TSA Replaces Security Chief As Tension Grows At Airports 266
HughPickens.com writes: Ron Nixon reports at the NYT that facing a backlash over long security lines and management problems, TSA administrator Peter V. Neffenger has shaken up his leadership team, replacing the agency's top security official Kelly Hoggan (Warning: source may be paywalled) and adding a new group of administrators at Chicago O'Hare International Airport. Beginning late that year, Hoggan received $90,000 in bonuses over a 13-month period, even though a leaked report from the Department of Homeland Security showed that auditors were able to get fake weapons and explosives past security screeners 95 percent of the time in 70 covert tests. Hoggan's bonus was paid out in $10,000 increments, an arrangement that members of Congress have said was intended to disguise the payments. During a hearing of the House Oversight Committee two weeks ago, lawmakers grilled Mr. Neffenger about the bonus, which was issued before he joined the agency in July. Last week and over the weekend, hundreds of passengers, including 450 on American Airlines alone, missed flights because of waits of two or three hours in security lines, according to local news reports. Many of the passengers had to spend the night in the terminal sleeping on cots. The TSA has sent 58 additional security officers and four more bomb-sniffing dog teams to O'Hare. Several current and former TSA employees said the moves to replace Hoggan and add the new officials in Chicago, where passengers have endured hours long waits at security checkpoints, were insufficient. "The timing of this decision is too late to make a real difference for the summer," says Andrew Rhoades, an assistant federal security director at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport who testified his supervisor accused him of "going native" after attending a meeting at a local mosque and that TSA's alleged practice of "directed reassignments," or unwanted job transfers were intended to punish employees who speak their minds. "Neffenger is only doing this because the media and Congress are making him look bad."
Bonuses? (Score:5, Insightful)
How can such failures even get their pay checks, let alone bonuses?
USA, land of the corrupted.
Corruption + security theatre == profit (Score:5, Insightful)
The entire TSA thing seems to be a farce and a fraud, little more than security theatre as so many security specialists have described it over many years. I suspect the TSA knows this too, but they probably don't care or they'd have done something about it by now.
Indeed, their main interest in practice may be to siphon American tax dollars into contractor pockets and nothing else. Their real goal clearly isn't effective security nor dollar efficiency nor streamlining public air transport, so what explanations are left?
In an organization built upon such flawed foundations, it's almost natural that the top honchos are lining their own pockets with ill-founded bonuses. The whole thing stinks from top to bottom.
Re:Corruption + security theatre == profit (Score:4)
You have a private business, what did you expect? Every private business has its product as the necessary evil to get money. If nobody cares about the quality of the product, quality will slide to zero if this means you can cut costs and increase revenue.
That's just a classic case of a government contractor with zero quality control in place.
Re:Corruption + security theatre == profit (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait hold on. Airport screening used to be done by private contractors, you know back when it was sane. TSA Officers are federal employees! They belong to a federal employee union and work for a federal agency.
Before you suggest private contracted screening allowed 9/11 consider the attackers used box cutters which were not considered contraband at the time. You or I could have placed on in the little try next to the metal detector and picked it up after we passed through without anyone batting an eye. Everyone was terrified to fly after 9/11 so the bush admin nationalized everything to make it look like someone was doing something. The TSA like the private screeners before it continues to routinely miss contraband almost as often as its tested.
The sensible approach to the TSA is shut its doors and go back to private screening with metal detectors sans the nudity scanners and pat downs. This is sufficient to deprive morons of thing they are likely to hurt themselves or others with, but would never stop a planed attack by a determined adversary. The TSA is not sufficient either as has been repeatedly shown but its is comparatively expensive and intrusive. We should rely on the real security offered by secure cockpit doors locked during flight. Stronger procedures around personnel screening and air marshals.
Re:Corruption + security theatre == profit (Score:5, Insightful)
Just to build on what you said, two other factors contributed to 9/11 more than "private security contractors let box cutters on board."
First of all, pre-911 a hijacking meant you sat down and stayed quiet. The plane flew to Cuba, the hijackers put on a grand show, and then everyone was released unharmed. It was highly inconvenient but as long as you didn't draw undue attention to yourself you were fine. So when the 911 hijackers took over the plane, the passengers understandably figured this was what was going to happen. Obviously, it didn't and when the Flight 93 passengers heard what was going on, they fought back. It might not have saved the plane, but they stood a better chance fighting back than sitting passively. Passengers all know to fight back now and indeed have prevented other attempted hijackings by doing so.
Secondly, the cabin doors pre-911 weren't sealed. Pretty much anyone could burst in and take over. Post-911, the cabin doors are sealed so this can't happen.
If we were to revert to pre-911 security (private contractors allowing everything that was allowed on September 10th, 2001) but kept the passenger awareness and the locked cabin doors, we would have all the security we need to prevent another 911. The TSA adds about as much protection as a Magic Terrorist Repelling Rock would.
Re: (Score:2)
That's just a classic case of a government giving the contract to the lowest bidder, and not providing appropriate oversight.
FTFY...we got what we paid for.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh... no. If you got what you paid for, the TSA goons would carry every passenger on white gloved hands to their plane.
And I mean THEIR plane.
TSA folks are federal employees, not private (Score:3)
Don't you remember?
"You can't professionalize unless you federalize," Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D.
Re: (Score:2)
"You can't professionalize unless you federalize," Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D.
Why is it when I read that the only thing that pops into my mind is the Pulp Fiction quote:
ENGLISH MOTHER FUCKER DO YOU SPEAK IT!
Re: (Score:3)
I think it was formed for two reasons, one being political -- W Bush wanting to look strong and as if he was doing something about the threat of terrorism. The second reason was to enhance the security state, to create a layer of strong, law-enforcement control in a place where Americans were least likely to object to increased surveillance and searches.
I think the "doing something" part *may* have had some merit, as airport security screening was somewhat haphazard and non-standard across airports previou
Re: (Score:2)
I think it was formed for two reasons, one being political -- W Bush wanting to look strong and as if he was doing something about the threat of terrorism. The second reason was to enhance the security state,
Bush's reasoning may have been wanting to look strong but it happened to enhance the security state.
Bipartisan tyranny (Score:3)
In a 100-0 vote, the Senate passed a security bill that would put all 28,000 screeners and other airport security personnel on the federal payroll.
The USA PATRIOT Act passed the Senate by a vote of 98 to 1 and passed the House by a vote of 357 to 66.
Re: (Score:2)
My guess is that the increase in the security state was a deliberate outcome.
Every single Federal intelligence and security was caught completely flat footed and their reflexive argument was "we don't have enough power" to gather the right amount of intelligence to weed these threats out. Without making that argument they were likely exposed to questions of competency, legitimate and otherwise.
Of course nobody would make the argument that the threat was transcendent and unavoidable, even if it's likely cor
Re: (Score:2)
"The entire TSA thing seems to be a farce and a fraud"
Get rid of "seems to be" and replace it with "IS" and you are dead on right.
Get rid of the TSA.
Re:Corruption + security theatre == profit (Score:4, Insightful)
I've a set of rocks I'm selling, they are known to keep tigers away: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Interested?
Re:Corruption + security theatre == profit (Score:5, Funny)
Re: Corruption + security theatre == profit (Score:5, Insightful)
No need to hijack planes anymore. Mission accomplished.
Re: Corruption + security theatre == profit (Score:5, Insightful)
This.
The acts of terrorism have already brought about a degradation of the quality of everyone's life in the United States thanks to the knee-jerk, fear-mongering and opportunistic actions of those in positions of power in the US government.
The only way to win against terrorism is to pick up the pieces, rebuild and go on living life as free individuals. Show terrorist organisations that they cannot effect negative changes within our society.
Re: Corruption + security theatre == profit (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Corruption + security theatre == profit (Score:4)
That's something the US "security" seems to blatantly miss ... the security lines are easily as good a target as a plane. Hell, they're a BETTER target since you don't actually have to take anything past a security checkpoint to attack them.
It's why most countries with real security concerns break up lines and queues or have a multi-tiered approach.
Or, maybe we could just stop interfering in other countries business, attacking them, or telling people how to live their lives. Nah...that's crazy talk.
Re: (Score:3)
Consider this - the TSA is arguably ineffective at preventing terrorist attacks.
If one happens everyone will be first in line to sue whomever they can think of - because this is America.
If we don't have the TSA we've saved billions of dollars and countless hours of degradation, abuse and delay.
End result is the same - an unlikely terrorist attack. The TSA-less way is a real win for almost everyone.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No I would not the thought would not even occur to me to try an hold anyone responsible other than the F*ing hijackers and the people they work for.
I might very well be on the steps of the capital trying to talk congressmen into talking military action against the terror groups. If its a domestic actor I might be writing my prosecutor encouraging him or her to seek the death penalty.
The correct response to terror is swift brutal retaliation. Where by we effect the opposite result of what they terrorist se
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all.
I strongly side with individual freedom and responsibility - with the full understanding that sometimes Bad Things do happen. The TSA is effectively useless at stopping them but comes at a huge cost, inconvenience, and negative impact to many companies (well, except TSA contractors and the vendors in airports who now sell $3+ bottles of water).
It's the same argument I had recently about the bag checks on the NYC subway system. They're useless for anything other than increasing cost and doing "s
Re: Corruption + security theatre == profit (Score:4, Insightful)
That's what I've been saying since the Patriot Act and the TSA it's ilk were just being introduced, the terrorists won, they destroyed America that day, and our politicians graciously handed them that victory with overreaching paranoid reactions...
Re:Corruption + security theatre == profit (Score:5, Insightful)
How many hijackers has the TSA caught? I don't seem to remember any.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well, there ya go! They're too scared to even try. No more free trips to Cuba
Re:Corruption + security theatre == profit (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, we accomplished that through two important changes. Cockpit doors that lock and passengers that will beat a hijacker to death rather than follow the old advice to sit quietly.
Re: (Score:2)
Although the introduction of locking cockpit doors had the effect of defeating one security threat, but also introducing a brand new one [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
How many hijackers has the TSA caught? I don't seem to remember any.
That's because they're all too scared of the TSA security procedures to actually try and do anything illegal. /ironyoff
Re: (Score:2)
How many terrorists has the TSA caught?
Unfortunately that answer is the same as the one to your question so it really doesn't matter if it is asked.
Re:Corruption + security theatre == profit (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should terrorists waste resources on hijacking planes? The TSA is quite effective at making sure passengers won't get to their destination themselves, so terrorists can use their limited resources elsewhere.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Oh sorry, I didn't know I'm letting out a national secret by telling so, I thought that was common knowledge by now.
But ... that Obama is black is out yet, yes?
Re: (Score:2)
At this point, all the terrorists need to do is leak "plans" to do something. Then just sit back and watch the politicians and security agencies scramble to prevent the attack. They could let it be known that they've come up with exploding fruit to take down airplanes and the TSA would confiscate all fruit passengers tried bringing aboard. Thanks to the politicians and the TSA, the terrorists' "cost to instill terror" has dropped to nearly zero.
Re: (Score:2)
You can do that too. Just announce on Facebook that you're going on a killing spree in your school and watch everyone and their dog go apeshit.
No need to follow through with it. Only drawback is that you need a new door after the swat team paid a visit.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah? Tell me how many real ones they missed. And once again, how many airplanes were hijacked? If you really want to make flying safe, get rid of the pilots.
How many planes were hijacked out if the US before the TSA existed? Not very many. Yes, four were hijacked on 9/11/01. But they were allegedly hijacked using only threats and box cutters. The hijackers themselves all passed security checks to get on the planes. Box cutters would today be let through security. So even current TSA rules would not have stopped the 9/11 hijackers. Others have mentioned that any hijackers are not going to be tolerated by passengers anyway. Hijacking has been rendered obs
Re: Airplanes are juicy terrorist targets (Score:2)
Considering how densely packed the security lines are at the moment, the efficient bomber will target those instead of the plane.
A lot more bang for your buck in bodycount and you don't even have to worry about getting past the screening process :|
I've been saying this same thing for years (Score:2)
My colleagues regularly discuss various security theater we observe and how easy it is to bypass, circumvent or otherwise thwart (in this case, use it against itself).
I understand that in Brussels now they have checkpoints on the road to the airport...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That black-hating blog puts the number at 21% But I guess that rounds to 50%, right?
Re: (Score:2)
What's the mod category for "Sad, but true"?
Re: (Score:2)
How about declaring 'Mission Accomplished'? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Better yet, shut down DHS all together since apparently they're nothing more than a multi-trillion drain on tax dollars.
When have they ever thwarted a terrorist threat that wasn't set up by them in a sting operation where they themselves supplied a mentally ill degenerate with explosives?
Never.
Re: (Score:2)
I heartily support this message.
Re: (Score:2)
They rigged up the DHS so it can't be shut down without taking out a swath of real, useful agencies. DHS controls things like Federal Protective Services, which handles the federal witness protection program as well as security at non-military federal campuses and installations. You don't want FPS to go away, but if you get rid of DHS without doing some major restructuring first, you'll accomplish exactly that.
When private companies pull this trick, it's called "vendor lock-in". DHS isn't going away unless the entire US government goes away. Learn to deal with that.
Congress put those bits into the DHS, they can pull them out of the DHS. I'll even bet they have some of their own stationary hanging around.
Re: (Score:2)
And have the TSA pull out?
Pulling out implies that they're fucking us.
Oh wait..
Re: (Score:2)
Are Americans _completely_ convinced the Fourth Amendment is dead? I thought there were still some who held on to such fanciful notions. Are you sure the mission is accomplished?
Re: (Score:2)
Whose mission?
The government police state? They're getting closer every day...
The citizens and their Constitutional rights? Far from "Mission Accomplished"
Re: (Score:2)
Considering voting is kind of meaningless since we don't have the millions and billions needed to bribe congress and the president to restore the Constitution, I don't see any thing really changing in this country until we reach that tipping point and the citizens revolt...
Re:How about declaring 'Mission Accomplished'? (Score:5, Insightful)
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Re: (Score:3)
That's crazy talk.
Set a ceiling (Score:2)
Mandate that if wait times exceed one hour, the TSA is required to let all travelers through without screening until the lean clears.
That is a balance between there being some possibly security someone would have to traverse with a bomb or what have you, and actually letting people make flights.
It would also eliminate the massive human backlog the TSA is creating at every airport which we all knew for years, and now we ESPECIALLY know after brussels, are the juiciest targets.
Re: (Score:3)
Anywhere but in the US spending more than ten minutes waiting to walk through a metal detector is unacceptable.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, except for Stansted airport. Regularly only have a third of the security gates operational, with a >45 minute wait to get through.
Re:Set a ceiling (Score:4, Informative)
That's a bad idea. All a terrorist would have to do is watch the line and wait for it to get long enough, or know the peak times that they can get in line and just waltze right through with no screening at all.
What they need to do instead is randomly pull passengers from the line and direct them through the fast track line instead so as to ease the load on the line and make it move faster. That way there is still a random chance that any passenger will get fully screened, and if you're not selected to be fast tracked you can't avoid the screening, but it has the effect of speeding up the queue which is drastically needed.
Re:Set a ceiling (Score:5, Insightful)
All a terrorist would have to do is watch the line and wait for it to get long enough, or know the peak times that they can get in line and just waltze right through with no screening at all.
All a terrorist has to do right now is walk up to the line at the time of their choosing, at any airport in America, and press a detonator button. Boom, lots of dead people. And yet this isn't happening. Not because of any heroic TSA screening efforts, mind you; that line is outside the secure area, and always will be by definition. There just aren't that many bogeymen out there.
Re:Set a ceiling (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, I think the terrorists have taken jobs in the TSA and are now engaged in a Denial of Service attack on our travellers (by not letting them get through security in time to catch their flights). Seems like we are all now (justifiably) terrified of not making our flights...
Re: (Score:2)
All a terrorist would have to do is watch the line and wait for it to get long enough, or know the peak times that they can get in line and just waltze right through with no screening at all.
All a terrorist has to do right now is walk up to the line at the time of their choosing, at any airport in America, and press a detonator button. Boom, lots of dead people. And yet this isn't happening. Not because of any heroic TSA screening efforts, mind you; that line is outside the secure area, and always will be by definition. There just aren't that many bogeymen out there.
To be accurate this is what happened recently in Belgium so there are 'some' bogeymen out there.
As well, the TSA procedures aren't there to protect the people but to protect high value targets that the bogeymen might try and fly into.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that is an even bigger waste, as it isn't hard to rent a small jet attack the pilot after take off and crash it into a building. Private planes don't have TSA screeners.
a gulf jet full of fuel will do a number on a skyscraper.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that is an even bigger waste, as it isn't hard to rent a small jet attack the pilot after take off and crash it into a building. Private planes don't have TSA screeners.
a gulf jet full of fuel will do a number on a skyscraper.
Word
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I agree, but the solution proposed above isn't a good one. The lines need to be sped up to avoid this scenario, but this needs to be done in a way that does not allow an easy free pass for terrorists to enter the secure area of the airport. You can allow people to pass through with lighter security measures but it needs to be done randomly so that no one can predict if they will be subject to the full security measures or lighter ones. To just let everyone through if the lines get too long is not the
Re: (Score:2)
Be careful what you wish for. Terrorists have already started attacking the area outside the secure zone and other soft targets like sports stadiums in Europe.
I do wonder why this sort of attack is less common in the US. Is it because the US is only accessible from the middle east by air? But surely there are enough home-grown terrorists in a country that large, or they would just cross the southern land border.
Random kids shooting up schools have a higher body count than terrorists do. It's not like guns a
Re:Set a ceiling (Score:4, Insightful)
Be careful what you wish for. Terrorists have already started attacking the area outside the secure zone and other soft targets like sports stadiums in Europe.
I don't think anyone is "wishing for" this, except for a TINY number of insane people.
I do wonder why this sort of attack is less common in the US.
Umm, "this sort of attack" isn't "COMMON" in Europe either. There have been a few high-profile isolated incidents. There have also been a few high-profile isolated mass shootings, etc. in Europe in recent years. Neither of these things qualifies as "common."
And the reason they are "less common" (i.e., DON'T EVER HAPPEN) in the U.S. is because the idea that there are tens of thousands of terrorists just ready with the desire AND the means to attack the U.S. at any moment is -- and has always been -- a myth.
Look -- do you even remember what things were like in the U.S. after 9/11? I do. For months, people were rationally scared of just these sorts of things. They weren't just afraid of planes being hijacked, they were afraid of people with bombs OUTSIDE the security zones at airports, so they put extra security in effect at many airports even extending outside the outer doors to the airport.
People were afraid of terrorists doing all sorts of thing -- blowing up Times Square, putting poisons in unprotected water supplies to cities, even blowing up your local shopping mall. I had a very good friend who had heard about all the people talking about these sorts of things on the news, and he was afraid to go to malls -- he avoided them for months after 9/11. Yet none of this happened, and the public gradually forgot about it.
If there were anywhere near the number of terrorists the TSA wants us to believe there are, there would be all sorts of things blowing up all over the U.S. Take a look at a country that actually had SERIOUS terrorism -- Israel, England at the height of the IRA activity, etc. Then you'd have suicide bombers getting on a bus in a major city, or walking into a large crowd... this stuff is NOT hard.
But, as you point out, it doesn't happen in the U.S. The only people who actually attempt to get on planes and do something are STUPID terrorists who can't even figure out there would be so many more easy ways to cause mayhem.
TL;DR: (1) If there were terrorists, bad stuff could happen anywhere. (2) It doesn't, so there aren't that many terrorists. Q.E.D. (3) The only terrorists we might hope to protect against through enhanced TSA security are the most stupid ones -- anyone actually interested in planning a serious attack would never target a plane in the U.S. when there are so many easier targets.
Re: (Score:2)
Screw doing that at airports, if you want to hit Americans where they they really feel the fear, Walmart or your local mall on Black Friday/Thursday
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, many people have argued that effective terrorists don't try to do damage, but instead try to elicit a reaction. In the grand scheme of things, killing a handful of people doesn't do much damage to a civilization. However, if you can kill that same handful of people in a manner that's shocking and sensational enough, you might cause a large overreaction, and that overreaction by the civilization might do quite a lot of damage. It's kind of like a bee sting. By itself, a single bee sting won't kill
Re: (Score:2)
That's basically what a terrorist would have to do right now, so where's the difference?
Re: (Score:2)
Mandate that if wait times exceed one hour, the TSA is required to let all travelers through without screening until the lean clears.
Bad idea. A terrorist group could just then plan their attack for a busy time where there would be long lines, which at the moment is just about any time. To be successful they only need a single person to get passed security.
I say we revert to pre-9/11 protocols. There would be a metal detector and a volatile chemical chemical sniffer for the passengers, luggage would get x-rayed and hand searched if anything suspicious showed up. This also requires people that are educated and properly motivated. The
Re: (Score:3)
Erh... you ARE aware that we're already at the point where passengers miss their planes. Unless you happen to run a hotel next to an airport I cannot see any reason for your suggestions to be good ones.
Re: (Score:2)
That would certainly work, but rest assured that the higher ups would use that as a lever to reduce the number of TSA goons to the point where they are so few that they could never get their job done in time... which would also speed up the queues, since then the smart ones would simply wave everyone through.
Yes, your idea is sound. We could still have the security theater that we all like so much and TSA agents would finally turn from nuisances into glorified passenger welcoming service (smile and wave, bo
Re: (Score:2)
.....kicking them out of NATO
Done! No need to thank me
Heck of a job, Brownie. (Score:5, Insightful)
Translated: thrown his #2 under the bus in the hopes he gets blamed for the #1 guy screwing up.
More realistically, the command to slow down came from the top, to put political pressure on Congress to increase the TSA's budget. (Remember all the news stories crying about "not enough staffing" a few weeks ago?)
It's really time to disband the agency, only now it will be impossible since there are entrenched federal jobs.
It may actually be possible (Score:2)
The reason is they are making powerful people mad, in particular airlines and port authorities. The port authority over the NY and NJ airports has told the TSA they either fix their shit, or they are getting replaced with private security. These are the guys that oversee JFK, LaGuardia, and Newark Liberty. Those three together are basically the biggest transit hub in the US. So the port authority has some force behind them. They'd have to pay for their own security by airport fees, of course, on top of the
Re: (Score:2)
Well sure. Someone releases a report showing that the agency lets 95% of the bad stuff through. "OK" says management, "You want effective screening? You got it!" Word goes down from the boss to scrutinize everything that comes down the conveyor belt with a fine tooth comb. Wait times skyrocket.
Meanwhile, the next head of DHS is having lunch with a lobbyist who's representing a company with yet another high tech sensor system that will cost millions but still not work, or cause skin rashes in 50% of the peop
Re:Heck of a job, Brownie. (Score:4, Interesting)
I disagree.
First, the whining about Congressional budget:
"Long airport-security lines are a symptom of Congress' budget-cutting mantra" - April 18, 2016
https://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2016/04/long-airport-security-lines-are-symptom-congress-budget-cutting-mantra
"With many travelers missing or nearly missing their flights, we can fix this problem in the long term by increasing the funding for TSA to do its job..."
Then, when Congress forks over some taxdollars, a half-hearted "this might help but we could use more" with most of the money going to pad existing employees paychecks in the form of overtime
"Help is coming for long airport security lines"
http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/12/pf/tsa-reallocation-approved-airport-security-lines/
"TSA, asked Congress last week to be able to shift $34 million to increase the number of officers at airports... Around $26 million would pay for additional overtime and part-time hours, and around $8 million would go toward the hiring of 768 officers"
Which is followed by more whining:
"T.S.A. Offers New Measures Intended to Cut Airport Gridlock This Summer"
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/14/us/tsa-airport-security-lines.html?_r=0
"The long wait times we're seeing now are a direct result of Congress’s failure to give T.S.A. the money it needs to do its job," said J. David Cox Sr., the president of the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents airline screeners.
Which is why it still looks like the game was to shake down the travelling public until they asked Congress to open up the checkbox. Only they fucked up this time by getting too greedy and pissing too many important people off.
Re: (Score:2)
At least they'd be fondling phones instead of kids.
$90K? (Score:5, Funny)
60,000 employees, a $7.5B budget, and all they have to show for it is $90K in graft?
If they privatized that train wreck of a federal agency into a train wreck of a corporation, their top brass would be getting millions in unearned bonuses, millions more in golden parachutes, and that's not even counting the embezzlement.
Government inefficiency at it's worst.
Re: (Score:3)
Dude, hush! Our priest is bald, and he's been out in the sun too much and got some sunburn on his dome.
King has no clothes (Score:2)
TSA will only be successful when they find individual who will say it loudly and clearly: King has no clothes, and current TSA is a security theater. Without naming the problem, it is not possible to resolve the issue efficiently and effectively.
Reality is that the median throughput of one TSA checkpoint is approximately 5-6 seconds per person, 20 persons per minute, or 1,800 per one hour, but it could be even faster.
Another fact is that every passenger pays, $5.60 per check. At that throughput TSA collects
Solution to a non-existant problem (Score:2)
Airports can tell TSA to get out (Score:3)
There is a provision in law that allows an airport to kick TSA out. There are a number of airports that are TSA free. The TSA cannot be removed completely since they still have some authority on oversight of private screeners but the screeners would not be TSA employees and the airports would be free to hire as many security people as they wish to keep wait times reasonable.
What needs to happen is the people that run the airports need to grow a pair and get rid of the TSA. I'm not sure of this but I suspect that the TSA screeners do not cost the airports any money but private security would. In markets with competition between airports I'd think that showing short wait times, freedom from TSA ball grabbing, and generally a more pleasant traveler experience would make up for any monetray losses for having private screeners. Passengers missing flights costs money. People choosing to stay home or drive costs money.
There is no such thing as a free lunch. The TSA may be providing a service to airports without charging them money but this comes at a cost of fewer travelers, missed flights, passenger complaints, etc. which comes with costs. One huge cost is the loss of control over their own airport and piss poor security.
The only reason, IMHO, we have not lost another plane to terrorism since 9/11 is because they stopped trying. Why did they stop trying? Again IMHO, it's because they got what they wanted. They want people to fear another attack. The terrorists won and it is because of the TSA that they won.
Re: (Score:2)
You'd be an idiot to try to carry off a carbon-copy terrorist attack, purely because it wouldn't cause as much terror as doing something else.
It would be just so much easier to do something entirely different, unexpected and whose knee-jerk reaction would ban, say, cars being allowed in tunnels, or fire alarm evacuations at an airport terminal pushing everyone out onto the grass or whatever.
The more things the terrorists can make us ban, control, inspect, etc. the more it costs us (in terms of money and fre
Re: (Score:2)
Head on a Pike (Score:2)
I want the head of whoever the hell authorized payment of those bonuses to this jackass.
The usual negative logic here (Score:2)
i fly sometimes and I h
Weird math (Score:2)
Of course there is/was some capital expenditure, but most of the money goes on wages.
I am wondering about the economics of this whole system.
What is the real cost of an airplane blowing up ? Not including the human element, it's at most 100 million (average).
Question: If we shut down the TSA, how long would it take for 75 airplanes to be blown up ? Let the free market figure it out. Let's somehow incentivise insurance c
Can we just nuke the TSA already? (Score:2)
Seriously. Why the fuck do we need a GOVERNMENT AGENCY to handle what should be getting handled by standard, ACCOUNTABLE, airport security?
There's literally NOTHING these security theater freaks are doing that couldn't be done by old-school airport security.
Re: (Score:2)
Why the fuck do we need a GOVERNMENT AGENCY
Because either the TSA or private security won't be able to to anything about the next bombing or hijacking. It won't be a shoe bomb, underwear bomb or 20 guys with box cutters. But whoever is standing guard at the boarding point is going to be held responsible. No private firm or local port authority security team wants that kind of liability. Only the federal government is litigation-proof enough to survive.
TSA-Pre (Score:3)
We have TSA-Pre, which usually means shorter lines. Last year I was flying home from Boston - the regular security line snaked back and forth several times. The "Pre" line didn't exist as there was nobody ahead of me - the TSA guy was reading a magazine when I got there.
More recently the lines exist but are still short. Maybe 5 minutes.
Re: (Score:2)
The airlines here have been recommending my getting to the airport three hours early so if you were late it was your own damn fault.
This. My Alaska Air ticket explicitly said to get to the airport three hours early. The people complaining didn't read the fine print.
Or maybe the people complaining think it's ludicrous that they have to get to the airport 3 hours early for a 2 hour flight.
Re: (Score:2)
So you blame the TSA because you didn't get to the airport earlier enough?
More than two hours before the flight should be early enough.
An hour before the flight *should* be early enough. Even an hour is longer than it should be if you're not checking bags.
Re: (Score:2)
And an entire train.
Oops.
The Seattle Internet Blues (Score:2)
I live just north of Fremont and can't get DSL or cable despite Comcast's government-granted monopoly. I had a connection over a hundred times faster in rural Georgia over fifteen years ago.
Are we going to do this EVERY thread?
Re: (Score:3)
That's your fault. The airlines here have said for more than a year now that you should arrive at the airport at least two hours early.
It's his fault for getting there two hours early when the airlines said to get there two hours early?
Re: After missing two flights in SEATAC... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's your fault. The airlines here have said for more than a year now that you should arrive at the airport at least two hours early.
No.
It's the corrupt, authoritarian, and incompetent US governments' fault for instituting the corrupt, authoritarian, and incompetent TSA to begin with.
Arrival with time enough to check in any luggage at the airline, walk through a metal detector and an explosives sniffer at the gate, and that should be plenty. Call it 20 minutes, 30 tops for a busy hub.
A requirement for arrival 2 or 3 hours early is insanity.
Strat
Re: After missing two flights in SEATAC... (Score:4, Insightful)
Many years ago, I'd fly to Tel Aviv on El Al. They also had a three hour wait. However, that was to allow enough time for each passenger to have a lengthy interview with the Shin Bet agents who manage security where they did the behavioural screening. That interview was never shorter than five minutes and could last up to 20 pretty easily. But no-one missed their flights.
Totally different security threat matrix than in the US. The US threat matrix is not anywhere even close to the level of the clear, present, and ongoing threat level in Israel, being surrounded as it is by many much larger and very hostile nations and nation-states.
The comparison is stark, as El Al security is actually about *true* security against a very real threat, whereas the TSA is about the *appearance* of security against a mostly (now that cockpit doors lock and passengers pile on to curb-stomp would-be hijackers/terrorists) imaginary.threat while making further inroads on civil rights, "normalizing" the appearance of security checkpoints and "Papieren, bitte! Schnell!" in public perception, and funneling more of your money to their private-sector crony accomplices who then help elect/re-elect them and kick money back through other mechanisms as well like private charities/funds, etc etc.
The role of the TSA in conditioning the public can be summed up with one game-meme.
"Pick up that can!"
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
> Schnell!
It doesn't look like this is the case with TSA.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention that Israel is the size of New Jersey and has exactly one international airport.
Israel doesn't scale.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In what way are you nerd, as opposed to a sanctimonious asshole?