Originally Posted by
TXagogo
Does anyone notice that the checkpoint experience is exponentially worse at airports that have one or two huge main screening areas (such as DEN) versus airports that have several isolated checkpoints (such as IAH).
I choose airports (when possible) based on this configuration. If I *have* to fly to Houston I now fly into HOU and out of IAH. I do not like being around a mass cluster**** where everyone is shouting and you can watch all the sheep being herded into the porno boxes. At least at a smaller isolated checkpoint there is less commotion and seems to be significantly less attitude.
Anyone have any thoughts?
I think it is hard to judge configuration issues, as most of our airports were built before TSA insanity descended upon us, so in most cases, security checkpoints had to be designed after the fact. BWI is a good example. It was a lousy layout before 9/11, and TSA didn't have a good place to start from. (Of course, it didn't help that they had some of the worst management in all of TSA-land, but that's another story.)
Then there is the singular exception of IAD, which was afforded the opportunity to do it right when they expanded the Main Terminal, and all they did was move an even longer screening queue out of sight, and made it more dangerous for the people subjected to TSA's Kabuki Theater. As someone else has noted in another post, the IAD screening disaster is ripe for exploitation by a real terrorist.
I really believe the biggest impact on the checkpoint experience is created by the quality of the FSD and his/her senior management. Since most FSD's reflect the quality of the TSA management that hired them, we get the predictable results.
There are a few airports in the US where I encounter a consistently excellent screening experience. I was going to name them, but I'm afraid that the TSA HQ staff that monitor this board will find out those few pockets of competence and stamp them out.