flyingweekly

No, they weren't PRE-CHECK, and why shouldn't the gov't pick those that are of no risk? So I can stand in the line with the rest of the Morons? There are benefits of 140K miles a year and PRE is one and should be limited. If you want to stand with the amateurs, enjoy yourself.

fti

Wow. Talk about a blatant case of DYKWIA :-)

DrJohn999

Saturday, 5 AM at the DEF PreCheck in PDX there were at least 50 in line. I skipped around to the Medallion line where there were two in front of me--I would rather be scanned and get through the TSA hassle quickly to have a little more time for coffee… Anyway, the gentleman behind me took a right turn just after ID check and jumped into the front of the PreCheck line. No-one said anything about it. May try this next time thru.

CJKatl

Last time I did that, the gentleman in front of me asked, "Who are you? The Mayor of TSA?" The TSA agent rolled her eyes at him, and told him the same thing I just said.

Zeromus-X

My experience at PHX on Thursday -- security line longer than I can remember seeing. They had a Pre-Check line as well which was basically empty, and people saying if you had the Pre-Check logo on your boarding pass then you could go over there. However, once you made it about 3/4ths of the way through the line, there was a TSA agent with an iPad who tapped the screen each time someone came up to it. About one in five people were diverted to the Pre-Check lane. The screen said "TSA Randomizer" or something at the top. If you got a left arrow, you waited in line, and if you got a right arrow, you went through the Pre-Check line.

Due to the layout at PHX, many people were getting in line right after that splitting point, skipping about 30 minutes of waiting. When an agent would see them they'd advise the person to go to the back of the line (which was backed up to the shopping area at this point), but many people just walked up without notice.

About one in five people through the Pre-Check line had their hands swabbed before proceeding, too.

I thought the entire situation was very odd, and the "randomizer" woman had the most boring job I could possibly imagine. It seemed to slow things down more than help.

sky303

I love when people get irate with me for trying to make their life a little easier.

zoo260

Friday 2pm, JFK T2, one person in front of me at pre check.

Rocco7799

3 weeks ago, the precheck line was much longer than the regular line. There was no one in any of the lines before the ID check, but they were sending all the senior pax to the precheck scanner. There was a TSA agent giving quick tutorials to groups of the seniors.

Mrs. Rocco had precheck as GM and I had Skypriority as FO on her PNR. I had no wait through my line. She had around 10 people in front of her. Then, they had to screen a pax for explosives and the test was positive. That delayed the bag screener as he had to stay with the pax until another TSA agent came over to take over the search. She waited 5 minutes without moving.

If they're going to send extra people through the precheck line, they need to properly staff it.

Beckles

Your response to my post doesn't make any sense to me.

First, if they 'weren't PRE-CHECK', I agree 100% that you should complain and alert media that they are giving people less thorough screening that have not been appropriately approved. However, I believe you are incorrectly stating the situation, rather you are complaining that non-elites/non-trusted travelers are now being given Pre-Check as has been widely reported in recent weeks. Have you seen folks whose boarding pass you know did not give the three beeps pass through a Pre-Check security line?

Second, your statement 'why shouldn't the gov't pick those that are of no risk?' agrees with what I said, the government should pick those who pose little risk (I wouldn't say no risk), not the airlines, and that appears to be what has been happening in recent weeks that many have been complaining about. However, based on your DYKWIA attitude in subsequent sentences I think you really meant to say something else ... I don't think the amount someone travels should be the primary factor in determining if they are little risk and should receive less thorough screening.

Spiff

The government should have absolutely no say in the matter and should be removed from our airports and the entire airline/airport security decision making process. The airlines should provide their own security and be forced to apply it equally to all unless there is clear, probable cause to treat someone differently.

bdschobel

"Picking" travelers who present no risk (or little risk) isn't even necessary because 100% of travelers qualify. Of the billions who have gone through American airport security since 9/11/01, how many were terrorists? Zero, right? So why bother trying to identify low-risk travelers? We are all low-risk and should have universal pre-check-like security.

Bruce

Beckles

I think the federal government is involved in many things they shouldn't be, but that's a position that I do not agree with. I think it is appropriate for the federal government to set standards for air travel security, not airports or airlines.

Wrong, I have no doubt many terrorists have passed through American airport security in the past 12 years. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab traveled to and from the US in 2008. At least one of the Tsarnaev's traveled internationally, I would assume through a US airport. To claim that every traveler that has passed through US airport security over the past 12 years represents little or no risk to air travel is a ridiculous statement in my opinion.

bdschobel

I have no problem with your first paragraph. The Federal Government sets safety standards for all sorts of things, including food, drugs and highways. Airport security isn't outside the realm of what a government should be doing (in my opinion). But they should do it well, which obviously is the opposite of what TSA does.

I understand your second paragraph but have a response. The "risk" represented by all but the tiniest fraction of travelers (like half a dozen out of billions) is really zero. How can anybody "pick" the extremely rare risky needles out of that enormous haystack? Isn't it fruitless even to try? Aren't we just fooling ourselves when we send out these relatively untrained -- and, in any case, incompetent -- BDOs to search for bad guys? I would drop the program because its cost far exceeds its questionable benefit. Doesn't anybody care about saving tax dollars any more? Should we spend even more and give every traveler a lie-detector test? It's already gotten ridiculous.

Bruce

NewNole2001

Two? Out of the nearly 800 MILLION passengers that go through TSA security each year? You came up with TWO in TWELVE YEARS.

TSA is a massive waste of money. And it doesn't even do what it's paid to do, since it let Abdulmutallab get through its checkpoints. I have Pre and I think that Precheck should be for everyone. Pre 9/11 style security is just fine.

NY-FLA

Times Square bomber (or maybe Times Square fizzler) passed thru all TSA checks (maybe even a couple of the voodoo practitioning BDOS's), and waltzed onto his plane. The FBI had to make that collar.
There's a report out there re: How ~ 2 dozen persons who are "legitimately" on the no fly list have flown in or into the US domestically since 2001. IIRC some were not fingered because those who had ID'd them as bad guys and knew they were out and about did not want to alert anyone that the good guys were onto them. Maxwell Smart would approve, but bringing intelligence conclusions into the open by blocking travel could, conceivably compromise surveillance methods.
The perception that shoe removal, 20 questions, ID checking, war on liquids. body scanners or any other aspects of the theater practiced by TSA could uncover a mobile bad guy probably is not keeping the intelligence community up at night.