Airport TSA

[CelticWhisper]

I'm very glad I swore off flying when I heard the news of coerced body scans being introduced in 2010 (coercion, in my opinion, being supplied by the totally-unacceptable alternative of full-body molestation). I have to say I scratch my head a bit at the fact that after 6 years of horror stories regarding TSA groping traumatizing children and sexual-assault victims, kids having nightmares and crying that they don't want to go to Disneyland anymore after "security", and criminal arrests of TSA clerks, long lines are what make people say "enough is enough."

Then again, the KGW hasn't really bothered me in my 4 years of riding the rails so maybe lines just don't get under my skin the way they do with some people. Could also be that the KGW is just a quick A-to-B and not standing around for hours.

Still, I echo fairviewroad's sentiment that this could be good for Amtrak if it forces people to take another look at rail and see how great it can be. True, it might not be our own little best-kept-secret club anymore but if it means better funding for infrastructure upgrades and HSR, I can live with that as long as there's no more security at train stations than we already have (namely APD working behind the scenes and the occasional dog wandering around).

If the masses flee the airports to Amtrak and the TSA tries to follow, however...I fear I may have to bid the rails adieu as I did the sky.

 

[SarahZ]

I'm always amused that the body scanner is suspicious of my right knee. The past 7-8 times I've gone through security, the scanner put a square around my right knee, and one of the TSA ladies came over and said, "I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to pat your knee down." They've always been professional and fast. They just sort of grip my calf and knee, and it takes all of two seconds. I didn't feel "pawed".

Anyway, does the TSA hoopla annoy me? Yes. Here's the thing, though. For as much as I'd love to go, "@#!(% the TSA!!! I'm never flying again!!!" there is the issue of TIME. I don't have six days to dedicate to getting to Seattle or L.A. and back. I don't have four days to dedicate to getting to the east coast and back. Also, I can't afford a room anymore, and there is no way I'm sitting in coach all that time. So, when it comes down to it, I don't have the luxury of sticking to my principles when I need to be somewhere and I only have five days of paid vacation every year.

Plus, I actually like flying. I love takeoff and landing (especially at Midway!) The seats aren't uncomfortable because I'm short enough to have plenty of leg room. If I'm stuck next to someone with huge shoulders, I try to lean against the wall to give them more room, and if I'm a little uncomfortable, it's only for a few hours. It still beats sitting next to a stranger in coach for three days.

Anyway, that's my two pennies. I like traveling, pure and simple, whether it's by car, plane, or train. Sometimes you're stuck in line at the airport for over an hour. Sometimes you're stuck in traffic for over an hour. Sometimes you're stuck on a late train for over an hour. Delays happen. That's why I prepare for them by arriving at the airport early, not making plans the day a train is schedule to arrive, and giving myself padding when I drive somewhere.

 

[RSG]

I would look at it as a good thing if more people were driven to Amtrak due to the TSA mess. I suspect there's a sizable percentage of Acela/NER customers who are taking the train for that reason. High load factors, while driving up your ticket price, are ultimately a good thing as rail travel becomes more relevant and normative for a greater number of people. That's what *should* ultimately lead to more rail service.

For instance, check out this article posted today in the Chicago Sun-Times. It reports that TSA waits exceeded two hours at O-Hare yesterday and today. Granted, for many of those people there is no viable rail alternative. But there must surely be people in those lines flying to places like Detroit, St. Louis, IND, MSP, etc. for whom there either is currently a good Amtrak choice, or would be if regional leaders stepped up their game. Many of those people are going to realize that they are spending longer in line at security than they are in the air. Some of those people are going to try the train next time. It's not just Amtrak that is capable of producing "never agains."

I hope via your theory this happens, but from my (admittedly anecdotal) experience, it's not going to happen quickly. There are still many people who don't even realize passenger train service exists, or if they do, think that corridor service somewhere else is the only option. So getting them to realize it's an option at all is the first step.

The second part of the equation is getting them to rationalize the time factor. I've seen people complain because the train "takes too long" or come unglued because it's two hours late (with the "I'll never ride the train again!" parting gift to everyone within earshot). Yet they'll gladly take the current travel advice and arrive three hours early to the airport and spend another hour or two waiting for a connection somewhere (perhaps even with a missed connection or flight cancellation and another delay) with the resigned attitude of "that's just the way it is". Their outlook doesn't change a bit when media images of people camping out overnight in an airport are shown. But the train is somehow on par with taking a stagecoach from New York to San Francisco.

I understand the plight of those like SarahZ, who have only a limited amount of time with which to get a trip in. But it still seems to me there are many who will gladly spend a day-and-a-half flying (each way) to get in two or three days of vacation travel, but yet the train just takes too long.

 

[Palmetto]

Here's another plight: living a 4-hour drive from the nearest Amtrak station. Flying is a must in this instance.

 

[oregon pioneer]

Here's another plight: living a 4-hour drive from the nearest Amtrak station. Flying is a must in this instance.

Haha, I live 3 hours from the nearest Ambus connector... and three hours from the nearest airport. I prefer Amtrak, but I will fly if it's necessary for time or logistics reasons.

 

[jis]

Here's another plight: living a 4-hour drive from the nearest Amtrak station. Flying is a must in this instance.

Haha, I live 3 hours from the nearest Ambus connector... and three hours from the nearest airport. I prefer Amtrak, but I will fly if it's necessary for time or logistics reasons.

I am one hour from the nearest Amtrak at Kissimmee. I usually travel a lot to the NY/NJ area for day long meetings. I have my daytime work to do on both the adjacent days to the meeting day. So guess what mode I use? I will be racking up some 30,000 PQM on United around 2,000 miles per trip this year just doing round trips Orlando to Newark! That is an example of a trip that I would have done by Amtrak if there was a true overnight service from central Florida to the New York area, allowing me to meet in the NY area from say 10am through 5pm reliably. Stretching it a bit I'd even consider 11am - 4pm, but given the current infrastructure that is well beyond the realm of possibilities. Maybe someday we will see enough High or at least Higher Speed service down the Atlantic seaboard to make such possible.

Amtrak is useful for me when I am on vacation with much extra time, or for an occasional trip over a weekend to places like Tampa, Miami, JAX, SAV or even RGH. With the new Gulf Coast Service restoration even NOL and Mobile become possibilities.

But other than that it is all by air, so much so that I am a member of every possible means to make it through TSA as fast as possible. The most expensive of those is the CLEAR biometric system which together with TSAPre gets me through Orlando TSA in 5 to 10 mins always. In my usual travels Newark is usually the worst in terms of TSA wait times. Fortunately PANYNJ has read TSA the riot act and they seem to be responding in various ways. We''ll see how that goes.

And then there are the intercontinental trips where there is no practical way to use ground transport of any sort. I have at least one trip to India every year which is something like 18,000 mile round trip, flying over exotic places like the cities on the Silk Route (Bukhara, Samarkand, Tblisi, Tashkent), sometimes even over Meshad in Iran, over Moscow and Ekaterinburg, over the Arctic Ocean and Svalbards, and Bodo and Nordkap all north of the Arctic Circle, and all this quite often with clear weather with spectacular views of iceberg filled oceans, high mountains, vast deserts, the roof of the world, Aral Sea, Kabul, Kandahar, Herat, huge rivers like the Volga and the Don, Amu Darya (Oxus), Indus and its five feeders, the Ganga and Yamuna, and what have you. Who says there is nothing to see while flying?

Actually AAF with a station in the Melbourne/Cocoa area and a SunRail connection from OIA Intermodal center to Orlando Amtrak or Kissimmee Amtrak, with good connection at OIA, would cause me to take the train more often for local travel. Naturally Miami (and eventually hopefully JAX too) would be nice to get to via AAF.

 

[Palmetto]

Hmm. Premier Silver right there, Jis.

 

[jis]

Hmm. Premier Silver right there, Jis.

Yup, Actually since I usually do that in Business First, usually that racks up close to 35,000 PQM (with the current double PQM for BF/F) depending a bit on the details of the routing. And the dozens of MCO - EWR trips and other domestic business trips rack me up close to a 40,000. So I am always pretty much guaranteed Platinum for the year as long as this travel pattern continues.

 

[RSG]

Here's another plight: living a 4-hour drive from the nearest Amtrak station. Flying is a must in this instance.

People in my neck of the woods routinely travel 4 hours to the nearest hub airport (or else pay a $150-$400 surcharge per ticket to fly via glorified puddle jumper out of the nearest airport with scheduled service). Some slightly farther away travel longer than that to get to the hub with decent airfares. For the same drive, time-wise, I have a choice of two AMTK stations, one with free parking. For me, it's a no-brainer. The possible time savings just aren't worth the hassle of flying.

 

[Palmetto]

People in my neck of the wood do not drive 4 hours to get to the nearest airport hub. That's a six-hour drive, and it's called Bush International [iAH].

I guess my state is bigger than your state.

 

[jis]

Here's another plight: living a 4-hour drive from the nearest Amtrak station. Flying is a must in this instance.

People in my neck of the woods routinely travel 4 hours to the nearest hub airport (or else pay a $150-$400 surcharge per ticket to fly via glorified puddle jumper out of the nearest airport with scheduled service). Some slightly farther away travel longer than that to get to the hub with decent airfares. For the same drive, time-wise, I have a choice of two AMTK stations, one with free parking. For me, it's a no-brainer. The possible time savings just aren't worth the hassle of flying.

I do have several Amtrak stations within 1.5 hours. The problem is there are few trains running on unreliable schedules going to places that are either ones that I don't often need to go to, or take too much time to get to the places that I do need to get to. And the honking big airport, OIA/MCO, is also within 1 hour drive. So well....

As a matter of detail, for example to go to Miami I can either go to my closest Amtrak station and hope that the Southbound Silvers are running on time. Or I can drive 90 minutes to a West Palm Beach and get a Tri Rail on predictable regular schedule to Miami, or wait around for unpredictable Amtrak, Or fight the traffic to Miami My tendency would be to take Tri Rail if I am going to somewhere in Miami that is reachable conveniently, which is relatively rare. So most often I just drive to Miami.

But then again I don't really need to go to Miami and hence don't make that trip rarely, if at all. Where I need to go is New York, Washington DC, Houston, San Francisco/San Jose and Denver/Fort Collins. And really nothing other than Air works for those in most cases. The only time I take the train to any of those is when I have some leisure time that I want to spend on a train.

 

[Rob Creighton]

My thoughts are along the lines of Sarah Z. Most of the places I've lived flown out of (Lubbock, TX/Indianapolis), TSA isn't a nightmare. In Lubbock you can arrive at the airport, park your car, walk from the furthest part of the parking lot, check your bags, get a boarding pass reprint, go through security (and have a pleasant conversation with them) in about 20 minutes. If it's busy, add 10 minutes. In fact, in Lubbock, you'll spend more time waiting for your luggage at baggage claim than you will any other part of the Lubbock airport experience. Indy, for a much bigger airport, was still rather quick. The places where I've had lousy experiences with wait times: O'Hare (AA TSA check point), Myrtle Beach and Love Field Dallas. I've gotten patted down a couple of times. Once or twice they've checked my carry on because I vape, and there are components of that -- that can set off a red flag. That said, when I've asked what they're looking for they've showed me. And when I've asked "how I can avoid the issue" they've actually been helpful at providing some tips. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I love TSA. Or I buy the fact that they're actually stopping a lot of the contraband they're trying to. It's inconvenient, it adds stress at the beginning of a journey and it can be frustrating, but it is what it is, and I've learned the less aggravated I let myself get about the process, the less stressful and easier it is to go through.

Because I'm in Lubbock-- it makes flying almost always a necessity. There may be one train that rolls through a New Mexico or Texas City closer than Dallas/Fort Worth, San Antonio or ABQ, but it doesn't change a very long journey to Chicago. And with trying to do two visits a year with 3 weeks vacation, yeah, the luxury to burn precious vacation days on a train at the expense of spending times with loved ones and friends or the odd ball sanity day throughout the year ranks lower than riding the rails. Would I love to do it? Yes. And I'll probably do it at least once at some point, hopefully. But for now, I'll make the best of crowded airliners, and get where I need to go and be there in hours instead of days.

As for delays, those can happen on any mode of transportation. I remember sitting at Union Station on a horribly late "City of New Orleans" that didn't depart Chicago until it was supposed to be at my destination: Champaign, Illinois. I was on a LSL that was busstituted between Cleveland and Buffalo. And the Wolverine that left so late that they terminated the service in Detroit and stuck us on busses the rest of they. As far as airlines go. I got stuck in a Southwest Airlines melt down in Dallas, that was fun. As was having my AA flight cancelled out of Chicago because of a stray thunderstorm. AA pretty much wiped out most of their Dallas flights. I've also been on full flights and flights where the whole row was mine, same with Amtrak. At the end of the day it's a crap shoot with either mode of transportation.

One more thing. If Amtrak truly wants to increase ridership, they need to make the corridor and short haul travel quicker and more convenient schedule wise. When I lived in Indy I never rode the Hoosier State (I know it's not really Amtrak anymore) because it was longer than driving, no cheaper than driving, and limited my time in Chicago. I make the time to take the longer train ride to Pontiac, MI from Chicago because I absolutely hate doing that drive, but it takes a couple of hours longer than driving, and Amtrak sets my visiting schedule with family vs. me. It's mainly I hate driving, and don't want to rent a car that pushes me to Amtrak.

 

[CCC1007]

In March I was able to clear security in 15 minutes in Seattle, from curbside to secure side.

 

[jis]

As I said earlier, with CLEAR and Pre, I can generally clear security in Orlando in 5 - 10 minutes irrespective of the size of the crowd, and Orlando can get reeeeaaally bad, with the general lines winding all the way to the shopping mall. With just TSA Pre I have in the best case, done it in 10 mins or so, and worst case 25 to 30 mins, but that was a while back before I sprung for and renewed my dormant CLEAR membership.

 

[Ryan]

Yep, it's somewhat amazing. Even with just PreCheck, it's not uncommon for me to walk into the terminal, drop my bag (if I have one) and walk straight through security w/o waiting in line.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

The TSA is a massive and growing impediment to the free and practical movement of millions of innocent travelers. Not surprisingly these problems seem to be lost on folks who rarely fly, folks who enjoy limited impact thanks to living in bumblefork nowhere, and folks who enjoy priority service thanks to special status or disposable income. I happen to have priority screening access but that doesn't mean I've forgotten what it's like to be scanned without status. Nor have I failed to notice that as TSA increases in importance as a revenue earning vehicle the primary screening process has become slower and more taxing for average travelers. Eventually PreCheck will no longer be enough and we'll need to start stacking priority screening services on top of each other just to make the plane on time. Prior to the TSA I could park my car thirty minutes before takeoff and still have time to spare. Not in some deserted spoke airport in the middle of nowhere, but right here in the seventh largest city in the country. Now you need closer to two hours for the average traveler to be sure they can make it.

 

[Ryan]

That I wholeheartedly agree with. I certainly recognize that I'm lucky to have the benefits of pre clearance. That said, the realistic view also isn't the dehumanizing strip and grope fest that some people make it out to be for all travelers.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Yep, it's somewhat amazing. Even with just PreCheck, it's not uncommon for me to walk into the terminal, drop my bag (if I have one) and walk straight through security w/o waiting in line.

Is that @ BWI or National Ryan? ( I'll never call it by the Bogus name that the T-publican Congress gave it!)

 

[Ryan]

BWI.

 

[neroden]

And of course the bit about "stripped and pawed" is just an overstated fantasy of those that for unknown reason need to repeatedly justify their own choices about the mode of travel by dreaming up nonsense.

No, it's been done. There are plenty of reports and you can look 'em up. Are you surprised that it's generally done to good-looking women? Because I'm not surprised.
TSA did not hire quality people. They ended up with a fair number of abusers hiding in their ranks. I'm sure it's a small minority, but they've made no effort to get rid of them.

As far as I can tell, TSA is a giant jobs program with no other function other than to scare people. We know it's completely useless against any serious terrorist attack; there have been enough tests, and a serious terrorist attack would of course target the *waiting lines*. I suppose it's better than our biggest giant federal make-work program, the US military, but honestly I'd rather just give everyone welfare and stop wasting money on ****.

FWIW, the next serious terrorist hijacking or bombing of a plane (they don't happen very often) will *undoubtedly* come from someone with "precheck" clearance of some sort. The prechecking is essentially worthless because they're working with outmoded models of who's likely to want to commit terrorist acts. Our federal government, and particularly the "security services", are staffed almost entirely by people with zero clue geopolitically.

 

[Ryan]

I don't think that anyone is saying that it's never been done, just that it's not the norm by a long shot.

 

[RSG]

I guess my state is bigger than your state.

Well, considering I don't live in AK, and yours is the second largest state, why yes...yes it is!

But then my state isn't served by SWA, which as most travel observers know, was created to make it just as cheap to fly within TX as it was to drive within TX.

 

[jis]

The TSA is a massive and growing impediment to the free and practical movement of millions of innocent travelers. Not surprisingly these problems seem to be lost on folks who rarely fly, folks who enjoy limited impact thanks to living in bumblefork nowhere, and folks who enjoy priority service thanks to special status or disposable income. I happen to have priority screening access but that doesn't mean I've forgotten what it's like to be scanned without status. Nor have I failed to notice that as TSA increases in importance as a revenue earning vehicle the primary screening process has become slower and more taxing for average travelers. Eventually PreCheck will no longer be enough and we'll need to start stacking priority screening services on top of each other just to make the plane on time. Prior to the TSA I could park my car thirty minutes before takeoff and still have time to spare. Not in some deserted spoke airport in the middle of nowhere, but right here in the seventh largest city in the country. Now you need closer to two hours for the average traveler to be sure they can make it.

I do agree with that.
Since I am in the software business my analogy of the situation comes from what I am familiar with. We all are kinda stuck with whatever Microsoft throws at us, or at least have been. TSA is sort of like what Microsoft throws at us. We the hapless travelers, or developers in the analogy figure out ways to work around the obvious gaps and faults. This in the software business has caused entire sub-industries tio develop, like the whole virus protection business. As in the case of TSA these add-on fee ways of bypassing the mainstream has developed. Eventually events overtake the situation, which in case of Microsoft has been Linux and Android and iOS and OS-X the various variants of UNIX rising from the ashes in a manner of speaking. Maybe in the case of TSA we are reaching a turning point where the ludicrousness of it will finally move those that can actually dismantle it and replace it with something more reasonable and practical. What is it, or will be - I don't know for sure. But one thing I know is that we will not be returning to completely unchecked access to airplanes, and the other thing I know is the current method is impractical and does not scale and therefore in its present form is unsustainable.

As a part of the overall situation I think a solution should include reorienting the infrastructure so as to remove most under 500 miles passengers from the use of air transport as a first step, whether it be by rail, bus, ride share or some combination thereof. The second is to redesign airports to have more integrated and large airsides allowing for multiple entry points and reduce the need for security checking when you move from one terminal to another. This can be achieved by providing airside connections using buses, from terminal to terminal. This is something that is already being done at many airports, though it could be advertised better. This removes people from security queues. And the third is to make it easier in terms of price point, for people to get into the Pre program. $85 for five years may be quite impractical for a family of four that just travels on vacation once a year.

Meanwhile of course the band of inactivity on everything plays on on Capitol Hill unless it involves interfering in the private lives of the underprivileged to keep control of them and their bedroom and toilet behavior somehow, and also make sure that everyone has to pay more and more for healthcare so that the keepers of our laws can get bigger and bigger kickbacks for serving their paymasters.

Sad is the situation. What can I say?

 

[Anderson]

One thing they could do is permit pre-checking on folks under a given age (18? 16? 13?) if they're with an adult who qualifies and/or permit "piggyback" pre-check within a family (e.g. the parents would pay $85/ea but let the kids in for $20).

I've been mulling this over, btw, and my sense is that the TSA is being semi-intentionally obtuse in their handling of things (e.g. "keeping on keeping on" even as it became apparent that Precheck wasn't selling like they wanted it to, not to mention often botching up handling Precheck by not having the Precheck line open even when the main lines are extremely long). Basically, if next week a domestic airline attack (or foiled-in-progress attempt) occurred it would basically be all on the TSA's head (witness the dubious-to-criminal use of funds and documented bumbling). If, however, Congress starts seriously meddling then the TSA can at least /try/ to play the blame game. Yes, I recognize that their hands are tied in various ways but I get the feeling they almost WANT Congress to start ordering them around so they have some level of defense when the shoe inevitably drops.

 

[MARC Rider]

Yep, it's somewhat amazing. Even with just PreCheck, it's not uncommon for me to walk into the terminal, drop my bag (if I have one) and walk straight through security w/o waiting in line.

Depends on the time and the day of the week. I had been having good luck with reasonably fast entry at BWI until one day last summer (it was fairly early on a Sunday morning in July), I decided to come an hour and a half early instead of 2 hours early, and between the baggage check line and security, I managed to get to my gate just in time to see my plane backing off. The funny thing was that when I checked by bag, the computer spit out a notice that the bag was being checked late, so I should expect a delay in its delivery. However, when I finally got to San Antonio later in the day, my bag was waiting for me, having made the original flight, even if I hadn't!