CNN exclusive: TSA considering eliminating screening at smaller airports

[brooklynite]

Source: CNN

The Transportation Security Administration is considering eliminating passenger screening at more than 150 small and medium-sized airports across the US, according to senior agency officials and internal documents obtained by CNN.

The proposal, if implemented, would mark a major change for air travel in the US, following nearly two decades of TSA presence since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and comes as the Trump administration has stepped up screening measures for items such as laptops and tablets.

Internal documents from a TSA working group say the proposal to cut screening at small and some medium-sized airports serving aircraft with 60 seats or fewer could bring a "small (non-zero) undesirable increase in risk related to additional adversary opportunity."
The internal documents from June and July suggest the move could save $115 million annually, money that could be used to bolster security at larger airports.

According to the proposal, passengers and luggage arriving from these smaller airports would be screened when they arrive at major airports for connecting flights instead of the current practice of joining the already screened population at the larger airport. The high-volume airports have greater capacities and more advanced security measures than smaller locations, the documents say.

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/01/politics/tsa-considering-eliminating-screening-at-smaller-airports/index.html

---

This would require a significant redesign of flight gates for arriving planes.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Bad idea for a lot of reasons, one of which will be the screening clusterfuck

likely to occur between connecting flights.

[C_U_L8R]

2. Because that's not how 9/11 happened (sarcasm)

What is wrong with these people??

[Retrograde]

3. And who's gonna get the contracts for rebuilding and reconfiguring all those airports?

Lemme guess....

Sounds like a way to shift money from one pot to another: save a few million at small airports, spend a few billion more redesigning the bigger ones.

[Vinca]

4. 9/11 hijackers went through the airport in Portland, ME.

Maybe the Trump administration will also offer free taking off and landing lessons.

[rzemanfl]

7. They didn't bother to learn how to land, or take off, for that matter. n/t

[bucolic_frolic]

5. "Bad guys, if you're listening .... small airports are the place to go."

[LisaM]

6. That would create a problem for me, if I'm going from a smaller airport to MSP.

Their regional flights land at the A/B terminals, which are not close to the larger gates and which don't have moving sidewalks, etc., to get to them. I've had to scramble more than once to make a flight when I was already screened.

People would start missing flights all over the place. One advantage of starting at a smaller airport is that you can be fully screened and into the system without needing to wait in a long line. This proposal also seems that it would over-burden the staff at larger airports, who already face relentlessly long lines of passengers. This would go south very fast.

[Afromania]

8. We have top keep our borders safe by buliding a wall.. Airports, no screening. What could go wrong.

[jgmiller]

9. Forget about the security implications

The reasons behind this have nothing to do with security. Airlines don't make money flying from small/medium feeder airports to the larger ones, they never have. The government subsidizes many of these flights but that still doesn't mean they make money they just break even. Airlines have been pulling back from these airports for years but it's political suicide to elminate the flights all together. As someone else pointed out this will create connecting flight hell for many people which means they won't want to fly out of these airports which will further depress the traffic which will allow the airlines to pull back even more.

BTW none of this is new, the same thing happened with passenger rail service. Warren Buffet is famous for saying that nobody ever made money hauling people and he's right. Passenger train service before air travel was susidized by the post office and supported small towns. Making stops at little stations to pick up a few people is horribly inefficient just like having smaller jets take 30-50 people 5 times a day from a medium airport to say O'Hare. When the subsidies went away for trains the small stations were dropped, then they cut back more then finally just gave up entirely. Airlines will never give up entirely but ideally they just want to fly like a bus service between major cities. That's the only way they are even close to being profitable in the long term.

[Ccarmona]

10. TSA Already Have Part-Time Employees at Small Airports

Like Stockton, Klamath Falls, Modesto, Missoula, and the such where there are just three to eight flights a day. They only open about 60-75 minutes before the scheduled departure time. It might make sense to not have screening, especially at airports where the planes coming and going have a very limited capacity and range.

[MontanaMama]

11. Funny you mention Missoula

in your post. TSA at that airport is often a horror show. I travel a lot and have dozens of stories of harrassment of old folks, kids, disabled etc...I realize this is slightly off topic but thought I’d mention it. You’re correct that TSA isn't staffed until right before the flight leaves. It’s kind of a shit show in that their protocols are not even close to being standardized.

[Ccarmona]

13. I used to fly every week out of the Bay Area Airports

And mentioned the smaller airports I had experienced. The first time I got to Missoula about three hours before my flight thinking I could get something to eat. Sat in the lobby staring at the coin-op soda machines and nothing else was available. I had already given up my rental car. Never made that mistake again.

[turbinetree]

12. I lost my job at United because of the "screening" in 2001

and let me tell you a story.......................that is very much true ...................and its about airports ................and how to access the AOA at one time...............................

http://www.latimes.com/la-me-pacific-southwest-airlines-crash-archive-19871209-story.html#


http://www.latimes.com/la-me-report-gunman-caused-1987-psa-crash-19890106-story.html

[BumRushDaShow]

14. That's so all that money laundering and drug running with private planes

can go on unabated.

[metalbot]

15. Seriously? No takers?

I don't think I'd have to search very hard to find posts on DU complaining about the security theater of TSA and how it's a total waste of time and money. It's hard to keep track of how I'm supposed to feel. I think I'm supposed to be mad about the TSA that the Bush administration pushed on us, and I think I'm also supposed to be mad that the Trump administration wants to get rid of it? This is very confusing.

As other people have pointed out, there are significant problems with the mixed safety model in many airports, but even if you could support the physical segregation of flights (using a separate terminal for the regional jets like LAX), it creates a security bottleneck for connections that would be an airline nightmare. They'll end up with more stranded and irate passengers (though perhaps planes would take off on time more often because you generally wouldn't wait for passengers who had just landed on a delayed flight).

[jpak]

16. Dumb shits

Just sayin'

[moondust]

17. Oligarchs need money for more tax cuts?

Poor witto rich guys. Boo-hoo.

Some idiot said terrorists wouldn't be interested in smaller airports and smaller flights because of the smaller number of casualties. Tell that to the victims of sidewalk vehicle attacks.

[moriah]

18. I don't see this going well.

I'll be the first to say I not only dislike the TSA, but having done airport shuttles for many hippie gatherings over the years, they're certainly ineffective at catching transportation of small amounts of drugs. Which I don't particularly object to -- bomb-sniffing machines are probably better than drug-sniffing dogs at doing what should be the job of the TSA. (Note from witnessed events flying for work -- don't use a backpack previously used to hold fireworks if your work could decide they need to fly you somewhere to cover for another team. We nearly missed the flight because a coworker did that.)

At the same time, hub transfers lose baggage enough as it is, and passengers with carryons have to go through processing during layovers?

If the TSA is going to exist, the smartest time for screening is pre-boarding at origin.

[Sunlei]

19. I like the change- they'll do the screening at the major airports now instead of trusting smalls.

currenty they're mixing in small airport screened right in with major airport screened. Larger airports have much better technology.