Originally Posted by ashill

Though I agree with most of what you say, a nitpick here: the opportunity cost isn't $7.7B a year. Whether screening were conducted by private contractors or better spent by a government agency -- perhaps even one still called the TSA -- the cost would be substantial. It could well be less than $7.7B, but not all that much less. And I'm very skeptical of any claim (not one you've made) that private contractors would do it for appreciably less given equivalent screening standards (whether those standards are current general TSA standards, current PreCheck standards, or something else).

Originally Posted by ashill

Thanks for these numbers. Though it's important to remember that it's a small fraction of the traveling public that travels five times or more a year. This academic paper (behind a paywall; I can access it through my university library) runs some numbers, albeit with a lot of clearly-spelled-out assumptions which are necessary because they're only using publicly available data. They estimate that the break-even point is around ten screenings per year: for passengers who travel at least that frequently, TSA would break even by offering PreCheck for free assuming that get at least 15 million or so people who travel that frequently into the program (and that that many people even exist, which isn't a certainty).

That's the point of the argument for reducing or waiving the application fee: if they get more people into PreCheck, then they can realize the lower cost by appreciably reducing the volume in the regular lanes.

Originally Posted by ashill

Though I agree with most of what you say, a nitpick here: the opportunity cost isn't $7.7B a year. Whether screening were conducted by private contractors or better spent by a government agency -- perhaps even one still called the TSA -- the cost would be substantial. It could well be less than $7.7B, but not all that much less. And I'm very skeptical of any claim (not one you've made) that private contractors would do it for appreciably less given equivalent screening standards (whether those standards are current general TSA standards, current PreCheck standards, or something else).

Originally Posted by ethernal

You're right (I agree that private contractors won't do it materially cheaper at the same levels of screening) - obviously the intent would be to go back to lower cost and more efficient screening methods. But you're right, that lower cost is still greater than $0 so, de facto, the opportunity cost is less than $7.7 billion a year.

Originally Posted by ethernal

You're right (I agree that private contractors won't do it materially cheaper at the same levels of screening) - obviously the intent would be to go back to lower cost and more efficient screening methods. But you're right, that lower cost is still greater than $0 so, de facto, the opportunity cost is less than $7.7 billion a year.

Originally Posted by Boggie Dog

Contractors can do it cheaper. Payroll cost are lower for non-government workers.

Originally Posted by ethernal

Airports can already choose to use private contractors if they wish and it doesn't really save any money.

Originally Posted by WillCAD

Yes, I know they do. My point is, unless they have been vetted to the same level as a PreCheck applicant, they shouldn't.



My point exactly - does each and every member of the US military go through a periodic background check of the same or greater depth than the one a PreCheck applicant endures? If so, then sure, they should continue to get PreCheck-equivalent screening. If not, then they should be removed from the line along with all of the other regular people who haven't had the background check.



As I said in an earlier post, that's a separate issue, but I do agree with you - PreCheck equivalent screening should be the standard for all travelers. It should be WTMD and HHMD, ETD swabs and occasional PoochChecks, with WBI used only as an escalated methodology for those instances where the HHMD can't resolve a WTMD alert or as a voluntary option for those with medical metal. Pat-downs should never be conducted by TSOs - only by law enforcement officers as part of an actual criminal investigation, after probable cause or clearly articulable suspicion (i.e. an unresolvable alert from the metal detectors or WBI).

But for right now, we're discussing how PreCheck should be operated in the current setup.



You're misinterpreting what we're saying - we're not saying that "everyone should have a privilege", we're saying that that PreCheck level screening should be the standard, not a privilege requiring a background check and a fee, and that the invasive and abusive screening methodologies currently used as the standard should be used on a gradually escalating scale, only when the standard screening turns up an alert that can't be resolved by less invasive screening.

PreCheck equivalent screening is sufficient to keep us safe, when combined with reinforced cockpit doors, additional in-flight procedures, and a more cautious passenger mindset. Theoretically, the new paradigm also includes improved LEO and intelligence work that will stop bad actors long before they ever get near a plane.

The main point of all of this, and in fact the main point of most discussions on this board, is that the current screening methodology, as implemented by TSA, is not only useless, it's worse than useless - it actually makes us LESS safe, while violating our Constitutional rights, abusing and traumatizing millions of innocent people, and costing an insane amount of money on a yearly basis. Switching to PreCheck-equivalent screening as the standard, with the more invasive methodologies reserved for cases of actual alerts, coupled with the elimination of stupidity of the shoe carnival, the absurdity of the War on Water, and the irrelevancy of "all electronics out", would eliminate most if not all of those negatives about TSA while still keeping us safe from the most likely threats.

Originally Posted by ethernal

I am not at all a conspiracy theorist, and I am not even anti-government. What I support, however, is risk-based decision making when it comes to social policies.

The TSA literally kills hundreds to thousands of people per year while demonstrably creating no material safety benefit. The TSA kills people by:

• Encouraging people to drive on shorter trips resulting in an estimated 100-400 increased deaths per year from car accidents
• The opportunity cost of spending $7.7B a year (the TSA budget) on useless screening rather than on things that save people's lives. The statistical value of a life used for regulation setting and the like is anywhere between $5-10M per person. This means that TSA funds could be redirected to safety features that save lives (e.g., road safety improvements, emission controls, healthcare) and save anywhere from 750-1500 lives per year

The TSA's screening is demonstrably useless given that most of Europe and many other countries use more pre-check like screening approaches, face higher risk profiles (as evidenced by more low complexity events - e.g., running trucks through crowds), and do not have planes falling down from the sky left and right.

The above does not even consider the more immeasurable damage to the social psyche of having traditional rights degraded and abuses such as sexual assault normalized under the guise of safety.

This isn't about longing for pre-9/11 days, it is about risk-based decision making and not having ludicrous policies.

Originally Posted by petaluma1

False equivalency. You choose your doctor and you can refuse your doctor's probing; you cannot do that with the TSA.

Originally Posted by COSPILOT

So drive then.

I choose to pay in order to speed up things while I travel, both Global Entry and CLEAR make my life easier. I value my time, and love not removing my shoes, belt, computer, etc. Well worth the money. On the rare occasion that TSA selects me for additional screening, I don't care, do what you need to. I often ask for a kiss first, but I have to yet get that before the non issue rub down.

The inclusion thing drives me crazy because the candidates included refuse to believe what they are told, holding up the line for sometimes minutes. Double the price, even triple it, but stop including people with no clue.

Originally Posted by chollie

(bolding mine)

I'm sorry, I blame that 100% on TSA culture. I have never seen that kind of problem anywhere else, even at major international hubs where there's a bigger variation in languages than I've encountered at US checkpoints.

TSA isn't consistent - from airport to airport, checkpoint to checkpoint, screener to screener. There have been reports from pax feeling incredibly awkward when two TSOs would start arguing a screening point in front of the pax in question. Couple that with a strongly US tendency to bark or yell at pax who get anything wrong, and it's hardly surprising some pax are extra cautious about double-checking any alleged relaxation of the rules.

Better to keep your shoes on and take your belongings apart unnecessarily than to guess wrong and get yelled at for daring to presume that you understand this whole 'flavor of the day', 'always keep them guessing' approach to security.

Originally Posted by COSPILOT

So drive then.

I choose to pay in order to speed up things while I travel, both Global Entry and CLEAR make my life easier. I value my time, and love not removing my shoes, belt, computer, etc. Well worth the money. On the rare occasion that TSA selects me for additional screening, I don't care, do what you need to. I often ask for a kiss first, but I have to yet get that before the non issue rub down.

The inclusion thing drives me crazy because the candidates included refuse to believe what they are told, holding up the line for sometimes minutes. Double the price, even triple it, but stop including people with no clue.

Originally Posted by petaluma1

This is what TSA has to say about inconsistency: