Long TSA Delays Force Airports To Hire Private Security Contractors (popsci.com) 260
An anonymous Slashdot reader writes:
TSA checkpoints caused 6,800 American Airlines passengers to miss their flights in just one week this spring, and the problem isn't improving. "Two years ago the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) offered $15,000 to anybody -- literally anybody -- who could come up with an idea to speed up airport security..." writes Popular Science. "They wouldn't say who won or for which idea, but since we're here two years later with longer wait times than ever, it's fair to say it hasn't lived up to the groundbreaking ideals of that call to action... Now in summer 2016, the TSA recommends arriving three hours early instead of a mere two."
So this spring the Seattle-Tacoma airport replaced many of the TSA staff with private screeners, although "Private security operates under strict direction from the TSA, and even those airports that heavily utilize private contractors still have a lot of TSA personnel in the back rooms..." according to the article. "The ability to do exactly what the TSA does, only faster and cheaper, seems to be the major draw." Now 22 U.S. airports are using private screeners, although the Seattle and San Francisco airports are the only ones with significant traffic.
The article also cites a Homeland Security report which discovered that investigators were able to smuggle a test bomb past security checkpoints in 67 out of 70 tests.
So this spring the Seattle-Tacoma airport replaced many of the TSA staff with private screeners, although "Private security operates under strict direction from the TSA, and even those airports that heavily utilize private contractors still have a lot of TSA personnel in the back rooms..." according to the article. "The ability to do exactly what the TSA does, only faster and cheaper, seems to be the major draw." Now 22 U.S. airports are using private screeners, although the Seattle and San Francisco airports are the only ones with significant traffic.
The article also cites a Homeland Security report which discovered that investigators were able to smuggle a test bomb past security checkpoints in 67 out of 70 tests.
This is gonna backfire badly (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/05/19/airports-are-fed-up-with-tsa-heres-why-it-will-be-hard-to-break-up-with-them.html
Especially to the fact that these private companies are hired by the TSA
The easiest idea of all (Score:4, Insightful)
Obviously since something is easy and sensible it will never be done but for 15K I'll take a whack at it.
To speed up the lines, get rid of the TSA.
It's that simple.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They should use "big data" to profile. Not "race" and such, but note that every 9/11 terrorist used the same types of tickets and same types of boarding. Of course, the weakness is that you can't find what you aren't looking for, but that's true anyway.
Speed up lines? Drop the baggage check. Buy more explosives checkers, and get ones so sensitive they'll detect the explosives inside a
False positive [Re:The easiest idea of all] (Score:5, Informative)
...Buy more explosives checkers, and get ones so sensitive they'll detect the explosives inside a firearm cartridge loaded inside a gun. Don't look for the metal. Look for the cartridge.
In any system, there are always two complementary failure modes. We call these "type 1" and "type 2" errors. For example, a switch can fail open (does not conduct when it should conduct) or closed (conducts when it is not supposed to conduct).
For a detector, the error types are "false negative", failing to detect an explosive that is there, and "false positive"-- detecting an explosive when one is not there.
It's easy to make a detective super sensitive. Of course, this means that the false positive rate will be astronomical.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And keys are legal to take on to a plane, but will set off the current detectors. I never said you ban anyone that sets off the detector, but inspect them better. If your box is sealed and locked, then you should be able to show it as such. Just like you showed your firearms when checking in. It's all part of the process.
Re: (Score:3)
To speed up the lines, perform cavity searches on everyone and thoroughly toss their luggage. Sure, it'll take longer per person, but not only will security be more thorough but just announce the new policy and watch the lines disappear.
Yeah, but your idea costs billions. (Score:2)
Your idea is simple but is too costly to implement. We are talking about billions of dollars (was it $4b/year just for screening?) of "cost" (i.e. not ending up in the right pockets).
Re: (Score:3)
To speed up the lines, get rid of the TSA
I doubt that one would be accepted... perhaps as a compromise we just have everybody walk past a bomb sniffing dog... It'll create the same illusion of security. :)
And if we train the bomb sniffing dogs to be sit really still, then 6 months from now we can replace them with stuffed dogs as a further cost saving measure
Re: (Score:2)
Just replace them with "electronic bomb sniffers". And since I don't have a bomb with me, and it doesn't beep when I go past it, it must work.
Re:Scarecrow (Score:5, Insightful)
No need to scare them away. After 9/11 nobody expects a hijacking to be a flight to Havana and an inconvenient delay. Passengers will kill the next terrorists before they can get into the cockpit or light their underpants on fire.
Re:Scarecrow (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. This and the lock on cockpit door is all that was needed.
Re:Scarecrow (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, if the pilot wants to kill you, you're screwed. Duh. Anything else new?
There are certain things you cannot protect yourself against. But it is absolutely and positively certain that no terrorist passenger will EVER again crash land a plane in a building. It's just like the trojan horse. The first was a huge success. The trick hasn't ever worked since.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if the pilot wants to kill you, you're screwed. Duh. Anything else new?
True enough but my point was what would have saved the day one time cost it another. It would have been a lot harder for that guy to do that had the door been less secure but then it wouldn't be much cop at keeping terrorists out so it's a catch 22. It's obvious why it's the way it is, just saying.
Re: (Score:2)
Probability is not on your side. You have 3-4 people in the cockpit and approximately 300 outside. Of those 3-4 inside, they are thoroughly screened and had a lot of training and examination, the 300 outside not so much.
Your chance to avoid disaster is higher by keeping that door locked.
Re: (Score:2)
It's obvious why it's the way it is, just saying.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Scarecrow (Score:4, Insightful)
To speed up the lines, get rid of the TSA.
Even if the TSA is practically useless, at least it scares away most people having bad intentions, including terrorists.
This is easily tested. Pick one major airport and remove TSA screening from it. Fall back to standard security such as metal detectors and explosive particle detectors as people walk through. Let people bring toothpaste and bottled water. Finally, count the number of successful terrorist bombings/hijackings that happen through that airport over the next year. If it's zero, expand the experiment.
Frankly the TSA could continue to draw their paychecks by simply charging a "TSA-free" surcharge at the airports they're not at.
I'm a simple guy, but it's nerve-wracking passing through US airports simply because I realize that all it takes is someone to misunderstand a gesture, or to mis-hear something I say that rhymes with something naughty ("no, officer, I said 'get your Mom', not 'set your bomb'!") and I'll end up missing my flight, plus get stuck on some "person of interest" list for life. The most negative thing I have any interest in doing while in a US airport is leave the country, but still I'm nervous.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No need to do that. They could look at literally the rest of the world, most of which do not engage in the same security shenanigans as the US is.
Sure, except the rest of the world isn't the United States. They're an exceptional target, right?
Re: (Score:2)
No.
The goal of terrorism is to strike fear into the hearts of the enemies. And for Islamist terrorism, that's pretty much the whole world. Yes, including Muslim countries for being not Muslim enough. No true Muslim country allows US military bases on its soil and all that.
The US sure are a main target, but by no means the only one. If anything, striking at other countries would make a lot more sense, the US are already quite successfully cowed into crapping their pants 'til it comes out the neck, it's the r
Re:Scarecrow (Score:4, Informative)
Flight 93
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Informative, really? I thought the solution to that problem was to close the fucking cockpit door during flight?
Yeah but then that other guy used that to crash his jet into a mountain so.......
Next recommendation... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now in summer 2016, the TSA recommends arriving three hours early instead of a mere two.
Drive to your destination -- even if it's overseas.
Re: (Score:2)
How oversea?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, at some point it will actually be faster to drive to your destination than to fly. An hour to get to the airport, half an hour in the traffic jam and finding a place to park your car, 3 hours TSA debasement, an hour pre-flight waiting (hey, those shops in the duty-free zone want to live, too. Not to mention that here you can get all the things you need to blow up your plane), half an hour to an hour for boarding and waiting for take-off, a variable time span for flight, then about an hour for landing,
This Sucks Also (Score:2)
They don't really want to make the lines faster (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Mostly because the packing process isn't sterile and particles of the drugs cling to the outside of the bags. Try to sterilize the sealed bags next time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I get TSA Precheck this week that assumes I am not a big "security risk". Then why next week am I a " security risk" when they don't give me precheck on my next flight?
It makes no sense.
Re: (Score:2)
The randomness is to keep you from "relying" on it, a lame effort to keep ne'er do wells on their toes. However, did you buy Precheck? If so was it standalone or part of Global Entry? Basically the more information you gave to the government and the more hoops you went through to get your Trusted Traveller document, the less random it is. So Global Entry gets Precheck maybe 90% of the time, while standalone Precheck would be 75% (numbers pulled out of my ass, but this is what I've heard on various flyer
Re: (Score:2)
The door greeters refused, they felt they were over-qualified for the job, also the pay was inferior.
Before 9/11 we had mostly private security (Score:2)
Re:Before 9/11 we had mostly private security (Score:5, Informative)
I have to disagree with you on one of your suggestions. Get rid of DHS too. The only thing DHS and TSA both accomplish is abusing the constitutional rights of American citizens on a daily basis. Neither organization has done anything to actually improve security. For starters, just look at how many TSA employees have breached security or been caught stealing from luggage. And how about the DHS confiscating laptops and phones at the border.
Re:Before 9/11 we had mostly private security (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
DHS [washingtonexaminer.com] has declared elections to be critical infrastructure. They are planning on having elections run under DHS now.
How could you get rid of DHS now? Why is the Federal Government getting involved in elections for the first time in all of US history? I know I have a good guess as to why.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Why is the Federal Government getting involved in elections for the first time in all of US history? I know I have a good guess as to why.
Because, for the first time in US history, there's strong evidence that foreign governments are interfering with elections?
For that matter, I don't see why the notion of federal government getting involved in elections that select people who run said federal government to be unusual or worrisome. There are a bunch of constitutional requirements and laws pertaining to elections on the federal level - who should enforce them, if not the feds?
Privatization is the answer! (Score:2)
The ability to do exactly what the TSA does, only faster and cheaper, seems to be the major draw.
I'm sure it's easy to hire people to harass travelers and waste their time for less than the government pays.
Um... (Score:2)
Increase the number of checkpoints and screeners?
Do I win?
Re: (Score:2)
They have been decreasing them instead. Because they figured TSA Pre would be a resounding success and everyone would be using that.
But they made it so annoying hardly anyone bothers - which is great when I just sail through, but sucks if you're in the other line, especially since they've effectively removed a lane for TSA Pre people.
Re: (Score:2)
I might be mistaken but... (Score:4, Insightful)
wasn't that one of the reasons given for forming the TSA in the first place? Better efficiency? The TSA was going to replace those inefficient, untrained, low paid knuckleheads with....inefficient, untrained HIGH paid government knuckleheads. All the while, they would create another bureaucratic tar pit with a multi-billion dollar annual budget.
Folks - this is why our infrastructure is falling apart and our schools are going to shit. It is not because there is not enough money. It is because of how the money gets spent. There is zero accountability. The TSA is yet another perfect example of this. It is a failed experiment. Were this a private company it would be abandoned, with a follow up study and lessons learned. In government they just throw more (of our) money at it.
This is why whenever the government wants to launch yet another massive program (be it Obamacare or what have you) I am flatly against it. Why? Because they have shown time and time again that they are incapable of managing anything of scale without it turning into a bottomless pit.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. And it's particularly telling that the TSA goons are the ones who, pre-9/11, couldn't even get the inefficient, untrained, low paid knucklehead security jobs that existed at the time. The TSA quite literally recruits from the labor pool that comprises walmart greeters, fast-food workers, gas-pump jockeys, pizza delivery drivers, and the stoners ordering said pizza:
http://federalnewsradio.com/ma... [federalnewsradio.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Hey it worked fine for Venezuela... Well until their infinite money cheat (Boat loads of oil) quit working and then their rampant corruption caught up to them.
Passengers fault. (Score:2)
Too dumb for Target or Wendys? Get a job at TSA! (Score:5, Informative)
I know a guy who couldn't hold a job even at Target, Wendy's, corner gas station... Now he works for the TSA.
He's not making fat cash, but this is a guy who wasn't even capable of working at Target as a shelf stocker and now he's working at security checkpoints. If I thought the TSA actually did anything I'd be horrified.
And they're union (I don't think union is automatically bad, but government and union is the worst possible combo), so performance is a joke and he can't get fired short of doing something blatantly illegal (and maybe not even then). Luckily he's just dumb, not crooked, but there are plenty of low class criminals working for TSA. Sometimes they even get caught.
SFO no longer requires to take off shoes (Score:3)
At least SFO and few other airports no longer require to take off your shoes.
BTW If you want a check to be deterrent you can simply just use it on 10% of the passengers. Like the shoe check for example. Uncertainty is still sufficient deterrent and it will speed up the lines quite a bit. I would even go as far as simply just screen 10% of the passengers for anything. The checks could be much more thorough, just like we do with the customs. There is no reason why the model that works for customs should not be replicated for the security checks.
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't aware that SFO no longer requires you to take your shoes off. I got TSA Precheck a few years ago, best $85 I ever spent (I wanted Global Entry as well, but was denied because someone shipped me an order from Asia misdeclared 7 years ago... somehow that was a Customs violation on my part?). The "interview" process is literally less than 5 minutes, you put your hands on some glass so they can get fingerprints and they ask you if your information was accurate. I had my KTN before I even got home. It's
A pair of tweezers is all that it takes (Score:3)
Terrorists are not normal people. They have super human powers. A pair of tweezers and a small bottle of water is all it takes for them to blow an Airplane out of the sky. How they do it is, of course, top secret.
That is why merely bolting the cabin doors is not sufficient. Every passenger needs to be thoroughly searched, inside and out. Just looking for guns and explosives is not nearly enough. A pair of tweezers hidden in a terrorist's shoe is all that it takes.
No sense of economics (Score:2)
""Two years ago the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) offered $15,000 to anybody -- literally anybody -- who could come up with an idea to speed up airport security..." writes Popular Science."
So if someone did come up with such a great idea, why not implement it themselves and make more than a relatively paltry $15K for coming up with an idea of that could save millions.
TSA's bad enough without a middleman. (Score:2)
Given that the salaries are already $14k-$29k +/- regional adjustments for TSO's, what makes the private contractors any better? You're going to get even less motivated individuals given that contractors would expect a cut out of the already-abysmally low wage, never mind the higher instability of a contract job.
Old article (Score:2)
This article was written in April. Since then, the TSA did a lot of hiring, and the long lines are gone. Yes, they messed up, and their role is a bit dubious, but if we're going to trash the TSA, let's at least take into account the improvements they HAVE made!
IDEA (Score:2)
Private Security Contractors in Boston helped 9/11 (Score:2)
Note that the 9/11 terrorists selected their departure airport carefully. Boston was already _infamous_ among American airports for having untrained, overworked, underpaid, incompetent airport security personnel.
This is not to support the TSA's expensive and fraudulently advertised radiation based scanning, nor to support the genuinely physically invasive searches and abuse of passengers that has occurred under their more rigorous searches. But the handling of private contractors is rife with opportunities
Re:Here's an idea... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes how entitled of us to expect that the TSA improve their procedures as time goes on, instead it gets even more inefficient! Last I checked us entitled slashdot users can't drive to Hawaii or any other place outside the continental US. But hey, thanks for your valuable input TSA agent.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Here's an idea... (Score:5, Insightful)
The TSA hasn't caught any terrorists yet. It's expensive, intrusive, and useless.
The purpose of the screenings is not to "catch terrorists" but to deter the terrorists from even trying. I am not say that the TSA is effective, I am just saying that the lack of arrested terrorists isn't proof that they aren't.
Re:Here's an idea... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's still idiotic at that. The thing that made another 9/11-style attack impossible was not the TSA, DHS, or even the strengthened cockpit doors. It's the fact that post-9/11 a hijacking doesn't mean an inconvenient side trip and valium-laced pizza. It means the plane is going to be flown into a building, killing everybody... unless people onboard stop it. Passengers have already ganged up and *killed* would-be copycats who've tried to break into airplane cockpits.
And it wouldn't matter a whit if the knuckle draggers could stop every single weapon going through security. The 9/11 attackers used box cutters, sure. Well, the last time I flew, I treated myself to a post-security breakfast of steak and eggs. The knife they gave me for my steak was not the best steak knife I've used. But it was perfectly cromulent to the task, would have made for a better weapon than box cutters, and would have been trivial to take from the restaurant and onto the plane. Or what if the terrorist simply had an accomplice get a job working as, say, a janitor post-security. Imagine the two most common cleaning chemicals, mixed, in a closed environment such as an airplane.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Here's an idea... (Score:5, Interesting)
The TSA hasn't caught any terrorists yet. It's expensive, intrusive, and useless.
The purpose of the screenings is not to "catch terrorists" but to deter the terrorists from even trying. I am not say that the TSA is effective, I am just saying that the lack of arrested terrorists isn't proof that they aren't.
Except every year there's a study published where the DHS or FBI or whoever tried to sneak stuff past the TSA, and >95% of it gets through.
Those are pretty good odds for a terrorist. If there really are that many just dying to get on planes and do whatever, surely some would try with those awesome odds. Either that, or all these terrorists are complete idiots.
And really, they'd have to be an idiot to try to get on a plane to try to cause terror. As many have noted, they could blow up something outside the security zone in an airport and probably cause more mayhem (since they could likely bring more explosives than they could ever get past security in a small bag). Or they could blow up something somewhere else -- like a bus, or a mall, or a crowd, or whatever. Or skip the bomb and do something less predictable... does no one remember after 9/11 when everyone was concerned about various "soft targets"? Like poisoning a water treatment plant for a city. Or blowing up a train track and derailing it. Or whatever. The media talked about this stuff on the news for months after 9/11, because if there were so many terrorists, that's the sort of stuff they'd logically go to, rather than trying to get through airport security.
And yet, no terrorists. No bridges or malls or trains or buses blowing up, no water being poisoned, etc.
If this huge number of terrorists ready to attack the U.S. actually exists, they must be complete morons who have a weird "airplane fetish" and are for some bizarre reason cowed into submission by the 5% chance they might have their bomb discovered by the TSA.
It makes no logical sense. Sure, it's not "proof" in the formal logic sense, but it makes the whole idea that there are this huge number of terrorists out there seem rather silly.
Re:Here's an idea... (Score:4, Insightful)
And yet, no terrorists. No bridges or malls or trains or buses blowing up, no water being poisoned, etc.
Perhaps not in the US, but in Nice, France, there was recently that Tunisian fellow who drove a large truck through a crowd (on the sidewalk) for two kilometers, killing nearly 100 people, and injuring slightly over 200. Pretty good soft target: a diffuse crowd gathered for Bastille Day celebrations. Quite effective terrorism.
Then in the US, there was that couple in San Bernardino who shot up a Christmas party in 2015. Another effective act of terrorism on a soft target.
And the recent shooting in the night club in Florida.
And the Boston Marathon bombing.
Oh, and the ricin mailed to a senator and the US president.
(and there are more)
So what were you saying again?
Re: (Score:3)
The TSA hasn't caught any terrorists yet. It's expensive, intrusive, and useless.
The purpose of the screenings is not to "catch terrorists" but to deter the terrorists from even trying. I am not say that the TSA is effective, I am just saying that the lack of arrested terrorists isn't proof that they aren't.
There was a guy on a train with sheets of paper in his hand. Every so often he'd tear off a piece of paper, roll it into a ball and throw it out the window. Curious, I asked him why he was doing this.
He: "It keeps the tigers away."
Me: "Don't be silly there aren't any tigers here!"
He: "See! It works!"
Re:Here's an idea... (Score:4, Insightful)
90% of it is Security Theatre to get people flying. Politicians only care about what 50% + 1 of the voting public thinks and reacts to - not what actually works.
Re: (Score:2)
90% of it is Security Theatre to get people flying. Politicians only care about what 50% + 1 of the voting public thinks and reacts to - not what actually works.
To get people flying? the incredible indignity, and waiting and hassles, of this is what caused me to stop flying. Last flight I took was in 2002, and although I love the experience of flying, stopping flying has actually been pretty enjoyable. I don't miss it at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Security theater doesn't get people to fly. Bosses, prestige, or significant others who don't want to sit in a car for more than 5 hours gets people to fly (since 5 hours is usually about the cutoff to where driving can make more sense than flying if it only takes 5 hours to drive).
Re:Here's an idea... (Score:5, Interesting)
Security theater doesn't get people to fly. Bosses, prestige, or significant others who don't want to sit in a car for more than 5 hours gets people to fly (since 5 hours is usually about the cutoff to where driving can make more sense than flying if it only takes 5 hours to drive).
The cutoff, for me, is ~ 12 hours
I allow for 1 hour to get into the Airport (~35 to 45 minute drive) to allow for traffic. If it's a late night/early morning flight then this is less of a concern. I also then allow for 2 hours in the airport to get through security, etc. Then tack on another 1 hour or so in the airport on the other side (assuming a direct flight) getting your stuff, and getting out to a car and on your way. If it isn't a direct flight, then tack on another 1 to 2 hours just for waiting for the connecting flight. This adds up to between 4 to 6 hours where you could be driving directly to your destination, not including flight time.
For example, from Boston to Knoxville you can:
1. "Fly" for 8.5 hours (4 hours airport, 4.5 hours flight time), pay for a rental (or taxi and public transportation), pay for plane tickets, and watch a movie or read a book while getting there.
2. Drive for 11 to 14 hours (depending on your driving style), have your own car, leave and stop when you want, bring as much crap as you want both to the destination and home with you, etc.
Granted, for most people, the 4 hour airport experience and 4.5 hour flight time is worth it because they don't enjoy driving enough to be a in car for 12 hours. They still see that as worse than the Airport/Airplane experience. Personally, I enjoy driving. Don't get me wrong, I like flying too. I've traveled internationally enough to have gotten good at it. But for destinations around 12 hours away by car, I would rather drive.
And yes, I've thought about this way too much... (grin)
Re: (Score:2)
The organization of idiots needs to be shut down as it adds no value to travelers.
It does provide "make work jobs" to the inept though.
Replace them with someone in private industry if we have to have them.
Re:Here's an idea... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Here's an idea... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Here's an idea... (Score:4, Informative)
Seconded, added to the fact that US Immigration seems unable to accept that some people actually come to the US for tourism or business and not to over-stay their visas. All-in-all, flying into, out of, and around the USA is a truly ghastly experience.
Re: (Score:3)
You may have an idea there...
How about the TSA stop checking people that don't need to be checked? If you're transiting from one (reasonably organised) country to another, then no need to go through security again (or go via a fast track that has less checks)? The US has special secure areas at some non-US airports because they have their own special checks - surely they are secure enough not to have to recheck all the people on transit.
Years ago, I traveled to Canada via the US with a buddy of mine. He got
Re: Here's an idea... (Score:2)
Re: Here's an idea... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The only thing the TSA gorillas are achieving is to make tourists stop visiting the US.
Yeah. I used to really wanna go. Now? No fucking way. Definitely not on a holiday out of my own pocket, maybe for work if I got paid extra. Not just because of the TSA but a whole bunch of reasons.
Re: Here's an idea... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not so much. For most foreign tourists, the real pain is passport control. I flew in to San Jose two weeks ago on a 789 from London. There were about two hundred non-US citizens in a single line to see a single border guard, who was taking an average 7 minutes to process each person. I was near the front and got away with only a 45 minute wait, but I shudder to think how long the folks at the back would have to wait. I'm sure that once the US citizens were all processed, the guards would start processing non-US, but I still think it would be a four or five hour wait for many. That is beyond ridiculous.
Re: (Score:3)
It varies massively by airport. Going through Houston on a B777 or B787 from London, I get through passport control before my luggage reaches the carousel every time, and that's been consistent for years. Each non-US citizen passenger gets through in generally less than 2 minutes, and there's always many gates open, so even if you're at the back the wait isn't typically all that long.
Dallas Fort Worth on the other hand... I will never use DFW again.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, isn't that their job? Their whole mandate is to stop tourists! And they're damned good at it! They... Wait, what? "Terrorists?" They're supposed to stop terrorists, not tourists? Shit, somebody better tell them that...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At least he's willing to state who he is, unlike you who are an Anonymous Coward. One who enjoys boot-licking I should add, if you're the same one as OP in this thread.
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair to the GP, only a fucking retard signs a letter that puts their name and company at the top in the letterhead.
See how that works?
Re:Here's an idea... (Score:5, Insightful)
So conventions of spelling, sentence structure and such don't apply on the internet?
You know, that explains SO MUCH.
Re:Here's an idea... (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, airport security is now something I consider before flying.
And I once chose a 24h bus trip over a 2h flight and airport security was one of the reason I made this choice. Price was similar.
Re: (Score:2)
What service do you use that maps bus routes? Google transit won't give me any routes. I know that the local bus line makes runs to the major bus lines like greyhound but google can't find it.
Re:Here's an idea... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't like it, don't fly. The sense of entitlement among Slashdot users is ridiculous. Take an Amtrak, a bus, or drive.
Yeah, next time I go from here in Honolulu to the mainland I'll take Amtrak. Brilliant concept.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't like it, don't fly. The sense of entitlement among Slashdot users is ridiculous. Take an Amtrak, a bus, or drive.
Yeah, next time I go from here in Honolulu to the mainland I'll take Amtrak. Brilliant concept.
Get a boat?
Re:Here's an idea... (Score:4, Informative)
VIPR (Score:2)
Apparently you've not heard of the VIPR Program [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
If only we all had that kind of money...
Re: (Score:2)
I can arrive at my local, SF Bay Area commuter airport, drive straight up to my plane, pull the plane out, park in the hangar, taxi and be in LA, Reno or Las Vegas usually before a commercial flight takes off. People keep saying that General Aviation is suffering but it's only because people are willing to deal with 3 hour waits for security.
I rarely need to go across the country. You'll never see me at SFO, SJC or OAK for anyplace that I can fly to in less than a tank of gas for my private plane...
I'm surprised there hasn't been a huge uptick in private pilots being busted for flying people "under the table" to their destinations.
Then again I can understand why there hasn't been much in the news about it.
The first rule of Flight Club is; don't talk about Flight Club.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
I can even get paid for it if I have a commercial license.
And that right there is why Flight Club exists and why you don't talk about Flight Club.
The cost, difficulty, and ongoing hassle & expense of obtaining and maintaining a commercial pilot's license and the restrictive nature of FAA rules surrounding non-commercial pilots accepting any money from a passenger and all the requirements for security/passenger-screening, registering routes, etc etc etc. You can't simply take the classes and pass the tests, buy/lease a passenger aircraft, hang a shingle, and st
Re: (Score:2)
I ended up taking an overnight bus from Montreal to NYC, then catching a plane from La Guardia to Seattle and then a bus to Vancouver.
Still cheaper than travelling from eastern Canada to the west directly!
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently 1/3rd of Buffalo airport's travellers are Torontonians (and other Ontarians) avoiding the high cost of Canadian flights... there's enough of an industry that there are cross-border airport shuttles.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
They're hiring actors for security theater.
To fly, or not to fly - that is the question:
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever worked at an airport? It sure doesn't sound like it.
Couple quick points:
Half hour has to be the cut-off for checkin... so you need to be there sooner to make sure you are checked in prior to cut-off. You need to start boarding the aircraft at 30 prior.
What good are random terminal security checks when Bob can put his bomb in his luggage and carry the trigger in his cellphone?
Also, FAMs do not prevent bombings if suicide is just the only goal. FAMs can make sure the flight deck is safe but i
Re: Here's an idea: (Score:2)
This kind of muscular stupidity is really fucking irritating. Intent is not that important. The Israelis stopped a young pregnant woman from boarding a plane in 1986. She'd been duped into carrying a bomb by her boyfriend.