TSA mulls a plan to eliminate security checkpoints at 150 smaller airports

[Kritchlow]

By deciding how many airplanes they want to risk losing and how many civil suits they want to settle, both passengers and ground bystanders.

Maybe see what their liability insurance will cost at Lloyd’s of London doing their own security, if they’d rather an actuary do the numbers for them?

Yes, but how fldoes one separate Deltas gate from Southwests gate right next to it if they have different security criteria?

 

[denverpilot]

So, that may address maintenance, but what about security?

You lose X number of airplanes to Terrorists per year for every dollar you don’t spend securing your airplanes and airports.

All you have to do is decide if you’re buying the best security you can afford and passing that along in ticket prices, or buying mediocre security and absorbing the costs of the once in a while terror event.

It’s just a market decision.

The most cost effective solution would be to pay off duty fully deputized law enforcement to ride on every aircraft, probably.

They like overtime at private venues. And have much better personal outcomes if they shoot people than private security. They essentially can’t be charged.

If there’s a jurisdictional problem, ask the Air Marshalls to ramp up part-timers who aren’t ok the standard payroll, they’re just trained to the standard and then paid by the airline that uses the service.

 

[Kritchlow]

You lose X number of airplanes to Terrorists per year for every dollar you don’t spend securing your airplanes and airports.

All you have to do is decide if you’re buying the best security you can afford and passing that along in ticket prices, or buying mediocre security and absorbing the costs of the once in a while terror event.

It’s just a market decision.

The most cost effective solution would be to pay off duty fully deputized law enforcement to ride on every aircraft, probably.

They like overtime at private venues. And have much better personal outcomes if they shoot people than private security. They essentially can’t be charged.

If there’s a jurisdictional problem, ask the Air Marshalls to ramp up part-timers who aren’t ok the standard payroll, they’re just trained to the standard and then paid by the airline that uses the service.

That may counter a conflict in the back, but how would it avoid a pipe bomb in their carryon that might have been caught by X-ray?

Plus it takes a fraction of a second to pull a gun out of a backpack and shoot. Regardless how many deputies are on board.

 

[denverpilot]

That may counter a conflict in the back, but how would it avoid a pipe bomb in their carryon that might have been caught by X-ray?

Plus it takes a fraction of a second to pull a gun out of a backpack and shoot. Regardless how many deputies are on board.

I didn’t say to remove the rent a cops the airline buys to look through bags.

Could even research if a particular airline wanted to go all carry on, one bag per customer, small.

Maybe those tickets would sell.

I know when I was traveling for business and didn’t need the tool cases I would have been fine with that.

Totally up to the airline how much cost and effort they want to put into it. And as you said, the Feds could make a minimum standard they had to hire and do and simply inspect them and test them occasionally.

TSA fails most of their tests, so it’s bound to be better with the airline doing it. Failing a test would mean a fine.

Try fining the TSA. LOL. They’ll just be back next year with their hand out asking for more money from everyone to do the job.

With the airlines doing it, the real price of airline travel, including security, is directly passed on in the ticket price.

Who knows. If security is really as expensive as TSA claims it is, it might even help make Amtrak and Greyhound profitable again. Ha.

 

[Kritchlow]

I didn’t say to remove the rent a cops the airline buys to look through bags.

Could even research if a particular airline wanted to go all carry on, one bag per customer, small.

Maybe those tickets would sell.

I know when I was traveling for business and didn’t need the tool cases I would have been fine with that.

Totally up to the airline how much cost and effort they want to put into it. And as you said, the Feds could make a minimum standard they had to hire and do and simply inspect them and test them occasionally.

TSA fails most of their tests, so it’s bound to be better with the airline doing it. Failing a test would mean a fine.

Try fining the TSA. LOL. They’ll just be back next year with their hand out asking for more money from everyone to do the job.

With the airlines doing it, the real price of airline travel, including security, is directly passed on in the ticket price.

Who knows. If security is really as expensive as TSA claims it is, it might even help make Amtrak and Greyhound profitable again. Ha.

But the lowest security at the checkpoint still must be the highest of all the airlines in that concourse, no ??

Yes, TSA fails most tests miserably. That said, the tests are usually of a very sophisticated nature.

 

[denverpilot]

But the lowest security at the checkpoint still must be the highest of all the airlines in that concourse, no ??

Yes, TSA fails most tests miserably. That said, the tests are usually of a very sophisticated nature.

Concourse: Depends on what they want to spend renovating it. Pay for security or pay for walls and separate entrances. It’s just math.

I’ve read a number of TSA failures that weren’t that sophisticated.

Of course that’s another benefit of having government regulate but not do the job. The reports on whether an airline did a good job or not become public record and not a state secret. Just like the letter grade by the health department on the Chinese food place with cockroaches.

Having the regulators doing the work is always a problem. If they fail they just change the rules for themselves.

The super secure airline with high priced tickets could even have contests. If you get something past their goons you get free tickets for life.

If we’re just going to spend government loan money then I want AF1 and her security staff. It’s only loan money right? Equal Citizens? LOL.

 

[Kritchlow]

Concourse: Depends on what they want to spend renovating it. Pay for security or pay for walls and separate entrances. It’s just math.

I’ve read a number of TSA failures that weren’t that sophisticated.

Of course that’s another benefit of having government regulate but not do the job. The reports on whether an airline did a good job or not become public record and not a state secret. Just like the letter grade by the health department on the Chinese food place with cockroaches.

Having the regulators doing the work is always a problem. If they fail they just change the rules for themselves.

The super secure airline with high priced tickets could even have contests. If you get something past their goons you get free tickets for life.

If we’re just going to spend government loan money then I want AF1 and her security staff. It’s only loan money right? Equal Citizens? LOL.

But partitioning off gates for various airlines won’t work. As you know, there are constant gate changes that you must walk through different areas, as well as a large number of shared gates amongst airlines. Then, at the destination, lord only knows what gate you get dumped off at.

 

[denverpilot]

But partitioning off gates for various airlines won’t work. As you know, there are constant gate changes that you must walk through different areas, as well as a large number of shared gates amongst airlines. Then, at the destination, lord only knows what gate you get dumped off at.

Then the airlines that want extra security above the standard may have to stop serving some places or they’ll have to convince the others to pay for it.

I really don’t care what they do, it just doesn’t need to be a socialized system run by the largest new division of government created in 50 years.

Government can set some standards, we just don’t need government doing the security work. Not with fake cops anyway. Want to deputize and use proper law enforcement? Go for it. They can work for a local politician who can be fired by voting them out.

I’ll purchase whatever product they decide they can offer at whatever price I like. Or fly myself. Or walk. Or whatever.

 

[Kritchlow]

Then the airlines that want extra security above the standard may have to stop serving some places or they’ll have to convince the others to pay for it.

I really don’t care what they do, it just doesn’t need to be a socialized system run by the largest new division of government created in 50 years.

Government can set some standards, we just don’t need government doing the security work. Not with fake cops anyway. Want to deputize and use proper law enforcement? Go for it. They can work for a local politician who can be fired by voting them out.

I’ll purchase whatever product they decide they can offer at whatever price I like. Or fly myself. Or walk. Or whatever.

I don’t disagree with your premise, I just don’t find it practical.

 

[denverpilot]

I don’t disagree with your premise, I just don’t find it practical.

Like I said, paying ten billion a year by a broke government for an ineffective national system also isn’t practical.

This back to the proposal. Dropping 150 outstations and doing the screening at the hubs is certainly one way to make it more practical and less expensive.

Might lose an RJ to a naughty person once in a while. They’re not exactly prime targets anyway.

The terrorists figured out Americans don’t react too much to terrorism anyway, since we eventually just shrug and say, “Idiots. You missed your actual targets. They’re usually in DC. Aim better next time.”

 

[Palmpilot]

I’m open to change my mind if anyone can show me a practical way it can be done.

I thought that was against Forum rules.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Well Denver suggested walking off different entrances for different airlines.
Yes, please dig them up. I’m open to change my mind if anyone can show me a practical way it can be done.

OK, below are two quotes from two prior threads where we discussed this issue extensively. If you'd like to review the data and arguments in those threads I suppose one might be able to make some progress. Those are posts #2257613 and #2391504.

In terms of the steps to take, I really do like the way we presented it at http://realairlinesecurity.org. 3 steps or privatizations that lead to a more free market oriented solution.

I also think that trying to debate why some particular solution is "impossible" or not practical is premature before the market has had a chance to work. The marketplace tends to be rather good at working out solutions to problems, much better than bureaucrats or people speculating on the internet.

In terms of that analogy, the problem is we don't know what pulling the stopper out corresponds to. Was it the introduction of the TSA mass screenings, was it the fact that terrorists are no longer able to arrange this type of attack due to other factors, or was it the fact that people now will fight back and knowing this the terrorists think their odds of succeeding are too low?

Given the enormous costs of maintaining the TSA, in money, time, invasion of privacy, and collateral deaths on the highways, it is important to figure out whether it works. What evidence is there that it does? I'm happy to look at the data, but none has been presented here.

The TSA's failures to find weapons argues pretty strongly that it probably doesn't work very well, so to keep such an expensive program, it seems rational to ask that there be some evidence that mass screenings work. Where's the data?

Sure, there have been 4 incidents where non-crew members destroyed a plane in flight departing from a US airport since 1961. They were in 1961, 1962, 1987 and 2001. So if you work out the rate of such attacks before the TSA (including the 2001 attacks), that is 4 per 40 years, or about 1 per 10 years.

Given that frequency, it is not that improbable that 16 years might elapse without such an attack. (One can work that out more precisely of course, but I think one can see that it is not that unlikely for 1.6 10 year periods to go by without an attack when one only expects 1 per 10 year period).

Thus the argument that the TSA works since there have been no attacks since 2001 is, statistically speaking, invalid.

Given the lack of good evidence that the TSA works, and plenty of other evidence to suggest their procedures are not effective, spending $8.1 billion per year on this "security theatre" seems a very severe mis-allocation of resources. If one wants to spend that kind of money on saving lives, there are likely 100X more effective ways to spend it.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Instead of speculating on why privatizing security is "not practical" or "impossible" I spent a little time speculating on how things might work in a free market. Some ideas...

Perhaps airline security would become more like a super version of TSA Pre. Most people would be pre-screened and fairly well known to the airlines they fly, perhaps related to the frequent flyer program. These people would be id'ed and have a background check.

So if 90% of people are enrolled in something like that, then 90% would present extremely low risk of engaging in a terrorist attack. They could proceed to the gate where their id, possibly biometric, is checked against the boarding manifest and they get on the plane. They could also stop along the way with the same verifications to check luggage.

So in a plane of 180 passengers, that leaves 18 other people to deal with. Now it would be known when purchasing a ticket that these people fall into that category so they could advised to allow extra time for additional screening or sign-up for the verification program, either in advance or on the day of flight. Let's say 9 of them decide to sign up. When they are done, they can also go to the gate.

That leaves 9 people that will need to be screened more carefully on the day of flight. They have been forewarned this was coming and can be prepared. Probably most of them (let's say 8 of 9) have a decent id document with them. So they can be screened, sort of the like the present Secondary Selective Security Screening that is done without ID presently. Double searches, etc. If they pass, that can be annotated in the passenger manifest and they can go to the gate to be checked.

That leave one person without decent id to deal with. After searches and verification on any background information, they can either have a tamper resistant temporary id issued and then go to the gate where it is matched with the manifest, or be walked down there.

Another idea is to have the flight crew involved in the screening at the gate. These are people who have a strong self interest to actually get it right.

These are just some alternative ideas, but the sort of thing that companies competing in a marketplace would be incentivized to try, versus TSA bureaucrats who are incentivized to expand their domain and budget while ignoring customer service.

 

[wsuffa]

https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/..._source=fbCNN&utm_content=2018-08-08T15:15:07

 

[denverpilot]

Another idea is to have the flight crew involved in the screening at the gate. These are people who have a strong self interest to actually get it right.

LOL LOL LOL. I so want to see the complaining on any pro pilot message boards when the company hands out a box of latex gloves to the Captain and FO and says they get to fondle everyone’s junk while boarding. LOL LOL LOL.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

LOL LOL LOL. I so want to see the complaining on any pro pilot message boards when the company hands out a box of latex gloves to the Captain and FO and says they get to fondle everyone’s junk while boarding. LOL LOL LOL.

That would be funny. I misspoke. I was thinking the flight attendants. But hopefully with other market driven revisions this sort of groping would largely go away. Mostly this could hopefully be checking the IDs against the manifest, which shows the prior background checks or searches, and observing the passenger’s behavior and demeanor.

I think most passengers really object to the groping and in a free market this would be one of the things to be eliminated.

 

[denverpilot]