7 ms·

I don't understand the hate for TSA. Sure, it can be better. But does anyone dare board a plane when none of the passengers have been screened?

xboxnolifes 3y ago
Tons of people did dare in the past, and also continue to dare with regards to other transit.
eat_veggies 3y ago
yes, the way people dared to board planes pre-9/11, and the way people dare to board trains, buses, and ferries today.
- drstewart 3y ago
  You think people weren't screened pre 9/11? Are you under 24 years old by any chance?
  - lowbloodsugar 3y ago
    Literally just walked up to the gate. Only thing was the gate attendant checked your ID against the ticket. That was all. No metal detectors. No screening. Just walk up to the gate an get on. One time my mate forgot his drivers license, and missed the flight. So harsh!
    - drstewart 3y ago
      Yeah, no, you're definitely either under 24 or over 80.
bombcar 3y ago
If said plane is the only unscreened flight out of Tel-Aviv? Maybe I'd have some reservations. But if all flights were completely unscreened? It wouldn't change what or when I fly. I already board unscreened trains and busses quite often.
- saagarjha 3y ago
  With that username, I’m not sure I’d want to join you :P
  - bombcar 3y ago
    Always bring a bomb with you on the plane - the chance there are two bombs on the plane is almost infinitely small!
- sneed_chucker 3y ago
  When trains or buses crash, the majority of the passengers survive in most cases. When commercial airliners crash, usually everyone on board dies.
  - Dudhbbh3343 3y ago
    High speed trains in Japan have no screening at all. I imagine a well-placed bomb going off could have a similar number of casualties.
    - bombcar 3y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Madrid_train_bombings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Madrid_train_bombings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santiago_de_Compostela_derailment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santiago_de_Compostela_derailm... It could almost certainly be extremely deadly if it happens. Man, these were the two main ones I recall - Spain has had some bad luck.
- deadbabe 3y ago
  Busses and trains aren’t good targets for terrorism. You blow up a bus, maybe no one really cares except the locals to the area where the bus blew up. A plane cuts through many different social classes and nationalities, putting them all in one place and making a large amount of people imagine themselves as the potential victim.
buggy6257 3y ago
We…we did. For 87 years of air travel we did. Went pretty darn good. People seemed to have fun with it. They even looked forward to flights. What an odd comment.
- throwway120385 3y ago
  I flew the final 6 years of that period and enjoyed flying. Post-9/11 flying sucks and is a huge drag. If you're too young to have experienced pre-9/11 airports then you really don't know what you're missing. When I was little they let me see the cockpit in flight, and the flight attendants would bring me little snacks on late flights. It was a totally different experience versus being crammed into a flying bus.
  - drstewart 3y ago
    It turns out being a kid that gets things for free is pretty nice. Now compare the money your parents paid for your little vacations back then to a flight nowadays.
    - throwway120385 3y ago
      What are you trying to tell me? That the airport and airline experience isn't any different?
- WrongAssumption 3y ago
  Did we? Between 1968-1972 there were 130 hijackings in the US alone. In 1973 the FAA required passenger screening (I don’t know why people are saying screening began in 2001, the TSA was formed and updated screening procedures, but people were definitely already being screened). From 1973 on, hijacking’s dropped considerably. Since 2001 there have been no hijackings in the US. Your comment is the odd one.
  - harkinian 3y ago
    Yeah, I don't know if screening was the best solution and don't think the post-9/11 rules make sense, but there was clearly a problem in the past that got solved by screening. Also, nowadays we gotta make sure well-intended passengers don't have a Samsung Note.
harkinian 3y ago
I'll board one
someuser2345 3y ago
Why not? Are you afraid of riding a train, since none of the passengers have been screened?
lfmunoz4 3y ago
99 percent of people can easily be pre-screened as not a threat.
hadlock 3y ago
Security was handled (owned) by airports since the dawn of time. Airports with high risk (JFK) had higher security, airports with lower security (SAT). Airports hired typical staff from the local community and you would go through a metal detector and someone would X-Ray your luggage to make sure there were no obvious bombs in there. Your family could meet you at the gate. Originally when the TSA was invented, airports were allowed to do their own security, TSA was optional. Now, airports that already have TSA are not allowed to provide their own security, it is mandatory they hire federal union employees. WHY is it necessary for municipal airports to hire federal union employees? Airports know their own local risk factor and can adequately manage those employees. Airports want their passengers to have a good experience, so that they come back. This is why they pay big bucks for rennovations, why they have the bad-ok-good-better-best colored buttons in the restrooms and everything else. The airport has virtually no control over the staff running security. They can't overschedule employees for busy times and holidays, they're beholden to what the TSA does. And yeah, they do regular tests of the TSA to see how much contraband they can slip past security. TSA regularly fails these tests/audits. The rest of the world does not deal with the level of security as american airports, and nobody else is having problems. US airports are still running at/above 9/11 security levels... why? In most countries you aren't required to take off your shoes or walk through anything more invasive than a simple metal detector. 1. Abolish the TSA. Allow local airports to hire and manage their own staff (currently not allowed) 2. Adjust minimum standards up and down based on current thread level (don't force people wearing flip flops to take off their shoes) TSA was a huge mistake and is absolutely security theater. Every other country in the world does a better job of managing risk at airports than the US.
pxeboot 3y ago
I remember flying pre-9/11. There was still a security checkpoint with metal detectors. It was run by the airport instead of the feds.
- pramsey 3y ago
  Even further back, before the hijacking spree of the 70s, when I was a kid I remember our local airport had no division between ground side and air side. You just got out of your car, walked to the gate, and they checked your boarding pass. This would be in the late 1970s, it was a remote city, so probably the transition to a "secure boarding area" was later than in the big cities.
  - pramsey 3y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MYxAlA5wuk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MYxAlA5wuk
_yb2s 3y ago
Absolutely I would. Most other countries have little or no screening and are just fine. It's not a realistic risk to be concerned about... it's just not worth the hassle trying to mitigate something that is orders of magnitude less of a deal than other easier to mitigate risks.
Sargos 3y ago
You must be terrified of taking the subway
- harkinian 3y ago
  Well, I am but for other reasons because it's BART. I'll gladly take an unscreened flight.
groby_b 3y ago
Oh please. If you have money, you buy Pre+Clear+Global Entry. The "screening process" is nil (three simplistic questions for Global Entry). That leaves the bag inspections - and I can tell you that at least for the Pre checkins, they're not exactly enforcing e.g. the weird liquid rules. (And there are plenty of articles showing they're not super-great at finding guns, easier) And yet, it seems air traffic is mostly threatened by carriers & Boeing implementing cost savings to enrich execs. Also, we did just fine pre-2001, and it's highly doubtful the TSA would've prevented 9/11. So, what exactly does it buy us, outside of an employment program that mostly enriches folks supplying TSA equipment?
Ancapistani 3y ago
> But does anyone dare board a plane when none of the passengers have been screened? Yes. Without hesitation, yes. Americans learned a lesson on 9/11/01. Prior to that, almost all hijackings resulted in the eventual release of the passengers. No one had ever hijacked a plane in the US and flown it into a building before. There was no real reason to fight back if doing so put you at risk. After 9/11/01, the default assumption to the hijacking of an American airliner can only be that everyone on board is going to die, along with an unknown number of people on the ground. That change in perspective significantly alters the likely outcome. If someone tried to hijack an airliner in 2024 with a knife - or even a gun - I would be highly surprised if, at the end of the day, more injuries were caused by the attacker than from the scramble of people jumping on top of them to subdue them. The problems TSA was nominally created to solve simply no longer exist. Screen luggage for explosive, maybe walk people through an x-ray if the airline wants that, and move on with life.

xboxnolifes 3y ago

Tons of people did dare in the past, and also continue to dare with regards to other transit.

eat_veggies 3y ago

yes, the way people dared to board planes pre-9/11, and the way people dare to board trains, buses, and ferries today.

drstewart 3y ago
You think people weren't screened pre 9/11? Are you under 24 years old by any chance?
- lowbloodsugar 3y ago
  Literally just walked up to the gate. Only thing was the gate attendant checked your ID against the ticket. That was all. No metal detectors. No screening. Just walk up to the gate an get on. One time my mate forgot his drivers license, and missed the flight. So harsh!
  - drstewart 3y ago
    Yeah, no, you're definitely either under 24 or over 80.

bombcar 3y ago

If said plane is the only unscreened flight out of Tel-Aviv? Maybe I'd have some reservations. But if all flights were completely unscreened? It wouldn't change what or when I fly. I already board unscreened trains and busses quite often.

saagarjha 3y ago
With that username, I’m not sure I’d want to join you :P
- bombcar 3y ago
  Always bring a bomb with you on the plane - the chance there are two bombs on the plane is almost infinitely small!
sneed_chucker 3y ago
When trains or buses crash, the majority of the passengers survive in most cases. When commercial airliners crash, usually everyone on board dies.
- Dudhbbh3343 3y ago
  High speed trains in Japan have no screening at all. I imagine a well-placed bomb going off could have a similar number of casualties.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Madrid_train_bombings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Madrid_train_bombings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santiago_de_Compostela_derailment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santiago_de_Compostela_derailm... It could almost certainly be extremely deadly if it happens. Man, these were the two main ones I recall - Spain has had some bad luck.
deadbabe 3y ago
Busses and trains aren’t good targets for terrorism. You blow up a bus, maybe no one really cares except the locals to the area where the bus blew up. A plane cuts through many different social classes and nationalities, putting them all in one place and making a large amount of people imagine themselves as the potential victim.

buggy6257 3y ago

We…we did. For 87 years of air travel we did. Went pretty darn good. People seemed to have fun with it. They even looked forward to flights. What an odd comment.

throwway120385 3y ago
I flew the final 6 years of that period and enjoyed flying. Post-9/11 flying sucks and is a huge drag. If you're too young to have experienced pre-9/11 airports then you really don't know what you're missing. When I was little they let me see the cockpit in flight, and the flight attendants would bring me little snacks on late flights. It was a totally different experience versus being crammed into a flying bus.
- drstewart 3y ago
  It turns out being a kid that gets things for free is pretty nice. Now compare the money your parents paid for your little vacations back then to a flight nowadays.
  - throwway120385 3y ago
    What are you trying to tell me? That the airport and airline experience isn't any different?
WrongAssumption 3y ago
Did we? Between 1968-1972 there were 130 hijackings in the US alone. In 1973 the FAA required passenger screening (I don’t know why people are saying screening began in 2001, the TSA was formed and updated screening procedures, but people were definitely already being screened). From 1973 on, hijacking’s dropped considerably. Since 2001 there have been no hijackings in the US. Your comment is the odd one.
- harkinian 3y ago
  Yeah, I don't know if screening was the best solution and don't think the post-9/11 rules make sense, but there was clearly a problem in the past that got solved by screening. Also, nowadays we gotta make sure well-intended passengers don't have a Samsung Note.

harkinian 3y ago

I'll board one

someuser2345 3y ago

Why not? Are you afraid of riding a train, since none of the passengers have been screened?

lfmunoz4 3y ago

99 percent of people can easily be pre-screened as not a threat.

hadlock 3y ago

Security was handled (owned) by airports since the dawn of time. Airports with high risk (JFK) had higher security, airports with lower security (SAT). Airports hired typical staff from the local community and you would go through a metal detector and someone would X-Ray your luggage to make sure there were no obvious bombs in there. Your family could meet you at the gate. Originally when the TSA was invented, airports were allowed to do their own security, TSA was optional. Now, airports that already have TSA are not allowed to provide their own security, it is mandatory they hire federal union employees. WHY is it necessary for municipal airports to hire federal union employees? Airports know their own local risk factor and can adequately manage those employees. Airports want their passengers to have a good experience, so that they come back. This is why they pay big bucks for rennovations, why they have the bad-ok-good-better-best colored buttons in the restrooms and everything else. The airport has virtually no control over the staff running security. They can't overschedule employees for busy times and holidays, they're beholden to what the TSA does. And yeah, they do regular tests of the TSA to see how much contraband they can slip past security. TSA regularly fails these tests/audits. The rest of the world does not deal with the level of security as american airports, and nobody else is having problems. US airports are still running at/above 9/11 security levels... why? In most countries you aren't required to take off your shoes or walk through anything more invasive than a simple metal detector. 1. Abolish the TSA. Allow local airports to hire and manage their own staff (currently not allowed) 2. Adjust minimum standards up and down based on current thread level (don't force people wearing flip flops to take off their shoes) TSA was a huge mistake and is absolutely security theater. Every other country in the world does a better job of managing risk at airports than the US.

pxeboot 3y ago

I remember flying pre-9/11. There was still a security checkpoint with metal detectors. It was run by the airport instead of the feds.

pramsey 3y ago
Even further back, before the hijacking spree of the 70s, when I was a kid I remember our local airport had no division between ground side and air side. You just got out of your car, walked to the gate, and they checked your boarding pass. This would be in the late 1970s, it was a remote city, so probably the transition to a "secure boarding area" was later than in the big cities.
- pramsey 3y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MYxAlA5wuk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MYxAlA5wuk

_yb2s 3y ago

Absolutely I would. Most other countries have little or no screening and are just fine. It's not a realistic risk to be concerned about... it's just not worth the hassle trying to mitigate something that is orders of magnitude less of a deal than other easier to mitigate risks.

Sargos 3y ago

You must be terrified of taking the subway

harkinian 3y ago
Well, I am but for other reasons because it's BART. I'll gladly take an unscreened flight.

groby_b 3y ago

Oh please. If you have money, you buy Pre+Clear+Global Entry. The "screening process" is nil (three simplistic questions for Global Entry). That leaves the bag inspections - and I can tell you that at least for the Pre checkins, they're not exactly enforcing e.g. the weird liquid rules. (And there are plenty of articles showing they're not super-great at finding guns, easier) And yet, it seems air traffic is mostly threatened by carriers & Boeing implementing cost savings to enrich execs. Also, we did just fine pre-2001, and it's highly doubtful the TSA would've prevented 9/11. So, what exactly does it buy us, outside of an employment program that mostly enriches folks supplying TSA equipment?

Ancapistani 3y ago

> But does anyone dare board a plane when none of the passengers have been screened? Yes. Without hesitation, yes. Americans learned a lesson on 9/11/01. Prior to that, almost all hijackings resulted in the eventual release of the passengers. No one had ever hijacked a plane in the US and flown it into a building before. There was no real reason to fight back if doing so put you at risk. After 9/11/01, the default assumption to the hijacking of an American airliner can only be that everyone on board is going to die, along with an unknown number of people on the ground. That change in perspective significantly alters the likely outcome. If someone tried to hijack an airliner in 2024 with a knife - or even a gun - I would be highly surprised if, at the end of the day, more injuries were caused by the attacker than from the scramble of people jumping on top of them to subdue them. The problems TSA was nominally created to solve simply no longer exist. Screen luggage for explosive, maybe walk people through an x-ray if the airline wants that, and move on with life.