This is purely from the rumor mill, but considering the source, I would say that it is likely that some of what he is saying is at least being considered.
Yesterday evening, into this morning I was waiting at ORD for my flight to MSP that had been delayed 3 hours. Clearing the security checkpoint, I had an issue with one of the screeners over what liquids were allowed as “essential” non-prescription medications. I asked for a supervisor and was pleasantly surprised when the supervisor (a three striper) backed me up and took the other screener (a two striper) behind Bart’s proverbial woodshed. Anyway, later, while waiting for my flight, I was pacing the terminal, and I came across the supervisor having a coffee. I went up to him to thank him for at least backing me up.
Anyway we ended up talking about the whole water ban and the effects that it is having on them and travel. During the discussion I learned a little bit about ORD screening and what is being discussed among the screeners and the FSDs. This screener is apparently on an advisory committee that handles many of the procedural changes that TSA implements. And by procedural, I don’t mean what is allowed, not allowed, but how to manage and run the screening process.
First of all, he said that the ban on liquids from a certain point makes sense, but is too much of a reaction. He said that from his understanding the likelihood of this type of plot, the mix and blow-up all on the plane is highly unlikely to succeed. However, he said the risk of the mix being done on the ground is fairly high, but the chances of being caught doing it are also quite high. He said since the ban has come on liquids and gels, the screeners are spending too much time looking for the liquid bottles that many are missing other things. His thought is that passengers should be permitted to bring with them through security any liquid or gel that is still sealed from the factory, and that unsealed items could be brought through if they could determine the actual chemical make-up of the substance. His thought is that in time, over the next couple of months the ban will be relaxed. He seems to think that they will allow liquids in small amounts, probably no container larger than 4oz/120ml. Further, he seems to think that a passenger will be allowed 1L of water as long as it is sealed at the checkpoint. From a screening standpoint, he indicated that liquids would probably be treated the same as laptops, in that they have to be removed from the bag.
His other interesting comment on the checkpoint screening is that he admitted that they don’t get everything, and never will. His goal is to minimize the numbers getting through.
Second he mentioned some interesting changes that may be coming to checked-luggage in the near future. Most of this he believes has been caused by the liquid ban. As has been reported the numbers of checked luggage has skyrocketed. From what he said the total checked in bags has nearly doubled. (as opposed to what the airlines are saying). Due to this increased number of bags, not all bags are going through CTX or X-Ray, some are just being given a swab test. The problem that apparently is building is that neither the CTX nor X-Ray will detected an IED that isn’t electrical in nature and has inert chemicals. His biggest fear (as well as others fear) is that someone would place the necessary liquids to make a strong chemical reaction in their bag and arrange them in such a way that they are highly likely to combine during the flight with no additional components required, in essence using a plunger, some other pressure sensitive system to move the liquids from one container to the other or a divider with a planned failure point (he mentioned the toothpastes that have the dual chambers). His opinion is that the chances of the device successfully blowing up an aircraft are remote. However, the chances that it would ignite and cause a fire are quite large. Basically, he said they are left with two choices on this; one is to open up every case that has a liquid in it, or ban liquids in the checked luggage. As they currently have no way to determine the actual substance that is in the container, he said that there is very strong commentary that liquids will be prohibited in checked luggage. He said that this is most likely to occur following a relaxation in the liquid ban in carry-on luggage. However, he said this one may come online before the lifting of the liquid ban in the cabin, and if that happens he hopes he is not at the airport when that first comes into effect
Following on the checked baggage side of things, he mentioned that one proposal that TSA is seriously floating is limiting each passenger to one checked bag (no sporting equipment, i.e. skis, bikes, golf clubs etc). As I mentioned above, the TSA does not have the capacity to adequately screen all bags for explosives and IED’s. He mentioned that if they could reduce the number of bags screened by half they would be in a better situation to detect the threats. Apparently, 1 in 7 bags currently cause some sort of alarm that requires opening the bag. At ORD he said that equates to 4,000-5,000 bags per day being opened, or approximately 3.5 bags per minute. The baggage backlog is close to causing the system to collapse. If the one bag system was introduced he figures it would reduce the number of bags having to be opened to about 1 per minute. If the no liquids in the bag ban came into effect that would drop even more.
He mentioned some other ideas that were being floated around that he didn’t think would come to be. He mentioned restricting access to the secure area to passengers whose flights were not within 2 hours. Alternatives were prohibiting the printing of the boarding passes prior to 3 hours to departure, and prohibiting the issuance of connecting boarding passes. (He thought these wouldn’t work as the airlines couldn’t handle it, and the passengers would revolt) Another thought was eliminating the sterile area of the airport and screening the passengers at the gates. (TSA doesn’t have the manpower to do it). He also mentioned the talk of allowing private screeners to return under TSA supervision. (He stated that it won’t happen, because the airport insurance companies are basically demanding TSA there if there is an option.)
So in summary here is what I managed to glean from this supervisor.
1. Most screeners think the liquid ban is stupid, but will stay in some form or another.
2. A relaxing of the restrictions is likely, but not guaranteed, and will most likely be done in phases.
3. The liquid ban has increased the number of bags checked, and those bags are all not getting the X-Ray and CTX.
4. False alarms/bag searches are causing the system to backlog. Major cause of alarms is liquids in the bag. Conversation on banning all liquids in the checked luggage occurring, and probably will come into existence
5. To further manage the “risk” passengers may be limited to one checked bag.
This is some of what he mentioned to me during our close to 30 minute conversation. And just in case you were wondering how I managed to get a supervisor for that long, it is easy when all of the checkpoints are closed, its midnight and the personnel have to be there because there are still flights/passengers hanging around. He seemed to be a decent guy, whose is in grad school studying chemistry/chemical engineering. He joined TSA 3 years ago, because as he put it, it is easy money and better than working at McDonalds.
Again as I said this came from a supervisor, and should be treated as rumor. But it could be useful for us to consider what he said.
Programs: AA PLT; UA 2P; disillusioned SWA RR member
Posts: 5,319
So let me get this straight.
The carry-on ban has been such an unmitigated disaster (in terms of increasing the number of checked bags, and customer complaints), that they want to limit everyone to one checked bag, and prohibit liquids in checked bags too?
I won't even address the idea of not letting people into the airports before two hours before their flight (oops, there go all the airline clubs) or printing board passes online the day before...
This is far beyond or or even -- as the UK government likes to say, it's idiocy "on an unimaginable scale."
Definitely time to fire off a pre-emptory letter to the TSA before this idiocy becomes enacted.
But a big to MSY-MSP for the interesting information!
Programs: UA PremEx, US Platinum, Marriott Plat, Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 953
Quote:
Originally Posted by MSY-MSP
This is purely from the rumor mill, but considering the source, I would say that it is likely that some of what he is saying is at least being considered.
Well, before the rants begin (and I will be one of them as well ) - let me take a second to congratulate you on a remarkably clear and well constructed post. You conveyed the information so well that I almost felt I was sitting next to the supervisor myself.
Thank you as well for the very clear and concise description of possible changes. I know there are many people for whom this would not be as simple, but I can say though, that for me, I would fine with these restrictions - one checked bag, small amount of liquids only in carry-on. Just please let me take my bottle of water and my 4 oz. of shampoo and I'm a happy girl
Programs: CO Platinum, SPG Platinum, HH Gold - whatever that's worth now :(
Posts: 13,067
I think the airlines are going to step in and spay/neuter the TSA at the point where the industry detects a financial impact. TSA may say "1 checked bag", but the airlines will go apecrap on Congress if they see an impact to their revenue stream and Congress will take care of the TSA. Hopefully permanently. However, not until after the November elections.
The TSA can plan and implement anything it wants to - but it does not exist in a vacuum. It is not a dictatorial agency. When they finally cross the line, they will be beaten back. They just need to cross the line with enough inertia that the industry collectively says "enough!".
__________________ Rich and 50 is the same as middle-class and 30
Programs: AA PLT; UA 2P; disillusioned SWA RR member
Posts: 5,319
Wouldn't the airlines love a one-bag-per-customer restriction, though? Think how much $$$ it would save them on baggage handling, fuel, etc. It's not like there are any real alternatives to flying, in most cases--people aren't suddenly going to start taking transcon trains because they can only check one bag.
It's going to be a boon for the luggage shipping services, though. If any of those companies are publicly traded, please post the ticker symbol here as I think I see a pretty easy way to make a ton off money off of this ridiculous situation...
Programs: UA 1K (first time - yay!), HH Silver, TSA Disparager Gold, KHIAI Club
Posts: 8,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by justageek
Wouldn't the airlines love a one-bag-per-customer restriction, though? Think how much $$$ it would save them on baggage handling, fuel, etc. It's not like there are any real alternatives to flying, in most cases--people aren't suddenly going to start taking transcon trains because they can only check one bag.
It's going to be a boon for the luggage shipping services, though. If any of those companies are publicly traded, please post the ticker symbol here as I think I see a pretty easy way to make a ton off money off of this ridiculous situation...
I don't think they would. As someone else said in another thread, forget skiing, golfing, scuba, and other sporting vacations that require equipment. People won't pay to rent equipment when they have their own. Often times, rented equipment is inferior to what one owns.
And 2 week vacations with one bag? Forget it.
If people can't bring enough of their stuff with them and they limit sporting equipment, people just won't travel. It'd have a negative impact on their revenue that would far exceed any cost savings.
It doesn't matter how much money they're saving if there's no money to save because people don't travel. If bookings are falling off now as some people say, a one bag limit would put the fall off on crack.
Super
__________________
Government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take from you everything you have. -- Gerald Ford
The thing about more bags being opened isn't a surprise at all.
The liquid ban forces people to put things like shampoo, soap and toothpaste into their checked bags. All those items, espeically the toothpaste are commonly-known false-positives on the CTX machine. Basically put, if you don't have the right person using the machine (someone who can detect the issue without opening the bag), then that's a bag opener. Again, multiplied en masse with the liquid ban.
ORD has long been a horrible airport for baggage connections. I've been on flights that have been delayed out of ORD because of baggage delays dervied by the TSA (and have had pilots blame the TSA for the delay). When I travel international, I used to use ORD as an airport as a first point of US entry as often as possible because they used to be a non-shoe carnival airport. Now, it's a matter of fare and convenience where I make my first US point of entry.
About the bags; when you come back into the country and re-check your bag, they go through the TSA tenticles, as if you just checked in. Even when you come in from your flight from Canada, having cleared US Customs in the departing Canadian city, your checked bag goes through the screening process again. All just another layer of red tape.
If the TSA wants real change and a PR boost, especially among frequent fliers, wake me up when they stop The Shoe Carnival and liquid nonsense.
So now they'd graciously allow me to bring my own water on board, but they will limit me to a liter? and stop me from putting water in my checked bags requiring me to find an open store upon arrival at my destination? I don't think I need to worry about that last 8K I need on UA, if I get it fine but it won't really be an issue as I don't see myself flying much next year at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bocastephen
It is not a dictatorial agency
You're right but its parent agency certainly seems to be playing that role to the hilt. There is no longer any "balance" in our government system -- this is just more of the bs.
Again as I said this came from a supervisor, and should be treated as rumor. But it could be useful for us to consider what he said.
Maybe he was just doing an informal survey.
Running it up the flagpole, so to speak.
How did you react?
Outraged by the proposals?
Agreeable to the proposals?
etc. etc etc.
Location: Half the distance to EWR than PHL. PWP Master Mason of The Ninth
Programs: CO Silver, Hilton Silver, IHG, Hertz
Posts: 8,685
Thank you MSY-MSP for a well written post. I read a newspaper article on Sunday about the issues of luggage at Newark and how the screeners are missing so much in the screening process due to fatigue and how they can't keep up with the demand on checked luggage and have to cut corners.
One checked back and no sports equipment? Not a good idea. Great way to kill tourism in many places.
Well, we know how proposed changes go. They won't do anything until the next incident, and it whatever they do will be an overreaction to that incident. The pattern is clear.
I wouldn't worry about the above concerns unless there is an incident involving liquids in checked baggage. This particular brain dead bureaucracy just doesn't work that way.
The one bag per person idea is stupid. Yes, a two-day trip domestically is fine. Try an international trip or even a long domestic trip where you're gone for a while. How about transporting presents at Christmas, etc. That's just such a non-starter. "We can't do the job we spend 10's of billions to supposedly do, so to improve our life we're going to cut your baggage in half".
As far as the others, I do think it's silly. Sealed packages? I guess travel size-single use batches of toothpaste and hair gel and whatnot would be popular. The sealed water thing is somewhat stupid but the really dumb ones are the "random others". Not being allowed in the sterile area until 2 hours before a fliight? Great, lots of people cluttering up the ticketing areas waiting for their "clearance" for security. Not printing boarding passes until 3 hours before? Why? What does it matter, if Joe Blow is ticketed on a flight and shows up at security with a boarding pass and valid ID to match the boarding pass, what does it matter when/where the boarding pass is issued?
No boarding passes for connecting flights. Again, where does this improve security? Are you suddenly going to become a dangerous terrorist as you move from one airport to another.
Checking at the gate - this is the most logical, really, but wasn't that how it was origionally done when metal detectors were first eliminated? Massively inefficient, and show me a place at most gates at most airports where you can line people up for that. Massive boondoggle opportunity for TSA, they would need triple the workforce and quadruple the budget for that one.
or 
or even 
-- as the UK government likes to say, it's idiocy "on an unimaginable scale."
to MSY-MSP for the interesting information!
) - let me take a second to congratulate you on a remarkably clear and well constructed post. You conveyed the information so well that I almost felt I was sitting next to the supervisor myself.
etc. etc. to the content 
