TSA or non-TSA Debate
 

I got into a friendly debate with my coworkers regarding TSA. In a nutshell, if hypothetically had the option to fly on a flight without TSA security, would you? On one hand, it'd be cheaper, no waiting in lines, no restrictions on what you could bring with you, and no screening. On the other hand, everyone else flying with you isn't screened either. Would you book TSA or non-TSA?

You are assuming the point of TSA security is solely to protect passengers on the plane.

The effectiveness of TSA in preventing losses is a completely different debate. I was curious about people's opinions on the personal value of the security provided.

Like I said, the personal value of the security provided is more about the people on the ground, not the people on the plane. TSA security isn't to provide security for the passengers. Did you think it was?

Should there be passenger screening? I think YES is the clear answer but government employees should not perform that task. TSA should be a regulatory agency only. Screeners should be employees of the airport. Screenings should be limited to actual WEI and not water, baby formula, embossed purses, cupcakes in jars, and all the other non-WEI items TSA has confiscated over the years.

This discussion is just plowing a field already plowed.

I view TSA as theatre designed to make people feel safer about flying. Could it thwart some idiot trying to do something stupid? Sure. Does it have any real value in preventing a major threat...not in my opinion.

If I recall, Domestic flights in New Zealand under 90 seats do not require it and small airports no not do it.

The odds of an incident without screening are still infinitesimally small so yes; I'd willingly fly without any screening.

A large, private jet and a commercial airliner both represent the same threat to people on the ground. Yet the security at a standard FBO, governed largely by market forces, is radically different from TSA at a public airport, which is governed by public policy. Should market forces be allowed to govern security at public airports, or only at private airports?

I probably was too general in my question. The friendly debate was more along the lines of "If MDW had TSA and ORD didn't, which would you fly and how much of a premium would pay to do so?" The underlying assumptions are that you still have to show an ID to fly, and your luggage can be searched, but it's at the airline's discretion, just like a private FBO.

I think that the risk potential is such that either choice will give similar results.

But if the 'security" you object to was removed... and THEN an incident occurred as a result, would YOU sue or expect compensation of any sort? I think thats the question. If you would take legal action AFTER choosing the "unscreened" option, then you weren't REALLY against "security", right? ;)

Good point. Everyone involved should sign a liability waiver. ;)

Does that mean your position is that you'd fly either and the premium is $0?

Anyone can fly without TSA and with liquids; it is called JSX.

I wish they flew to more places.

Actually, that's anyone who flies under Part 135. There are a lot more than JSX. Though there are other considerations to be made when flying those...

Me, too. especially operating from the DC Metro area. HEF or IAD would be perfect, heck, I would probably make the drive down to RMN, for that matter.

From their FAQ re: TSA:

What is the security process at JSX?

Your safety is our top priority, and JSX is proud of its industry leading TSA-approved security program, offering Customers a secure travel experience without compromising the convenience you expect from JSX.

Some examples of how we prioritize your safety and security when traveling with JSX include:

-Vetting all Customers through TSA Secure Flight, the same TSA-provided background check process used by the major airlines.

-Using state-of-the-art Evolv walk-through metal detectors.

-Being the first public charter operator to deploy advanced x-ray technology.

-Screening all Customer and Crewmember baggage for explosives and other dangerous items.

-Confirming Customer identification both at check-in and at boarding.

-Equipping all JSX aircraft with reinforced flight deck doors.

Please remember that the transport of illicit or illegal substances or materials in checked or carry-on baggage or otherwise is strictly prohibited by law and is subject to seizure and prosecution by law enforcement or by local governing agencies.

Transport of illicit or illegal substances or materials could lead to fines, prosecution, or legal and other administrative actions. JSX will contact law enforcement if suspected substances are identified in checked or carry-on baggage or otherwise, and JSX reserves the right to deny boarding and/or take other action as deemed necessary in its sole discretion.

I think they're the biggest and cheapest which is why I mentioned them. Slate is also an option if you want to pay $2,000 instead of $500.

Yes.

So like 1950's non-security vs the present day?

Seems like there's a middle ground (e.g, the metal detectors of the 1980s/90s, with updates) and a question of whether TSA or an equivalent.

Yes, but you still need an ID to fly, in this thought experiment. Airlines can also inspect your luggage if they want to.

I've been flying commercially for 64 years, so I have had an opportunity to observe airport security practices for quite a while. Searching passengers and carry-ons became a thing in the 1960s when hijackers seemingly routinely forced flights to divert to places like Havana. I remember one incident where the hijacker commandeered the flight with a bottle of shaving lotion wrapped in a towel, fooling the flight crew into thinking he had a bomb. In those days, the local airport and/or the dominant airline at the local airport hired private security to man the checkpoints.

The airlines started selling non-refundable tickets in the 1980s in the aftermath of airline deregulation (which passed Congress in 1978 and resulted in the Civil Aeronautics Board going out of business; airlines prior to 1978 had to apply to the CAB for authority to fly between interstate city-pairs and had to file their tariffs with them). A black market in non-refundable tickets quickly emerged. The airlines were out to stop this, and a major (if not the major) purpose of airport security was to make sure that the person whose name was on the ticket was actually the person who was going to fly. However, anyone could enter the airsides so long as they went through the metal detectors. One manifestation of this was that Pittsburgh built a new midfield terminal with a shopping mall which encouraged local shoppers to visit, even though they had no intention to take a plane trip.

That all changed in the aftermath of 9/11/01. The airlines and airports wanted out of responsibility for airport security, and Congress, wanting to show the public that they were doing something, created the TSA. The TSA made a big deal of claiming that 100% ID checks were the panacea. This merely redirected passenger dissatisfaction with airport security away from the airlines and upon the federal government. Innovations like the PIT shopping mall were destroyed. Then you have the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber and the chemical mixing incident.

Yes, we have security theater, but I still contend that the major purpose of airport security is to prevent low-cost airline tickets from being "scalped".

That amazed me a few years ago when I did a discovery flight. I flew out of GRB dozens of times for work at that point through the terminal with all the security stuff. To get to the tarmac you'd have to go through an alarmed door and probably be detained before you got too far.

On the GA side of the same airport, I waited at the gate by the back driveway for the pilot doing the flight. He put a key in for the gate to open and escorted my wife and I in. Drive right up to the hangar, push the plane out, go flying. No verifying who either of us were, no security checkpoint, nothing. Taxi along the same taxiways to the same runways

It was amazing that two different paths to the same physical area had such different security and changed how I think about what TSA contributes to safety.

That's what sparked this debate. I flew private with my CEO for the first time in my life and it was eye-opening how non-existent security is on private flights.

I think the timeline is a little different than that. Long after deregulation, through the late 80's (and into the 90's I believe?) it was common for people to try and "share" tickets; lots of college bulletin boards would have things like "ticket for sale Houston-NYC April 5, female, $100". I did so myself. To crack down on that, airlines began doing ID checks, but they were done BY THE AIRLINE at checkin and/or the gate or boarding. It was not part of the airport-security/metal-detector/etc. process. I don't think ID checks as part of the physical security screening process started till 9/11.

I think one of the reasons for instituting "passengers-only" rules and ID checks post-9/11 was simply to cut down on the number of people going through security thus reducing resources needed for screening. Airlines were more than happy to go along with this, since it meant someone else was taking care of (and paying for) the "revenue protection" task for them.

Yes, ID checks as part of "security" is simply theater. TSA forcefully chanted (and the public swallowed without question) the whole "ID Matters!" mantra, although it couldn't, and still can't, answer the question "why?".

TSA was a way of certain politicians wanting to create a whole new addition to the federal workforce by selling the big lie of "privately-run airport security failed on 9/11" to a public wanting the government to "do something!" and sadly it is now a commonly-accepted but totally false notion that airport security was to blame for 9/11. It was pathetic that the Washington Post recently had an editorial advocating privatizing airport security, and the bulk of comments were against it and virtually every one of them invoked 9/11 as the reason not to privatize.

Yes, for sure. I know this wasn't the angle you were taking, but: context is important, too. Aviation security is about keeping aviation safe. But it is also (more?) about economic security than physical security.

Consider:
- according to this report General Aviation Provides Robust Contribution to US Economy | NBAA - National Business Aviation Association general aviation contributed $339,000,000,000 to the US economy via 1.3 million jobs.
- according to this "report" Impact | Airlines For America commercial aviation contributed $1,450,000,000,000 to the US economy via ~10 million jobs. Commercial aviation is about 5% of US GDP.

- Other sources say worldwide commercial aviation is estimated at $4 trillion of world GDP, employing approximately 86 million people.

Total US commercial enplanements for 2024 was about 875 million. Final '25 data is not yet available but is estimated to exceed 2024. Of course, there is no way to know the US enplanement numbers for GA, but I feel confident to go out on a limb and posit that it was magnitudes smaller than commercial enplanements.

Just for the US, TSA spending $11 thousand million on theater to help protect $145 thousand million doesn't sound like a bad investment (even as we all know it is spent poorly).

But hey, where else should we be spending our great-grandkids' taxes?

Interesting take and thanks for providing data. I'd be interested to compare the cost of TSA to the cost of security for cargo aircraft on a per flight basis. I'm assuming that what's done for cargo aircraft is the bare minimum to meet the requirements for insuring the flights, which provides economic security.

If I recall correctly, at one time IDs were checked agains the name on boarding passes. It was more about revenue protection than security.

Yes, that was the true (and only useful) purpose. "ID=Security" was something manufactured post-9/11 as a way of showing the frightened public that the govt was "doing something" about preventing another such occurrence.

I am not trying to be argumentative, but whose fault was it, or what was the proximate cause, of the 9/11 hijackers being able to smuggle their blade cutters and whatever else they used for their plot?

Obviously onboard aircraft security, such as unlocked cockpit doors, had at least "something" to do with the systemic vulnerabilities at that time.

Another aspect is the national guidance given. Pre-9/11, air crews were trained to cooperate with hijackers and passengers were encouraged to remain passive. The expectation of active resistance to hijackers on planes likely does more to deter them than screening passengers on the ground. My own opinion is that the next 9/11 style attack will occur using either private or cargo jets, so as to remove the wild card of having passengers on board.

Box cutters, pocket knives, and many other things were allowed on planes before 9/11, so no smuggling needed.

Doors were locked during flight, but not "hardened" and therefore potentially easy to breach (which the plotters didnt accomplish but the pax on 77(?) did over PA). But the other answers are more to the point, they were able to take advantage of social engineering to use what were considered benign and acceptable tools as weapons to take control.

If memory serves well knives were not prohibited pre-9/11. So the regulatory failure was responsible for what happen. The same regulator now in charge of security, federal government.

ID requirements were added after the crash of TWA 800. A common belief is that the airlines had already wanted this to prevent ticket resales, and once they had the opportunity to blame the government for "making them" check IDs they were happy to take it.

There was no "smuggling" involved. The blades were permitted by regulation to be allowed to be taken onboard, they were not prohibited. They could have been openly dropped into a tray that went though a scanner and nothing would have happened. Unfortunately it is common in media articles to incorrectly/falsely state that the items were "smuggled" aboard, thus perpetuating the lie.

Sure there are other aspects that can be legitimately considered as contributing causes, such as non-hardened cockpit doors, a policy to cooperate with hijackers, etc., but a failure of airport security screening was NOT one of them.

Without pay I would expect fewer and fewer TSA screeners will be able to report for unpaid work so those flying may get the choice to fly without adequate security or not fly soon.

Yes, 1996. The ID check was not at the security checkpoint but at the check-in counter, where most passengers would exchange a paper ticket (the first e-tickets rolled out in 1994 or 1995, but the vast majority of tickets were still paper in 1996) for a paper boarding pass and need to show ID as part of that process.

That's the way it was pre-9/11 paranoia. Security policy and procedures were set by the FAA Office of Civil Aviation Security.

I'd fly happily
 

I would fly without TSA. What has been permitted for me to take aboard changes with each agent. What needs to be taken out and placed in the bin differs as well.

The nasty expensive nude a scope didn't eliminate pat downs.

Basically I felt just as safe travelling prior to TSA. I agree if must have, should not be federal employees. I think there would be more accounts for their actions.

Did you see--plans to privatize security were announced. https://onemileatatime.com/news/trum...t-funding-tsa/

It should be put back onto the airlines, they have the most vested interest in being secure AND cost effective.