7 ms·

Maybe airports will go back to how they were before 9/11, and we'll realize that it (the TSA) is unnecessary and ineffective, and flying will go back to being a

by akulbe 8y ago

Maybe airports will go back to how they were before 9/11, and we'll realize that it (the TSA) is unnecessary and ineffective, and flying will go back to being a joy again?

rjplatte 8y ago
God, I hope so. If only every flight was like being pre-checked. It's really a joy to not have to deal with security theater.
- gnarcoregrizz 8y ago
  It's not completely theater. I've had friends caught with ammo and knives (which they left in their luggage by accident). In every case they simply confiscated it and let them go, so it makes me feel alright that they have at least caught stuff. I find the liquids stuff annoying, but hey. It's probably in airlines best interests to have security anyway - after all of the high profile (but extraordinarily rare) terror attacks, people are probably more apt to fly with some type of security.
  - knodi123 8y ago
    your anecdote supports "the TSA are not just pretending to do their jobs". But that's not what we mean by theater- we're saying that them doing their jobs, doesn't effectively reduce the likelihood of airplane terrorism. Especially considering the multi-billion-dollar price tag.
  - saurik 8y ago
    We also know (from actual tests of the system even, not just from people like me claiming it) that people get through with stuff also. So now you are saying we have a system where sometimes they catch you and they just take the stuff as part of a system where sometimes you just get through with your stuff... so there is no penalty to having some people try over and over again... if the goal is to actually stop stuff getting through then this is all pointless.
  - eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y ago
    There is a lot of data that indicates they aren’t catching most stuff, even guns. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cntraveler.com/story/tsa-fails-to-detect-weapons-more-than-70-percent-of-the-time/amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cntraveler.com/story/tsa-fa... Those aren’t great odds. What about a truly determined enemy? Or someone that gets a job at the airport to leverage their access? It’s theater.
- cepth 8y ago
  What part of TSA screening do you object to? The ID check, or the actual screening of bags? It’s true that TSA security has been foiled by various “red team” exercises, sometimes in comical/embarrassing fashion. And, there is probably bloat in the agency, as well as problems with the contracting process for companies selling equipment. No one likes having to take off their shoes, myself included. Maybe policies around liquids and gels should be revisited. At the same time, I think it’s unknowable how a return to pre-9/11 airport security would fare in today’s world; namely a world where private companies were “responsible” for screening, with the FAA providing oversight. See for example: http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/27/911.commis.knife/ http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/27/911.commis.knife/. > “At the time of the attacks, commission staffers testified, the FAA prohibited passengers from boarding aircraft with knifes having blades longer than 4 inches, tear gas, mace and similar chemicals. > Except for guns, large knives, explosives and incendiaries, carriers and screening contractors were allowed to use "common sense" in determining what was prohibited on planes, the staffers said.” In today’s world, I’m not sure leaving airport security to the “free market” is necessarily a good idea. If there are new types of explosives, will private companies be able/willing to buy new equipment to deal with “improbable” threats? TSA also deploys agents around the world to screen flights coming inbound to the US that originate in countries that can’t necessarily perform their own screenings. Do we expect private companies to pay Americans to live abroad? Or will they rely on poorly paid locals to do the job, maybe without background checks (if it’s even possible). From a game theoretic perspective, I think it’s reasonable to assume that TSA provides some deterrent effect. Stringent security procedures do reduce the action/choice set of would-be terrorists. Post-9/11 flights within the US, and to the US, have not been affected by terrorist attacks, incompetent shoe and underwear bombers aside. Ancillary to the job that TSA does, do you object to heavily armed police or military at airports? Because incidents like these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_bombings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_bombings, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Atat%C3%BCrk_Airport_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Atat%C3%BCrk_Airport_atta..., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Frankfurt_Airport_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Frankfurt_Airport_shootin..., do happen. —- FWIW, in Israel, the security process is far more stringent. You have pre-airport physical checks, interviews, passing of luggage through pressurized chambers etc. If you fly El-Al anywhere in the world, there is an extra headache associated with additional screening. But, the record of an El-Al (0 successful hijackings) leads many who travel to Israel to choose El-Al. TL;DR, everyone wishes there was a way to have secure flights, without having to undergo invasive screenings.
- sadris 8y ago
  It's getting bad because now so many people have it. It was really nice when nobody knew it existed
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
nixpulvis 8y ago
I mean, I'm not of a strong opinion either way here, but for me.. the TSA is the least of my hatered of flying. I just really don't like being at 30,000ft. Taking off my shoes and having some random guy/gal check me out on mm nude-vision honestly doesn't bother me much.
- perl4ever 8y ago
  I'm fine with being at 30,000 feet. It's the takeoffs and landings that make me nervous. Especially the moment when you're going at full speed but haven't rotated yet, or just before touching down.
  - dlgeek 8y ago
    I'm fine with being at 30,000 feet, I'm fine with the takeoffs and landings. It's the tiny seats, horrible service, frequent delays and cancellations and constant fees for every little thing that make me hate flying.
    - symlinkk 8y ago
      > tiny seats, horrible service Improving either of these would raise ticket prices. If you want more luxury, pay for a first class ticket. > frequent delays and cancellations Shit happens. Bad weather, human error, random acts of God. Airlines aren't delaying or cancelling flights on purpose. What do you want them to do differently here? > constant fees for every little thing Again, the fees are there because the tickets are so cheap. Look at the airlines who don't have fees - like Southwest. Their ticket prices are always slightly higher than the competing airlines - like United - that do have fees.
      - null000 8y ago
        Airline profits have been rising over the past several years or so[1] due to lack of competition after a long period of industry consolidation[2] and the rise of anti-consumer practices (extra fees, less leg room, etc). This occurring even during the period where oil prices were dropping to pretty steep lows[2]. There's plenty fat to trim, and suggestions that it has to be this way are unfounded[3] [1] - https://thepointsguy.com/2017/12/airline-profits-record-38-billion-2018/ https://thepointsguy.com/2017/12/airline-profits-record-38-b... kinda outdated, but I had problems finding reports on profitability over time. [2] - https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/011215/airline-industry-oligopoly-state.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/011215/airline-indu... [3] - https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherelliott/2018/10/07/this-is-the-real-reason-bad-airline-service-is-profitable/#1fb8a45a5db2 https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherelliott/2018/10/07/t... - point being that airlines could offer better service, but don't because there's no financial incentive to do so. This is where regulation needs to step in to fix broken incentives.
huebnerob 8y ago
The existence of TSA PreCheck is all the proof you need that the onerous additional screenings of TSA Economy are pointless. Either that, or it's impossible for someone with $85 and a clean background check to commit terrorist acts.
psychometry 8y ago
I'm sure that protocols will be the same, just with much longer waits.
- deathanatos 8y ago
  > protocols The "protocol" changes constantly, sometimes even in the course of a single trip through security. My last flight, which was during the shutdown, had a TSA officer take over his coworker. The coworker had been telling us to keep food in bags; this guy told us to take it all out. I've also had an officer tell me to "remove anything electronic" from my body, but "to keep my watch on". My watch was a smart watch, of course; there is literally no way to comply with that direction. (I've taken to just removing these prior to getting there, after this absurd incident.)

by akulbe 8y ago

Maybe airports will go back to how they were before 9/11, and we'll realize that it (the TSA) is unnecessary and ineffective, and flying will go back to being a joy again?

rjplatte 8y ago

God, I hope so. If only every flight was like being pre-checked. It's really a joy to not have to deal with security theater.

gnarcoregrizz 8y ago
It's not completely theater. I've had friends caught with ammo and knives (which they left in their luggage by accident). In every case they simply confiscated it and let them go, so it makes me feel alright that they have at least caught stuff. I find the liquids stuff annoying, but hey. It's probably in airlines best interests to have security anyway - after all of the high profile (but extraordinarily rare) terror attacks, people are probably more apt to fly with some type of security.
- knodi123 8y ago
  your anecdote supports "the TSA are not just pretending to do their jobs". But that's not what we mean by theater- we're saying that them doing their jobs, doesn't effectively reduce the likelihood of airplane terrorism. Especially considering the multi-billion-dollar price tag.
- saurik 8y ago
  We also know (from actual tests of the system even, not just from people like me claiming it) that people get through with stuff also. So now you are saying we have a system where sometimes they catch you and they just take the stuff as part of a system where sometimes you just get through with your stuff... so there is no penalty to having some people try over and over again... if the goal is to actually stop stuff getting through then this is all pointless.
- eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y ago
  There is a lot of data that indicates they aren’t catching most stuff, even guns. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cntraveler.com/story/tsa-fails-to-detect-weapons-more-than-70-percent-of-the-time/amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cntraveler.com/story/tsa-fa... Those aren’t great odds. What about a truly determined enemy? Or someone that gets a job at the airport to leverage their access? It’s theater.
cepth 8y ago
What part of TSA screening do you object to? The ID check, or the actual screening of bags? It’s true that TSA security has been foiled by various “red team” exercises, sometimes in comical/embarrassing fashion. And, there is probably bloat in the agency, as well as problems with the contracting process for companies selling equipment. No one likes having to take off their shoes, myself included. Maybe policies around liquids and gels should be revisited. At the same time, I think it’s unknowable how a return to pre-9/11 airport security would fare in today’s world; namely a world where private companies were “responsible” for screening, with the FAA providing oversight. See for example: http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/27/911.commis.knife/ http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/27/911.commis.knife/. > “At the time of the attacks, commission staffers testified, the FAA prohibited passengers from boarding aircraft with knifes having blades longer than 4 inches, tear gas, mace and similar chemicals. > Except for guns, large knives, explosives and incendiaries, carriers and screening contractors were allowed to use "common sense" in determining what was prohibited on planes, the staffers said.” In today’s world, I’m not sure leaving airport security to the “free market” is necessarily a good idea. If there are new types of explosives, will private companies be able/willing to buy new equipment to deal with “improbable” threats? TSA also deploys agents around the world to screen flights coming inbound to the US that originate in countries that can’t necessarily perform their own screenings. Do we expect private companies to pay Americans to live abroad? Or will they rely on poorly paid locals to do the job, maybe without background checks (if it’s even possible). From a game theoretic perspective, I think it’s reasonable to assume that TSA provides some deterrent effect. Stringent security procedures do reduce the action/choice set of would-be terrorists. Post-9/11 flights within the US, and to the US, have not been affected by terrorist attacks, incompetent shoe and underwear bombers aside. Ancillary to the job that TSA does, do you object to heavily armed police or military at airports? Because incidents like these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_bombings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_bombings, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Atat%C3%BCrk_Airport_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Atat%C3%BCrk_Airport_atta..., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Frankfurt_Airport_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Frankfurt_Airport_shootin..., do happen. —- FWIW, in Israel, the security process is far more stringent. You have pre-airport physical checks, interviews, passing of luggage through pressurized chambers etc. If you fly El-Al anywhere in the world, there is an extra headache associated with additional screening. But, the record of an El-Al (0 successful hijackings) leads many who travel to Israel to choose El-Al. TL;DR, everyone wishes there was a way to have secure flights, without having to undergo invasive screenings.
sadris 8y ago
It's getting bad because now so many people have it. It was really nice when nobody knew it existed

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

nixpulvis 8y ago

I mean, I'm not of a strong opinion either way here, but for me.. the TSA is the least of my hatered of flying. I just really don't like being at 30,000ft. Taking off my shoes and having some random guy/gal check me out on mm nude-vision honestly doesn't bother me much.

perl4ever 8y ago
I'm fine with being at 30,000 feet. It's the takeoffs and landings that make me nervous. Especially the moment when you're going at full speed but haven't rotated yet, or just before touching down.
- dlgeek 8y ago
  I'm fine with being at 30,000 feet, I'm fine with the takeoffs and landings. It's the tiny seats, horrible service, frequent delays and cancellations and constant fees for every little thing that make me hate flying.
  - symlinkk 8y ago
    > tiny seats, horrible service Improving either of these would raise ticket prices. If you want more luxury, pay for a first class ticket. > frequent delays and cancellations Shit happens. Bad weather, human error, random acts of God. Airlines aren't delaying or cancelling flights on purpose. What do you want them to do differently here? > constant fees for every little thing Again, the fees are there because the tickets are so cheap. Look at the airlines who don't have fees - like Southwest. Their ticket prices are always slightly higher than the competing airlines - like United - that do have fees.
    - null000 8y ago
      Airline profits have been rising over the past several years or so[1] due to lack of competition after a long period of industry consolidation[2] and the rise of anti-consumer practices (extra fees, less leg room, etc). This occurring even during the period where oil prices were dropping to pretty steep lows[2]. There's plenty fat to trim, and suggestions that it has to be this way are unfounded[3] [1] - https://thepointsguy.com/2017/12/airline-profits-record-38-billion-2018/ https://thepointsguy.com/2017/12/airline-profits-record-38-b... kinda outdated, but I had problems finding reports on profitability over time. [2] - https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/011215/airline-industry-oligopoly-state.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/011215/airline-indu... [3] - https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherelliott/2018/10/07/this-is-the-real-reason-bad-airline-service-is-profitable/#1fb8a45a5db2 https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherelliott/2018/10/07/t... - point being that airlines could offer better service, but don't because there's no financial incentive to do so. This is where regulation needs to step in to fix broken incentives.

huebnerob 8y ago

The existence of TSA PreCheck is all the proof you need that the onerous additional screenings of TSA Economy are pointless. Either that, or it's impossible for someone with $85 and a clean background check to commit terrorist acts.

psychometry 8y ago

I'm sure that protocols will be the same, just with much longer waits.

deathanatos 8y ago
> protocols The "protocol" changes constantly, sometimes even in the course of a single trip through security. My last flight, which was during the shutdown, had a TSA officer take over his coworker. The coworker had been telling us to keep food in bags; this guy told us to take it all out. I've also had an officer tell me to "remove anything electronic" from my body, but "to keep my watch on". My watch was a smart watch, of course; there is literally no way to comply with that direction. (I've taken to just removing these prior to getting there, after this absurd incident.)