The PreCheck LLL screening at the airport should be the default screening for passengers and there should be no fee for it. That would allow for real cost reduction opportunities and do more to save money than this $85+PII surrender monkey extortion charge.

Why?

Why don't you ask the security managers at nearly every other airport in the world, where passengers' checkpoint experience is what in this country is only reserved for the select "low-risk" crowd.

Every other nation seems to manage without its planes daily falling from the skies.

Because most if not all airline passengers have not been shown to be a threat to commercial aviation.

Only the scumbags "in charge" of USA aviation "security" select on the opposite criteria. And even then as we've seen time and time again with criminal acts committed by TSA employees, their vaunted background checks are worthless.

Because it would have helped save a massive amount of money without increasing security risk, in any statistically significant way, for passengers on US-originating flights.

Eliminating the massive amounts of people subjected to strip search machines and to "shoes off/laptops&liquids out" would save lots of time for lots of passengers in a country where time wasted in the name of security costs the national economy money.

PreCheck LLL type screening at airports should be the default passenger screening type by the TSA. Making it free for passengers would thus save a lot of money.

Then we agree. Unfortunately, the law and promulgated regulations are such that airport security is not an option, its a requirement. Quibbling about the cut point is, well, pointless. However, one needs to understand that relative risk of an adverse event is different based on who it is.

The TSA is making an effort, according to their latest propoganda, to focus on a relative risk- as opposed to a population-based approach. That's one of the tenets of the Pre-Check program. To operationally define this requires some aspect of risk assessment. You may not agree with the TSA definition of what the level of acceptable risk is or how its established but that doesn't change the simplest of facts.

The public policy recognizes a continuum of risk - at one end, no one flies at all (the no fly list) and the other end anyone flies who shows up (GA pilots/passengers). In the middle we have two additional groups - the pre-approved/qualified low riskers (Trusted Traveler and FF) and the unkown riskers. That's policy as it stands today. The next round of changes will broaden the low riskers to include a derivation of the GE program - that is, a group with a documented low risk based on what appear to be similar criteria as the GE'ers.

What you do to screen either of these groups is inconsequential to the premise that they (two groups) exist. One could, as GU and others suggested, make the "precheck version" of screening the default for the unknown riskers and make the low riskers undergo less scrutiny. Perhaps you could apply just random screening as opposed to routine low level screening to them?

And that leaves the last bit - how to pay for it. If a low risker incurs more cost and membership is by choice, then let them pay the fee.

Do you travel in Europe? Liquids and laptops out is routine, some MMW, some not. Belts maybe and pat downs yes. In some cases, no opt out. I see no appreciable difference.

Data?

If most are not a threat, or as GU argues "statistically insignificant" why bother with TSA at all.

I don't get it - you argue that this is all theatre and a waste of money yet not one of you has argued to eliminate all controls over access. Why?

If in fact there is a certain level of benefit from some security, you need to be prepared to acknowledge that there is a certain degree of risk. I've yet to see anyone post data on relative risk.

Who said anything about eliminating all checkpoints?

Every argument against PreCheck states that the treatment afforded the worthy passengers -- basically a pre-TSA experience of metal detector and bag x-rays -- is sufficient enough to weed out threats that it should be afforded to all passengers.

So much for the government's ability to reliably determine risk from background checks of a more extensive nature than that applicable to passengers in the main, even just the subset in GE.

Data?

I travel more than a few times most every month of the year in Europe and strip search machines for majority passenger screening is not the case at any airport in Europe, including Russia and the UK. The same cannot be said for US airports.

Shoes far less likely to be required off at European airports than in the US.


Yes. Interested persons should also find it on their own, since spoonfeeding doesn't work on skeptics or the prejudiced. Need a hint? Determine what percentage of passengers on US-originating flights would have to be injured or killed by terrorists onboard US-orginating flights for there to be a statistically significant change in risk. It doesn't take genius to figure this out, but I don't do demand-spoonfeeding for competent adults.

^ Now you get it. Terminate government involvement; let the airlines and airports provide whatever security they deem appropriate that doesn't violate people's civil rights.

I've been advocating for removal of the federal government from airport security since the time they federalized airport "security". Where have you been?

Who here has argued that all screening is a theater and a waste of money? The closest anyone has come to suggesting that is you in the above post. It seems like you are fabricating your own strawmen to knock over.

The TSA screeners being eliminated doesn't mean eliminating all security screening in a world where other parties can provide security screening.

Back on topic, does anyone have any idea what this "background check" is going to entail? Is it a complete check like you would get if you are applying for a security clearance for a government job, or is it a 30-second check to see if you are a convicted felon?

It could be nowhere near a security clearance level check, much to resource intensive. More likely, it is a check for felonies, credit and a historic check of the name against the FBI, DHS, NSA and CIA db's.