TSA lines...

[JohnRoberts]

I'll try to ignore that TSA workers are fully unionized to protect them from their government central planners.

They just fired the guy running this, no doubt angry fliers wanted to see a scape goat punished.

The elephant in the room is that this is mostly about visuals, to deter bad guys from trying to sneak weapons or bombs onto plane, not to literally be an air tight screening. In fact they routinely fail their own tests that see stuff getting past them, but don't tell anybody.  ???

One recent complaint is that because airlines are charging more to check carry-ons means that more flyers are carrying extra bags that now need to be screened by TSA. The obvious free-market solution is for TSA to charge for screening these extra bags... basically negate the economic incentive that motivates travelers to hand carry more stuff.
=====
Another free market solution is to provide an alternate private screening line, that would cost more to use, but get people through faster.
=======
Lastly and this is a little science fiction, imagine a smart phone based dynamic auction system, where individuals could negotiate with people in line ahead of them to sell their place in line. Each individual could set a price that they would accept to let one person cut ahead of them.  Of course if somebody in the middle of the line refuses to be cut for any price, passengers behind them can pay to advance them too...

Let free market trading manage the congestion.


JR

 

[emrr]

I think they should stand down if they can't get people on planes in time.  Just GTF out of the way.  They are essentially a useless drain on taxpayer resources.

 

[mattiasNYC]

I'll try to ignore that TSA workers are fully unionized to protect them from their government central planners.

I think you just failed that..... ;-)

They just fired the guy running this, no doubt angry fliers wanted to see a scape goat punished.

The elephant in the room is that this is mostly about visuals, to deter bad guys from trying to sneak weapons or bombs onto plane, not to literally be an air tight screening. In fact they routinely fail their own tests that see stuff getting past them, but don't tell anybody.  ???

I wonder how many people are actually fooled by this nonsense. But let's face it, it might be a significant portion of the public. Here in NYC we frequently have to "sign in" when getting into buildings. Of course, nobody checks I.D., so I frequently sign "Mickey Mouse" or something. Nobody cares. Or you have to show I.D. but don't have to sign in. Now what? Is the security person going to do anything when he sees you have an I.D? Of course not. And if anything happens, will he remember your name? Nope..... But still, it's the current dumb state of affairs. So I agree with you.

One recent complaint is that because airlines are charging more to check carry-ons means that more flyers are carrying extra bags that now need to be screened by TSA. The obvious free-market solution is for TSA to charge for screening these extra bags... basically negate the economic incentive that motivates travelers to hand carry more stuff.

Ok, but then you've just made travel more expensive for those who wanted to carry stuff on-board.  Doesn't seem reasonable. The solution is to make TSA checks better and/or faster.

Another free market solution is to provide an alternate private screening line, that would cost more to use, but get people through faster.

Sure. Fast lane for people with money. If you're "poor" then f.u.

No thanks. I think we have enough inequality as it is.

Lastly and this is a little science fiction, imagine a smart phone based dynamic auction system, where individuals could negotiate with people in line ahead of them to sell their place in line. Each individual could set a price that they would accept to let one person cut ahead of them.  Of course if somebody in the middle of the line refuses to be cut for any price, passengers behind them can pay to advance them too...

I wholeheartedly endorse the above.

Let free market trading manage the congestion.

lol.... you and your "free market" solution to everything....

PS: That trading of places obviously doesn't actually manage congestion, just rearrange it.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I'll try to ignore that TSA workers are fully unionized to protect them from their government central planners.

I think you just failed that..... ;-)

Well I didn't literally blame the union for people missing flights  while I heard rumors of a ploy to intentionally slow down and blame it on the budget. I'm not big on conspiracy theories so didn't go there first. The government management of TSA is living down to their low reputation. 

Ray la Hood (SP?) Transportation secretary was on TV today saying he needed a "big bucket of money" to spend on highway infrastructure (in fact now with low gas prices they would be wise to increase taxes when nobody would notice another $0.10, but they need to stop giving EV a free ride.) 

They just fired the guy running this, no doubt angry fliers wanted to see a scape goat punished.

The elephant in the room is that this is mostly about visuals, to deter bad guys from trying to sneak weapons or bombs onto plane, not to literally be an air tight screening. In fact they routinely fail their own tests that see stuff getting past them, but don't tell anybody.  ???

I wonder how many people are actually fooled by this nonsense. But let's face it, it might be a significant portion of the public. Here in NYC we frequently have to "sign in" when getting into buildings. Of course, nobody checks I.D., so I frequently sign "Mickey Mouse" or something. Nobody cares. Or you have to show I.D. but don't have to sign in. Now what? Is the security person going to do anything when he sees you have an I.D? Of course not. And if anything happens, will he remember your name? Nope..... But still, it's the current dumb state of affairs. So I agree with you.

Funny in many situations appearance is the reality...If the bad guys believe they will be caught by screeners, it worked.  I suspect some in politics think this is "always" the case, so place disproportionate emphasis on visuals some times to the detriment of the reality.  A suicide bomber could take advantage of the extra people crowded into unsecured waiting lines. The Brussels airport bombing targeted a crowded ticketing area. 

One recent complaint is that because airlines are charging more to check carry-ons means that more flyers are carrying extra bags that now need to be screened by TSA. The obvious free-market solution is for TSA to charge for screening these extra bags... basically negate the economic incentive that motivates travelers to hand carry more stuff.

Ok, but then you've just made travel more expensive for those who wanted to carry stuff on-board.  Doesn't seem reasonable. The solution is to make TSA checks better and/or faster.

Making everybody late is so democratic.  If i was late and going to miss my flight I'd gladly pay up to make my connection. The extra baggage charges are just airlines trying to maximize profits, if flyers miss their flights the airlines lose all that revenue, so the airlines should be motivated to fix this too.

Another free market solution is to provide an alternate private screening line, that would cost more to use, but get people through faster.

Sure. Fast lane for people with money. If you're "poor" then f.u.

No thanks. I think we have enough inequality as it is.

How about free market competition? Let a private baggage security check compete with the TSA, and both get compensated by how many people they check.

The current government monopoly isn't working that well... (I don't think it's an actual monopoly, but private screening is discouraged.).

Lastly and this is a little science fiction, imagine a smart phone based dynamic auction system, where individuals could negotiate with people in line ahead of them to sell their place in line. Each individual could set a price that they would accept to let one person cut ahead of them.  Of course if somebody in the middle of the line refuses to be cut for any price, passengers behind them can pay to advance them too...

I wholeheartedly endorse the above.

Let free market trading manage the congestion.

lol.... you and your "free market" solution to everything....

PS: That trading of places obviously doesn't actually manage congestion, just rearrange it.

Helping people to not miss flights is worthwhile...  but I suspect introducing some actual competition would improve service, quality, reduce delays and anything else we can measure.

We don't know how lucky we are here in the US. Waiting in lines is not the worst thing... I already mentioned they stopped making beer in Venezuela because they can't get dollars to import barley and hops. Coca Cola  just stopped making soda in Venezuela because they can't even get sugar. The liberal media is blaming this on a recession in Venezuela, it's one of those government caused recessions, that won't recover until they change that government. Equality of suffering doesn't make it OK.   

JR

 

[Andy Peters]

Another free market solution is to provide an alternate private screening line, that would cost more to use, but get people through faster.

That actually exists. It's called Clear.  I didn't know it existed until I flew out of DIA a couple of weeks ago.  (DIA is a well-known clusterfuck of an airport.) It's available at a handful of airports.

You submit to a private security screening, and then you pay $15/month for the privilege of using their private line to the screening area. But (and this is not obvious from their FAQ)... you still end up at the regular TSA security checkpoint. And if you don't have TSA Precheck, you still have to take off your pants and open up your laptop case and take off your shoes.

Oh, and Precheck: I spent the $85 for it, and so did my wife. When the Precheck lanes are open, you go right through. But when they're not -- and you never know when the lanes won't be open -- you're given a little card that says that you're pre-cleared, which means you don't have to take off your pants and shoes but you still have to wait in line with the rest of the crowd. In other words, big deal.

The problem with the security lines is obvious to anyone who flies more than once a decade - manpower. I don't know how many times I've waited in the lines and saw only two or three of eight checkpoints operating.  And the blame for this can be squarely placed on the Congress, who created this mandate for more intensive security and were able to find millions of dollars for the millimeter-wave screening things, yet somehow can't seem to find money to staff the operation properly.

 

[Andy Peters]

I suspect some in politics think this is "always" the case, so place disproportionate emphasis on visuals some times to the detriment of the reality.  A suicide bomber could take advantage of the extra people crowded into unsecured waiting lines. The Brussels airport bombing targeted a crowded ticketing area. 

Of course it's all theatre. What's proof of that? If the screeners find a bottle with more than 3 oz of liquid in it, what do they do? They toss it into a nearby garbage can. Or perhaps the traveler realizes that he has a bottle of water in his carry-on so he tosses that into the trash can.

Seems to me that tossing something interesting into a trash can right at the x-ray machines at DIA could kill quite a few thousand people.  I mean, this should be completely obvious.

How about free market competition? Let a private baggage security check compete with the TSA, and both get compensated by how many people they check.

I'm sure that the private screeners would be totally honest and not skimp on the screening, and not steal passenger belonging from the baggage, and they wouldn't hire anyone who might want to do something bad, like sneak something onto a plane.

Nahhhh.

-a

 

[JohnRoberts]

Another free market solution is to provide an alternate private screening line, that would cost more to use, but get people through faster.

That actually exists. It's called Clear.  I didn't know it existed until I flew out of DIA a couple of weeks ago.  (DIA is a well-known clusterf**k of an airport.) It's available at a handful of airports.

You submit to a private security screening, and then you pay $15/month for the privilege of using their private line to the screening area. But (and this is not obvious from their FAQ)... you still end up at the regular TSA security checkpoint. And if you don't have TSA Precheck, you still have to take off your pants and open up your laptop case and take off your shoes.

Oh, and Precheck: I spent the $85 for it, and so did my wife. When the Precheck lanes are open, you go right through. But when they're not -- and you never know when the lanes won't be open -- you're given a little card that says that you're pre-cleared, which means you don't have to take off your pants and shoes but you still have to wait in line with the rest of the crowd. In other words, big deal.

The problem with the security lines is obvious to anyone who flies more than once a decade - manpower. I don't know how many times I've waited in the lines and saw only two or three of eight checkpoints operating.  And the blame for this can be squarely placed on the Congress, who created this mandate for more intensive security and were able to find millions of dollars for the millimeter-wave screening things, yet somehow can't seem to find money to staff the operation properly.

I think the blame rests squarely with the terrorists who turned passenger aircraft into flying bombs.

Congress shifted forward $34 million in TSA funding to pay overtime and expand hiring for the summer rush, but throwing more money at them will not turn TSA into a cost effective operation.  TSA suffers an attrition rate as high as 28% among part time workers so that high turnover fraction hurts effectiveness too..

JR

 

[pucho812]

I am flying next week, between the time I have to get out of work and hit the airport TSA better move me quick otherwise i am sure my flight will go without me. While I can make arrangements for early leaving that day, I would like to think that all the money we spend on the TSA actually goes to good use. I am not convinced it has been though, to my knowledge,  in all the years of people getting caught trying to do bad things in the air or elsewere related to air travel, it has been be other countries giving us a heads up... 

 

[mattiasNYC]

Another free market solution is to provide an alternate private screening line, that would cost more to use, but get people through faster.

Sure. Fast lane for people with money. If you're "poor" then f.u.

No thanks. I think we have enough inequality as it is.

How about free market competition? Let a private baggage security check compete with the TSA, and both get compensated by how many people they check.

The current government monopoly isn't working that well... (I don't think it's an actual monopoly, but private screening is discouraged.).

I like your problem-solving skills. I'd be in favor of this.

We don't know how lucky we are here in the US. Waiting in lines is not the worst thing... I already mentioned they stopped making beer in Venezuela because they can't get dollars to import barley and hops. Coca Cola  just stopped making soda in Venezuela because they can't even get sugar. The liberal media is blaming this on a recession in Venezuela, it's one of those government caused recessions, that won't recover until they change that government. Equality of suffering doesn't make it OK.   

JR

Dude, the Coca Cola sugar-crisis isn't a result of the economic downturn, it's a liberal plot to control people's sugar-intake just like in NYC... "economic crisis" is just a liberal coverup of its conspiracy to make Venezuelan's healthier... surely you knew this

 

[JohnRoberts]

Dude, the Coca Cola sugar-crisis isn't a result of the economic downturn, it's a liberal plot to control people's sugar-intake just like in NYC... "economic crisis" is just a liberal coverup of its conspiracy to make Venezuelan's healthier... surely you knew this

I feel bad for the people of Venezuela, they had it tough under Chavez but at least selling expensive oil (Venezuela has a lot of oil) kept the country afloat. Now with the deep drop in oil prices Maduro  can't run the old Chavez playbook.  He has loaded the courts to thwart democratic reforms but I expect the citizens to be on their last nerve (no beer). 

Oil has recovered up to around $50 but i don't know haw much that will help them.

Re: Sugar, IIRC Mexico has imposed a tax on sugar to reduce obesity and diabetes.

JR

 

[emrr]

Not that anyone should die due to lax standards, but playing devil's advocate I'd bet terrorism could bring down a plane a day somewhere, and it still wouldn't hold a candle to automotive deaths. 

A quick look at the numbers suggests a plane every 3 days somewhere in the world might be roughly equivalent to US auto deaths, while a plane a day around 1/12 of worldwide auto deaths.  Note the number of countries that do much less than the US towards airline security when considering. 

Security theater makes a lot of money for a few people, while delivering very little on average, it's certainly not delivering a 'stable socialist government job' to a lot of people either.  If we stopped blinking and adopted a reality based security approach as opposed to pretending to do that which will stop everything, and ignored the collateral damage, terrorism would likely lose interest and  back off the approach.  Security theater paints a giant bulls eye on the airline industry. 

 

[JohnRoberts]

Not that anyone should die due to lax standards, but playing devil's advocate I'd bet terrorism could bring down a plane a day somewhere, and it still wouldn't hold a candle to automotive deaths. 

Auto deaths have been steadily going down, while cheap gas has led to more miles driven and more accidents very recently.

The promise of self driving cars is to (almost) completely eliminate accidents. Auto insurance companies are already reading the writing on the wall to a day when auto insurance is moot. 

Indeed if we look at all deaths (in the US) terrorism doesn't make the list, while inner city violence does and is rising perhaps because of anti-police sentiment. If police are afraid of negative consequences they are less likely to police minor crimes, leading to more bad behavior....  or not (my speculation).

A quick look at the numbers suggests a plane every 3 days somewhere in the world might be roughly equivalent to US auto deaths, while a plane a day around 1/12 of worldwide auto deaths.  Note the number of countries that do much less than the US towards airline security when considering. 

Plane hijacking is part of the psychological warfare terrorists practice... going for the big emotional visuals, to capture the news cycle  for maximum exposure.

Security theater makes a lot of money for a few people, while delivering very little on average, it's certainly not delivering a 'stable socialist government job' to a lot of people either.  If we stopped blinking and adopted a reality based security approach as opposed to pretending to do that which will stop everything, and ignored the collateral damage, terrorism would likely lose interest and  back off the approach.  Security theater paints a giant bulls eye on the airline industry.

El Al seems to have a handle on security, but aren't considered politically correct by many in the west.

Having random TSA workers poke though our undies is indeed theater, to scare bad actors. Xrays and machine vision could be far more effective at actually catching known threats.

If the bad guys are willing to assemble into a large group in one place, the easier to exterminate them. Then we can deal with the isolated incidents (that will never stop) as police business after we remove the engine behind promoting this widespread terror who has declared war against the west. 

They should not be allowed safe haven any where in the world, which means that we in the free world still have a lot of work to do, cleaning up sundry still lawless regions.

Turning the other cheek doesn't work with these guys.

JR

 

[JohnRoberts]

We don't know how lucky we are here in the US. Waiting in lines is not the worst thing... I already mentioned they stopped making beer in Venezuela because they can't get dollars to import barley and hops. Coca Cola  just stopped making soda in Venezuela because they can't even get sugar. The liberal media is blaming this on a recession in Venezuela, it's one of those government caused recessions, that won't recover until they change that government. Equality of suffering doesn't make it OK.   

JR

I saw an article with more information about the beer situation. The beer brewer secured a (dollar) loan so they are now able to import supplies and restart the brewery business. It turns out the brewer/bottler is a private corporation and in regular conflict with the government.

They even offered to help the government manage some previously nationalized food businesses that were having hard times, but the government declined, and threatened to nationalize the brewer too..

Looks like coke is still lacking sugar supplies to bottle there.

JR