Kanis91

I just got done watching a show about London Gatwick's "new" (2011) security screening. I was amazed how simple and quick they have made the process. Automatic gates control passenger inflow and passengers can choose from any x-ray lane.

I have only flown through Gatwick once and this was before any of the ugrades were completed.

So why can't US airports have this style of security???

It's quick and mostly painless for the passengers.

I apologize if this has been debated before. I couldn't find anything via google search.

timfountain

Well, it's automated, uses very few clerks and is efficient..... TSA/DHS would never, ever consider it!
Recall the first aim of the TSA is to employ as many people as possible, doing as little as possible, as inefficiently and opaquely as possible and at maximum expense to their customers (fliers and taxpayers).
It might appear that I am joking or making light of the current shambles that is the security theatre in the US, sadly I'm being serious.

Kanis91

I've known that to for years. However, it seems just dumb not to employ a better method. You don't need to treat everyone as a threat.

The automated system seems like the best choice cause it can group people for better operations. Then it allows the screeners to narrow their energy onto specific groups.

I still like GA style security. Everyone looks out for one another and we all know what's not right. However, we know when it just a curious person wanting to get a look at some cool aircraft. I can walk up to any aircraft, even military, and look around. I'm not a threat, I'm a fellow pilot curious about "your" aircraft.

catocony

Providing actual airport security and TSA operations are not synonymous. TSA does what TSA does, regardless of whether it increase or decreases security against threats.

exbayern

It continues to astound me all these years after the formation of the TSA that the two Edeka grocery shops (including the one directly outside of baggage claim) at MUC can have automated exit gates from the shop to prevent people from going in through the out, yet the TSA has to pay someone to stand at the exit to the secured area to sit on a stool and say 'stop' to people who try and go in the out door.

It's really not that difficult. Other countries can do these things just fine, most likely with less cost.

And it's quick and painless in almost every country, outside the US.

halls120

Beat me to it.

Global_Hi_Flyer

In my personal experience, the folks running the Gatwick checkpoints (yes, North terminal, this means YOU) can be as bad, if not worse, than TSA. One of the line dragons tried to force me to put my bag in the sizer *sideways* after I already had demonstrated that it fit going in the normal way.

WillCAD

There lies the disconnect.

1) It's only dumb if your aim is to provide genuine security. If your aim is to provide a huge, flashy dog and pony show to make the uneducated masses feel more secure, without any regard to whether they actually are more secure, then it's better to use TSA's inneficient methods which employ more people. Remember - MORE is ALWAYS better to some people. More money and more people in uniforms = more security, and more security = better security. This is the way TSA thinks, and unfortunately, most of America thinks this way, too.

2) TSA's whole approach to security is to treat every passenger as a threat, at all times, regardless of where we are or how many times we've been screened. Even those in GE and Pre, who have presumably been given higher levels of trust due to their surrendering personal information to the government, are still subject to random escalation without cause at any time, just to keep the terr'ists (i.e., the traveling public) guessing.