it got enough people to participate in our government by writing/visiting our representatives and demanding en masse to be heard. I just don't see that happening now.
  - danieltillett 11y ago
    That is exactly my point.If the 0.01% had to line up for 3 hours like the rest of us then something would be done.
- WildUtah 11y ago
  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. Nope. My congressmen and senators go through the line twice a week, and yours probably do, too. Billionaires can influence them more than you or I but personal experience beats any outside persuasion. TSA owns them. If anything ever goes wrong, TSA gets to blame them. If they've played along on every vote, TSA instead defends them from responsibility. That's everything to a congressman.
  - danieltillett 11y ago
    I did suggest that we need to get the powerful to line up, not congressmen and senators. If the members of the 0.01% had to line up for 3 hour to get on their private jets you can be sure that something would be done.

danieltillett 11y 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 11y ago
Excellent point. I forgot that private aircraft travelers get to skip it.
- spdustin 11y 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.
  - grandalf 11y ago
    Some private (corporate) jets are the same size as typical commercial aircraft. We learned on 9/11 that as soon as word got out about the possibility of terrorists using aircraft as a weapon, the passengers are ready to tackle anyone who appears to be doing this, so the threat was already gone months before the TSA was formed. Similarly, the military would now shoot down an aircraft in similar circumstances. This does not address the loss-of-life concerns, but does redundantly prevent the use of an aircraft as a weapon. Also, since it is easy to get weapons through TSA security (it's done often by other government agencies as part of various audits)... There is no reason to believe that the TSA line makes anyone any safer (though the above points do make people safer). And, as Bruce Schneier points out, one could simply put explosive liquid in a tomato sauce container and attempt to go through security. If it's found, it would be thrown away and the passenger would board without being caught. If it's missed, the system has been thwarted and an attack can occur. So aside from the initials in TSA reminding of us the concept of security, the agency does little to actually make anyone safer. I'd argue that we have a false sense of security against all but the most unsophisticated attacker. Also, the main reason the TSA was created was to shield private firms from risk if a banned item got through security and did result in an attack. There was a big restructuring of the terrorism insurance market post 9/11, and the government now "owns" much of the risk. This was thought to be necessary to keep planes flying after 9/11, since the market price of insurance (and flights) would go through the roof if an airline would be held accountable for a 9/11 style attack if one of its minimum wage employees missed a box cutter in someone's bag. So now we have the TSA and an absurdly regulated public/private partnership that fails in every measurable way and as others have pointed out wastes a tremendous amount of time and resources. I apologize for the rant, I'm sure you have heard this argument before.
    - spdustin 11y ago
      No need to apologize, there's great information there for many readers, I'm sure. I myself benefited from the reminder that the TSA serves to deflect liability away from carriers in the event of a dangerous device getting through a security checkpoint.
  - randyrand 11y ago
jlg23 11y ago
Then you just have more small airports offering connection flights to the next hub. At least some years ago that was how the people who could afford it circumvented LAX' security: Check in in Santa Monica, fly 5 minutes to LAX in a small plane, go directly to your international flight in LAX.
spdustin 11y ago
There are no powerful people going through those lines. Just semi-rich ones. The GP's list would be more effective. And only if it got enough people to participate in our government by writing/visiting our representatives and demanding en masse to be heard. I just don't see that happening now.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  That is exactly my point.If the 0.01% had to line up for 3 hours like the rest of us then something would be done.
WildUtah 11y ago
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. Nope. My congressmen and senators go through the line twice a week, and yours probably do, too. Billionaires can influence them more than you or I but personal experience beats any outside persuasion. TSA owns them. If anything ever goes wrong, TSA gets to blame them. If they've played along on every vote, TSA instead defends them from responsibility. That's everything to a congressman.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  I did suggest that we need to get the powerful to line up, not congressmen and senators. If the members of the 0.01% had to line up for 3 hour to get on their private jets you can be sure that something would be done.