Pre-Check only for some passengers?
 

Really now, what's the point of giving my wife pre-check and not me? If we were trying to slip something through we could have had her carry it.

Besides, we are going to go through the same line anyway for luggage security. (Of course that doesn't do any good against the TSA guy who exchanged a bag of nuts for a love note.)

Pre-Check only for some passengers?
 

The point is that your wife is still going thru the same security check as you. She is still screened for liquids and her laptop is still being x-rayed.

PreCheck is more for travelers who know what can/can't go thru security. The enrollment fee is more of a "barrier to entry" to weed out those who know the rules and those who don't. If you only travel a few times a year chances you will not enroll due to cost and chances are that you are also not as familiar on what is allowed.

There is frequently a difference in the screening: subject to strip search machine or not.

Given the "managed inclusion" into PreCheck may not involve a fee, the fee (if even applicable) acting as "barrier to entry" for the "non/less/differently-knowledgeable" may be considered a non-barrier of sorts.

The TSA didn't create PreCheck to weed out those who know the TSA's rules from those who don't know the TSA's rules. It was created for other reasons.

(bolding mine)

Where do you get this from?

If I pony up $85 for pre-check, are they going to grill me about my travel habits and then educate me on what is and isn't allowed?

Active duty in uniform who may have never flown commercial before are eligible for Pre. Anyone who ponies up $85 is eligible for Pre, even if they aren't a frequent flyer. Anyone who has GE (which might be someone who only flies internationally once or twice a year but who wants to streamline the re-entry process) is eligible for Pre. Random people pulled out of line by TSOs who may have never flown before are immediately eligible for Pre.

And the NEXUS/SENTRI/GE users who got it for road travel in the main also are set up for PreCheck participation -- but that PreCheck participation for an infrequent flyer mostly would happen if someone remembers to enter the appropriate numbers in the Known Traveler field of the airline records.

I doubt many people signed up with GE for road travel.

I agree, but it may or may not be higher than the number of people signing up for Nexus to save money and get GE benefits for flying into or around the US -- and the latter has been done more and more by those who barely cross the border by land if even doing more than one/two crossings by land ever.

Not true. I am not eligible for Pre because I am not a US citizen or resident.

The simple truth is that everyone should be screened by Pre standards (shoes on and metal detectors), as is done in most countries.

Until someone gets something horrible through.....then how would you feel

I hate it but it's a necessary evil right now (current procedures)

BTW you don't have to be a US citz to get GE

:rolleyes:

So you really believe no plot could ever involve an unwitting 'mule' over-75 or under-12 or active duty in uniform (hint: think Nadal Hassan).

All of those folks already get a form of expedited screening. The young and old get to keep their shoes on (like folks most everywhere else in the world) and those in uniform get automatic access to Pre. Of course, the minute they separate from service (even after 30 years, with a retired military ID) or they travel in civilian clothes (but with an active duty ID), they are untrustworthy.

You mean a cupcake? Breast milk? Juice?

TSA standard screening is not a necessary evil, it is just evil.

When I fly into (and therefore over) the US, I am screened by Pre standards, as used abroad: my shoes and cardigan stay on, and there is no full body scanner. None of the many airplanes flying into the US full of people screened this way have ever fallen out of they sky. The truth is, taking off shoes and using full body scanners does not add to security (and may even decrease it since full body scanners make it a lot easier to take a gun on a plane, but that is another story).

From the GE site: "Global Entry is open to U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, Dutch citizens, South Korean citizens and Mexican nationals." I, as most of the world´s people, am not a US citizen or resident, Dutch, South Korean or Mexican national.

In addition to that, it remains an open question if presenting GE plus a foreign passport as ID will actually get you into a Pre line at the TSA entry point. I know from experience that presenting a passport (of a perfectly ordinary democratic country with no ties to terrorism) to a TSA officer induces a state of immediate distrust against the passport holder.

Of course that is not what i am saying. But the easier the screening the larger the threat, that is a fact.

The argument is basically at what point the risk equals the inconvenience and everyone will differ on that.

I believe Canadians as well (and soon to be more).......so like i said you don't have to be a US citz

PRE has nothing to do with presenting your passport. The decision on whether you will get the 'pre screening' is made before you get to security. Most airlines now print some form of 'pre' on the BP and that is also used for access to the pre line (of course the three beeps determine which screening you get)

Do you have any evidence to support this assertion?

Or are you, like many security theater proponents, equating 'inconvenience and abuse of pax' with 'tough screening'?

How often do you transit international security checkpoints? You do know that people around the world keep their shoes on at the checkpoint and get on airplanes to the US?

Do you think the 'easy' screening offered those over 75 and under 12 and active duty military in uniform (allowed to keep shoes on) jeopardizes security by making it too 'easy'?

Effective security is not about 'easy' or 'maximum inconvenient'. It is about intelligent, meaningful and focused procedures.

My point exactly - "random" loss of the three beep status following the presentation of a foreign passport (ID is still presented at the same time as the boarding pass scan, isn´t it?) is a real possibility (as is not being accepted for it in the first place based on the data sent to the airline).

Sure, you can be Canadian and qualify with Nexus, and a few other countries allow for GE status, so you are correct in stating you don´t have to be a US citizen or resident to get GE. You just have to be from the US or a very limited (and illogical) set of nationalities. Meanwhile, the rest of the world gets treated ridiculously, with no added security.

I would like to know your opinion on the fact that I discussed regarding security abroad being Pre-type, including for US-bound passengers. How is that compatible with the "necessary evil" of non Pre-type security, in your opinion?

Bubba (who has two nationalities, but is not Canadian, nor from Saudi Arabia, a country which is oddly enough being considered for GE status.)

There is no 'random loss'.....you are implying that the agent can somehow change the scanner output based on looking at your PP, this is not possible. The 'beeps' are determined before you get to that point, that's why they scan the bar code. That is paranoia .......

The agent certainly has the right to overrule the beeps and change your screening procedure, but you will know it because you heard the three beeps.

I really feel that is not up fr dispute, res ipsa loquitur......



Very often, dozens of times a year. Some airports do in fact have you remove your shoes for travel to the US......in fact the FCT in FRA has had me do it.

again it's where do you draw the line thats all.......as to "intelligent, meaningful and focused procedures", isn't that exactly what 'PRE' is??

in your opinion it is illogical

As mentioned above that is only true to a certain degree and the US does set standards before airlines/airports are allowed flight privileges to the US, although not as strict as domestic agreed....liquids, shoes etc, all but the body scanner

[/QUOTE]

With all due respect, I find your statements conflicting and unsupported. Too many security experts (including former TSA head Kip Hawley) don't agree with you.

IMHO - the most ridiculous statement of all is the assertion that "the easier the screening the larger the threat, that is a fact."

Pistole (and even his predecessor) have continued to work towards a process that is, in fact, 'easier' for pax and screeners without compromising security, and they believe it is, ultimately, achievable.

The notion that the greatest and wealthiest nation on earth can't adequately insure aviation safety without demanding that cancer survivors remove breast prostheses and pax with any physical limitation can only be cleared by hands probing between their legs and down their pants and shoes removed at the checkpoint can only be cleared (to US satisfaction) by being in a bin with nothing inside, while shoes stuffed with things and packed in the middle of a carry-on can be cleared without a problem - that is an absolutely preposterous notion.

The notion that the former head of TSA (who was in office when the LGA restrictions were introduced) doesn't know what he is talking about when he says there is no longer a need for the LGA restriction, that even before he left, liquids could be cleared and the restriction was unnecessary - the notion that he was and is advocating an 'easier' procedure that would increase the risk to aviation security is nonsense.

Since cockpit doors have been hardened and locked there is little likelyhood of a commercial airliner ever again being used as a guided missile. So what threat remains? Just killing passengers? Or blowing up the aircraft. Passengers are screened, overly screened to my mind, but what about other people who have access to the sterile area and airplanes? TSA, airport workers, ramp workers, food service, and other people all in the secure area without being screened. People who can bring anything in.

Passengers are not the current threat.

How are they conflicting? do tell.

With all due respect as well......As far as a ridiculous statement I stand by what i say "the easier the screening the larger the threat, that is a fact", (this of course relates to todays screening VS pre type screening for all. as well)......what you argue from Pistole does not ever imply otherwise. Current assessments and analyses of screening protocols and future procedures are trying to more efficiently screen pax with several factors in mind including the surging TSA/screening resentment and economic inefficiencies of the current standard. Is that not correct? Maybe i miss-understand your point, my apologies if so
[/QUOTE]



Where did i say this? Improvements can and are being made but to say not screening liquids (or shoes/lap tops) has a zero statistical effect on the potential for an event is wrong. I have never seen anyone state this? I have heard that the danger with liquids has been so minimized that its not worth the cost/benefit test anymore but that goes back to 'where do you draw the line' argument, as is saying all pax going through PRE screening would not increase the same.

I dislike the procedure as well but see it as a necessary evil that's all. I do respect your argument that we as a community/nation should be able to do better but it's not an easy solution by any means.

Is that not enough!!!!??


These areas are cleaner and monitored more than you might expect (unless you are in that biz and have a different view, it would make for a great discussion). There is plenty going on ramp side and everywhere else to in the industry in that regard.

However i will give you that it is equally as threatening and thus just as important. But to imply they are more dangerous than pax, i disagree, respectfully.

+1e6!!
I got caught out on this point in another thread by another non-US citizen; apparently the list now includes Germany, Qatar and the UK (maybe more). It turns out that (:eek::eek::eek:) the website is out of date. (Where have I heard that before?)

But your fundamental point still stands; most of the world's population is not eligible for Global Entry due to citizenship limitations.

And there was also some doubt expressed in this thread (start at about post number 125) as to whether non-US non-Canadian citizens, would get PreCheck privileges as part of GE. In which case, the "just pay for GE and shut argument" is even worse for international visitors.

We never enrolled. It just showed up on her boarding passes but not mine. (And I'm much more aware of the rules than she is anyway!)

You know this how?

Seriously?

People, including security experts, say this all the time.

Statistically it's pretty easy to determine:

Prior to 2006 the number of liquid bombs stopped by security: 0
After 2006 the number of liquid bombs stopped by security: 0

That looks like zero statistical effect to me.

The stats for shoes looks even worse.
Prior to 9/11 the number of shoe bombers missed by security screenings: 1
After 9/11 with everyone taking their shoes off the number of shoe bombers missed by security screenings: 1

Per year that's nearly an order of magnitude *more* shoe bombers than under the old system.

I have flown hundreds of flights from South and Central America to the US or Canada (which means flying over the US) without ever removing my shoes or jacket, nor going through the body scanner. The US-based airlines (yes, the airline employee, not security) sometimes do a secondary check at boarding to look for liquids (no shoe or jacket removal, again), but it is rather cursory - I have been hiding my bottle of water deep down in my carry-on and putting my follow-the-rules liquid baggie on top as a deterrent for years, and my oh-so-dangerous water purchased in the airport always goes undetected.

Security? I think not. Theater, yes, very much so.

I sincerely do believe my chances of an agent overruling the Pre status are greatly magnified by presenting a foreign passport. Maybe I am paranoid, but given all my TSA experience to date, being singled out for secondary all the time, constantly SSSSed (when they had it), and generally mistreated despite the fact that I often speak English better that the person looking at my documents, that is my belief. Since I don't qualify for GE status anyway based on my nationalities (as is true with most foreigners), this point is not really important to me anyways. Even if I did, paying for the process, hearing the confirmatory three beeps and then finding out it doesn't guarantee me from escaping having a TSA officer stick their hands into my pants would be too much to stomach.

Thank you for the info, RadioGirl. I actually investigated this some time ago when I heard the same rumor, since I am from one of the newer countries being considered for GE. The problem is these countries are still on a pilot program - persons from these nations are being invited on a case-to-case basis (probably through diplomatic and other special relations lines), and us common folk from cannot simply show up and apply. Fail.

But it is nice to see Qatar there together with the UAE, to add to the set of what is admittedly in my opinion an illogical set of countries that qualify for GE. Kudos for anyone who can come up with a convincing all-encompassing rule that explains why nationals from the Netherlands, South Korea, Mexico, UAE, Qatar, UK and Germany are the only ones being considered for GE...

Statistics......listen if i flip a coin and it's heads it does not affect the outcome of the next flip. What happens in the past also does not affect the POTENTIAL (you seem to have missed that i am arguing potential) of what can/might or will happen in the future.

Also, see my next post

And yet you keep complaining you can't get PRE or GE or whatever whilst you are bragging about beating the system!.....??? Seems maybe the system in some ways is working better than you think.

This absolutely proves my point(s) in many ways .......however it is clear that there is a bias on this thread......and while i accept everyone's opinion i feel i might be wasting everyone's time here.

Yes, thanks to Bubba

You've expressed several opinions, but IMHO, you haven't proven (or even made clear) any points.

Please explain to me how I showed you that "the easier the screening the larger the threat, that is a fact." (quoting you)

I am not beating the system. I am taking water (not anything remotely dangerous) onto an airplane. This water is purchased airside and does not go through the security checkpoint (where, in fact, it is not allowed). All I am doing is getting it past a secondary and unannounced look into peoples bag which is not performed by airport security professionals. I have never been asked if I had water (in which case I would not lie).

If you think that taking any water purchased airside on a long overnight flight should be prohibited and punishable by not allowing this person to have the priviledge of not having to remove their shoes to fly within the US, I´m very sorry to say I believe there is something very wrong about your morals.

You wrote..." I have been hiding my bottle of water deep down in my carry-on and putting my follow-the-rules liquid baggie on top as a deterrent for years"

Now maybe i understood that as before the first screening and not the secondary, if so my bad (I don't think it was clear), however the statement clearly includes an intention of deceit (your word not mine). And i guess your point is that secondary screening isn't so good....uhh, ok so what.

As far as the rest of the drivel in your last post.......not even sure how to approach that.

Bolding Mine: @:-) With all due respect, I have a suggeston: Don't. Just stay quiet...very quiet...