Tsa sky harbor checked bag meltdown
 

Meanwhile, we have an idiot congressman (TSA shill) who is suggesting that screening times will improve if the airlines stop charging for checked bags. TSA would like that because they think it would improve their odds of passing the Red Team tests at the checkpoints.

I suppose it never occurred to the congressman that TSA would be completely unprepared to handle a sudden rush of checked bags, so pax would stand in long lines only to arrive and not see their bags for days.

Very coincidental timing. Does Neffy have a connection who has expensive new baggage screening systems for sale?

Tsa sky harbor checked bag meltdown
 

http://www.12news.com/mb/news/local/...-lot/187487059

Apparently Sky Harbor checked bags are being taken to other airports to be cleared. TSA using a cell phone lot as overflow.

Apparently TSA's contingency plans come up lacking as typical for TSA.

I know AA agents are telling people that can to take their bags to the gate and gate check them.

I just saw a similar news report on our local NBC station. Wow. Epic failure on the TSA'S part.

More details here:

All,

TSA inline baggage screening system is now fully operational. You may checked a bags tomorrow. Thank you for your patience and we will appreciate that. They has been resolved.

How many bags will be stolen? 2,999?

No, actually, they have a problem with the baggage screening system this early morning. Due to technical problems with the computer servers. 3,000 checks bags that they missed a flight. They won't get a bag in a few days. They had to sent a bags to nearby airports to be screened. No, they did not steal a bags.

Pardon my French, but how the .... does a computer server problem prevent the TSA from sending bags through an X-ray and getting them to the planes.

This just sounds like the TSA coming up for an excuse with their incompetence.

This is interesting because we deal with this a lot at DEN. The system that moves the bags, uses the bar code on the luggage tag that is seen by a laser scanner and tracked through the process. When the laser scanner sees the tag it makes a entry on the server that shows the status of the bag. The bag is then routed to the CTX machine. The image is analyzed by computer and then it is either cleared or sent to be searched. The only part of the system that is owned by TSA is the CTX machine that x-rays the bag. The physical belt system, the computers and the network are not owned by TSA. So it would appear that in order to prevent animosity with the airport, TSA is taking the blame for this.

Take a look at this

In line systems are complicated, and automated. Years ago TSA testified it could reduce it checked baggage workforce 78% by using inline systems.

Automation means computers. Computers systems usually mean some kind of centralized servers.

With an complete automated system that does not provide for manual use, a system "reboot" or "automatic update" could cripple the whole thing.

It's clear that TSA did not have in place an effective back up plan. Now 3,000 bags are floating around the country, some likely to never make it back to the traveler.

Just another example of TSA incompetence.

So you know for a fact that there is no upload of data from the airport owned 'scanner system' to a TSA server to log each bag scanned???

Knowing who owns what physical machine is not the same as knowing how info flows- a server issue that simply records 'image+bag' could stop the whole process. If that is a TSA server it is a TSA caused issue.

I am NOT saying that **I** know one way or the other, either.

Some friends of mine who are in a position to know about this stuff told me that the problem at PHX was caused by an unpatched/improperly patched interface between the airport systems and TSA systems. Guess who owns and is responsible for the interface? Hint: it's not the airport.

http://www.logplan.com/
http://www.morpho.com/

These are two big companies that are responsible for the process. The owner of the MUX might be TSA but the upkeep and reliability are not.