
Catching a Flight? Budget Hours, Not Minutes, for Security - hvo
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/03/business/airport-security-lines.html?src=busln&_r=0
======
tehwebguy
Here's an awesome TSA story for you:

Late last year while trying to fly out of LAX a TSA employee thought I was
carrying a throwing star. They called the police, who correctly identified as
a toy in seconds.

I thought the whole ordeal was over until I got a "notice of violation" in the
mail from TSA 45 days later.

Now I'm banned from pre-check for three years, even though I have global entry
and even though the fine was thrown out. It's a kangaroo court were the only
two options are you pay the fine or they convert it to a warning.

Some shit head got a gold star for "finding a weapon" and I get fucked.

Please defund these 0-terrorist-catching losers.

~~~
nfriedly
They're just as bad at identifying actual "weapons": I flew to South America
with a layover in Miami a few years back. Got past TSA without any trouble on
the domestic leg, then I had to go through again for the international leg.

The second time through security, they said they saw a blade on the x-ray..
turns out they were right. I forgot I had left a multi-tool in my bag.

Thankfully, they just trashed it and let me continue on my way. The story
still flabbergasts me, though.

~~~
tlrobinson
My friend accidentally took a multi-tool through airport screening shortly
after 9/11 and had to lawyer up to get the resulting shitstorm to go away (and
he's white and an American citizen)

On the other hand, I remember when I was a kid in the 90s and accidentally
took my pocket knife (3" blade) through screening, and they found it but let
me bring it on the plane...

~~~
RyJones
I used to take my CRKT M16-14 knife on the nerd bird SJC<->SEA round trip
twice a week. Nobody cared. This was mid-90s until just before 9/11\. I didn't
try to hide it - just tossed it in the bin with my keys etc.

[https://www.copsplus.com/prodnum4396.php](https://www.copsplus.com/prodnum4396.php)

~~~
fapjacks
Well, before 9/11 you didn't have to check your firearms. You could carry them
on as long as they were in a case. Things were more reasonable back then.

~~~
petemc_
A lot of people wouldn't consider it reasonable to allow people to carry guns
around, least of all on a plane.

~~~
simoncion
It turns out that many people have silly -yet strongly held- beliefs. :)
_shrug_

------
CaptainZapp
This, in combination with American airports being completely ignorant to the
transit concept must cost American airline companies dozens, if not hundreds
of millions a year in lost revenues.

Case in point: if I want to to fly from Zurich to Lima I have essentially two
choices: I can connect either in Amsterdam, or in Madrid. Madrids legal
connection time is 55 minutes max (on Iberia). In AMS on KLM it's a maximum of
50 minutes.

Another option would be to fly via an US airport. For example Miami. Only that
I would have to be crazy.

Start with the fact that I can't check my luggage through to Lima. I must go
through immigration in Miami, pick up my luggage, go through customs, re-check
my luggage and then endure the security hassle.

Even if the US connection would save me a couple hundred $ I would have to be
crazy to chose the hassle, the annoyance and the risk of missing my
connection.

And I don't think I'm alone with such thoughts.

Edited: Added actual legal connection times for AMS and MAD

~~~
drzaiusapelord
Oh come on. I fly through Europe twice to three times a year. The transfer
from Charles de Gaulle is a nightmare worse than any major US airport. They
literally make you leave the security area and go through security for simple
transfers if you're coming from the states. That's shit design right there. A
lot of international connections are terrible and knowing which
airports/airlines do a good job is important. Its not a US thing.

Also, what a shit prize naming a airport after someone is. No one likes
airports. de Gaulle deserves better.

~~~
wiredfool
Heathrow too. I've made international transfers through terminal 5 and had to
go through both immigration and security. And Heathrow is absolutely crazy
about liquids. No cough syrup for you, because it's impossible to find bottles
of it smaller than 100ml.

~~~
nommm-nommm
British Airways scheduled me on a flight from US with an 45 minute layover in
Heathrow. I don't know how the heck they expected me to make the connecting
flight considering I had to go through customs, then security again, and go
halfway across the airport. Their system even flagged me as "showed up too
late for the flight" the second time I went through security.

------
vincefutr23
Blaming volume? How about 1) the switch from metal detectors to less numerous
and slower body scanners? 2) the allocation of employee resources to the "pre
check" line leaving less staff for 90% of travelers. 3) still having to take
belts and shoes off even with a full body scan? This program has gotten
seriously out of hand and is incredibly frustrating. I don't care if it's 3
hours or "75 minutes" anything over 15 minutes is absurd.

~~~
spyspy
You don't actually have to take your belt off for the full body scan. I left
it on once by accident and wasn't questioned, nor was I the next dozen or so
times I've flown.

~~~
xirdstl
I think it's highly dependent on which airport you're at and the current mood
of the people working there.

Last year I was flying home, and there was a sign in the security line saying
they we don't need to remove our shoes or belt, I cannot remember which. When
I got up to the front of line, I was told, yes, I need to remove both.

~~~
peterwwillis
For CLEAR, PreCheck and airline-specific special class passengers you can skip
removing shoes/belt/jacket, depending on the policy, when traveling through US
airports. Non-US airports, and certain international destinations, don't
require them removed. And sometimes they just don't give a shit and will let
you through regardless.

------
jsnell
How is coming to the airport earlier supposed to solve what's obviously a
throughput problem?

Sure, for an individual it reduces the chances they'll miss their flight. But
if everyone does it, there's obviously no change. The only way showing up
earlier would help with throughput is if there are periods of time where the
security is under-utilized with absolutely no queues. Which, from my
experience with US airports, is a laughable idea.

~~~
harperlee
If everyone comes a minute before departure, all lose the flight, whereas if
everyone comes 24 hours earlier, none will miss the flight, so there is
obviously a change. Plus you get people to sit in a huge store without any
means to leave. So the airport doesn't have a throughput problem! They don't
have a problem at all, as there is also no clear alternative - normally there
is only 1 airport to choose from. So people need to take whatever service
quality said airport offers.

EDIT: It would be good both for this conversation and HN in general if the
downvotes were explained. The parent states several things that in my opinion
are not completely true (such as all people arriving earlier don't having
effect on anything, or the need to have absolutely no queues at some times for
throughput to be improved, or that that never happens) and pointing some
things out doesn't seem to me like a punishable action, but if it is, some
explanation would be good.

In particular, my experience with for example the Frankfurt airport is that
you get lots of security lines but more than half are closed, with up to 8
employees per line. They require that no one starts unpacking and preparing
things until the area is cleared. They request a chemicals test if the metal
detector jumps on you (?). They do random things like what vincefutr23 points
out in another comment: > still having to take belts and shoes off even with a
full body scan

The effect of all this is that you get more "latency" than "throughput"
problems, as each particular line clogs a lot, and you could open more lines
if you wished, and it takes you a lot of time to be serviced even with few
people.

But then again: it only is the problem of the airport if they are affected by
it - but they don't seem very keen on improving it.

~~~
jowiar
Well, the effect is that the airport needs to open earlier in the AM, so
anecdotally it just shifts the entire dance an hour earlier. The problem with
saying "everyone come 2 hours early", is that now, if you show up 1 hour
early, you have traffic from later flights. Anecdotally, when I've flown on
evening flights recently, the security line is 2 minutes long (because nobody
is showing up early), whereas the 6am line takes an eternity.

~~~
tgb
Shifting it earlier is the point, since the plane will leave on time
regardless of when the people get there.

------
Hondor
If a terrorist wanted to kill a lot of people confined into too small space to
run away, what better target than these densely packed zig-zag queues? Really,
what's the point of protecting a plane carrying hundreds of people by putting
those same people into harm's way like that? It already happened in China -
Muslim terrorists killed dozens of people waiting in a ticket hall a couple of
years ago.

~~~
jerf
There are a large number of places with densely packed people. The unique
thing about airports is their access to airplanes and their capacity to be
used as weapons. (I'm taking a broad view of "weapon" here; even old-school
hijack-and-divert is still a political "weapon".) If it weren't for that, they
wouldn't be particularly interesting and wouldn't need special security. If
someone blows up the line, well, they didn't get control over a plane.

Thoughtful terrorists... and thank goodness, a lot of them really aren't...
would not choose an airport line, just because it's an airport.

It's also why when we hear about the TSA claiming they need to secure trains,
it's a sign that politics has 100% overtaken their supposedly-core mission;
trains don't have any of these characteristics that make them any more
dangerous than any other large groups of people.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> The unique thing about airports is their access to airplanes and their
> capacity to be used as weapons.

That problem was solved on 9/11 the instant the public realized the
possibility. Before people wouldn't fight back because they would rather be
ransomed than killed. Now that everyone knows their choices are fight or die,
every person on the plane would fight to the death to prevent a terrorist from
taking control over it, which solves the problem more effectively than
anything the TSA could ever hope to do.

It actually makes everything the TSA does entirely counterproductive, because
it's no longer possible to hijack a plane using a knife, but allowing all the
other passengers to have knives would make it easier for them to fight back.
The entire TSA is a farce that should be disbanded and replaced with nothing.

~~~
MichaelGG
It shouldn't have been a problem in the first place. In many cities, you
cannot access the driver's portion of a taxicab. Yet airplanes had less
separation. Pilots should never give controls over, and there should be
strong, locked, doors.

The lack of toilet sorta ruins the whole design. There's still a critical
window where the door is open to the cabin, even though blocked by a food
cart. But I suppose you'd need to be Bruce Lee to jump over it and get into
the cabin while taking out two pilots and a FA.

~~~
aianus
> Pilots should never give controls over, and there should be strong, locked,
> doors.

They have that now; it resulted in a pilot deliberately crashing his own plane
into the ground while the co-pilot banged futilely on the door outside. [0]

Unintended consequences and all that.

[0]
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/1149...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11496066/Andreas-
Lubitz-Everything-we-know-about-Germanwings-plane-crash-co-pilot.html)

~~~
aquadrop
It's absolutely unrelated matters. There always was a possibility for one
pilot to barricade in the cabin. And in any case, he could just bash his co-
pilot with something and do whatever he wants. If you got pilot who wants to
crash the plane on board, you already screwed up, good thing it's very rare
occasion.

------
dccoolgai
Seems like a perverse incentive to let them slow down the lines so you have to
buy a "membership" in their precheck program. "Nice flight you have there...be
a shame if you missed it."

~~~
jessriedel
It's worse than just membership fees. To join a precheck program, you need to
submit personal information that they constitutionally can't force American
citizens to provide, even at international borders: fingerprints and retina
scans. So basically they hold huge amounts of your time hostage in order to
force you to provide what ought to be protected info.

It's similar to incentives for long-term contraception. The government can't
fine you for not taking contraception -- that would obviously be monstrous --
but they _can_ raise taxes and then offer rebates to people who submit to it.
It's lunacy.

[https://www.aclu.org/norplant-new-contraceptive-potential-
ab...](https://www.aclu.org/norplant-new-contraceptive-potential-abuse)

~~~
cookiecaper
I don't think I'm really paranoid about my personal information. I remember a
time when everyone's name, phone number, and address were published in a large
white book and distributed to every home in the metro area. I think a lot of
the hyperventilation about that stuff is a little over the top.

However, I draw the line at biological data. That is permanent, irrevocable,
unchangeable personal information that no one really has a right to. It's not
like you can just go unlisted, change your number, or move to avoid the heat.
It's a basic component of your being. That data should be closely guarded. It
creeps me out that some gyms have started using the little fingerprint
scanners to verify access. I don't travel that frequently, but I wouldn't get
PreCheck because I want to keep that personal biological information private.

~~~
sokoloff
Philosophically, I agree, but it's a weak point of agreement.

I've already been fingerprinted multiple times for the armed services, for
background checks for financial services jobs, for pilot authorization to fly
into the DC SFRA and land at the MD/DC-3 airports, and maybe a few other
reasons. My fingerprints are already in multiple databases and I don't have
particular concern about giving them one more time.

------
rayiner
> At the same time, he said, the number of T.S.A. screeners has declined by
> about 5,800 because of tighter budgets. The agency currently has 42,350
> agents assigned for security checks.

Such a monumentally wasteful jobs program.

~~~
creshal
$7 billion a year just for the TSA budget. That's not counting all the
indirect economic losses from the security theatre.

~~~
chrisbennet
Or deaths due to people driving instead of flying.

 _" Increased delays and added costs at U.S. airports due to new security
procedures provide incentive for many short-haul passengers to drive to their
destination rather than flying, and, since driving is far riskier than air
travel, the extra automobile traffic generated has been estimated in one study
to result in 500 or more extra road fatalities per year."_
[https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/09/excess_automo...](https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/09/excess_automobi.html)

~~~
cookiecaper
It's not really worth it to fly if your destination is < 4 hours away by car.
Even the shortest flight is going to take about that long to complete if
you're going through a major airport.

Example itinerary:

Flight leaves at 6:00pm, gotta be there bare minimum 1 hour early, preferably
2+, going to split the different and say 90 mins.

Leave home at 4pm, drive 35 min to airport. Wait in line 15 mins to check bag.
Allocate generous 20 mins for a quick security scan (this can blow up to 60
mins+ if it's a busy day and/or your airport sucks, but 20 mins is about the
fastest you can really get through including time to walk to the checkpoint
and be scanned). It's now 5:10. Sit around for 20 mins until your plane starts
boarding. It's now 5:30. Sit on horrifyingly uncomfortable plane for 30 mins
awaiting takeoff/other passengers to board. It's now 6. Your plane takes 10
mins to taxi and 45 mins to fly from point A to point B. It's now 6:55. Plane
takes 10 min to taxi in (though I've waited 45 min+ before, especially at
LAX). It takes 10 min for everyone to deplane. It's now 7:15. Once off plane,
go wait at bag claim. We'll say it takes 20 mins to get there, wait for your
flight to be unloaded, and wait for your bag. Now it's 7:35. Now you have to
get from destination airport to actual destination, and you're probably
looking at another 30 mins. That's 8:05. 4 hours and 5 minutes since you left
your house.

So it takes 4 hours to do a 45 minute flight, and that's assuming everything
is running quickly at the airport, which is often not the case. We also didn't
include any time involved in arranging rides to/from the airport and/or
parking, carefully reviewing your bag to make sure you didn't accidentally
pack any liquids or gels that are larger than 3oz, etc.

It's faster to drive than to fly if your destination is within 4 hours' drive,
and it's generally a no-brainer to drive due to the greater comfort it
provides within 8 hours' drive. Flying is really only necessary once you get
past that 8 hour drive barrier, and the only reason we tolerate flying being
what it is is because it can turn a 24-hour+ drive into a 3 hour flight.

~~~
wutbrodo
It's 6-7 hours to drive home vs a 1 hour flight for me, and I _still_
sometimes prefer road travel. 7 hours of uninterrupted time is far better than
the excruciating start-stop-wait-walk-wait-walk-shut_off_devices of air
travel. Especially for a 1 hour flight, there's usually like a 20 minute
window where I can actually use my laptop and even reading a book is a pain
when you're standing in a line.

------
StillBored
Security theater, especially since anyone with 1/2 a brain saw what happened
in Brussels, and understands that if there actually were any terrorists, the
most dangerous part of flying would be the hoard of people packed together in
a twisty line waiting to go through security. Frequently either in a contained
area, or right next to a public drop-off area. Said theoretical terrorists
could just buy an ak47, convert it to full auto, walk into the airport and
start spraying bullets into the cluster of people. Or for bonus points, load
up a baggage cart with suitcases full of explosives and push them right into
the people standing in line. The enclosed area near security at some of the
airports would significantly increase the effectiveness, and/or the people
escaping would likely trample a few more.

Worse, the general inefficiency of the whole thing pisses me off too. I flew 3
legs on an international trip recently, and had to go through security 4 times
even though I either never left the secured area, or in the case of Dallas the
international arrival dumps people outside of the terminal rather than into
it.

Like really? I'm safe enough to fly a 15 hour leg into the US, but i'm not
safe enough to fly a 1/2 hour domestic flight from Dallas to a little town?

two words: "Jobs Program"

Only I wish the result of said jobs program was better infrastructure, even if
its just stone bridges on hiking trails ala the WPA/CCC.

------
jessriedel
Why does the NYTimes quote tweets -- essentially publishing the shouts of
strangers on the street -- before they report actual data like the change in
the number of TSA screeners?

~~~
rubidium
Because most people like stories more than data.

~~~
wutbrodo
Yea, and "most people" like racy pictures too. That doesn't mean news
organizations like the NY Times that still have some dignity left to shred
should start putting racy photos in every article. Just as "most people like
stories" doesn't mean they should be quoting random tweets.

~~~
randyrand
That's actually a good idea. I vote for racy photos alongside new articles.

~~~
kalleboo
The Sun along with their Page Three is that way →🇬🇧

------
tacon
This is the part that really ticks me off:

>Charlotte Douglas International Airport in North Carolina recently said it
had experienced three-hour wait times. [...] (T.S.A. officials denied that the
wait had ever been that long, telling local reporters that it had been 75
minutes for a short time.)

Will someone, anyone, please write the simple app that you punch in as you
start the line, you punch out as you leave screening, with some simple checks
with GPS so we know you are really in one location for that time? Aggregate
the data and let people coming to the airport have an idea of how long the
wait will be. Use the data as political leverage so the TSA cannot claim
"well, the wait wasn't that long". Tell people in line to install the app
while they wait, and assure them that their politicians will see the data.

Probably not much money in this, but your app _will_ go viral this summer,
apparently...

~~~
shawkinaw
That's pretty much what this app does:
[http://gomiflight.com](http://gomiflight.com)

~~~
tacon
Great, thanks! Can they generate press releases and statistics about average
and peak wait times per airport? Maybe their penetration isn't hitting a
critical mass. I'd love to see a live dashboard that shows "X number of people
have been standing in line for Y minutes in city Z", or "the worst lines in
the US airport system right now are A, B, and C". Reporters could then just
show that display to the TSA press shill and call them out on their bad data
in real time.

~~~
wutbrodo
There are plenty of great applications of crowdsourced data but the problem
with this stuff is always incentivizing people to contribute instead of just
consume. It's a non-trivial marketing trick that products like Waze have
managed (a big part of why Google didn't fold them into Maps entirely was to
maintain the community), but it's certainly not a surefire thing.

------
danieltillett
How many hours does the security theatre have to take before the number of
human lives lost waiting in line equals a plane blown up a month?

~~~
oh_sigh
Is wasting 1 minute for 42,000,000 people equivalent to just killing a newborn
baby?

~~~
seizethecheese
It would be more like forcing a baby to spend her whole life going through
airport security.

~~~
morgante
Killing them would be altogether kinder.

------
frogpelt
I will usually drive unless it takes more than 12 hours to get to the
destination. If I'm bringing my wife and kids I would probably drive anywhere
that's on the same continent, rather than fly.

I do not enjoy being treated like cattle at the airport.

------
kirvyteo
The list of stuff to check for just keeps getting longer. First were the belt
and shoes, then the laptop, then liquids. The latest seems to be portable
batteries. Every time a crazy guy hatches a new plot with plans to hide
dangerous stuff in everyday items, the list will get longer. Someone needs to
work on prioritizing that list or reducing it.

In Asia, where there are more bullet trains, I often pick the trains over
flight if it is within 3 hours time difference. (Factor in the wait time and
the distance to airport) Bigger seats, leg room and you don't need to off your
electronics during "takeoff"!

~~~
gaius
The batteries thing is because cheap Chinese knock-off Lithiums have a habit
of randomly catching fire. Its why so-called hoverboards are banned from air
travel too.

------
lmcnish14
Reasons I've been chosen for extra screening by the TSA: \- They saw something
in my bag (I didn't bring a bag) \- They needed to confiscate contraband
(granola bar) \- My sweatshirt zipper "interfered with scanning my breasts
thoroughly enough" \- They "randomly selected me" 15 times in a row

At this point, I make sure to budget lots of extra time to get through their
nonsense procedures in order to make my flight.

------
rjsw
Why hasn't the TSA reacted to the Brussels Airport bombing and stopped herding
passengers together so that they present a big target to terrorists ?

~~~
a3n
Have they stopped doing that at Brussels?

~~~
ctx
Not yet. People were in line for hours today [0], simply waiting to get to the
first security checkpoint. Some even missed their flight.

[0]:
[http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws.english/News/1.2645825](http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws.english/News/1.2645825)

------
scurvy
Isn't there a TSA fee on every ticket issued in the US? How are they claiming
budget setbacks then claim that more people are flying? Shouldn't more people
flying mean more revenue / budget for the TSA?

~~~
KMag
Just because the fee says it's for the TSA doesn't mean that it directly goes
to the TSA without legislators getting their grubby hands on it first.

------
cm2187
That's a lot of hassle for what is little more than a placebo. In the 40y that
terrorists have been targetting planes, I am not aware of a single major
terrorist attack that has been stopped by passenger checks.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
The theory is, because of the checks no further attempts will be made. Its one
thing to die for your cause; another to be arrested for your cause and
disappear forever anonymously.

~~~
cm2187
I can also carry a clown hat all day long and it will keep the pink elephants
away. But there are not pink elephant! Then it means my hat is working!

My theory on planes hijacking is rather that if you have a bunch of arabs
taking over a plane today (after 9/11, the Paris attacks, etc), the passengers
will think that doing nothing will lead to certain death, and therefore it
will be impossible for the terrorists to contain the passengers. The only
rational reaction for the passengers is to over power the terrorists at all
risks.

~~~
mikeash
People do occasionally try to blow up airplanes and such. The tactic of
hijacking an airplane to crash it into something isn't the only possibility.

If your assertion is that security checks prevent _no_ attacks, then you're
implying that no attacker has been discouraged from making an attack due to
the presence of security screening. This strikes me as absurd.

There are good arguments to be made that many _aspects_ of security screening
are useless, and even that the useful aspects aren't worth what they cost. I
would tend to agree with many of those arguments. But to argue that the
security screening process as a whole does not prevent any attacks is taking
it way too far.

Just look at how incredibly frequent hijackings were in decades past, and how
rare they became after basic screening was instituted. It does work to an
extent. If you want to attack it, attack it on a cost/benefit basis or attack
the more ridiculous bits of it, like banning liquids or screening shoes.

~~~
cm2187
I am not arguing that security checks do not prevent any attack. I am arguing
that the additional security checks introduced after 9/11 are not preventing
more attacks than there were before 9/11, they are just introducing a way to
persecute grannies for having a pair of scissors in their bag.

~~~
mikeash
Really? That's not at all what you said in your original comment at the top of
this thread.

------
dzhiurgis
I love how this process was reengineered in London Gatwick airport.

Each scanner has 6 pods where you can pack and unpack your stuff; you've got a
dedicated person assigning you to the pod. The process felt much more parallel
rather than serial.

Edit: managed to find more info on it
[http://airlines.iata.org/analysis/smart-security-getting-
sma...](http://airlines.iata.org/analysis/smart-security-getting-smarter)

~~~
bkor
That sounds like how AMS works since a year or so. I managed 4 minutes from
sitting on the train to being after security (I timed it :-P). This includes:
getting off the train, walking to security and opening up my backpack (no clue
why it went off and they spent maybe 45 secs to verify this).

Unfortunately this is not as quick anymore because more of the security people
have now been diverted to do border checks. E.g. Ferry to England, highway
checks, etc. Less people, bigger queues.

~~~
zzalpha
You clearly weren't flying to North America.

Yes, they have that pod system (although it's a glorified serial security
scanner so I'm not sure of the benefit), and then they herd you through the
full body scanner. The line was as bad as any I've seen on this side of the
pond.

~~~
sokoloff
The secondary screening at D1 for North America bound pax is well after that
point.

------
tibbon
I hit this at SeaTac recently. I showed up my normal "1 hour on a Tuesday
afternoon should be more than enough" and encountered a nearly 3 hour line.
They said it was the new normal.

------
esoteric_nonces
Why not give a 'security line' time (like the current gateline time). If the
passenger is there before that time, then the flight waits for them, or
they're put on the next flight.

That seems to sidestep the issue neatly. As a passenger, security is not a
discrete part of the process. I'm actually surprised that airlines haven't
done more to make the security experience more streamlined.

~~~
frogpelt
Do you know if the airlines pay the TSA for the security?

It seems like adding some direct private funding and influence would help
alleviate some of these issues. Of courses that would affect ticket prices,
but an extra hundred per passenger wouldn't be such a bad thing if it
drastically improved the situation.

~~~
jschwartzi
The airport contracts wee with the TSA. US airports can contract with private
security as long as the procedure is TSA-approved.

------
lbaskin
It's not only TSA personnel (who are, on the whole, so incompetent I wouldn't
hire most of the ones I meet to do ANYTHING), it's policy itself. Security
policy in much of the world today is reactive and shortsighted - shoe bomber?
take off your shoes, Underwear bomber, let's x-ray everyone, etc. etc. - all
just to be able to say they "did something," whether or not is effective or
efficient in any way at all.

I remember several years back when the shoe-removal policy has just been
relatively new, and I was flying out of Israel. The security personnel there
had someone devoted solely to going around telling people NOT to remove their
shoes, in order to make sure the lines keep moving.

TSA just could not care less whether people actually make their flights, or
whether terrorists get through, as long as they don't get blamed for missing
something they should have caught.

------
jayhuang
To this day, I still have "SSSS" (Secondary Security Screening Selection)
printed on my boarding pass and have to go through advanced screening every
time I go to the U.S (relatively frequently) as a Canadian.

Swab my clothing, dump my backpack, open my laptop up and mess around with it,
rub up and down my arms and legs, rough up my privates, the whole shebang.

I can imagine I'm probably on some list somewhere so I have to go through this
"random" and time consuming screening every time.

I was once asked why I had a laptop with me, and why such a device was
justifiable and necessary for a young male who works in this industry.

Seriously though, it's common knowledge that "SSSS" on your boarding pass
means you're going through advanced security screening. What's the point of
this if a malicious person can simply see the label and decide not to go
through with the flight afterall?

------
sbarre
The fact that you would spend more time in line than in the air is mind-
boggling. I fly from Toronto to Newark on business semi-regularly and it's a
1h15m flight.

I haven't quite experienced a 3-hour wait in Newark but I did have a ~1h30m
line earlier this year. I know for a fact a bunch of people in line with me
(many who complained about showing up at the airport 2+ hours ahead of time)
missed an international flight to India that day.

I immediately signed up for Global Entry after that.

------
Matt3o12_
What happens when you miss your flight due to screening? I mean if you really
had to wait for over 30 minutes for a domestic flight and did not book any
expensive ticket which allows rescheduling. Are you allowed to catch the next
flight or do you have to buy a new ticket. Furthermore, how do airlines handle
your baggage. They won't know that your too late until everybody is in the
plane (because you are already checked in). As far as I know, they may not fly
with your baggage if you're not in the plane. So if I was late, wouldn't it
delay the flight another 20 minutes to find my bags?

~~~
______53
The airlines usually reschedule you for the next flight. However, your baggage
gets sent on the original flight anyway. It is held in the destination
airport's baggage office until you get there on the later flight.

~~~
phil21
While this is the general outcome, it should be noted that the airlines are
under no legal obligation to help you out.

For the most part they will try to accommodate, but it's not a sure thing and
I wouldn't rely on it.

------
kidsthesedays
Story time!

I once wore a glitter sweatshirt through airport security. It made the
backscanner machine go crazy and mark my entire shirt area as suspect, back
and front. TSA was like "oh, it's the glitter on your shirt." As a result I
was subjected to the most ineffective "pat down" ever. The TSA agent ran her
hands across my shoulders and clavicle area and that's it. I could have hidden
a small arsenal of weapons inside my bra, strapped to my arms, or strapped to
my belly. It would be funny if we weren't paying millions for that "security."

~~~
cookiecaper
Yes, I wore a shirt with raised lettering and could clearly see its arc
highlighted as red on the machine after I went through. The agents cleared me
without further investigation.

High false positive rate can lead to a lot of unsafe situations.

------
MichaelBurge
I think Trump would abolish the TSA. Cruz has said he would, too. I'd like to
see either one get in, though I wonder if the President should be able to just
decide on his own to shut down an agency that Congress has approved.

Why has Congress not shut it down? I don't think anybody really likes the TSA,
so I can't imagine there'd be too much opposition to a bill abolishing them.
It affects so many people you could probably get elected just on this issue
alone.

~~~
CaptainZapp
Ok, the TSA sucks big time and should be abolished. I get that.

But what about the alternatives? In this day and age it's just not thinkable
to let people enter a plane without a security check. So you need some entity
performing it.

I think one factor on providing successful and to the passenger acceptable
(they will never be pleasant) security checks is adequate funding and
employing adequately compensated professionals.

It's weird that my wait time on any European airport I ever use is literally
always below 10 minutes and usually much less than that. And it's not that
checks are less thorough around here.

It really just seems to be a funding issue.

~~~
MichaelBurge
I think the original plan was that the TSA would set some rules and make the
airports comply with them, and the airports would be responsible for doing
screenings. Somehow that got warped into government agents doing the work.

Why is it 'unthinkable' to let people enter a plane without a security check?
We let people get on a bus without a security check. If you're worried
specifically about someone taking over the plane and crashing it into a
building, you can protect the pilots separately from the people.

International flights are a little different, because someone already needs to
verify a passport. Even there, I don't think the security checks are actually
necessary.

I'm definitely opposed to classifying this as a 'funding issue' and giving the
TSA even more money.

~~~
CaptainZapp
Then we probably have to agree to disagree.

Air travel is in that sense special that you and up to 500 of your fellow
passengers are in a metal tube in 12'000 metres height, which makes it
conceptually a bit different from a bus, or even a train.

Cockpit doors are already re-inforced, but the cockpit is not the only
sensitive part of a plane when a passenger wants to cause mayhem with a high
powered rifle, or a - pistol.

In addition I, for one, prefer to take a flight without a bunch of open carry
zealots believing that they have a god given rigth to take their guns
everywhere and which would surely wind up armed on commercial flights.

But again, we seem to have a completely different opinion here and I have no
urge to try to convince you why I don't think it's a good idea to abolish
security checks for flights.

~~~
saint_fiasco
A normal metal detector will deter the open carry zealots. What's wrong with
pre-911 security + reinforced cockpits?

~~~
CaptainZapp
Nothing, except that bags where scanned prior to 9/11.

What was essentially added was prohibitions to take a nail clipper onto a
plane (which, of course is utterly ludicrous), the rules regarding liquids and
the whole cowboy attitude (apparently mostly in the US).

Reinforcing the cockpit doors was actually one of the better ideas. Unless,
that is, you have a psychotic, suicidal first officer. But that's a whole
different story and anyway couldn't have been caught by airport security.

------
peterwwillis
FWIW, there's a MyTSA app for iPhone & Android that estimates delays, and
[http://www.whatsbusy.com/airport](http://www.whatsbusy.com/airport) can also
give you a delay heads up.

In my experience flying domestically & internationally every month for the
past 6 months, plan to get there 2 hours early for domestic, and 3 hours
before for international, and you'll make it on time. This also depends
greatly on the time of your flight and the airport, as both have peak times.
When flying early, there is no rush. Red-eye, it can be stressful as some
people are trying to make the last flight. When flying at more "convenient"
times, expect the abbatoir line.

And when you have to make connections and they may be the last flights of the
day, remember that the super-cheap internet-deal ticket you got probably does
not include any refunds for delays. Certain airports are _constantly_ delayed,
so check all your connecting airports and the connection times before you buy.

------
asciimo
This article (and mainstream discussions, generally) doesn't question the
existence of the TSA. The TSA is expensive, ineffective, and
anticonstitutional. Yet most people are ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯ about it.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
To be honest, I am ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯ about it, because it never takes me as long as
everyone on the Internet says it does. I know there are people that get pretty
screwed by the system, but for most people, it's not that bad.

------
cowardlydragon
A highway self-driving car, almost a technological layup at this point,
becomes a lot more attractive for short-distance flights.

Would you rather sit in a car and have it drive itself 6 hours to a city while
you nap, eat, or read?

Or take two hours at each end of a one-hour flight and deal with the airport.

... and you have your car there to use once you get there if you take the car.

------
grandalf
Some suggestions for how to improve the situation:

1) Set up a large booth where people can sign up for the TSA pre-check program
inside the airport, while they are waiting for their delayed flight, etc.

2) Institute fees for carry-on baggage and reduce fees for checked baggage to
reduce the number of bags being screened.

3) Have a separate line for passengers with no carry-on bag that moves 5x
faster.

4) Publish statistics about security checkpoint failures, and the overall
ineffectiveness of the program. Allow public outrage to result in the TSA
being shut down.

5) Offer a free, high throughput lane guaranteed to take under 10 minutes, and
a slow lane where passengers are given a $10 meal voucher for putting up with
the wait, which could be up to 2 hours.

6) Claim victory over terrorism, and drastically scale back the TSA and the
foreign wars/occupations.

~~~
danieltillett
The best solution is to have everyone go through it. No fast lane, no special
categories, just eveyone lined up including those in private jets. If the
powerful had to stand in line with the plebes then the TSA would be history
before the end of the month.

~~~
grandalf
Excellent point. I forgot that private aircraft travelers get to skip it.

~~~
spdustin
As much as I despise the whole TSA process, it is ostensibly to prevent
terrorists from using an aircraft as a weapon, or destroying it and killing
hundreds of passengers. I don't know of any private jets with the amount of
chemical or kinetic energy necessary to destroy a skyscraper, nor would the
bombing of one result in the deaths of hundreds of passengers.

In other words, private jet passengers are not covered under their mandate
because their ability to cause harm is limited by the diminutive size of their
aircraft.

~~~
grandalf
Some private (corporate) jets are the same size as typical commercial
aircraft.

We learned on 9/11 that as soon as word got out about the possibility of
terrorists using aircraft as a weapon, the passengers are ready to tackle
anyone who appears to be doing this, so the threat was already gone months
before the TSA was formed.

Similarly, the military would now shoot down an aircraft in similar
circumstances. This does not address the loss-of-life concerns, but does
redundantly prevent the use of an aircraft as a weapon.

Also, since it is easy to get weapons through TSA security (it's done often by
other government agencies as part of various audits)... There is no reason to
believe that the TSA line makes anyone _any_ safer (though the above points do
make people safer).

And, as Bruce Schneier points out, one could simply put explosive liquid in a
tomato sauce container and attempt to go through security. If it's found, it
would be thrown away and the passenger would board without being caught. If
it's missed, the system has been thwarted and an attack can occur.

So aside from the initials in TSA reminding of us the concept of security, the
agency does little to actually make anyone safer. I'd argue that we have a
false sense of security against all but the most unsophisticated attacker.

Also, the main reason the TSA was created was to shield private firms from
risk if a banned item got through security and did result in an attack. There
was a big restructuring of the terrorism insurance market post 9/11, and the
government now "owns" much of the risk. This was thought to be necessary to
keep planes flying after 9/11, since the market price of insurance (and
flights) would go through the roof if an airline would be held accountable for
a 9/11 style attack if one of its minimum wage employees missed a box cutter
in someone's bag.

So now we have the TSA and an absurdly regulated public/private partnership
that fails in every measurable way and as others have pointed out wastes a
tremendous amount of time and resources.

I apologize for the rant, I'm sure you have heard this argument before.

~~~
spdustin
No need to apologize, there's great information there for many readers, I'm
sure. I myself benefited from the reminder that the TSA serves to deflect
liability away from carriers in the event of a dangerous device getting
through a security checkpoint.

------
logn
It would be more efficient if everyone got a little cart as soon as they got
in line where they can put their shoes, belts, laptops, etc. Then when you get
to the x-ray, the whole cart is inserted. The slow down is always at the point
where people are taking out all their stuff. And maybe add some courtesy,
unstaffed metal detectors along the route to the checkpoint so you get a heads
up metal stuff is in your pockets.

However, I think locked cockpit doors and air marshals have solved most of the
airline problems (versus security screening). Also, pre-9/11 most people
assumed those hi-jacking planes had some demands and then everyone would be
let go without harm. No one thinks that anymore, so passengers will fight.

------
jasonjei
SFO is one of the better TSA operations. The employees of the TSA presence
aren't directly employees of DHS; they are employed by a contractor of the
TSA. I've found them to be professional and efficient (granted that I have
Global Entry). In fact, one of the guards let me keep my Chinese papaya soup
with liquid (the papaya cavity was filled with a Chinese birds nest soup). She
simply told me that technically she should confiscate my papaya, but that she
was going to look the other way, and I left the checkpoint with decent
airplane food.

~~~
yompers888
Last time I flew (SFO), it took me 25 minutes to get from my car at the South
SF Bart station to beyond security. I still hate the TSA, but I've never had
the delays that people talk about as commonplace.

------
simmons
It's strange that the security lines are suddenly getting worse everywhere,
the last several months. I regularly fly Denver->San Jose. While the lines at
Denver can be quite awful, I used to be able to count on getting through San
Jose security quickly. Lately, though, even San Jose has been getting backed
up, and the airport has resorted to putting signs in the security line
encouraging passengers to complain to TSA.

I'm quite nervous about what time I need to get to Denver airport tomorrow
morning. :(

~~~
leesalminen
Same. Early fight out of DEN and am just seeing this (and packing) now.

------
Havoc
Why is this so much worse state-side though? All the European airports seem
fine & I don't think they're significantly less thorough (or effective).

One thing I did notice EU side is that procedures differ wildly not just from
airport to airport but also from day to day. e.g. Last flight they took
particular interest in my DSLR - switched it on & wanted to look through the
viewfinder to make sure the lens is an actual optical lens. Flight before they
didn't even make me take it out the bag.

------
bogomipz
And yet every time you wait in the line theres at least 2 TSA agents standing
around not doing anything.

Here's an idea why don't we give all Americans a free TSA screening instead of
charging $85.00. Then we can reduce their work force even further and actually
make some progress in reducing wait times.

What's amazing is that in the 15 years since this agency was created there has
been no visible innovation in expediting this process. None. The only
innovation I have seen is someone in the agency did took the initiative to
sell advertising spots on the inside of the gray bins.

This agency seems to have completely forgotten their mandate. Their job was to
look out for us no make us miss our flights and humiliate us.

I also like that they claim its due to an increase in air travelers. Really?
Is everyone just flying more because money is just burning a hole in their
pocket. The TSA is really the most absurd bit of theater.

------
bbarn
What's going to finally change this is when there's a particularly bad day,
and security lines are likely to make enough people late, that a swarm effect
happens and a mass of people just says "no more" and walks through. Just like
the fences at outdoor concerts. It takes a few fearless/stupid people to break
through, and progressively less fearless/stupid individuals to follow, having
watched enough ahead of them follow. Once the video of this gets out, it'll
happen again, and again, "like that time in that other airport!", and
eventually, we'll end up with sane rules, or no one will fly because it'll
become so prohibitively expensive to fund the theater (and then the airlines
will get government bailouts)

~~~
toothbrush
Ugh, i just fat-fingered the downvote button. Now i'll have to unmask myself
to show my amusement and almost-wishing-it'd-happen at this idea.

------
Azkar
At sea-tac the other day, I watched them completely close a screening line so
that they could perform a shift change. Really? You have to shut down the
ENTIRE LINE in order to change out a few people? These people need lessons in
efficiency.

If time were money to them, this crap wouldn't happen.

------
PeterisP
Just had multiple-leg international travel, all the involved airports from
different countries ran a set of security and customs checks that were
comprehensive enough for real threats (document verification, metal detectors,
scanning all luggage, even drug dogs). No security theater though e.g. removal
of shoes.

In all cases the process (including queues) took less than 15 minutes. What is
the problem in USA? If some of your checking procedures are unreasonably long
or require more workforce than you have, then change those procedures.

Arriving for an international trip (either from outside of from another plane)
an hour before takeoff is sufficient if airport can organize things properly.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
For the vast majority of people, it's not actually that bad. I've never spent
more than 15 minutes going through security, and that includes international
trips. And I come and go primarily through O'Hare, one of the busiest airports
in the country.

The Internet allows everyone to see every one of the small percentage of cases
that take longer, with nobody noticing how many still aren't that big a deal.

------
chiaro
Horrific. For comparison, when I flew Sydney/Melbourne recently it took me 2
minutes in line and 30 seconds through security, and that's including being
singled out for the bomb-residue swab. Never needed to present an ID, either.

------
ibejoeb
PSA on "trusted traveller" programs: enroll in NEXUS.

It is the cheapest of the generally available programs at $50 for 5 years,
versus $85 for Pre-Check and $100 for Global Entry. It is also the most
privileged, affording all of the benefits of Global Entry and Pre-Check, and
additionally allows expedited entry into Canada. It is available to citizens
and permanent residents of the US and Canada.

The only downside is that the interview must be conducted at one of the
enrollment centers that are in US/Canadian border cities (e.g., Seattle,
Vancouver, Detroit...) or major Canadian airports, so you'd have to make a
trip if you're not nearby.

------
btbuildem
It's only a matter of time until some asshole blows up a security line. If you
look at countries with real terrorism problems (eg Israel) they handle their
airport security very, very differently.

~~~
beachstartup
isn't that what they did in brussels?

------
mindcrime
I just now completed the online application for TSA PRE, but I am curious
about something... I've been VERY, (very) vocally critical of the US
government, the DHS, TSA, FBI, NSA, CIA, etc., here, on my blog, on Twitter,
on Facebook, etc. I've always wondered if that would affect me if I applied
for PRE. So, have any of you experienced any issues getting accepted for PRE,
based on your political positions/ statements/whatever? Or even heard of
anybody who did?

Just curious about what to expect...

------
tn13
Am I the only one who thinks telling an online community about how you managed
to sneak X past TSA is a bad idea ?

People at TSA are doing their duty which is essentially completely pointless.
Also it is the case everywhere. When I was in India I by mistake carried my
wife passport and boarding pass and she carried mine when we entered the
security post. The security guard carefully matched the boarding pass name
with the passport name and let us pass!

------
velox_io
I really do wonder how many terrorist plots have actually been foiled by TSA/
security staff.

They seem to just be following guidelines with ZERO common sense. E.g. most
screw drivers ok, but not safety scissors. My biggest pet-hate is the ban on
liquids over 100ml, anybody with a basic knowledge of chemistry knows that
explosives (by their very definition) are volatile and you really do not want
to start drinking any.

~~~
astrodust
You're completely wrong about explosives. They're not necessarily volatile,
and in fact the best ones aren't.

Dynamite will burn slowly and without any explosion. Other materials like C-4
are ridiculously stable under most circumstances to the point where there are
stories of troops using it to light fires.

Without a proper initiator most explosives are basically safe. An initiator
usually introduces a lot of heat, a large amount of shock, or both, which
kicks off the explosion.

Likewise, many liquid explosives are totally harmless until the two components
are mixed together, at which point it becomes extremely dangerous. I'm not
sure what would happen if you drank either component, but my guess is you
might become ill a few hours later. If your goal is more short-term in nature
that is probably irrelevant.

My biggest gripe about the liquid limit is that dangerous explosives come in
many forms, liquid is just one. You could probably smuggle a kilogram of
thermite on the plane and nobody would notice, yet if ignited that would be
extremely dangerous.

~~~
velox_io
C4 isn't a liquid so it isn't on their radar (luckily dogs & machines can
detect it). When travelling back to the UK from France, they wouldn't let me
take a bike bottle with 80ml of water in it (for my medication), the bottle
had measurements on the side for adding supplements. But, it was ok to carry
some cheese for my mother.

The explosive element of C4 is RDX, RDX causes seizures when ingested in small
doses. Plus, a key ingredient is Nitric acid - I don't fancy trying any.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RDX#Toxicity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RDX#Toxicity)

Interesting fact: The US produced 15,000 tons of RDX per month during World
War 2, gives you some idea of the level of destruction during that period.

------
devishard
There are two improvements to airline security that have occurred since the
world trade center attacks:

1\. Blast-proof cockpit doors 2\. Better passenger awareness

Let's put in perspective why this is: a terrorist with resources can easily
get weapons on a plane. You blackmail and bribe a bunch of security people,
tell them it's drugs, and you're in.

But then they run into problems. They can threaten passengers, but the
passengers know that if they let the terrorists take over the plane they're
dying anyway, so they're going to fight to the death: this realization was
enough that by itself passenger awareness prevented whatever attack was
intended with the plane that went down in central Pennsylvania.

And if somehow the terrorists kill all the passengers, they come up against
the blast-proof door. It's probably possible to get past that if they smuggle
some truly gigantic fireworks on board, but whatever they do to get through
the door is probably going to take down the plane; not exactly a targeted
attack.

So at the very worst, you're looking at them killing max 120 people on a
plane? Let's be generous and say they kill 300.

Let's do some back-of-the-napkin math here:

There were 9,074,185 revenue departures on planes in 2015[1]. There were no
crashes. So even if a terrorist hijiacking happened _every year_ you'd have a
300 in 9,074,185 chance, or about 1 in 30,000 chance, of dying on a plane.

In 2013 there were 10.345 motor vehicle deaths per 100,000 people[2]. So just
by living in a society where people drive, you have about a 1 in 10,000 chance
of dying from a car. Not _in_ a car, _from_ a car. If you're _in_ a car, your
chances are probably significantly higher.

In other words, we could let a real hijacking attempt get as successful as one
can get once a year and planes would be more than three times safer than cars.
At that rate, we could probably get rid of TSA security completely and devote
all that funding to car safety, and it would make us safer.

[1] [http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/acts](http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/acts) [2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_i...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year)

------
fblp
I find it absurd that a central agency manages the hiring of tsa agents. In
Canada and Australia the airports hire private security to do the checks. They
are more competent and friendly than tsa agents.

It's also not obvious how a government run tsa could be trusted any more than
regulated private security contractors (overseen and kept accountable by a
smaller government agency).

~~~
nobody_nowhere
Ironic that the "smaller government" party implemented this system after 9/11
then, no?

~~~
WildUtah
Wait. There's a smaller government party?

~~~
dragonwriter
> Wait. There's a smaller government party?

No, there's a "smaller government" party. The quotes are important, as the
reference is to a rhetorical position rather than a substantive one.

------
larrik
I just flew out of Newark, and other family members flew out of LaGuardia, we
didn't experience this at all.

In fact, on the way back I had Precheck for reason, and I'm waiting in that
line, looking at the completely regular security line wondering if the regular
one would have been faster. (and even in precheck I get "randomly selected" to
go through the body scanner...)

------
JustinAiken
Catching a Flight? Budget Hours, Not Minutes, for an Absurd Waste of
Incompetent Theatrics

^^ Made the title more accurate ^^

------
hobs
My cousin just got sent back to Europe this morning for no specified reason
and was given 90 seconds to call his family before being ejected from the USA.
Just on vacation and going to house sit for my mom.

Still waiting on him landing so I can get more details. What a dumb world.

~~~
ibejoeb
That's Customs and Border Protection.

------
ck2
73 guns in carry-ons in ONE WEEK and that is only what they found, so at least
double that, probably quadruple

wtf is wrong with people

my last plane flight was in 1999, I doubt I am ever flying again, not because
of terrorists, but because of the other people flying and the TSA terrorizing
people

------
baby
As someone who fly quite often, fuck the TSA.

Seeing that O'Hare picture in the article makes me so angry (as that's when I
fly the most to/from). Last times it took 3 hours to pass the border.

Here's an idea: boo people who are in the "TSA pre" lines.

~~~
barbs
> _Here 's an idea: boo people who are in the "TSA pre" lines._

What does that solve?

~~~
baby
people will top giving their money to the TSA.

~~~
yompers888
*People will be glad they spent money to more quickly pass the weird people booing from the normal line.

Doesn't TSA pre cost $80 for 5 years? That's gotta be worth it if you fly even
once per year.

~~~
baby
Out of principles, not giving money to the TSA. Call me weird if you want.

------
ww520
Somehow I automatically got TSA Pre that last time I passed security and moved
through the Pre line, which is much faster. I'm thinking to just get Global
Entry which covers TSA Pre and lasts five years.

~~~
wutbrodo
You should definitely get Global Entry; it's incredible. It was extremely low-
hassle to get and worth 10x the cost. I got it for the TSA Pre but coming off
of a 25-hour flight and not having to fill out any form or go through
immigration AT ALL is amazing.

------
6stringmerc
Whenever in line for TSA security, there's a little trick that you can try to
increase your patience level by a good margin:

Remember the large mass of people in front of you will, more than likely,
resemble a bell curve of intelligence. This means some of these people are
smarter than average, and shouldn't have much of any trouble with the process.
This also means half the people are dumber than average, and will find new and
innovative ways to mess things up because they didn't read, plan ahead, or are
otherwise obvlivious to higher-level thought.

It doesn't help with the cause of the problem, but certainly helps with the
symptoms.

------
brandon272
Why are Canadians (who are often flying to U.S. cities) not required to take
their shoes off in the security line whereas U.S. travellers are required to
do so?

~~~
jayhuang
Canadian here, I most certainly am required to take off my shoes every time I
go to the states. Though I don't use NEXUS and always have to go through
secondary screening.

------
imgabe
My global entry interview is in 9 days. It can't come fast enough. It sucks
you have to pay $100 to be treated like a human being, but here we are.

------
joelhooks
It's really nice to go through the "premium screening" line. Generally it
means that you probably fly too much, but it is still nice.

------
bsder
Good. Perhaps the airlines will start fighting to get rid of TSA if they start
losing money.

------
brianbreslin
$99 for global entry for 5 years, includes tsa-pre was such a no brainer.

I've noticed in MIA airport, one security line might be packed , then you walk
4 minutes to the next one and its nearly empty (same staff at both).

Toronto security heading back to the US is fascinating, tons of passengers,
but the screening process is broken up into multiple human touch points. Felt
more fluid.

------
spdustin
I have PreCheck, first due to my frequent traveler status with my (at the
time) favored airline (which, as I understand it, PreCheck doesn't offer any
longer) and then as a paid member, when I noticed that over ten consecutive
entries, I was redirected to the non-PreCheck screening side 8 times (it now
happens much less).

When I fly out of Houston's IAH (Terminal A), I routinely get mixed into the
same screening area as non-PreCheck travelers (after a shorter line for the
travel document checks). I show my boarding pass on my phone or my watch with
the little check mark when I enter the screening area to an agent that never
scanned my boarding pass, nor have they been in communication to the agent who
did scan my boarding pass. They _visually_ check that the checkmark logo is
there, then orally call out to the machine operators that I'm PreCheck, and I
don't have to take out my laptop or take off my shoes/jacket.

I also got grandfathered with a tiny membership rate into the CLEAR program in
its current (second) generation, a program that doesn't hide its commercial
status at all, and says clearly "pay for this and you'll have zero wait". I
get to IAH Terminal A, tell the CLEAR agent I'm a member, and they _quickly_
computer-scan my pass and verify my fingerprint. They walk me to the TSA
podium, flash their CLEAR ID badge, and tell them my identity and boarding
pass was verified (and that I'm PreCheck, since my known traveler number is
associated with my CLEAR account as well). One more quick scan of my pass and
I'm through the longest part of the wait: waiting for them to check my ID. I'm
through security even on the busiest of days in about 15 minutes, mostly in 5
minutes. I know the wait time would grow again if everyone had CLEAR, but the
ID verification part would be super fast.

Security lines themselves only seem clogged up by people who don't follow the
rules (because they aren't frequent travelers) or who object to them. I don't
agree with the rules, I write my congressperson to object to them, and I'm
embarrassed by them when I'm speaking with people who don't live in this
country. But until my letters to my congressperson (the method by which "We
The People" can actually influence our government) are joined with millions
more, security theater will remain.

CLEAR showed me that ID verification with PreCheck (since they have your
fingerprints anyway) could be quick and efficient. It isn't. Some US airports
have security lines that move quickly even in the busiest times, because
agents are helping passengers comply in advance with rules with which many
travelers are unfamiliar. So it can be better there, too.

But to effect change in our government, we have to participate in our
government, which goes beyond voting every four years; it means writing to the
representatives you or your neighbors have voted into office.

------
viperscape
I fly out of ewr often, security is fast and easy. What sucks is flight
delays.

------
draw_down
Inevitably I find the behavior of my fellow passengers much more insufferable
than the TSA.

------
intrasight
I rarely fly, so consider my statement in that context.

I actually approve of the TSA making flying more onerous. Flying comes at a
very high environmental and economic cost to society. We need more trains,
more hyperloops, and more VR.

~~~
borvo
Not going to work in low density regions like all of the USA aside from the
coasts. Flying is less polluting per mile than driving btw. Also, why don't
the rest of us get together and punish your choices?

~~~
mac01021
> Flying is less polluting per mile than driving

Flying emits less CO2 per passenger mile than a person driving a car without
any passengers, but more than a car with one passenger in addition to the
driver[1]. But if people can't fly then they probably just won't travel very
far, which is even better.

> why don't the rest of us get together and punish your choices?

Perhaps you should, in cases where the GP's choices impose a significant cost
on you. In general, it is absolutely in everyone's best interest for everyone
else to fly less often.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_transp...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_transport)

