• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

TSA wants to eliminate screenings at some airports

MomentsofSanity

MomentsofSanity

Lifer
I'm a little surprised this hadn't been posted in the last couple of days so thought I would.

The TSA is floating the idea of eliminating screening at small to medium airports (60 or fewer seats per aircraft). Luggage would be screened at major connecting airports on arrival.

To me this screams opportunity to terrorists etc...

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.
Click to expand...

"Al Qaeda and ISIS still regard aviation as a priority target -- that includes aircraft where you have fewer than 60 people on board," he said. "They would see that as a way to hit the headlines. They would see that as a way to inflict severe economic damage on the United States. If you have an aircraft of 50 or so people being blown out of the sky there is going to be a great amount of panic and there will indeed be significant economic reverberations, and of course significant loss of life."

"This is so dangerous," a TSA field leader at a large airport said. The individual is not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.

Two senior TSA officials, who asked not to be identified, expressed serious national security concerns over the proposal. They said the idea was explored as far back as 2011 and has been resurrected. The documents referred to some 150 small airports in addition to some midsize ones. TSA currently screens passengers at 440 airports, according to its website.
Click to expand...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/01/poli...content=2018-08-01T20:05:10&utm_medium=social
 
It's all theater anyway. But the last several times I've flown it's taken no more than five minutes or so to get through so I guess it doesn't really bother me.
 
Uh the logistical problem with this that I see is airports aren't configured to segregate arriving domestic passengers and process them through screening facilities.
 
For a small airport? TSA can take a hike and smaller local airports can switch back to private security companies if they see fit.
 
This is all for show anyways. But I find it interesting because didn't many of the 9-11 hijackers originate from a smaller airport?
 
Genx87 said:
This is all for show anyways. But I find it interesting because didn't many of the 9-11 hijackers originate from a smaller airport?
Click to expand...

I think you're referring to the ones that came from Portland, Maine? I think that airport would still be too big to qualify for this plan although I'm not sure.

Regardless though yes, TSA security is almost entirely for show. If someone were attempting to attack an airplane tomorrow what are the odds you would give TSA of stopping it? 25%?
 
fskimospy said:
I think you're referring to the ones that came from Portland, Maine? I think that airport would still be too big to qualify for this plan although I'm not sure.

Regardless though yes, TSA security is almost entirely for show. If someone were attempting to attack an airplane tomorrow what are the odds you would give TSA of stopping it? 25%?
Click to expand...

Incorrect. The flights originated from Newark, Boston & DC. The hijackers were successful because of flimsy cockpit doors & lack of cockpit security control. The idea that suicide bombers would use airplanes as a weapon escaped the experts at the time completely.

Once those issues were resolved passenger screenings became mostly security theater & workfare for brownshirts. If terrorists just wanted to blow airliners out of the sky current measures wouldn't stop them, anyway.
 
This might actually get me to want to fly again. The TSA is complete "security theater"; the only thing it is effective at is harassment.
 
Jhhnn said:
Incorrect. The flights originated from Newark, Boston & DC. The hijackers were successful because of flimsy cockpit doors & lack of cockpit security control. The idea that suicide bombers would use airplanes as a weapon escaped the experts at the time completely.

Once those issues were resolved passenger screenings became mostly security theater & workfare for brownshirts. If terrorists just wanted to blow airliners out of the sky current measures wouldn't stop them, anyway.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. The flights that eventually were hijacked originated from Boston, DC, etc. but Atta and at least one other entered the system through the Portland, Maine airport.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Atta

Edit: although upon reading that more closely apparently due to the unique setup in Logan they had to go through security there again. Regardless that is not common and would generally not apply.
 
fskimospy said:
I think you're referring to the ones that came from Portland, Maine? I think that airport would still be too big to qualify for this plan although I'm not sure.

Regardless though yes, TSA security is almost entirely for show. If someone were attempting to attack an airplane tomorrow what are the odds you would give TSA of stopping it? 25%?
Click to expand...

Yep.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/tsa-fails-tests-latest-undercover-operation-us-airports/story?id=51022188

When ABC News asked the source if the failure rate was 80 percent, the response was, "You are in the ballpark."
Click to expand...
 
Right, which is up from the 95% failure rate in 2015 when they first tested it, after implementing recommendations from the first test.

I do hope it continues to improve. Not for my own safety. I don't fly more than about twice per year, and the likelihood of an attack on any one flight is ridiculously low even with terrible security. It's more that I don't want to see any major successful terrorist attack happen while Trump is in office.

Remember what happened after 9/11 with the Patriot Act and all the rest of that nonsense? I can guaranty it would be much worse with Trump in office. He'd be asking his buddies in Congress to give him "emergency powers." And he'd whip his base into a frenzy over it.
 
The TSA should be abolished, they are not very effective at all and just for show. Multiple tests have been done where people were able to get through the TSA. If people wanted the airports to actually be safe then they would adopt Israeli airport security. Israel hasn't had a hijacking or attack since 50 years ago and they are able to keep their airport safe without any attacks.
 
I read about this somewhere else and that said it wasn't a formal policy recommendation just a hypothetical discussion for cutting costs. Given that the TSA tried to roll back simple things like no longer confiscating small pocket knives and met furious resistance I doubt this was really going to go anywhere.
 
When you look at a TSA officer, just imagine a complete buffoon with their finger in their nose.

Slight exception - I fucking love the TSA at small airports. They are generally nicer and more competent people. Lately I've been flying to small towns in Illinois like Bloomington. Love the small airport - but not sure if it would qualify since they have standard size jets that seat 100+ I think?
 
Seems like one of those rare issues people can agree on despite political affiliation. TSA is a huge waste of money that accomplishes nothing beyond harassing people. And yet, its still there.
 
mect said:
Seems like one of those rare issues people can agree on despite political affiliation. TSA is a huge waste of money that accomplishes nothing beyond harassing people. And yet, its still there.
Click to expand...

Yes, regardless of political stance we can all unite and hold-hands as we all agree to toss stupid TSA agents into a burning inferno.

Oh one exception - the black TSA agent at my airport that gave me a fist-bump because he approved of my wife's ass apparently.
 
mect said:
Seems like one of those rare issues people can agree on despite political affiliation. TSA is a huge waste of money that accomplishes nothing beyond harassing people. And yet, its still there.
Click to expand...

They tried to be less dumb but took a lot of public flack for it so they went back to being dumb

The U.S. Transportation Security Administration, under pressure from airline executives, unions, lawmakers and its own employees, reversed a plan to end a decade-long ban on carrying pocket knives onto U.S. airliners.
Click to expand...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ps-knife-ban-after-protests-from-airline-ceos
 
fskimospy said:
Incorrect. The flights that eventually were hijacked originated from Boston, DC, etc. but Atta and at least one other entered the system through the Portland, Maine airport.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Atta

Edit: although upon reading that more closely apparently due to the unique setup in Logan they had to go through security there again. Regardless that is not common and would generally not apply.
Click to expand...

Oh btw speaking of Atta, Hamza Bin Laden (Osama's terror heir and de facto leader of Al Qaeda) just married his daughter. No cause for concern....
 
fskimospy said:
I think you're referring to the ones that came from Portland, Maine? I think that airport would still be too big to qualify for this plan although I'm not sure.

Regardless though yes, TSA security is almost entirely for show. If someone were attempting to attack an airplane tomorrow what are the odds you would give TSA of stopping it? 25%?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I didnt know their origin. Honestly thought it was from a small airport in Canada. But anyways I think it is interesting development. I would say they have a high chance. My personal anecdote. Went through MSP security on my way to Midway 18 months ago. They stopped me, searched my bag. Found a screwdrive I forgot in the bag. She brings it out, looks at it, puts it back in the bag. The handle was full sized and the length of the metal a solid 6-8 inches. Easily a weapon. /smh When I came back later that day. I ditched it in a garbage can in Midway.
 
This is only for small airports that run commuter flights, correct?. If you want to kill a bunch of people, there are a lot better/softer targets than a propeller plane with 20 people on board, flying between two towns nobody's ever heard of.
 
VRAMdemon said:
This is only for small airports that run commuter flights, correct?. If you want to kill a bunch of people, there are a lot better/softer targets than a propeller plane with 20 people on board, flying between two towns nobody's ever heard of.
Click to expand...

I think once in the system they are not searched. They get off the plane at a large airport and are already behind TSA and can board another flight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top