5 ms·

"...hopefully providing a more seamless screening experience." You know what works provided a more seamless experience? Just so away with the TSA. They only pro

"...hopefully providing a more seamless screening experience." You know what works provided a more seamless experience? Just so away with the TSA. They only provide negative value. They are a time and money sink at the cost of our privacy

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
zaat 3y ago
I guess I live in a different world than you do. Perhaps that's because I'm not from the states. In your world, without TSA or similar authority, plane hijacking wouldn't become a regular weekly occurrence? I'm genuinely asking, as I have no idea what's the background for the bad sentiment towards TSA I see here or what's the common thinking on the issue is Edit: reading the replies I turned to wikipedia, I had no idea TSA was only founded in 2001, and that the responsibility for security used to be distributed among various companies. I'm out of context and have some reading to do
- batch12 3y ago
  > In your world, without TSA or similar authority, plane hijacking wouldn't become a regular weekly occurrence? I guess I wasn't paying attention before. Were hijackings really a weekly occurrence before the TSA?
- dbrueck 3y ago
  > plane hijacking wouldn't become a regular weekly occurrence? Except that there were relatively few hijackings prior to the TSA. Airport security of some form, sure, but it was wildly different than the TSA. I've had an infuriatingly large number of nonsensical encounters with the TSA and would love to see that agency torn down and replaced. If not both, then just torn down. Arguably the two main deterrents from further hijackings in the US have absolutely nothing to do with the TSA: prior to 9/11, complying with hijackers was usually considered the "right" response. Also prior to 9/11, few if any airliners had secure cockpit doors.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - bogomipz 3y ago
    Am I the only one that baffled that the secure cockpit doors remain open for the entire boarding process? It just seems silly.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - gosub100 3y ago
      I think you're the only one who is baffled about an event that hasn't happened despite the doors being open on every single flight for 22 years.
      - bogomipz 3y ago
        And yet there was a time when the same thing could have been said about not having secured cockpit doors.
    - amethyst 3y ago
      How else would airlines get little kids wide eyed at the vast array of lights and buttons and give them a branded pin and hat to win their hearts at an early age?
    - FireBeyond 3y ago
      The plane isn't a 500mph missile at that point, and law enforcement still have easy access. It's not overly difficult to handle APU and engine startup on a modern plane, but there's still a bunch of other obstacles to overcome, wheel chocks, etc. And you're presumably not going to have a compliant tug to push you back (you can technically push back yourself with reverse thrust, but that's a whole thing unto itself).
    - kelnos 3y ago
      Why is that a problem? A hijacker getting into the cockpit at that point can't really do all that much. The wheels are still blocked, and no tug is going to come along and push you back from the gate. There are likely still fuel lines and other umbilicals connected to the plane, not to mention the jet bridge. A flight attendant or other airline employee could pop down into the avionics bay (there are often access points outside the cockpit and even external to the plane) and start disconnecting things, making it really hard to get that plane moving. And even if you could get past that, no one at ATC is going to give you taxi, runway, or takeoff clearance. I guess you could just go anyway, and of course ATC will get other planes out of your way, since that's the safest thing to do, but in all the time it takes for you to taxi and take off, the nearest Air Force base will have a lot of time to scramble a fighter to take you out as soon as you're airborne... or perhaps even before you take off.
- deathanatos 3y ago
  They weren't a weekly occurrence prior to TSA, either. AIUI, the cockpit doors are now relatively more secure, and there are significantly (i.e., 2 orders of magnitude) more federal air marshals. Not to mention the changed calculus for the passengers if a hijacking were to occur.
  - function_seven 3y ago
    > Not to mention the changed calculus for the passengers if a hijacking were to occur. If there were no air marshals, and the cockpit door was replaced with a 1970s-style beaded curtain hippie door, I would still expect future hijacking attempts to fail. Before 2001, a hijacking was almost guaranteed to be an inconvenience for the rest of the passengers. A diversion to another airport, being stuck on the plane while negotiations happen, etc. After 2001 every passenger is going to assume they're being commandeered as a missile. There will be tons of resistance from 1A all the way to 33F. (Strong cockpit doors are still a good idea. I'm not arguing otherwise. But the changed calculus you mention is enormous. It alone I think would make successful hijackings a rare occurrence.)
    - shepherdjerred 3y ago
      What could the passengers do if the plane were hijacked and the cockpit door were locked? Isn't there essentially no way in? I agree though. Anyone familiar with 9/11 would fight hijackers with their life.
      - reaperman 3y ago
        How would the hijackers get into the cockpit? The pilots will never, ever, open the door because instead of maximum 100 passengers dying, the plane can be used to kill thousands of people. Plus the pilots themselves will live if they keep the door closed and go home to their families. There's not going to be a common hijacking scenario where the passengers have to get into the cockpit.
        j16sdiz 3y ago
- AlotOfReading 3y ago
  Before 2001, government security checkpoints were extremely rare throughout most airports worldwide. In the US in particular, there'd be some bored private security with metal detectors at most that you didn't even need a ticket to get past.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    Before 2001 you could in some cases buy your ticket at the gate (most of the time no, but some high demand routes they did do this). You could escort you kid right to the gate, and on the other end "grandma" would be waiting as they got off. We lost a lot.
    - stephen_g 3y ago
      Here in Australia, you still can go through to the gate to see people off or meet people arriving in most domestic terminals. It's mostly only international ones (or international parts of the terminal) where you need to be flying to pass security.
  - zaat 3y ago
    I didn't visit the states before 2005 so I never experienced that. The only difference I personally experienced in airport security post 9/11 was the ban on liquids.
    - interestica 3y ago
      The ban on liquids wasn't until 2006 and wasn't related to 9/11
      - zaat 3y ago
        Indeed, not related, but that's the only change of security measures around flights I have ever experienced, in contrast to the american experience, I understand now.
- bluGill 3y ago
  Plane hijacking was an every decade occurrence. So there there isn't enough data to say if they have made a difference yet (this is debatable, but there at least isn't enough data to have high confidence). That is before we get into confounders: the economy is different. The 9/11 hijacking changed the game so potential hijackers are less likely to try since passengers are no longer going to sit back expecting a free trip to Cuba. cockpits are not locked in flight, so a hijacker couldn't do anything even if they tried. None of the TSA screening changes would have made a difference. The knifes the hijackers used were placed on the planes ahead of time (the old metal detectors would have found them). Checking IDs against a no-fly list could be done in many less intrusive ways.
  - harporoeder 3y ago
    This is well before TSA but plane hijacking used to be common occurrence: "Between 1968 and 1972, more than 130 American airplanes were hijacked. Sometimes there was more than one hijacking on the same day. " https://www.vox.com/2016/3/29/11326472/hijacking-airplanes-egyptair https://www.vox.com/2016/3/29/11326472/hijacking-airplanes-e... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings#1970s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings#19...
- bogomipz 3y ago
  >"In your world, without TSA or similar authority, plane hijacking wouldn't become a regular weekly occurrence?" I think the answer lies in your phrase "similar authority." One idea is to privatize this job. The TSA culture is a joke. This is an agency who have failed to understand that their mandate is to protect people and that they are there to serve. Instead they treat flying public like adversaries while browbeating and infantilizing them. They seem to imagine that their mandate is to stress people out and confiscate toothpaste. It's hard to imagine a ruder public agency. Not all of course as sometimes you do get nice folks who understand they are there to serve. This is generally the exception though. It's so exceptional that when it does happen it's kind of shocking.
- kelnos 3y ago
  I think when people say "get rid of the TSA", they really mean "get rid of all the security theater the TSA is responsible for". I don't think anyone means to say that there should be zero security checks on the path to board an airplane. Granted, before 9/11 (after which the TSA was created), airport security was handled by lots and lots of non-coordinating security companies, and standards were not uniform. But IMO pre-9/11 airport screening was more or less just fine. The two biggest things that deter plane hijackings are 1) armored and (almost) always-locked cockpit door, and 2) the widespread understanding among passengers that if someone hijacks your plane, you should probably fight them, as there's a good chance the hijackers have suicidal intentions and you'll die regardless. (And even if #2 fades away, #1 is still a pretty damn potent defense.) Putting people through millimeter wave body scanners is unnecessary. Limiting (and requiring people remove and present) liquids is unnecessary. Removing large electronics is unnecessary. Removing a light jacket is unnecessary. Removing shoes is unnecessary. Basically if we just made the TSA Pre Check screening process the standard for everyone (and dropped the liquid limits), we'd be fine.
  - dh2022 3y ago
    Not to be a spoiler but in 2000 I was flying back from Las Vegas. In the airport terminal (after we passed security ) we decided to have lunch - steak lunch. I would not have realized myself, but one of our buddies made the comment :”these are real steak knives”. The rest of our lunch had many college-age jokes about kidnapping our upcoming flight :).

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

zaat 3y ago

I guess I live in a different world than you do. Perhaps that's because I'm not from the states. In your world, without TSA or similar authority, plane hijacking wouldn't become a regular weekly occurrence? I'm genuinely asking, as I have no idea what's the background for the bad sentiment towards TSA I see here or what's the common thinking on the issue is Edit: reading the replies I turned to wikipedia, I had no idea TSA was only founded in 2001, and that the responsibility for security used to be distributed among various companies. I'm out of context and have some reading to do

batch12 3y ago
> In your world, without TSA or similar authority, plane hijacking wouldn't become a regular weekly occurrence? I guess I wasn't paying attention before. Were hijackings really a weekly occurrence before the TSA?
dbrueck 3y ago
> plane hijacking wouldn't become a regular weekly occurrence? Except that there were relatively few hijackings prior to the TSA. Airport security of some form, sure, but it was wildly different than the TSA. I've had an infuriatingly large number of nonsensical encounters with the TSA and would love to see that agency torn down and replaced. If not both, then just torn down. Arguably the two main deterrents from further hijackings in the US have absolutely nothing to do with the TSA: prior to 9/11, complying with hijackers was usually considered the "right" response. Also prior to 9/11, few if any airliners had secure cockpit doors.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- bogomipz 3y ago
  Am I the only one that baffled that the secure cockpit doors remain open for the entire boarding process? It just seems silly.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - gosub100 3y ago
    I think you're the only one who is baffled about an event that hasn't happened despite the doors being open on every single flight for 22 years.
    - bogomipz 3y ago
      And yet there was a time when the same thing could have been said about not having secured cockpit doors.
  - amethyst 3y ago
    How else would airlines get little kids wide eyed at the vast array of lights and buttons and give them a branded pin and hat to win their hearts at an early age?
  - FireBeyond 3y ago
    The plane isn't a 500mph missile at that point, and law enforcement still have easy access. It's not overly difficult to handle APU and engine startup on a modern plane, but there's still a bunch of other obstacles to overcome, wheel chocks, etc. And you're presumably not going to have a compliant tug to push you back (you can technically push back yourself with reverse thrust, but that's a whole thing unto itself).
  - kelnos 3y ago
    Why is that a problem? A hijacker getting into the cockpit at that point can't really do all that much. The wheels are still blocked, and no tug is going to come along and push you back from the gate. There are likely still fuel lines and other umbilicals connected to the plane, not to mention the jet bridge. A flight attendant or other airline employee could pop down into the avionics bay (there are often access points outside the cockpit and even external to the plane) and start disconnecting things, making it really hard to get that plane moving. And even if you could get past that, no one at ATC is going to give you taxi, runway, or takeoff clearance. I guess you could just go anyway, and of course ATC will get other planes out of your way, since that's the safest thing to do, but in all the time it takes for you to taxi and take off, the nearest Air Force base will have a lot of time to scramble a fighter to take you out as soon as you're airborne... or perhaps even before you take off.
deathanatos 3y ago
They weren't a weekly occurrence prior to TSA, either. AIUI, the cockpit doors are now relatively more secure, and there are significantly (i.e., 2 orders of magnitude) more federal air marshals. Not to mention the changed calculus for the passengers if a hijacking were to occur.
- function_seven 3y ago
  > Not to mention the changed calculus for the passengers if a hijacking were to occur. If there were no air marshals, and the cockpit door was replaced with a 1970s-style beaded curtain hippie door, I would still expect future hijacking attempts to fail. Before 2001, a hijacking was almost guaranteed to be an inconvenience for the rest of the passengers. A diversion to another airport, being stuck on the plane while negotiations happen, etc. After 2001 every passenger is going to assume they're being commandeered as a missile. There will be tons of resistance from 1A all the way to 33F. (Strong cockpit doors are still a good idea. I'm not arguing otherwise. But the changed calculus you mention is enormous. It alone I think would make successful hijackings a rare occurrence.)
  - shepherdjerred 3y ago
    What could the passengers do if the plane were hijacked and the cockpit door were locked? Isn't there essentially no way in? I agree though. Anyone familiar with 9/11 would fight hijackers with their life.
    - reaperman 3y ago
      How would the hijackers get into the cockpit? The pilots will never, ever, open the door because instead of maximum 100 passengers dying, the plane can be used to kill thousands of people. Plus the pilots themselves will live if they keep the door closed and go home to their families. There's not going to be a common hijacking scenario where the passengers have to get into the cockpit.
      - j16sdiz 3y ago
AlotOfReading 3y ago
Before 2001, government security checkpoints were extremely rare throughout most airports worldwide. In the US in particular, there'd be some bored private security with metal detectors at most that you didn't even need a ticket to get past.
- bluGill 3y ago
  Before 2001 you could in some cases buy your ticket at the gate (most of the time no, but some high demand routes they did do this). You could escort you kid right to the gate, and on the other end "grandma" would be waiting as they got off. We lost a lot.
  - stephen_g 3y ago
    Here in Australia, you still can go through to the gate to see people off or meet people arriving in most domestic terminals. It's mostly only international ones (or international parts of the terminal) where you need to be flying to pass security.
- zaat 3y ago
  I didn't visit the states before 2005 so I never experienced that. The only difference I personally experienced in airport security post 9/11 was the ban on liquids.
  - interestica 3y ago
    The ban on liquids wasn't until 2006 and wasn't related to 9/11
    - zaat 3y ago
      Indeed, not related, but that's the only change of security measures around flights I have ever experienced, in contrast to the american experience, I understand now.
bluGill 3y ago
Plane hijacking was an every decade occurrence. So there there isn't enough data to say if they have made a difference yet (this is debatable, but there at least isn't enough data to have high confidence). That is before we get into confounders: the economy is different. The 9/11 hijacking changed the game so potential hijackers are less likely to try since passengers are no longer going to sit back expecting a free trip to Cuba. cockpits are not locked in flight, so a hijacker couldn't do anything even if they tried. None of the TSA screening changes would have made a difference. The knifes the hijackers used were placed on the planes ahead of time (the old metal detectors would have found them). Checking IDs against a no-fly list could be done in many less intrusive ways.
- harporoeder 3y ago
  This is well before TSA but plane hijacking used to be common occurrence: "Between 1968 and 1972, more than 130 American airplanes were hijacked. Sometimes there was more than one hijacking on the same day. " https://www.vox.com/2016/3/29/11326472/hijacking-airplanes-egyptair https://www.vox.com/2016/3/29/11326472/hijacking-airplanes-e... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings#1970s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings#19...
bogomipz 3y ago
>"In your world, without TSA or similar authority, plane hijacking wouldn't become a regular weekly occurrence?" I think the answer lies in your phrase "similar authority." One idea is to privatize this job. The TSA culture is a joke. This is an agency who have failed to understand that their mandate is to protect people and that they are there to serve. Instead they treat flying public like adversaries while browbeating and infantilizing them. They seem to imagine that their mandate is to stress people out and confiscate toothpaste. It's hard to imagine a ruder public agency. Not all of course as sometimes you do get nice folks who understand they are there to serve. This is generally the exception though. It's so exceptional that when it does happen it's kind of shocking.
kelnos 3y ago
I think when people say "get rid of the TSA", they really mean "get rid of all the security theater the TSA is responsible for". I don't think anyone means to say that there should be zero security checks on the path to board an airplane. Granted, before 9/11 (after which the TSA was created), airport security was handled by lots and lots of non-coordinating security companies, and standards were not uniform. But IMO pre-9/11 airport screening was more or less just fine. The two biggest things that deter plane hijackings are 1) armored and (almost) always-locked cockpit door, and 2) the widespread understanding among passengers that if someone hijacks your plane, you should probably fight them, as there's a good chance the hijackers have suicidal intentions and you'll die regardless. (And even if #2 fades away, #1 is still a pretty damn potent defense.) Putting people through millimeter wave body scanners is unnecessary. Limiting (and requiring people remove and present) liquids is unnecessary. Removing large electronics is unnecessary. Removing a light jacket is unnecessary. Removing shoes is unnecessary. Basically if we just made the TSA Pre Check screening process the standard for everyone (and dropped the liquid limits), we'd be fine.
- dh2022 3y ago
  Not to be a spoiler but in 2000 I was flying back from Las Vegas. In the airport terminal (after we passed security ) we decided to have lunch - steak lunch. I would not have realized myself, but one of our buddies made the comment :”these are real steak knives”. The rest of our lunch had many college-age jokes about kidnapping our upcoming flight :).