Trusted Traveler-in depth
 

This was a pretty good and indepth analysis on why the new trusted traveler program won't work....and why all other previous efforts failed.

http://www.portfolio.com/business-tr...doomed-to-fail

Makes sense to me!

Makes no sense to me. Brancatelli is just whining because *A is not part of the pilot.

Agree that TSA holds all the cards -- and can change this on a whim at any moment -- but at least for now, Pre^ is the best thing TSA has done since securing the cockpit doors. Went through the Expedited line at ATL a few days ago and it is freakin' awesome. Total time to get through security was less than 60 seconds. ^

If he wants guarantees of fast security, maybe Brancatelli needs to ride a bus. For me, I'll take this long overdue gift from TSA and while not optimistic about how long it will survive, most certainly will enjoy it for now.

Now you sound like a TSO...

Yea, I don't know. Taking lots of flights every year to get the frequent flier status, subjecting myself to a background check about half as invasive as for my security clearance, and paying the fees to be a privileged, full-rights citizen so I might get through security faster and not need to take my laptop out of the bag for my grope-up does sound tempting...

I think I'll stick with shelling out $150/month to PlaneRed instead.

The article is crap. The program was never designed to be a true "trusted traveler" program-- something I have explained many times in other threads-- and he is complaining that the program will operate exactly as intended.

The intent was not to give certain chosen travelers a pass to the front of the line and a gauranteed hassle-free experience, the intent was to free up TSO resources to focus on more "risky" travelers.

Until people wrap their heads around this concept-- that this program is designed to help the TSA allocate resources, not to make travel easier for a chosen few-- people will continue to say stupid things like a fee is coming or this program is a failure because it doesn't gaurantee a hassle-free experience. This article is just another example of someone misunderstanding the purpose of the program and then complaining about it being a failure because it doesn't meet their version of what they think such a program should be.

Not a guarantee of anything. TSA has the authority to search you when you get on the bus.

Sorry, TSA did not secure cockpit doors. That happened before their existence.

Except there's no such thing as a "risky" passenger. There is absolutely no data to back up anything the TSA is basing this program on.

Would you say passengers like Reid and Abdulmutallab were not "risky"?

I would suggest that Harry is very risky.

You are looking at this 180-degrees from the way it was designed. TSA is not trying to ascertain who is risky.

The program identifies those that are considered to be low risk and minimizes their security screening.

Everyone else remains considered risky.

Very hard to feel the resistance there.

Exactly.

Yes, but even B- utilization of available intelligence would have kept them off aircraft in the first place. My gripes with TSA policies/procedures are both principled and practical.

On principle, I find the erosion of civil liberties abhorrent, unnecessary and ultimately very dangerous. From a practical perspective, though, Washington has to wake up and realize that what is going on in airports is no substitute for obtaining or making use of available intelligence to know whom shouldn't be on US-bound airliners in the first place.

As the aftermath of Abdulmutallab demonstrated, every piece of the intelligence puzzle was there and in all likelihood one (low level) guy making one phone call to another (low level) guy would have prevented the whole thing in the first place.

One guy set his nuts on fire, the other guy was so stupid he didn't think to bring a lighter on board. Risky? Maybe. Dumb as a bag of hammers? Absolutely. Boarded a flight in the US? Definitely not.

Risky is traveling in rush hour traffic in LA or DC or pretty much any major US city. Risky is eating fast food for lunch five days a week. Risky is smoking cigs or drinking lots of booze. Taking a domestic airplane ride has a minuscule risk of crashing, but practically zero risk of a terrorist trying to hijack it or blow it out of the sky. If someone with half a brain really wanted to crash a plane, they could. Put a plug up their bunghole filled with explosives, get on the plane, go to the bathroom, squeeze it out, and presto, you have a real threat. Nude-o-scopes, taking off shoes, throwing away bottles of water and asking them where they're flying will not stop that. The fact that no one has done that so far - and TSA or anyone else couldn't stop them if they really tried - makes it kabuki theater.