|
Changes coming to PreCheck????
http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel...ning/80815518/
The bill requires frequent fliers, who have been able to participate in Precheck as part of their airline loyalty programs for years, to formally join the program. Applicants must pay $85 for five years and provide biographical information and fingerprints to join. |
Another outstanding example of "if it ain't broke, let's fix it" by our elected "representatives."
Considering how infrequently available many PreCheck lanes are, I find it interesting that one goal is to reduce the number of FF people in the line cause they're too many people in the line. Maybe I'll be able to retire before this gets going. |
All of these bills are a knee - jerk reaction to when the TSA accidentally let one person use PreCheck who happened to have served time on a domestic terrorism charge.
http://thehill.com/policy/transporta...ited-screening Since then the pundits on the hill have been trying to shut down PreCheck except those who pay for it. And many people who pay for it are asking for the same. There are several existing threads on this subject. |
Originally Posted by FlyingUnderTheRadar
(Post 26256003)
All of these bills are a knee - jerk reaction to when the TSA accidentally let one person use PreCheck who happened to have served time on a domestic terrorism charge.
http://thehill.com/policy/transporta...ited-screening Since then the pundits on the hill have been trying to shut down PreCheck except those who pay for it. And many people who pay for it are asking for the same. There are several existing threads on this subject. |
Originally Posted by petaluma1
(Post 26256036)
TSA can't exclude people who haven't paid for it or they will never get all the enrollees they claim they need to make the program work "efficiently". The number they say they need is 25 million - they claim to have 5 million now.
|
Originally Posted by petaluma1
(Post 26256036)
TSA can't exclude people who haven't paid for it or they will never get all the enrollees they claim they need to make the program work "efficiently". The number they say they need is 25 million - they claim to have 5 million now.
|
Good.
|
Originally Posted by petaluma1
(Post 26256036)
TSA can't exclude people who haven't paid for it or they will never get all the enrollees they claim they need to make the program work "efficiently". The number they say they need is 25 million - they claim to have 5 million now.
If you are a once-a-year leisure traveler and your home airport is, for example, PHX, you are already facing the strong likelihood that for 50% of your checkpoint experiences (leaving home), Pre will either not be available or will only be available in a very limited form (the same leeway given to <12's and >75's). That effectively doubles the cost of the program before you even start thinking about Pre availability on return trips. If you regularly return from abroad and have to connect, you will likely enjoy a Pre-like experience on your foreign departure, but have to go through a non-Pre experience when you connect here in the US - further reducing the value of Pre. |
Originally Posted by petaluma1
(Post 26255377)
Several bills have been proposed to rein in "TSA ... handing out PreCheck status like Halloween candy" (Assistant Federal Security Director Rebecca Reoring). The DHS Inspector has requested that Congress pass these types of bills. These bills would end "Managed Inclusion" programs. Yet despite the concerns of many, TSA continues to hand the candy. TSA continues managed inclusion, and shows no signs of ended it. |
Originally Posted by Fleck
(Post 26256813)
Good.
|
Much ado about nothing.
TSA announced a long time ago that it was phasing out the freebie pilot program and that program is now gone. We're now on our third iteration of Managed Inclusion and that isn't even based on FF status. Thousands of bills are filed every year as knee jerk reactions to some perceived issue. Pre-Check isn't going anywhere, Congress isn't requiring tougher standards and the fee isn't being raised. The effort out there, quite successful as I hear, is to encourage more major employers to pick up the tab for their employees who travel a good deal. TSA won't meet its goal $85 at a time. |
Originally Posted by Often1
(Post 26257274)
Much ado about nothing.
TSA announced a long time ago that it was phasing out the freebie pilot program and that program is now gone. We're now on our third iteration of Managed Inclusion and that isn't even based on FF status. Thousands of bills are filed every year as knee jerk reactions to some perceived issue. Pre-Check isn't going anywhere, Congress isn't requiring tougher standards and the fee isn't being raised. The effort out there, quite successful as I hear, is to encourage more major employers to pick up the tab for their employees who travel a good deal. TSA won't meet its goal $85 at a time. |
HQ's announcements are for the general public (including non-flyers).
FSDs and lower levels decide whether or not to actually offer Pre, not HQ. |
Originally Posted by chollie
(Post 26257420)
HQ's announcements are for the general public (including non-flyers).
FSDs and lower levels decide whether or not to actually offer Pre, not HQ. |
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 26257557)
I've often wondered exactly how Pre Check is awarded on a non-paid basis. When the airline submits a name to TSA does it sometimes come back with an Ok flag allowing the airline to give Pre if they want, by quota, or a regular but non-status customer? I know there is a mechanism and would be interested in how it works.
|
Originally Posted by chollie
(Post 26257952)
I wouldn't be surprised if being a vet improves one's chances for a thumb's up from TSA.
|
Originally Posted by chollie
(Post 26257952)
I wouldn't be surprised if being a vet improves one's chances for a thumb's up from TSA.
|
Originally Posted by Often1
(Post 26257274)
TSA announced a long time ago that it was phasing out the freebie pilot program and that program is now gone. We're now on our third iteration of Managed Inclusion and that isn't even based on FF status.
|
Originally Posted by Ari
(Post 26262608)
These two sentences seem self contradictory. The "third iteration of Managed Inclusion" is just another "freebie pilot program" as I understand it.
FSDs and individual screeners decide which flavors, if any, of MI will be applied at a particular checkpoint or airport at any particular time. If you know the rules and they are practiced consistently, then the bad guys will get in. That's why even some FFs show up at Pre unprepared - you never know what to expect. |
Originally Posted by chollie
(Post 26262636)
Actually, there's no clear definition of any of the versions of MI.
FSDs and individual screeners decide which flavors, if any, of MI will be applied at a particular checkpoint or airport at any particular time. |
Originally Posted by chollie
(Post 26262636)
Actually, there's no clear definition of any of the versions of MI.
FSDs and individual screeners decide which flavors, if any, of MI will be applied at a particular checkpoint or airport at any particular time. If you know the rules and they are practiced consistently, then the bad guys will get in. That's why even some FFs show up at Pre unprepared - you never know what to expect. |
I am not an American Citizen and I get precheck regularly. I have had extensive background checks though for both of my Green Cards.
|
My colleague with whom I've been regularly traveling seems to be getting PreCheck maybe 2/3 times. She doesn't have a PreCheck or Global Entry membership, but is a United Million Miler. I have had GE since late 2012 and can't recall the last time I did NOT have PreCheck - maybe early 2013?
|
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 26257359)
No airline status, not a paid Pre Check but had Pre Check on a flight yesterday. The free program, pilot or not, has not ended.
|
Is it Neffenger or the spokes-folks who don't know what's happening at the checkpoints?
Or is there some subtler purpose to the on-going announcements about the various imminent curtailments of 'free Pre'? Is this just a big test? Some airports rarely offer Pre, some airports offer only Pre Lite, and some airports hand out free Pre for any number of reasons? Then compare Red Team test results to see what produces the best results? |
H.R.4408 would be my guess. Doesn't seem to be specific about this.
|
Originally Posted by gingersnaps
(Post 26257151)
The bill is not reference by number nor is it linked. What bill is it and what proof is there of the "tighten enrollment" for precheck?
Originally Posted by okamzikprosim
(Post 26263752)
H.R.4408 would be my guess. Doesn't seem to be specific about this.
SEC. 103. LIMITATION; PRECHECK OPERATIONS MAINTAINED; ALTERNATE METHODS. (a) In General.—Except as provided in subsection (c), the Administrator shall direct that access to expedited airport security screening at an airport security checkpoint be limited to only the following: (1) A passenger who voluntarily submits biographic and biometric information for a security risk assessment and whose application for the PreCheck program has been approved, or a passenger who is a participant in another trusted or registered traveler program of the Department. (2) A passenger traveling pursuant to section 44903 of title 49, United States Code (as established under the Risk-Based Security for Members of the Armed Forces Act (Public Law 112–86)), section 44927 of such title (as established under the Helping Heroes Fly Act (Public Law 113–27)), or section 44928 of such title (as established under the Honor Flight Act (Public Law 113–221)). (3) A passenger who did not voluntarily submit biographic and biometric information for a security risk assessment but is a member of a population designated by the Administrator as known and low-risk and who may be issued a unique, known traveler number by the Administrator determining that such passenger is a member of a category of travelers designated by the Administrator as known and low-risk. (b) PreCheck Operations Maintained.—In carrying out subsection (a), the Administrator shall ensure that expedited airport security screening remains available to passengers at or above the level that exists on the day before the date of the enactment of this Act. (c) Frequent Fliers.—If the Administrator determines that such is appropriate, the implementation of subsection (a) may be delayed by up to 1 year with respect to the population of passengers who did not voluntarily submit biographic and biometric information for security risk assessments but who nevertheless receive expedited airport security screening because such passengers are designated as frequent fliers by air carriers. If the Administrator uses the authority provided by this subsection, the Administrator shall notify the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate of such phased-in implementation. |
(3) and (b) are particularly interesting.
The unnamed 'Administrator' can issue known traveler numbers to members of a 'population designated by the Administrator as known and low-risk' - with no requirement for biographic or biometric information, ie, no background check of any sort. Seriously? An unnamed administrator can hand out KTNs to anyone he has designated 'low risk' without a background check? Did he start with his immediate family and circle of friends? (b) "In carrying out subsection (a), the Administrator shall ensure that expedited airport security screening remains available to passengers at or above the level that exists on the day before the date of the enactment of this Act." That doesn't seem to line up with airports that offer Pre less and less often, but it's not like HQ tells FSDs what to do anyway. Well, it may tell them what to do, but it doesn't enforce it. |
(3) could be for congress critters.
|
Originally Posted by chollie
(Post 26269429)
(3) and (b) are particularly interesting.
The unnamed 'Administrator' can issue known traveler numbers to members of a 'population designated by the Administrator as known and low-risk' - with no requirement for biographic or biometric information, ie, no background check of any sort. Seriously? An unnamed administrator can hand out KTNs to anyone he has designated 'low risk' without a background check? Did he start with his immediate family and circle of friends? |
Originally Posted by MSPeconomist
(Post 26269493)
(3) could be for congress critters.
If Congress critters get a free pass, then why not governors? Judges? Cops? Ordinary people with extremely high security clearances, regularly updated, do not qualify for a free pass based on their extensive government background checks. They still have to pony up the $ and get TSA's less-detailed background check. Sounds to me like CYA language to allow a few people in TSA HQ an unquestioned an unmonitored exemption from the rules. |
Originally Posted by chollie
(Post 26269675)
If Congress critters get a free pass, then why not governors? Judges? Cops?
Ordinary people with extremely high security clearances, regularly updated, do not qualify for a free pass based on their extensive government background checks. They still have to pony up the $ and get TSA's less-detailed background check. Sounds to me like CYA language to allow a few people in TSA HQ an unquestioned an unmonitored exemption from the rules. |
Originally Posted by chollie
(Post 26269675)
If Congress critters get a free pass, then why not governors? Judges? Cops?
Originally Posted by chollie
(Post 26269675)
Ordinary people with extremely high security clearances, regularly updated, do not qualify for a free pass based on their extensive government background checks. They still have to pony up the $ and get TSA's less-detailed background check.
|
Originally Posted by chollie
(Post 26269429)
(3) and (b) are particularly interesting.
The unnamed 'Administrator' can issue known traveler numbers to members of a 'population designated by the Administrator as known and low-risk' - with no requirement for biographic or biometric information, ie, no background check of any sort. Seriously? An unnamed administrator can hand out KTNs to anyone he has designated 'low risk' without a background check? |
Originally Posted by chollie
(Post 26269429)
(3) and (b) are particularly interesting.
The unnamed 'Administrator' can issue known traveler numbers to members of a 'population designated by the Administrator as known and low-risk' - with no requirement for biographic or biometric information, ie, no background check of any sort. Seriously? An unnamed administrator can hand out KTNs to anyone he has designated 'low risk' without a background check? Did he start with his immediate family and circle of friends? (b) "In carrying out subsection (a), the Administrator shall ensure that expedited airport security screening remains available to passengers at or above the level that exists on the day before the date of the enactment of this Act." That doesn't seem to line up with airports that offer Pre less and less often, but it's not like HQ tells FSDs what to do anyway. Well, it may tell them what to do, but it doesn't enforce it. |
Originally Posted by chollie
(Post 26269675)
If Congress critters get a free pass, then why not governors? Judges? Cops?
Ordinary people with extremely high security clearances, regularly updated, do not qualify for a free pass based on their extensive government background checks. They still have to pony up the $ and get TSA's less-detailed background check. Sounds to me like CYA language to allow a few people in TSA HQ an unquestioned an unmonitored exemption from the rules. |
Originally Posted by GUWonder
(Post 26271834)
My bet is that the TSA uses such administrative flexibility in order to kiss up to some people and/or avoid some potential PR challenges.
I imagine that when Rep. Chaffetz complained about his young daughters being separated from his wife and all being given retaliatory private room gropes because they opted out, Pistole immediately made sure that wife and daughters had KTNs. Problem solved, Chaffetz is happy. |
(3) A passenger who did not voluntarily submit biographic and biometric information for a security risk assessment but is a member of a population designated by the Administrator as known and low-risk and who may be issued a unique, known traveler number by the Administrator determining that such passenger is a member of a category of travelers designated by the Administrator as known and low-risk. |
Originally Posted by Schmurrr
(Post 26283931)
Isn't the population defined as "US travelers" already low-risk, given the odds of a terror attack?
|
Originally Posted by Schmurrr
(Post 26283931)
Isn't the population defined as "US travelers" already low-risk, given the odds of a terror attack?
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 2:21 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.