I almost thought this was an April Fool's joke, except it's not April - https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/01/politics/tsa-considering-eliminating-screening-at-smaller-airports/index.html .
Even a 60-passenger aircraft carries a significant amount of jet fuel, which can do considerable damage if ignited. With this occurring in the same week as the controversy about plastic guns, this wouldn't seem to be a good move. Perhaps I'm missing something here?
It does not make sense. It seems to me that common sense died in this country. It looks more like some absurd movie. Nothing is going to surprise us any more.
Just sounds like the government admitting that the current security screenings are doing nothing to prevent terroristic activities they keep telling us would happen without the current screening.
I think in the article I read this morning there was some speculation that the TSA is using this threat as a way to get more funds. That is: We need more money, and if we don't get it, we'll have to drop security at 150 airports to make ends meet.
Before everyone gets their underwear in a tight knot do some research on articles related to airline security. Most of what TSA does is for show or a CYA situation. We are basically running the same security system that was put into effect the week after 9/11. The constantly failure of the TSA tests for detecting items would suggest that any determine effort would succeed. If they pulled the plug on the small airport the whole system is compromised but doubt if there would be much increased risk to travel.
If I remember correctly, the 911 hijackers started in small airports in New England and flew to Boston so they didn't have to go through tighter (for that time) security there. When they arrived in Boston, they were already inside security.
Oh, I see that the TSA plan would have the passengers from smaller airports without screening go through screening at the large airports when they arrive. So this plan would not decrease the number of passengers screened, just move the screening. Kind of like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Does this mean that all checked luggage from the flights from the smaller airports will have to be retrieved at the major airports and rechecked?
Incidentally, the bomb that brought down Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie had been checked through on a flight from a smaller airport to London and was put on the 747 although the passenger to whom that checked luggage belonged did not get on the flight.
Supposedly, TSA has fixed this problem so that no flight will take off if someone who has checked luggage is not on the flight. However, as we found out last month, this is not always the case. We flew from San Diego to San Jose, CA on a late afternoon flight. Southwest has flights between these airports almost every hour and, because my partner needs assistance getting to the gate, we arrived extra early. When we got to San Jose, her checked luggage did not arrive on the carousel with the rest of the luggage from our flight. We finally found it in the "unclaimed luggage" office; it was there because it had come in on an earlier flight, before we arrived. Ops, TSA.
And for those people not screened at first airport, another problem trying to guess at how much connection time needed.
Yeah, what would they do in a large airport like Denver? People now routinely change planes entirely within one of the concourses that is well inside security. Will they have to divide each concourse into secured and unsecured gates and put additional security checkpoints in each concourse. That's going to be a logistical nightmare, keeping security checked passengers and unchecked passenger separate.
And how exactly would they herd all of these passengers to security at the larger airport? There is nothing in place now to separate incoming passengers from the general airport population except for those with international arrivals. Can't send these people through that route because you have the same issue of how to determine which are actually international requiring passport check and customs vs. transiting from a small airport to a large one. Set up a security check on every jetway? Sorry, but security is an all or nothing scenario if you are really wanting to keep the bad guys out.
I flew on a commercial flight in Hawaii without going through any security check - stepped off the shuttle bus and right on to the plane. The flight I was boarding was running way late, past closing time for TSA at that terminal. It was a very small terminal where you didn't go through security until you were heading out to board the plane. Nothing but locals, and me, on the flight. Everyone knew everyone else. Nothing bad happened
Idiotic. When a 50 seat ERJ lands at C15 at LGA, exactly where is the so-called security going to be when a passenger changes to a connecting flight at C16?
It seems to me that common sense died in this country.
Apparently so, as common sense isn't all that common anymore.
.. When a 50 seat ERJ lands at C15 at LGA, exactly where is the so-called security going to be when a passenger changes to a connecting flight at C16?......
That is not the issue. What I see happening is that the small regional airports generally use small regional jets. Could see those planes landing at a several restricted gates or even a separate concourse and off loaded into a secured area. Those connecting passengers would be directed to a screening area, screened and into the main terminal area and their connection. For those terminating at that airport they would be directed to another area outside of security.
We are dealing with a hastily conceived and constantly tweaked system that went into place in a hurry after 9/11. Very little has changed since then. There needs to be a lot of discussion given to making the system more cost effective and just simply effective. Look at what is a happening with Pre-check, Clear choice. Does anyone really believe that full body scans improves security? The scanners are there primarily because of the lobbying effort of the company that make the equipment.
Right now the whole system at DIA is being rebuilt. Will be interesting to see the final results.
Estimated to save $115 million a year. And I wonder just how much one bad incident determined to be caused by lack of screening will cost them.
Supposedly, TSA has fixed this problem so that no flight will take off if someone who has checked luggage is not on the flight. However, as we found out last month, this is not always the case.
Lee, the rule is you--the passenger--can't choose to be separated from your checked baggage. The airline, however, can choose to separate you. As noted above, what they are trying to prevent is someone checking a bag and not getting on the flight. The thought is that a passenger does not know--as you didn't--whether the airline has sent their bag on a different flight or not, so this is not seen as a security risk.
That is not the issue. What I see happening is that the small regional
airports generally use small regional jets. Could see those planes
landing at a several restricted gates or even a separate concourse and
off loaded into a secured area. Those connecting passengers would be
directed to a screening area, screened and into the main terminal area
and their connection. For those terminating at that airport they would
be directed to another area outside of security.
Hmmm, there is no separate concourse at Terminals C&D at LGA which is Delta. Second, there is construction all over the place for the next few years so I can't even hazard to guess where this security area would be. Third, those with tight connections especially if flights are delayed (imagine THAT at LGA -- yes, that was inserted sarcasm), will be rushing to be first on line. Imagine that pandemonium. Then what about those with TSA precheck? Are they going to have a separate area for those with PreCheck in which there already is no space for a separate area in the first place? Last, maybe they'll direct those on the tiny regional jets to a bus (I've never experienced that at LGA) and force them to enter LGA landside so they would be funneled into security like those of us arriving locally.
"What I see happening is that the small regional airports generally use small regional jets. Could see those planes landing at a several restricted gates or even a separate concourse and off loaded into a secured area. Those connecting passengers would be directed to a screening area, screened and into the main terminal area and their connection. For those terminating at that airport they would be directed to another area outside of security."
That was my thought as well. It would be relatively easy to do at SLC as the regional jets land at Concourse E which does not have jetways.
Still, a really stupid idea and yes, sounds like saber-rattling to me.
What never ceases to amaze me is that the TSA has had 17 years to get this right and they are still floundering around.
Estimated to save $115 million a year. And I wonder just how much one bad incident determined to be caused by lack of screening will cost them.
And will cost likely $500 million+ in airport renovations to get this implemented.
Even if you're talking bus gate on arrival (and airports like Washington National are spending huge sums of money to get rid of bus gates like the infamous 35X) , you still need to buy busses, and you need to have apron space where you can move passengers from the plane to the terminal without impacting flight operations.
(apologies for the political stuff at the top of the article but a good snarky explanation of 35X and how American airports are horrible about bus gates)
Have these people not seen how plane traffic stacks up for departure already during rush hour at places like LaGuardia and Atlanta? And you want to put shuttle busses into the mix and cause more flight delays because of ground congestion? Or spend how much to pave new roads in what is often already a tight footprint surrounded by developed land that cant be expanded? Where can you put a shuttle bus at an airport like Chicago Midway were the homes and businesses are just feet from airport operations?
I think we should replace the TSA with the NRA. Then instead of going through security, every passenger is handed a gun to take on board in case they don't have one. This way, if a bad guy pulls out a gun he will know the rest of the plane will shoot him. Guns can be given out depending on size--44 magnums to bigger guys, 38's to women, 22's to kids, and derringers to babies. They can stick them in their diapers.
Those connecting passengers would be directed to a screening area,
screened and into the main terminal area and their connection.
Seems like the whole idea (?) of this proposed change was to reduce costs by minimizing the number of screening areas. Adding more on the concourset is counter to that idea.
As noted above, what they are trying to prevent is someone checking a bag and not getting on the flight.
But obviously, they are not checking to see that the person got on the flight, or my partner's bag would not have been on an earlier flight. And what about all of the bags, and there are a lot, that are lost or delayed because they were put on the wrong flight. Obviously no one is checking.
It's all a bluff. "Security theatre". TSA wants you to think they are making sure that your bag flies with you, but they have no idea.
The problem with ALL of the above is that it misses the point completely. Only a couple of people mentioned it.
Security at our airports is mostly Theater not security. Any one who has been to airports overseas that take security seriously know this.
I have been through airports in Asia where every bag is Xray’ed at the FRONT door to the Airport Wrapped in plastic and banded/sealed and ALL carry on bags are Xray’ed AND hand searched before you get to the gate and at times again at the gate.
We have poorly paid and very poorly trained personnel manning what are jokingly called Security checkpoints at our airports. I never mind REAL security but what we have in the US is “Security Theater”.
What we need to do, in my opinion, is scrap the entire knee-jerk reaction mindset that brought about the TSA. Disband the TSA and start from scratch with REAL airport security. It can be done efficiently. Politely, handle the passenger load and make travel easier and better if we would just re-think the entire idea, lay aside the fear mongering and move toward concrete measures that actually work and have been proven in many places overseas.
Well, at least they are putting some of their resources to good use:
