Boggie Dog

The difference is that travelers are all screened and airport workers are not screened in the same manner if at all.

Airport workers have all the components needed to bring in contraband and to have it loaded on an airplane, either directly, or through a mule.

This is a known security vulnerability that TSA refuses to address.

The solution is to screen everyone that enters the sterile area of an airport using the same standards.

Section 107

Agreed, it is an enormous hole.

But as we have discussed previously it would be phenomenally expensive to institute such a regime regardless of the practical implications of doing so. These costs MUST be directly passed on to travelers (in the form of radically increased enplanement fees and prices from airport vendors) and so far no-one is jumping up and down screaming, "Yes, please, me! I want to pay those exorbitant extra costs!"

Put together a coalition willing to charge your fellow passengers even more and then we can talk. In the meantime, keep in mind that screening each worker with access to the SIDA or sterile areas is meaningless if you don't ALSO screen each and every piece of material and vehicle that accesses those areas, too. What good is it to screen Jane if she can just pick up her WEI from the wheel well of the delivery truck that wasn't screened or in the hollowed space in the last bundle of newspapers? I will guess that screening will add 50% to the personnel screening above.

Boggie Dog

I do not agree that screening everyone is cost prohibitive.

The infrastructure is already in place. TSA already has excess employees on hand so no increase in screeners would be required.

I do agree that everything entering the sterile area should be inspected and supposedly TSA is already doing that. If not then the DHS OIG has another issue to investigate.

Section 107

Well it seems TSA is listening to you. I received notice today that, in compliance with TSA directives and AvSAC recommendations Dulles just announced increased security procedures for airport workers including:
- TSOs will be conducting random inspections at entry points, walkways, and other areas in the SIDA, sterile and secured areas,
- airport security personnel will be increasing random searches of badged personnel in the sterile areas
- and limiting the number of access points for badge holders to the SIDA, secured and Sterile Areas.

Boggie Dog

No, they are not.

This opens the door for more passengers to be screened after the checkpoint when the real problem is not screening airport workers in the first place.

Random screenings is almost worthless, just like gate screenings.

This is another step down the wrong path that TSA is notorious for taking.

Section 107

I know that you dont agree but believe me it will be vastly more expensive.

The infrastructure is not in place and no, there are not enough screeners for the additional screening locations around an airport that would be needed; not to mention the screening equipment and an entirely different set of screening procedures.

The terminal area that pax see/are familiar with is but a tiny fraction of the area of an airport. Many, if not most employees, contractors, guests, consultants, and vendors simply cannot efficiently get to their work areas going through the same screening points as passengers. The screening locations in the terminals are often literally miles away from their work locations.

But lets say they do use the passenger screening locations - here is an example of how it might work in a simplistic view (and keep in mind how these FT boards are full of people whining about the extra 2 minutes it took because some noob took out a laptop in the Pre-check line): An airport HVAC guy will of course get to go through the Precheck line because he has undergone a more rigourous background check than that for Pre-ck. But he will have to send his toolbelt through the Xray machine. Those dangerous screw drivers, wrenches, valve rigs, etc will each have to checked to be sure they aren't actually prohibited according to the newest technical bulletin that hasn't been distributed or trained upon. "Sorry, you can bring those screwdrivers that are 5.8 inches long but I am afraid those two screwdrivers that are 6.3 inches long are prohibited. Would you like to take them back to your shop or just drop them in the trashcan right here?" "No, these are now allowed, didn't you get the notice?" "Sir, I am just following the rules which state nothing more than 5.9 inches." "Come on man, you dont know what you are talking about. Look, here on my phone, it says right there on your website the maximum length of screwdrivers was increased to 6.8 inches two weeks ago. May I talk to a supervisor?" STSO: "how may I be of service?" "The new regs say 6.8 inches is now okay but he wont let me through." "Sir, you don't have to take that tone. Are you challenging my authoritay? Do I need to call a police officer? Shop? or trash can? That's right. Thanks, buh-bye, now." Then he goes through the WTMD but, ooops, his steel-toed and shanked boots triggered the alarm. Go back, take them off, put them through the Xray machine, now go through the WTMD again and wait for his boots while they get swabbed. I am sorry, you have been randomly selected for additional screening, please make your way over here. In the meantime, his partner gets the "Oh, sorry, those compressor parts don't fit in the Xray machine. Shop? or trash can? Thanks, Buh-bye now."

Multiply that by however many times a day, times all the employees and you have a massive amount of unproductive but costly time. And the costs for all time gets added to each and every ticket, freight charge and price of stuff sold in the terminals.

Boggie Dog

So your primary objection seems to be that TSA screeners cannot be trained properly?

I am familiar with the access points at one major airport, both terminal and ramp. I have also witnessed the employee entrance where mechanics and other ramp workers entered and it was about 50 or so feet from an active passenger checkpoint. Are all airports setup in this manner? Of course not. Whatever issues there may be can be resolved.

My question would be why having real security isn't worth the cost?

Section 107

No, its not about training. Thats just a probably not-too-far-removed-from-reality example of the time/cost for implementing the employee screening that most folks seem to be begging for. That HVAC guy costs ~$40/hour in base pay (plus labor burden) - imagine all the overtime he will incur once he has to spend an hour or more a day just going through security.

I don't really object - I just think don't truly understand the implications of what they are asking.

That is the crux of the question. And so far the decision has been it isn't worth the cost because if it was we would be doing it.

At some point people have to understand that nothing is every completely safe, one must make reasonable decisions and one has to take chances.

We spend enormous amounts of money on security for commercial aviation when even just a fraction of that money spent on automobiles would save many thousands more lives per year than will ever be lost in aviation and result in much bigger economic benefits. But, we just keep pouring good money after bad and losing more and more people with little to show for it but keeping Smisek and his cronies in Kiton and Brioni suits.

Meh.

Boggie Dog

I understand the concept of good money after bad and also how the cost of things is never as straight forward as one might think. However, TSA consumes somewhere around $8 billion dollars annually and what is the result of that investment? For that $8 billion dollars it has been proven time after time that the easiest means to thwart TSA security is to use an airport employee.

If TSA was installing locks on doors they would only do front doors and not rear doors. That is TSA security in a nutshell.

RadioGirl

It's phenomenally expensive to screen passengers, too, but the gov't argues that no cost is too high in the name of security. Why would it be different for screening airport employees? And I don't recall people "jumping up and down screaming" that they wanted to pay $8 billion a year to wait in line for an hour or more, yet here we are. Either it's important or it's not - if it's important, you find the money.
If "random" is good enough for airport workers, why isn't it good enough for passengers. It would be cheaper and faster (which seem to be your criteria) to only randomly screen passengers.
And the simple solution is that airport HVAC guy keeps a toolbelt and steel-toed boots and a stock of spare parts on the secure side of the terminal; they get screened ONCE and then they're inside. Give him a locker to keep the stuff in. Repeat for each terminal if they have separate security entrances - duplicate sets of tools and spares has got to be cheaper than checking every screwdriver every time. You could set up one night a month, after hours, when airport workers schedule a time to get any additional tools/parts screened so they're not in line with passengers.
But the doctor, lawyer, business person, engineer, architect, consultant, etc standing in the TSA line also makes $40/hour or (much) more. And has to spend an hour going through TSA every time they travel - often many times a week. Multiply that by however many passengers a day and you have (now) a "massive amount of unproductive but costly time." Costs which get passed to the consumer - the patient, the client, the customer. Someone somewhere here has estimated the cost of the lost time spent standing in TSA lines and it's billions of dollars a year (on top of the direct cost of TSA). When it's someone else's time, you (and TSA) don't seem to care about this, but suddenly when it's airport staff it's a big deal. Again, either it's important to screen everyone (and we ignore the cost to the architect AND the cost to airport HVAC guy) or it's not.
No, TSA has decided not to do it because theater ain't theater if it's done behind the scenes - passenger screening makes people feel safe because they can see it; screening airport workers at other entry points wouldn't have the same visual impact. And because TSA doesn't want to admit - despite all the media evidence to the contrary - that TSA employees and airport staff might be a threat.
And yet when it comes to passengers, TSA takes no chances - they have to grope children and make amputees remove their prostheses and confiscate cupcakes and search through wallets looking for IEDs. Where are the "reasonable decisions" there?

Blogndog

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/new-d...ptops-border-0
Umm, anyone who doesn't believe that more of CBP total compensation comes from Mexican cartels than it does from government salaries is just being ignorant. I am not judging or blaming anyone, but these guys have thousands on their payrolls, and they are not just tempted with cash -- non-co-operation
can result in your kids being killed or who knows, but 99% of what comes across the border is done so with CBP co-operation, which will continue until As long as their is a structure in place that all but insists that things happen this way.

Section 107

You have switched subjects from screening airport workers to illegal search and seizure at the Border.

petaluma1

As usual, RadioGirl is right on target, especially with the highlighted comments. TSA screening is all for show which is why it is called "theater."

Section 107

Look, I am not defending the TSA and I am not actually arguing for or against screening workers (in fact many are screened now anyway). I am not challenging that in a truly competent security regime everything/everyone would be screened each and every time. I have never suggested anyone's time is more valuable than another's.

I am just trying to point out some of the direct and less obvious indirect implications of implementing such a regime would entail - implications that clearly have not been thought of by most of the folks braying for this to happen.

Clearly the politicians, bureaucrats, other policy-/decision-makers and stakeholders (including passengers) HAVE decided on what security regime is wanted and is acceptable as evidenced by the regime that is in place. Agree or disagree with the decision but there is no doubt that a decision has been taken.

As for me personally - I believe we handed the terrorists victory 14 years when using about 15 dollars worth of tools they have exacted trillions of dollars and a near evisceration of our principles with one spectacularly successful operation. All we really needed to implement was a suggestion that was made many years prior: harden the cockpit doors (and harden pilots hearts) and this farce should have been over before it began.

Whatever the costs are for screening all workers (and I believe they are way more substantial than most might guess) - are passengers willing to pay that additional cost? $10 additional cost per enplanement doesn't seem much. But what if its $50? or $100? At what point is it too much? Of course, the more the cost the less people will fly which will in turn drive up the cost per passenger, rinse, repeat....

If folks think the current security regime is hypocritical then do something like take taking it up with the politicians, bureaucrats, airlines, security apparatchiks, insurance companies, and advocacy groups that have voices and seats at the table.

Boggie Dog

Are you saying that TSA security is incompetent?

If so why should taxpayers and travelers be required to provide $8,000,000,000.00 a year for TSA?