MORE FREE passes to Precheck - Managed Inclusion III
Sep 29, 2015, 11:19 am
#61
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,714
Despite all the rants, I find Pre-Check to be great value (100% with GE). Saves time, effort, stress and is generally painless.
Even when the Managed Inclusionees troop through, I have found that even lines which look long do not take long. True, people putting their shoes on the belt may add a few seconds, but it's not world-ending.
History, having nothing to do with TSA, shows that when there are security lapses, security is tightened not loosened. The impact of the various TSA failings over the past 18 months are not going to lead to a less rigorous experience, no matter what people think.
From a self-interest perspective, Pre-check is faster and cheap. That's all I care about.
Even when the Managed Inclusionees troop through, I have found that even lines which look long do not take long. True, people putting their shoes on the belt may add a few seconds, but it's not world-ending.
History, having nothing to do with TSA, shows that when there are security lapses, security is tightened not loosened. The impact of the various TSA failings over the past 18 months are not going to lead to a less rigorous experience, no matter what people think.
From a self-interest perspective, Pre-check is faster and cheap. That's all I care about.
Glad it works for you, but that says more about the particular airports and checkpoints and schedules you fly than it does about the program overall.
Sep 29, 2015, 12:12 pm
#62
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Sep 29, 2015, 12:18 pm
#63
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
I feel like I'm arguing about angels dancing on head of pins, but, sure ...
How you answer this question depends on what you mean by a "real-world test". I'm sure there's a TSA press release somewhere that crows about one scanner at one checkpoint finding one item that wouldn't have been found with a WTMD.
Oh, hey, look, here's one: http://blog.tsa.gov/2014/02/tsa-week...-firearms.html --- though you have to look through the comments to discover that TSA is crowing about the scanner finding a ceramic knife a passenger concealed in a sock.
I find it unlikely that the AIT scanners are allowing *more* contraband past a checkpoint than the WTMDs did. And since allowing exactly the same amount of contraband past a checkpoint is extremely unlikely, I'm left to conclude that the AIT scanners are allowing *less* contraband past a checkpoint.
But I don't want us to be debating about being "safer". Implicit behind that argument is the "anything for security" mindset --- "safer" is always better than "not safer", no matter how much money we spend, no matter how many civil liberties we give up, no matter how much time we spend. That mindset does not serve us well. Conceding the point about being "safer" allows us to move directly to the debate we really ought to be having.
How you answer this question depends on what you mean by a "real-world test". I'm sure there's a TSA press release somewhere that crows about one scanner at one checkpoint finding one item that wouldn't have been found with a WTMD.
Oh, hey, look, here's one: http://blog.tsa.gov/2014/02/tsa-week...-firearms.html --- though you have to look through the comments to discover that TSA is crowing about the scanner finding a ceramic knife a passenger concealed in a sock.
I find it unlikely that the AIT scanners are allowing *more* contraband past a checkpoint than the WTMDs did. And since allowing exactly the same amount of contraband past a checkpoint is extremely unlikely, I'm left to conclude that the AIT scanners are allowing *less* contraband past a checkpoint.
But I don't want us to be debating about being "safer". Implicit behind that argument is the "anything for security" mindset --- "safer" is always better than "not safer", no matter how much money we spend, no matter how many civil liberties we give up, no matter how much time we spend. That mindset does not serve us well. Conceding the point about being "safer" allows us to move directly to the debate we really ought to be having.
Just because something is caught more via one means than another doesn't necessarily mean that one means makes things "safer" than the other means.
Sep 29, 2015, 12:49 pm
#64
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 396
Interesting discussion. Not sure if its a "head in the sand" attitude or a "it wont happen to me" attitude.
Richard Reid shoes were packed with explosives = shoes off.
Water Bottles were filled with explosives = 3.4 oz liquid requirement
Underwear packed with explosives = scanning machines.
There is merit to the requirements.
A metal detector ONLY would not provide much security. Metal detectors will not detect explosives.
What differentiates Precheck from regular screening, is background checks and possibly continuous monitoring of some sort i.e. CAPPS, Secure Flight, No fly list, etc.
But to say "Everyone, shoes on, laptop in bag, do not remove liquids; hope skip or jump through the metal detector UNTIL otherwise needed." Is to ignore the very real possibilities of catastrophe.
Richard Reid shoes were packed with explosives = shoes off.
Water Bottles were filled with explosives = 3.4 oz liquid requirement
Underwear packed with explosives = scanning machines.
There is merit to the requirements.
A metal detector ONLY would not provide much security. Metal detectors will not detect explosives.
What differentiates Precheck from regular screening, is background checks and possibly continuous monitoring of some sort i.e. CAPPS, Secure Flight, No fly list, etc.
But to say "Everyone, shoes on, laptop in bag, do not remove liquids; hope skip or jump through the metal detector UNTIL otherwise needed." Is to ignore the very real possibilities of catastrophe.
Sep 29, 2015, 1:05 pm
#65
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: SEA
Programs: Delta TDK(or care)WIA, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 1,869
No they weren't.
You are right about the shoe carnival and the NOSs. People in other countries must be stupid. Because they don't do the shoe carnival or the NOSs, they lose one or two aircraft a week to terrorist attacks. When are they going to wake up!!?!?!
You are right about the shoe carnival and the NOSs. People in other countries must be stupid. Because they don't do the shoe carnival or the NOSs, they lose one or two aircraft a week to terrorist attacks. When are they going to wake up!!?!?!
Sep 29, 2015, 1:56 pm
#66
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,129
Interesting discussion. Not sure if its a "head in the sand" attitude or a "it wont happen to me" attitude.
Richard Reid shoes were packed with explosives = shoes off.
Water Bottles were filled with explosives = 3.4 oz liquid requirement
Underwear packed with explosives = scanning machines.
There is merit to the requirements.
A metal detector ONLY would not provide much security. Metal detectors will not detect explosives.
What differentiates Precheck from regular screening, is background checks and possibly continuous monitoring of some sort i.e. CAPPS, Secure Flight, No fly list, etc.
But to say "Everyone, shoes on, laptop in bag, do not remove liquids; hope skip or jump through the metal detector UNTIL otherwise needed." Is to ignore the very real possibilities of catastrophe.
Richard Reid shoes were packed with explosives = shoes off.
Water Bottles were filled with explosives = 3.4 oz liquid requirement
Underwear packed with explosives = scanning machines.
There is merit to the requirements.
A metal detector ONLY would not provide much security. Metal detectors will not detect explosives.
What differentiates Precheck from regular screening, is background checks and possibly continuous monitoring of some sort i.e. CAPPS, Secure Flight, No fly list, etc.
But to say "Everyone, shoes on, laptop in bag, do not remove liquids; hope skip or jump through the metal detector UNTIL otherwise needed." Is to ignore the very real possibilities of catastrophe.
There are somewhere around 1.8 million people boarding domestic flights each day (based on 2010 figures) so surely just one of those people in the last 10 years had a shoe bomb that went undetected or was detected but not advertised.
If the answer is none in 10 years look at all the time and effort wasted on
x-raying of shoes.
Show me the ROI of current TSA procedures. Show why the procedures are effective by using some real evidence of effectiveness.
It's like TSA saying why looking at ID's are important except they could never answer the question. Why look at an ID if it is not compared to some database? And why does ID matter if the person is screened for WEI?
Pre-Check isn't the problem, it is TSA and their inability to show why what they are doing moves the security ball towards the goal.
Sep 29, 2015, 2:17 pm
#67
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
Sep 29, 2015, 2:22 pm
#68
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
It's like TSA saying why looking at ID's are important except they could never answer the question. Why look at an ID if it is not compared to some database? And why does ID matter if the person is screened for WEI?
Pre-Check isn't the problem, it is TSA and their inability to show why what they are doing moves the security ball towards the goal.
Pre-Check isn't the problem, it is TSA and their inability to show why what they are doing moves the security ball towards the goal.
"But why is it the rule? Do you honestly believe that you are going to thwart a terrorist by requiring him to show you a laminated photograph of himself? Do you think a person who could plan and execute a sophisticated hijacking or other illegal airborne event would be unable to contrive some form of convincing artificial identification. Has it occurred to you that it might be more productive, vis-a-vis terrorism, if you employed someone who was actually awak and perhaps with an IQ above that of a small mollusk to monitor the TV screens on your x-ray machines?"
The more things change.....
Sep 29, 2015, 2:32 pm
#69
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,129
If you only want to base decisions on cost can't we afford to lose a plane here and there?
That question may sound cold but if you think about it every airline that operates today knows there is a chance that any given flight may not end well. Yet they fly the airplanes and people pay their money for the convenience of air travel all while knowing that there is a tiny small chance of not arriving safely.
I guess a case could be made that TSA is not worth paying for at any cost.
Sep 29, 2015, 2:42 pm
#70
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Interesting discussion. Not sure if its a "head in the sand" attitude or a "it wont happen to me" attitude.
Richard Reid shoes were packed with explosives = shoes off.
Water Bottles were filled with explosives = 3.4 oz liquid requirement
Underwear packed with explosives = scanning machines.
There is merit to the requirements.
A metal detector ONLY would not provide much security. Metal detectors will not detect explosives.
What differentiates Precheck from regular screening, is background checks and possibly continuous monitoring of some sort i.e. CAPPS, Secure Flight, No fly list, etc.
But to say "Everyone, shoes on, laptop in bag, do not remove liquids; hope skip or jump through the metal detector UNTIL otherwise needed." Is to ignore the very real possibilities of catastrophe.
Richard Reid shoes were packed with explosives = shoes off.
Water Bottles were filled with explosives = 3.4 oz liquid requirement
Underwear packed with explosives = scanning machines.
There is merit to the requirements.
A metal detector ONLY would not provide much security. Metal detectors will not detect explosives.
What differentiates Precheck from regular screening, is background checks and possibly continuous monitoring of some sort i.e. CAPPS, Secure Flight, No fly list, etc.
But to say "Everyone, shoes on, laptop in bag, do not remove liquids; hope skip or jump through the metal detector UNTIL otherwise needed." Is to ignore the very real possibilities of catastrophe.
Which water bottles were filled with explosives? None brought onto planes by passengers. Contraband explosives can be interdicted without banning water and other harmless liquid bottles.
The strip search machines were already being sought by the TSA before the failed underwear bomber. They were even in use before the failed underwear bomber was cleared to fly to the US. And strip search machines aren't needed to stop a so-called underwear bomber.
Shoes off isn't required to stop a so-called shoe bomber.
Sep 30, 2015, 9:48 am
#71
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
Look, we could have "perfect" security aboard commercial air travel. All we have to do is do what "Con Air" does. Restrain all passengers with handcuffs, ankle chains, and waist chains. Voila; no hijacking possible.
Yes, I'm being ridiculous. Somewhere along the line, we made the decision that the social cost of treating passengers like convicted felons was much higher than the benefit of an absolutely secure flight.
And yet, we're slowly getting closer and closer to that model. Locking passengers in the cabin (technically, I suppose it's the pilots locked in the cockpit, but that depends on your perspective). Background checks for ordinary passengers (SecureFlight, PreCheck, etc.). Confiscation of anything remotely weapon-like. And so on.
Yes, any liberty given to passengers opens up the possibility of loss of life or property due to a criminal incident. And we live with that possibility. We just need to acknowledge that tradeoff explicitly, so we can talk about it.
Sep 30, 2015, 10:36 am
#72
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,129
Not just cost: cost versus benefits.
Look, we could have "perfect" security aboard commercial air travel. All we have to do is do what "Con Air" does. Restrain all passengers with handcuffs, ankle chains, and waist chains. Voila; no hijacking possible.
Yes, I'm being ridiculous. Somewhere along the line, we made the decision that the social cost of treating passengers like convicted felons was much higher than the benefit of an absolutely secure flight.
And yet, we're slowly getting closer and closer to that model. Locking passengers in the cabin (technically, I suppose it's the pilots locked in the cockpit, but that depends on your perspective). Background checks for ordinary passengers (SecureFlight, PreCheck, etc.). Confiscation of anything remotely weapon-like. And so on.
Yes, any liberty given to passengers opens up the possibility of loss of life or property due to a criminal incident. And we live with that possibility. We just need to acknowledge that tradeoff explicitly, so we can talk about it.
Look, we could have "perfect" security aboard commercial air travel. All we have to do is do what "Con Air" does. Restrain all passengers with handcuffs, ankle chains, and waist chains. Voila; no hijacking possible.
Yes, I'm being ridiculous. Somewhere along the line, we made the decision that the social cost of treating passengers like convicted felons was much higher than the benefit of an absolutely secure flight.
And yet, we're slowly getting closer and closer to that model. Locking passengers in the cabin (technically, I suppose it's the pilots locked in the cockpit, but that depends on your perspective). Background checks for ordinary passengers (SecureFlight, PreCheck, etc.). Confiscation of anything remotely weapon-like. And so on.
Yes, any liberty given to passengers opens up the possibility of loss of life or property due to a criminal incident. And we live with that possibility. We just need to acknowledge that tradeoff explicitly, so we can talk about it.
The TSA 2016 budget (page 57) is over $7 Billion dollars. Not all of that goes to airport screening operations.
A Boeing 787 Dreamliner cost up to around around $300 million each.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner
Unit cost
787-8: US$224.6 million (2015)[3]
787-9: US$264.6 million (2015)[3]
787-10: US$306.1 million (2015)[3]
Unit cost
787-8: US$224.6 million (2015)[3]
787-9: US$264.6 million (2015)[3]
787-10: US$306.1 million (2015)[3]
So we could go from the extremes of no security and take our chances or to Con Air security which would only resolve internal threats.
I think there is some point between those two extremes that give reasonable security against current threats.
I do not believe that Body Scanners are part of that solution but do believe that efforts should be mounted to develop a functional WTMD/ETP machine with a high throughput for passenger screening.
Unfortunately there will always be exceptions needed to accommodate people who have some type of limitation but those exception should be minimized as much as possible during development on any new screening device.
In the meantime, Pre-Check screening standards should be used for everyone ramping up the screening as needed per individual, expanded use of HHMD, and continued use of ETD. The removal of shoes, belts and light jackets is a waste of time, bogs down the screening lanes, and provides little if any increase in safety. Same for restrictions on LGA's.
WBI and Pat Downs should be used for secondary screenings exclusively.
I think a hard look at the cost of TSA needs to be undertaken. We have far to many government agencies, including TSA, with extremely large budgets and I am doubtful if the public is getting their monies worth.
Sep 30, 2015, 11:49 am
#73
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Finally back in Boston after escaping from New York
Posts: 13,644
Canines? Seriously? I guess they took us too seriously when we called them "barkers."
And frankly, I'm ashamed of all of you for missing such an easy pun.
Mike
And frankly, I'm ashamed of all of you for missing such an easy pun.
Mike
Sep 30, 2015, 12:24 pm
#74
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Sep 30, 2015, 12:29 pm
#75
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,714
