3 ms·
And we should set our expectations much higher. It should be possible for TSA throughput to be as good as Starbucks. They both have trained people do a complex
by tlb 10y ago
And we should set our expectations much higher. It should be possible for TSA throughput to be as good as Starbucks. They both have trained people do a complex operation involving special-purpose machines, and the revenue per customer is similar (Starbucks around $4, TSA gets $5.60 per passenger-leg), and the queue is rarely more than a few minutes at Starbucks.
If you look at the incentive structures, the results aren't surprising though:
Starbucks: longer lines => people go elsewhere => less revenue (daily)
TSA: longer lines => traveler complaints => more funding (yearly)
- xutopia 10y agoI think you misunderstand the way this works. The TSA can have 2 employees instead of 12 and they still get the same amount of funding because people can't stop travelling like a coffee drinker can go to a competitor.
- skykooler 10y agoI'm not sure about where you are, but the Starbucks's I've been to go through lines a lot slower than TSA checkpoints - the lines are just much shorter because fewer people are going there than through a big airport.
- tlb 10y agoYes, Starbucks parallelizes, as should the TSA. It doesn't matter whether it's in one building or many.
- pm215 10y agoThe queue at Starbucks has a natural curb on its length, though -- if I walk up and see the queue is pretty long then I'm likely to decide I didn't need a coffee that much, and walk away. Nobody approaching a TSA queue is going to make that decision, so the worst-case queue length is not really comparable.
- lsllc 10y agoThat is on the TSAs organization (or lack of!). Ever been through security in Frankfurt? Lots of lanes, plenty of staff and in general highly efficient and very quick.