Catching a Flight? Budget Hours, Not Minutes, for Security
1–10 of 512 posts
Re: Catching a Flight? Budget Hours, Not Minutes, for Security
#2> At the same time, he said, the number of T.S.A. screeners has declined by about 5,800 because of tighter budgets. The agency currently has 42,350 agents assigned for security checks.
Such a monumentally wasteful jobs program.
Re: Catching a Flight? Budget Hours, Not Minutes, for Security
#3How is coming to the airport earlier supposed to solve what's obviously a throughput problem?
Sure, for an individual it reduces the chances they'll miss their flight. But if everyone does it, there's obviously no change. The only way showing up earlier would help with throughput is if there are periods of time where the security is under-utilized with absolutely no queues. Which, from my experience with US airports, is a laughable idea.
Re: Catching a Flight? Budget Hours, Not Minutes, for Security
#4Blaming volume? How about 1) the switch from metal detectors to less numerous and slower body scanners? 2) the allocation of employee resources to the "pre check" line leaving less staff for 90% of travelers. 3) still having to take belts and shoes off even with a full body scan? This program has gotten seriously out of hand and is incredibly frustrating. I don't care if it's 3 hours or "75 minutes" anything over 15 minutes is absurd.
Re: Catching a Flight? Budget Hours, Not Minutes, for Security
#5> At the same time, he said, the number of T.S.A. screeners has declined by about 5,800 because of tighter budgets. The agency currently has 42,350 agents assigned for security checks. Such a monumentally wasteful jobs program.
$7 billion a year just for the TSA budget. That's not counting all the indirect economic losses from the security theatre.
Re: Catching a Flight? Budget Hours, Not Minutes, for Security
#6I hit this at SeaTac recently. I showed up my normal "1 hour on a Tuesday afternoon should be more than enough" and encountered a nearly 3 hour line. They said it was the new normal.
Re: Catching a Flight? Budget Hours, Not Minutes, for Security
#7Why does the NYTimes quote tweets -- essentially publishing the shouts of strangers on the street -- before they report actual data like the change in the number of TSA screeners?
Re: Catching a Flight? Budget Hours, Not Minutes, for Security
#8How is coming to the airport earlier supposed to solve what's obviously a throughput problem? Sure, for an individual it reduces the chances they'll miss their flight. But if everyone does it, there's obviously no change. The only way showing up earlier would help with throughput is if there are periods of time where the security is under-utilized with absolutely no queues. Which, from my experience with US airports,…
This is one of the reasons I love the Midwest and living in smaller cities. My airport is international and flies just about anywhere you want to go, but 90% of the time I walk up to an empty line and I'm told "we don't have a precheck lane open, just walk on through". As a consultant, I fly the busiest times (monday and thursday), but the only trouble I've ever had was in Denver where I waited almost an hour and a half in a security line before I got my precheck approval.
Re: Catching a Flight? Budget Hours, Not Minutes, for Security
#9That's a lot of hassle for what is little more than a placebo. In the 40y that terrorists have been targetting planes, I am not aware of a single major terrorist attack that has been stopped by passenger checks.
Re: Catching a Flight? Budget Hours, Not Minutes, for Security
#10$99 for global entry for 5 years, includes tsa-pre was such a no brainer.
I've noticed in MIA airport, one security line might be packed , then you walk 4 minutes to the next one and its nearly empty (same staff at both).
Toronto security heading back to the US is fascinating, tons of passengers, but the screening process is broken up into multiple human touch points. Felt more fluid.