Loren Pechtel

I disagree. The basic problem is these were total novices when it comes to US security procedures.

One way I think they could improve things is to not grant pre-check to those without a certain number of US departures under their belt.

While it was my first time actually using pre-check (I've gotten it before but unless we both get it we use the regular line--that way one of us is always in a position to keep an eye on our bags) I know what's expected--but they didn't. (Not to mention that none of them has a meaningful about of English, she had to translate.)

petaluma1

Does anybody have a subscription to Politico Pro? A tweet on @TSA says "scraps PreCheck expansion search"

https://twitter.com/POLITICOPro/stat...85783034863617

chollie

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-...ouse-bill/2843


Part of the bill addresses issues surrounding Precheck enrollment platforms, focusing on the handling of biographic and biometric info.

Another part of the bill covers other Pre-check aspects, including reliable availability.

TWA884

San Francisco Chronicle:

ashill

petaluma1

PreCheck is a failure. If this bill becomes law, TSA will either gradually phase out the program or it will die of its own accord because TSA doesn't have the staffing to open lanes for only a few people and sending PreCheck passengers to regular lines for "expedited" screening doesn't go over too well.

FliesWay2Much

The bill also appears to formalize the "doggie-sniffing = ExtortionCheck screening in the regular lines" that we have all seen them do when things get bogged down, like afternoon "prime time" at IAD:

And, it incentivizes the TSA to offer more deals to join ExtortionCheck:

I can't imagine this bill is even close to being on the Senate's radar screen:

If the Senate doesn't act, a House-Senate conference committee meets to consolidate comments, the bill is sent back to both houses, is passed and is sent to Trump for signature before Dec 31, 2018, the bill dies a natural death.

FliesWay2Much

The House, unlike the TSA, has recognized that there's no reason why individuals who hold a U.S. security clearance shouldn't be given ExtortionCheck access:

Boggie Dog

I hope this bill fails. I believe that Extortion Check is bad for America. Pre type screening should be the base level of screening for everyone. If a concern is raised then resolve the concern.

COSPILOT

As someone with Global Entry for the past 7 years, I fail to see how limiting who has access is a bad thing. Having worked in the security industry I'm aware of security concerns that I cannot disclose, and as a frequent traveler I cannot stand the idiots that are included in PreCheck that have no clue what they are doing, holding up those of us that know what to do. Some are suggesting that giving PreCheck to all is a good thing?

Boggie Dog

Not giving Pre Check to all but using Pre style screening for all. It wouldn't take long for anyone who flies once in a while to figure out the process.

ashill

Maybe, though I'm rather skeptical. I certainly don't have any security experience or clearance.

I have absolutely no sympathy for this DYKWIA argument for why not to have PreCheck. If there's a real security reason to deny people PreCheck, fine (though again, I'm skeptical). But making other people's security experience more time-consuming and unpleasant for your convenience is not appropriate for a government agency. If the airlines and airports (who control the lines until you reach the ID checkers) want to have priority lanes for PreCheck as PreCheck gets rolled out more, fine; that will have the effect of having PreCheck priority lines (with a higher fraction of frequent travellers who know what they're doing) and PreCheck non-priority lines (with a higher fraction of infrequent travellers who don't know what they're doing). But that has absolutely nothing to do with whether PreCheck should be opened to more people.

My understanding is that PreCheck was largely created to save the TSA money: having the time-wasting experience of regular TSA security requires more resources. So yes, having a lower-cost and more pleasant PreCheck experience for most or all travellers is very much a good thing. One thing they could certainly do is eliminate the fees for the interview and background check process. If it saves TSA resources at the airport, that may pay for itself, or at least subsidize some of the expense. I do like the component of the bill that reduces those application costs in some circumstances.

petaluma1

PreCheck as first envisioned is a failure and in order to justify staffing for checkpoints for PreCheck, TSA has had to include non-Pre passengers at those checkpoints, which, of course, tells us that PreCheck is, like shoes off and LGA limitations, nothing but a joke.

TSA was certain 7 years ago that 25 million people would rush to enroll. That never happened and after 7 years, less than 7 million are enrolled. Recently, TSA cut the 25 million target in half. Hopefully, the program will die a natural death.

There is no reason not to screen all passengers at the PreCheck level as 99.99% of passengers are not a problem.

COSPILOT

There is a cost to everything, and a different level of security risk. I chose to pay to gain a higher level, but I have no interest in subsidizing others with my tax dollars, nor do I wish to include people that ignore everything said, yet act like morons in the security line. I prep and plan for the line I'm in, those that don't get nothing but frustration from me. I know what I'm doing, as do the others that frequently travel and have PreCheck, but the once a year travelers that refuse to listen, or even bother to plan create frustration for the rest of us. I can make it from car to gate in 2 minutes, but some moronic traveler that has no clue can screw that up and make it take 10 minutes, or even more.

ashill

But that's the point: is regular screening cheaper than PreCheck? I highly doubt it; quite the contrary. So getting more people into PreCheck-style screening (however it's branded) saves tax dollars, I assert.