atword

For me it was a one-time thing. Perhaps this is a TSA/CBP situation where "records get out of sync" or a manual check is required the first time. It has been clear sailing flying since this happened.

Boraxo

It was a 2x thing - has not happened since though I have also not returned to the Middle East since.

While the random SSSS is an inconvenience and annoyance, it makes sense from a risk management perspective provided it is truly random and rare for GE and precheck passengers. And as noted, the hand search by overseas screeners (Germany excepted) are generally not as invasive as TSA.

Also note in some countries everyone gets secondary hand search and carryon search for US-bound flights (at least that has always been my experience at LOS and LAD).

anandrg

Thanks Boraxo and atword for your responses. Puts me a bit at ease. I have a trip coming up this weekend when the moment of truth will dawn for me.

The odd thing in my case was that I was SSSS'd for GDL to IAH and was not given pre-check for IAH to SFO. However, my IAH to SFO BP did not say SSSS on it. So I was spared the <SSSS> for the domestic security check.

Also, when I went through GE for immigration in IAH, no problems at all. I didn't get an X - just the usual all-clear printout.

GUWonder

That isn't so odd. Travel enough and have enough of a foreign nexus and this kind of stuff hits and passes, in just that way, and sometimes to cycle back up again for another foreign origin trip (inclusive of return).

DHS/CBP's ATS type scoring is used on GE members too, but that and other CBP flagging isn't generally result of what the TSA is relying upon when <SSSS> targeting determinations are made for check-in purposes.

atword

My experience was just like this. I was SSSS'd in Japan. When I landed in SFO the GE terminal worked just fine. When I went to my connecting flight (back through TSA) I was confused that I was not precheck as I had been for a few years. They did the wipe and sniff on my laptop.

TSA and CBP have different roles. As far as I was concerned, CBP worked great because, with GE, I sailed through customs & immigration. It seemed that my new GE status triggered a one-time extra hard look by TSA, likely because applying for GE also results in formal application for precheck (previously I was enrolled by UA). I know they weren't TSA officers in Japan, but I feel the local security was responding to what TSA flagged on my BP...and then SFO security also took a harder than normal look.

It was somewhat frustrating and disappointing at the time, especially after investing time and dollars to speed things up, but I'm over it and have been able to enjoy the benefits of GE since then.

TWA884

Getting SSSSed killed your Pre✓. It had nothing to do with it being the first time that you had a new GE. I've never missed getting Pre✓ since I got my GE, and I used to get Pre✓ every time that I flew beforehand for at least two years.

A similar thing happened to my daughter on our way back home from Madrid this past June. She got an SSSS on her boarding card, despite having GE. In addition, she did not get Pre✓ on the boarding pass for her connecting flight in the US. Having that boarding pass reprinted in the US did not bring back the Pre✓. I suspect that American's security contractors in MAD had to meet a quota for secondary inspections.

GUWonder

I've seen people with boarding passes that had the EU-US segment of the US airline-issued boarding pass flagged with <SSSS> but the onward connections for US-US segments were noted for PreCheck LLL screening outcomes -- in most cases this required re-checking-in on arrival in the US, but not always.

Mats

I think these are entirely separate systems.

For flights originating in the USA, trusted traveller programs come close to 100 percent prevention of SSSS (unless you go to Turkey or have really, really bad luck.)

For flights originating outside of the USA, I think there is probably a 10 or 15 percent quota of passengers who must be subjected to secondary screening. Of course that's stupid; why not just concentrate on people who might cause suspicion? But this isn't about logic.

As far as I can tell, the flights TO the United States identify random selectees independent of trusted traveller programs. I have seen this happen multiple ways:

1. SSSS identified by a computerized system (Canada-US flights on any airline)
2. Random selection by personnel at the gate (lots of places: Mexico City, Buenos Aires, and Paris come to mind)
3. Random selection by the boarding card reader at the gate (British Airways)

ICTS and its subsidiaries document the number of selectees, so I'm sure that they have to meet a quota.

It's a waste of time and resources, but the secondary screening is usually less agonizing than an SSSS in the USA, which can take a lot longer, and requires all kinds of explanations, drama, and far more intrusive frisking.

It would be great if they could integrate trusted traveler programs into their selection process, and I see know reason why they can't. IT problems?

iahphx

I see The Points Guy picked up the SSSS designation after his recent trip to Turkey.

http://thepointsguy.com/2015/08/my-new-tsa-travel-hell/

I'd hope this attention would get the gov't to look more carefully at this knee-jerk profiling, but my expections are low. In the meantime, I don't think I'll head back to Turkey anytime soon. It's just not worth getting hassled again.

GUWonder

Some want it to cover more than just Turkey.

Want to know something ironic about this? If Europeans visit Turkey from some places in Europe and then fly later on from some EU airports to the US and around the US, their odds of <SSSS> are lower than if the Turkey trip by air was taken by a US passport user.

By the way it wasn't just the blogger, but also a bunch of his acquaintances.

lonelycrowd

Indeed, anecdotally among the social science academic-types I know, it seems that Turkish citizens travelling to the US are not getting nearly as much scrutiny as US citizens coming from Istanbul. None of us without security clearances really know what's going on behind the DHS curtain (and I think it's fair to say that most of us in the Istanbul expat community have abandoned all hope of ever getting a security clearance at this point) - all we can do is hope that the flavor of the week in the intelligence community will change soon and whatever "beltway bandit" contractors are involved will find some new source of paranoia "over there" to flag for. Russian spies? Asylum seekers? Sanctions evaders? Ebola-treating doctors? The possibilities are as wide as Chuck Schumer's imagination!

anandrg

I am going through something similar. 2 of the last 3 international US inbound flights have been SSSS for me. Did you have any hassles with using GE on arrival from an SSSS flight? Also, did you keep getting Pre-check on other itineraries?

Thanks in advance

GUWonder

Most of those GE members who are flagged for <SSSS> on US-bound flights operated by US carriers are able to use GE the same as usual, most commonly with no higher rate of flagging for secondary searches/investigations by CBP on arrival to the US than other GE members who have never received <SSSS> boarding passes. Even when coming off <SSSS> flights. And most commonly, such people have a very high rate of PreCheck LLL on other itineraries -- most commonly approaching or reaching 100% on domestic and/or US-originating itineraries for US-originating flights.

anandrg

Thanks! You were right on the no-hassle use of GE upon arrival from the <SSSS> flights for me. It was smooth sailing as usual.

And so far I have never missed precheck on any flights other than one domestic connection to a <SSSS> international inbound.

All this makes it very odd that the TSA is wasting resources by flagging such people for SSSS repeatedly. I can understand a rare one-off. They have so much data on us that partial name matches can be easily nixed through cross-check with all the other data fields. I am assuming of course that partial name match is what is driving my repeated SSSSelection. I haven't even airport transited in any "sensitive" country for years, leave alone enter one.

GUWonder

Partial name matches are an issue that drives some of this, but some of it was supposed to be built upon a matrix of factors related to extent of foreign ties indicating a greater possibility of getting waivers and favors of some sort from "insiders". Not sure it ever came to the latter being implemented but it's come into play in other areas related to "security".