Busy checkpoints versus slow checkpoints
 

Does anyone notice that the checkpoint experience is exponentially worse at airports that have one or two huge main screening areas (such as DEN) versus airports that have several isolated checkpoints (such as IAH).

I choose airports (when possible) based on this configuration. If I *have* to fly to Houston I now fly into HOU and out of IAH. I do not like being around a mass cluster**** where everyone is shouting and you can watch all the sheep being herded into the porno boxes. At least at a smaller isolated checkpoint there is less commotion and seems to be significantly less attitude.

Anyone have any thoughts?

You may be on to something. It makes sense that the noise, confusion and tumult of thousands being herded vs. a maybe a couple hundred is more stressful for everyone, including the screeners who are exposed to it for an eight-hour shift.

However, in slow times the isolation of a deserted checkpoint can be dangerous for pax. My second-worst TSA experience was late at night; I'd been nearly last off the plane, found my luggage searched, damaged and things stolen, went back to the CP to get a complaint form (oh, those optimistic early days!). It's past midnight, six or eight screeners are the only people present. Basically I was screamed at and threatened with arrest for requesting (in a calm voice) a complaint form. One screener loudly announced to the one yelling at me his readiness to "be your witness if you need one for the arrest."

Fortunately, as arriving pax I had possession of all my stuff. Friend picking me up rang to find out why I was still in the terminal. Friend is an attorney. When the screeners realized I was getting real-time legal info from someone who'd called me they backed off, but I think it could have gone worse otherwise. They were like bored cats who'd suddenly found a mouse.

Sorry to hear that happened to you but that would never intimidate me. I woulda said bring it on baby. Mess with the bull you get the horns.

And if you're actively managing your risk, the huge queue is going to be targeted for a vest-bomber before the small ones. A very tiny risk, indeed, but surely not one the TSA has done anything to mitigate.

I think it is hard to judge configuration issues, as most of our airports were built before TSA insanity descended upon us, so in most cases, security checkpoints had to be designed after the fact. BWI is a good example. It was a lousy layout before 9/11, and TSA didn't have a good place to start from. (Of course, it didn't help that they had some of the worst management in all of TSA-land, but that's another story.)

Then there is the singular exception of IAD, which was afforded the opportunity to do it right when they expanded the Main Terminal, and all they did was move an even longer screening queue out of sight, and made it more dangerous for the people subjected to TSA's Kabuki Theater. As someone else has noted in another post, the IAD screening disaster is ripe for exploitation by a real terrorist.

I really believe the biggest impact on the checkpoint experience is created by the quality of the FSD and his/her senior management. Since most FSD's reflect the quality of the TSA management that hired them, we get the predictable results.

There are a few airports in the US where I encounter a consistently excellent screening experience. I was going to name them, but I'm afraid that the TSA HQ staff that monitor this board will find out those few pockets of competence and stamp them out.

Very good point. Thank you for reminding me of the safety issue as well. Yes, it is small but can come in as a handy excuse if my client ever asks why I fly into one airport and out of another. That is, if they even care LOL