Scubatooth

hmm its looking like i mauy need to put a different address on my DL renewal so to keep Thieves & Scam Artists at bay.

How about

1060 W. Addision Chicago IL 60613

Name that movie

amejr999

are they going to be printing DOBs on boarding passes? If not, my DOB is 1/1/01.

ralfp

I really hope Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kiribati, etc. reciprocate. Saudi Arabia could deny overflight for failure to provide information on male permission for solo female travelers and other security risks.

A LAX-SYD flight being diverted to HNL due to failure to meet Kiribati reporting requirements would be fun.

bocastephen

Makes me feel more secure having my drivers license address with a PO box out of state - sorry ID thieves, you won't be targeting me.

halls120

It will also impact a large number of government employees, who often travel on short notice.

bocastephen

Hopefully plenty of DHS staff among them

p1cunnin

Blues Brothers. The address is Wrigley Field.

FliesWay2Much

I went out to an airline web site for a carrier on which I have no status. I made a round-trip reservation for dates well into the spring of 2009. I went through the booking process up to actually paying for the ticket. I was just asked for the usual stuff -- name and contact info (email and/or phone number). Nothing had changed from the "good ol' days." I wasn't asked to enter any of the other "Ze papers, please..." information. (Obviously, Kippie gets this info the nanosecond you enter your credit card info.).

So, despite rumors of the curtain going up on this new act in Security Theater in just a week or so, at least one major U.S. domestic airline had not changed their web site. For those of us who are civil liberties zealots, that's not a bad thing.

NY-FLA

Dream on. TSA couldn't even hold airline, airport or their own employees to the magic liquid rules. After a couple of days/weeks of b$%(*ing and moaning, exemptions were suddenly given. And when poor old Ted Kennedy began being SSSS'd with some frequency, the list was quickly amended once the publicity over that began. TSA takes advantage of those not sufficiently organized or pi$$ed off to embarass them away from whatever idiocy they're pursuing this week.

jetboyds

I recently (about a month ago) was invited ?Commanded? to attend a Secure Flight meeting in Washington. The Final Rule that is being referred to below was discussed, as well as lots of other SSI stuff that obviously one cannot discuss in an open forum.

However, please note that although the "Final Rule" states Dec 29th, the actual implementation with air carriers is printed in another, non-public document. Let's just say it's not near Dec 30th. Or even close.

Also, when reading the final rule, airlines are only required to transmit what is provided, and at minimum, ask for FULL name as appears on ID, Gender, and DOB. Anything else is fully optional other than travel data.

I still don't like it.

ralfp

The idea that a regulation/law can somehow be secret is disgusting and goes against the very principles of our political system. This is not some security requirement for a military installation; this is a rule regulating the interaction between members of the general public and publicly-owned common carriers. How are we supposed to judge the actions of our representatives (the basis for a voting choice) if those actions are secret?

I don't care what the rule is; even if it requires giving every passenger milk and cookies, it's still wrong.

MrAndy1369

I'm a bit lost. From what I read in the ruling, reservations made within the 72 hour range will simply be required to include the required information, but there's nothing that mention additional screening. Maybe I missed something, though - could you please give us the specific wording?

Thanks

Global_Hi_Flyer

The real issue is this:

*If* (as we know will happen) the data link to TSA goes down, the airline will be unable to issue a boarding pass because the government hasn't given you permission to travel. If they can do it at 72 hours, a brief outage won't be an issue - the permission would be batched and available. On the other hand, if it goes down for say an 8 hour period (see: Comair computer meltdown), and you want to book travel in that window, then you're hosed because they can't get government permission to let you travel.

Now, extend that to a day where there are heavy irops due to a storm or multiple canceled flights.... like this week. DHS computer goes down (not unheard of: CBP computers have been down multiple times at ports of entry). Airlines can't get government permission to let you travel, they are prohibited from issuing boarding passes. This causes even more massive delays.

Also note that the DHS rule requires separate permission for EVERY flight. Airlines can't rely on the permission to travel for the originating flight to issue a boarding pass for your connecting flight. Nor can it transfer your permission if you are rebooked on another airline - the other airline has to get separate permission for your specific flight.

Also, CAPPS will remain in place, so you'll have SSSS flags coming randomly from Secure Flight, PLUS flags from CAPPS, PLUS the stuff from your local screener. SSSS's will go UP.

And knowing the government, the system hasn't been tested for the number of processing transactions they have to do. Some of the AIRLINE systems can't handle it - and those are COMMERCIAL systems. Look at the track record of Government IT - the FBI system was over budget and failed, the FAA has been unable to improve the ATC system, the CBP systems are known to have gone down, etc. etc. This is a real CF in the making, and it may well choke the airline industry. Oh, and the system will have to be used for general aviation travel, too, adding a lot more transactions into the system.

Besides all this, there is the "government permission to travel" factor.

I see red tape, lots and lots of red tape. I see that this will eliminate same-day-changes, standby at the gate, and your ability to walk up to the gate and get on an earlier flight because the government can't issue your permission fast enough. Yes, it will affect us directly.

bocastephen

It is, as Global_Hi_Flyer pointed out, between the lines. My inside information informed me that it would take at least 48hrs if not slightly longer to run a passenger name through the vetting process. The reasoning behind this is unknown, except possibly for incompetence.

Because the passenger cannot be vetted in time, and there appears to be no mechanism to transfer the successful approval of a passenger from Airline A to Airline B, any passenger whose PNR is assumed by a carrier inside the cutoff time for getting them vetted by TSA will not be approved to clear into the sterile area without a secondary inspection.

Why can't the computer check be done immediately, or at least within 10-15 minutes? You got me.

MrAndy1369

Wow, that does seem like a CF. However, I wonder why the airlines aren't protesting against the SF system if it would cause such a CF? I mean, capitalism almost always win over security, as proven in the past, and the airlines know how important it is to run things on time and effectively, especially in this weak economy, when it's already a struggle for them. So why aren't they howling against Secure Flight if it would cause all the problems outlined above?

And, just to play devil's adovocate, but don't we already technically get government permission to travel? Because of the NFL, and because the airlines are doing the checking for us, running our names through a government database, so therefore aren't we already sort of getting permission to travel? I hope that makes sense.