How to handle the TSA? Take Amtrak!

[JoeBas]

I think you misunderstand. I actually do think that the way the TSA operates is an abomination. It is not the individuals necessarily. Most are pretty decent human beings, a few are on power trips like in every walk of life. The general conception and the mode of operation can do with much improvement. I have been on record posting on that subject in this forum in the past.

That's all well and good, I just don't understand how a person of conscience can work for an agency which condones the type of behavior that seems much more prevalent by members of the TSA than in any other comparable functioning organization, and look themselves in the mirror each morning.

I was addressing the original topic of the thread which suggested that one should take Amtrak to avoid the TSA. My point was that one should not need TSA as a justification for riding Amtrak. Amtrak is fun to ride and use irrespective of whether TSA stands between one and ones plane ride or not. Just like anything else, everything has its appropriate use. For my purposes Amtrak is great for short to medium distance trips in general and for long trips when on vacation or no other mode is available. For example I seldom use anything but Amtrak on the NEC. OTOH I also seldom use Amtrak when I have to go out to California from NJ, and naturally never use Amtrak to go to London UK. These decisions in my case do not involve TSA in any major way usually. The suitability of the mode given the distances involved and the time available for the trip is a much greater and indeed, primary, consideration.

Notwithstanding your value judgements mentioned above regarding your primary consideration, others will place higher and lower values on various forms of the functionality equation (convenience, price, duration, and yes, TSA is one of the variables). For yourself, whose never had a personal negative experience with the TSA, the magnitude of the security hassle (TSA) variable may be quite low, and overwhelmed by other components of the value equation in favor of flying. However, have an experience like I did, and I bet the calculus of that equation will change just a wee bit.

 

[Trogdor]

That's all well and good, I just don't understand how a person of conscience can work for an agency which condones the type of behavior that seems much more prevalent by members of the TSA than in any other comparable functioning organization, and look themselves in the mirror each morning.

Key word highlighted.

Is there any actual, statistical evidence that shows that this unspecified type of behavior is more prevalent at the TSA than, say, local police departments, or even the old screeners that were around pre-TSA?

 

[amamba]

I actually consider what happened in PVD to be security theater, because they were only swabbing people boarding amtrak trains and not anyone boarding the MBTA trains traveling on the same rails/tracks and to the same destination.

Now maybe they did have a specific threat that they were responding to - I don't know. But it seems to me that if I wanted to bring explosives on a train, and I saw police swabbing people for explosives, I would just wait and take the slower train one platform over that was not being screened.

I don't have a problem with security - but I do have a problem with "security theater."

Well of COURSE it was security theater - there really is not much point on doing this kind of thing on a train, when all some evildoing turrwrist would have to do is drive a dump truck onto the ROW in front of an approaching train, but at least it was minimally intrusive security theater.

Well my point is I have a problem with what happened in PVD. You seemed to indicate that you thought it was no big deal. I am not sure what your actual position is, but my position is that I didn't see the point of the exercise in PVD, so it seems like a waste of everyone's time and money. Regardless of if you consider it to be "minimally invasive" or not.

 

[JoeBas]

That's all well and good, I just don't understand how a person of conscience can work for an agency which condones the type of behavior that seems much more prevalent by members of the TSA than in any other comparable functioning organization, and look themselves in the mirror each morning.

Key word highlighted.

Is there any actual, statistical evidence that shows that this unspecified type of behavior is more prevalent at the TSA than, say, local police departments, or even the old screeners that were around pre-TSA?

Look, I'm a scientist; I understand and appreciate the value of "hard data" as much as anyone. However, what you're dealing with here is something which is only anecdotally available, due to a lack of a responsible clearinghouse for competent handling of such complaints. When I had my incident in 2006, I took the time to file a written complaint, and since I had the time to kill actually saw the STSO who took my report drop it into the trash at the checkpoint. When I called him on it and asked for the FSD, the STSO claimed it "Accidentally" fell, and despite assurance of the FSD that it would be looked into, I never heard another word. More "isolated bad apples" at work? You be the judge.

All I know for sure is, ANECDOTALLY, this kind of stuff didn't happen with private screeners. You did not hear stories of private screeners doing ANYTHING CLOSE to the kind of things that TSA agents have been accused (and in some cases, convicted) of doing - and there's a reason for that - the perception of authority was not there before the job was federalized. And I know for damned sure myself that a private screener never laid their hands on me in anything CLOSE to the way that the TSA now sanctionedly lays their hands on people every day.

As to interaction with the local police department, that can be kept to a minimum because there is no FORCED interaction with them. Not so with our friends at TSA - not if you want to fly commercially - it's literally their way or the highway (or the railway, if you're so inclined). At the checkpoint, it's guilty until proven innocent.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Condemning the entire TSA because one or two agents may overstep their authority is kind of like condemning the entire teaching industry because one or two teachers go too far with a student. In EVERY industry where one is granted some authority, there will be those that abuse it. That doesn't mean the industry itself is flawed.

Nothing I've criticized the TSA for appears to be limited to one or two agents going rogue and overstepping their authority. The "teaching industry" gave me (and millions of other Americans) the skills necessary to form a strong position on the TSA, so they at least have that going for them. What has the TSA done for us? Where is the TSA's greatest hits list? Who have they caught that was a serious and imminent threat to a commercial flight and what were the circumstances? What horrible events have they prevented and how did they do it?

Is there any actual, statistical evidence that shows that this unspecified type of behavior is more prevalent at the TSA than, say, local police departments, or even the old screeners that were around pre-TSA?

I honestly couldn't say. Then again I was never that happy with the idea that the police are trusted to self-regulate in the first place. The difference is that all came about long before I ever showed up. The TSA, however, is a fear-driven mistake from my very own era. If the private screeners from the past screwed up you still had options to fix the problem and punish those who wronged you. America's legal system was available to address and hopefully correct any serious misconduct. Now that the screeners are part of a government agency under the opaque umbrella of the DHS it's much harder to even know what's going on, let alone to fix it. There are many claims of theft and abuse by TSA agents. There are also numerous examples of failure to stop prohibited items. Or at least there were before they started scaling back their own readiness testing. Some agents are eventually reprimanded or punished for acting beyond their mandate, but in most cases I've followed they were actually following protocol. Many more cases simply get stuck in limbo thanks to obstructions inherent in DHS protections and government mandated limits on liability. That's not a recipe for liberty. That's a recipe for stooge excrement.

 

[JoeBas]

Well my point is I have a problem with what happened in PVD. You seemed to indicate that you thought it was no big deal. I am not sure what your actual position is, but my position is that I didn't see the point of the exercise in PVD, so it seems like a waste of everyone's time and money. Regardless of if you consider it to be "minimally invasive" or not.

My actual position is that I'm not going to let "perfect" be the enemy of "good". If I had my choice, there would be either bomb sniffing dogs or explosive trace portal technology deployed that would be non-intrusive, that would search everyone using a facility equally, that literally would only flag when something was detected, and if something WAS detected once that detection was resolved with minimal invasiveness the false alarmee sent on their way.

However, dogs have their limitations, and unfortunately ETP detection doesn't seem to yet be robust enough to withstand the rigors of a real-world operating environment. So in its place, I'm willing to settle for the least invasive equivalent, even though it's far less effective than the scheme I devised above. Personally, I think the odds of one of these "random checkpoints" ever finding ANYTHING is less than zero, as any terrorist with half a brain would make a motion like they forgot something, turn around, leave, and come back tomorrow, or drive to the next station down the line. Total checkpoint fail. But there are masses of people out there who require the impression that SOMETHING needs to be done, and if these people must be placated (as apparently they must, or it wouldn't be being done), then it should at least be done with a minimal amount of hassle to those of use who recognize the absurdity and futility of the type of operation they're trying to perform.

The key word to me is, MINIMALLY or least invasive equivalent. This is where the TSA has gone off the rails (not to extend the metaphor).

 

[MattW]

*SNIP*

Some of you seem to be laboring under the delusion that people want there to be NO security at all. What we want is meaningful, useful, non-intrusive security, not the worthless (and dehumanizing to boot) boondoggle of "Security Theater" the airports have now become.

And that's the point that I think a lot of pro-TSA people (not necessarily here) are missing is that very few of us are advocating for 0 security for the planes, we just want it to be reasonable, and to stop lying to us about the reasons. On September 11, 2001, there was no failure in security as the TSA and DHS like to pretend, the box cutters were not prohibited items at the time, and the IDs the terrorists had were valid.

On Monday, I had reason to visit the Atlanta Municipal Courthouse which of course has a security checkpoint. I approached the x-ray machine, removed all my stuff, the APD officer reminded me to take off my belt with its metal buckle in a neutral, but certainly not forceful, not impolite, not shouting tone after which I quickly removed my belt, thanked the officer for my momentary lapse, walked through the metal detector without incident, gathered my things, and apologized to the next officer for taking so long to put my belt back on. Courthouses arguably have greater cause to be concerned about dangerous instruments than airlines. I don't have any statistics, but it's common sense that a person would be more likely to have a beef with the court system and its agents where you can be incarcerated, forced to pay large fines, have your property taken, vs. an airline where you're just trying to get to B from A, yet courthouse security is usually easier than airport security.

 

[JoeBas]

And that's the point that I think a lot of pro-TSA people (not necessarily here) are missing is that very few of us are advocating for 0 security for the planes, we just want it to be reasonable, and to stop lying to us about the reasons. On September 11, 2001, there was no failure in security as the TSA and DHS like to pretend, the box cutters were not prohibited items at the time, and the IDs the terrorists had were valid.

Not only that, but the entire operating environment required to make a plan like that succeed was eliminated by the passengers of Flight 93, before the day of September 11th, 2011 was even done. A plan like this has ZERO chance of success again, because any 4 or 5 guys with boxcutters who tries it would be met with an overwhelming number of passengers who would move heaven and earth to stop them.

Locked cockpit doors and a reversal of the policy to cooperate with hijackers have done more for security on airlines than any amount of checkpoint theater could ever hope to accomplish.

 

[Ispolkom]

2) Amtrak Police were performing the swabbing you mentioned in PVD, and again, under a well regulated department, I don't have a problem with this. There's a WORLD of difference between a simple swab of a bag exterior and what goes on in airports these days.

...

I actually consider what happened in PVD to be security theater, because they were only swabbing people boarding amtrak trains and not anyone boarding the MBTA trains traveling on the same rails/tracks and to the same destination.

Now maybe they did have a specific threat that they were responding to - I don't know. But it seems to me that if I wanted to bring explosives on a train, and I saw police swabbing people for explosives, I would just wait and take the slower train one platform over that was not being screened.

I don't have a problem with security - but I do have a problem with "security theater."

You're not thinking like a proper bureaucrat. If Amtrak Police, not TSA officers, were swabbing people boarding Amtrak trains, why should they care about MBTA trains? That's not within their remit.

Seriously, though, I'm especially amused by bomb-sniffing dogs (and their macho handlers with Glocks strapped to their thighs, rather than in a belt holster like a normal person) at Chicago Union Station. When the first grade crossing for northbound trains is directly outside the train shed, what's the point?

 

[VentureForth]

Remember the TSA VIPER smack down in Savannah last year? Interesting

had followed...

 

[ParrotRob]

Condemning the entire TSA because one or two agents may overstep their authority is kind of like condemning the entire teaching industry because one or two teachers go too far with a student. In EVERY industry where one is granted some authority, there will be those that abuse it. That doesn't mean the industry itself is flawed.

Nothing I've criticized the TSA for appears to be limited to one or two agents going rogue and overstepping their authority. The "teaching industry" gave me (and millions of other Americans) the skills necessary to form a strong position on the TSA, so they at least have that going for them. What has the TSA done for us? Where is the TSA's greatest hits list? Who have they caught that was a serious and imminent threat to a commercial flight and what were the circumstances? What horrible events have they prevented and how did they do it?

Seriously? Do you honestly not see the fallacy in that argument? How do you prove that a deterrent prevented something from happening? You can't prove that any more than you can prove an aspirin a day deters heart attacks. Sure, you can say "I've never had one", but who's to say you wouldn't have anyway? That argument is nonsensical.

Likewise, the opposite argument is, too. One COULD say "well no one's commandeered a commercial airliner and used it to kill 3,000 people since the TSA has been here. But again, who's to say they would have, anyway.

The TSA is not going to "catch" someone bringing a weapon on board because it DETERS it from happening. That's what threat deterrence is all about. I work in an extremely fortified and heavily guarded federal building, and to the best of my knowledge the security screeners there have never "caught" a terrorist, or would-be terrorist. But if the threat deterrence were not there, I'm sure they'd line up to get in.

 

[BobWeaver]

Box cutters and utility knives with blades less than 4" were allowed/harmless on/before 9/11 and we see how that one turned out.

Yeah, we know they're still getting through. Or had you not heard, Bob?

That wasn't the point I was trying to make. I was trying to say that items that people see as "harmless" may not turn out to be harmless at all, as we found out with the case of box cutters on 9/11.

Nail clippers are not prohibited.

Nail clippers have been prohibited at various times. But I guess if you didn't personally see it then it simply never happened, eh Bob?

Nail clippers have never been prohibited by the TSA.

Condemning the entire TSA because one or two agents may overstep their authority is kind of like condemning the entire teaching industry because one or two teachers go too far with a student. In EVERY industry where one is granted some authority, there will be those that abuse it. That doesn't mean the industry itself is flawed.

Spot on.

I have had 4 TSA patdowns (one at the Aruba preclearance outpost, the rest at domestic airports)thanks to a metal rod in my leg (since removed) before the backscatter/millimeter wave machines were up and running everywhere. Each time it was exactly the same, go through metal detector, it goes off, tell the TSA agent I have a medical implant. Twice it was a woman at the detector so they showed me to the little glass booth, ask me to wait, go get a man. Wait a couple minutes, they apologize for the wait, wand me until they find the rod in my leg, then they say they are going to perform a patdown using the back of their hands, proceeded to have them check arms, front/back/sides of torso, legs up to groin, all professionally and politely. I am guessing this is how 99.9% of the screenings go. Also the exact same screening I get when going to an NFL game. The reason you hear about the bad ones is because they are noteworthy, no one is going online to post about their great TSA experience. And to the people who have had issues at screening locations, get the agents name, contact the TSA/congresscritters/press because there are always going to be bad apples who go on power trips. And to call all TSA agents goons is pretty unfair, I work right next to an airport and see TSA agents all the time getting lunch, etc. They are all pretty normal looking people, and seem pleasant when I have interacted with them.

When I went to the Masters this past weekend, I had to go through security that was very similar to airport security, minus the shoe removal mandate. Did I or anyone else complain as they emptied everything out of their pockets and walked through a metal detector and, for some, got wanded by security personnel? Nope. But somehow when the TSA does the exact same thing, it's some huge ordeal. A double standard, if you ask me. <_<

I think if Airport Security returned to Walk Through Metal Detectors, a hand wanding for alarming, and simple pat of the targeted area, as you described above, there would be several orders of magnitude less complaint than there is about the current process.

However, the current process does not even VAGUELY resemble what you described above. Makes me wonder how long it's been since you've flown, or if you're trying to deliberately be disingenuous.

The majority of airports (with the exception of course being the more major airports) still use walk through metal detectors, not the advanced imaging scanners. I fly about 6-8 times per year out of all different sized airports. This makes me wonder how long it's been since you've flown.

The TSA is not going to "catch" someone bringing a weapon on board because it DETERS it from happening.

TSA caught 1200+ firearms and an array of other devices in its checkpoints last year.

 

[JoeBas]

The majority of airports (with the exception of course being the more major airports) still use walk through metal detectors, not the advanced imaging scanners. I fly about 6-8 times per year out of all different sized airports. This makes me wonder how long it's been since you've flown.

Even if this were true (which it's not anymore, given the pace that the scanners have been rolled out to such exotic large destinations as Cedar Rapids, IA, Spokane, WA, Corpus Christi, TX, Ketchikan, Alaska and, ironically enough, Augusta, GA, which you apparently just were), those locations with solely Walk Through Metal Detectors have still done away with the hand held detectors, and resorted to FULL BODY RUBDOWNS for any metal detector alarm, as well as anyone who for medical reasons cannot use them.

Makes ME wonder how long it's been since you paid attention to what you were walking through at security.

 

[jis]

The majority of airports (with the exception of course being the more major airports) still use walk through metal detectors, not the advanced imaging scanners. I fly about 6-8 times per year out of all different sized airports. This makes me wonder how long it's been since you've flown.

Just as a data point.... Newark, which is one of the busier major airports has just a few millimeter wave scanners. Most checkpoints are still metal detectors. Actually I don't see a problem with the millimeter scanners with the updated software that just displays a schematic of the body surface and not the actual body on the image display. The process is quite painless, even for those that have metal implants. You just have to be more careful about emptying out all your pockets, since anything in pocket will appear as an anomaly.

This was the case as of last week.

 

[PRR 60]

The majority of airports (with the exception of course being the more major airports) still use walk through metal detectors, not the advanced imaging scanners. I fly about 6-8 times per year out of all different sized airports. This makes me wonder how long it's been since you've flown.

Even if this were true (which it's not anymore, given the pace that the scanners have been rolled out to such exotic large destinations as Cedar Rapids, IA, Spokane, WA, Corpus Christi, TX, Ketchikan, Alaska and, ironically enough, Augusta, GA, which you apparently just were), those locations with solely Walk Through Metal Detectors have still done away with the hand held detectors, and resorted to FULL BODY RUBDOWNS for any metal detector alarm, as well as anyone who for medical reasons cannot use them.

Makes ME wonder how long it's been since you paid attention to what you were walking through at security.

Not true. Just tripping the detector does not automatically get you the pat-down. Experience from two weeks ago at PHL. Plus, right now, the D-E checkpoint at PHL, with at least five lanes, has no full body scanners (not that it bothers me one way or another).

 

[JoeBas]

Not true. Just tripping the detector does not automatically get you the pat-down. Experience from two weeks ago at PHL. Plus, right now, the D-E checkpoint at PHL, with at least five lanes, has no full body scanners (not that it bothers me one way or another).

So what was the outcome when you tripped the detector?

 

[PRR 60]

Not true. Just tripping the detector does not automatically get you the pat-down. Experience from two weeks ago at PHL. Plus, right now, the D-E checkpoint at PHL, with at least five lanes, has no full body scanners (not that it bothers me one way or another).

So what was the outcome when you tripped the detector?

A quick check, a swab here and there, and I was on my way in about two minutes. To be honest, I don't actually think I tripped it. It might have been one of the random checks that the detectors spit out every so often. I haven't tripped a detector in over 12 years, and my pride was seriously injured by this fall from travel grace. So, I'm latching onto the random selection story and sticking to it. My wife was standing to the side trying to stifle laughing out loud while I was getting the once over.

I often see pax head straight through those machines with wearing belts and medallions and you name it. They are typically just sent back to try again while I stand there and fume. I try my level best not to get stuck behind obvious numbskulls, but my success rate is not so great. I sometimes tell the person behind me in line to carefully check the lane I select, and then pick another one. I always pick the wrong lane.

I wasn't aware they did not have the hand wands anymore. I'll be heading through PHL again next week. I'll check it out. If I trip that stinkin' detector again, I give up.

 

[JoeBas]

A quick check, a swab here and there, and I was on my way in about two minutes. To be honest, I don't actually think I tripped it. It might have been one of the random checks that the detectors spit out every so often. I haven't tripped a detector in over 12 years, and my pride was seriously injured by this fall from travel grace. So, I'm latching onto the random selection story and sticking to it. My wife was standing to the side trying to stifle laughing out loud while I was getting the once over.

I often see pax head straight through those machines with wearing belts and medallions and you name it. They are typically just sent back to try again while I stand there and fume. I try my level best not to get stuck behind obvious numbskulls, but my success rate is not so great. I sometimes tell the person behind me in line to carefully check the lane I select, and then pick another one. I always pick the wrong lane.

I wasn't aware they did not have the hand wands anymore. I'll be heading through PHL again next week. I'll check it out. If I trip that stinkin' detector again, I give up.

I'll back you up, it sounds like a random. SOP (not that it's always followed by the TSA) would be to re-send you through the Walk-Through Metal Detector, followed by a pat-down (full body) if you alarmed again. However, they do have a "randomizer" light that pops on for an Explosives check, which is what the swabs are, so it sounds like you won a small prize in the travel lottery that day.

But yeah, if you alarm the WTMD twice, you get the full body treatment. Or, if you're like me and unable to participate in the shoe carnival, you get it every time. No more hand wands, those have been warehoused, and no more just checking the area the hand-held alarms on, because there are no more hand-helds.

 

[AmtrakBlue]

They must fly on different days than I do. I'm starting to get offended, I bet I've gone through airport security in 15 cities, at least 60 times or so just in the last year, and not one security person has asked to touch me. And I'm not a bad looking guy! Must be something I'm doing wrong.....

:giggle:

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Seriously? Do you honestly not see the fallacy in that argument? How do you prove that a deterrent prevented something from happening?

I'm interested in looking at any independent data you believe substantiates the necessity for x-rays or groping or the opaque no-fly list. Seriously. The TSA is not an atomic warhead sitting in a hidden silo in the middle of nowhere. The TSA is all over the country in big cities and small towns. Millions of people interact with the TSA every day. Whatever the effectiveness of x-rays and groping, it should not be impossible to quantify. Of course it would be much easier back when aggregate data from threat response testing was still covered under the FOIA. Those days are over thanks to the bungled creation of the DHS and their continued reliance on security through obscurity.

You can't prove that any more than you can prove an aspirin a day deters heart attacks.

Even though it may be impossible to prove (your term, not mine) a specific patient taking a specific pill on a specific date prevented a specific ailment with a specific vector, that does not mean there is no way to form a reasonable conclusion of effectiveness based on a preponderance of the evidence among a sufficiently sized population of patients. So where is the evidence that the TSA needs to bust out the x-ray glasses or grope us in order to do its job? Where is the evidence that people who are on the no-fly list are limited to serious threats with verifiable evidence?

Nail clippers are not prohibited.

Nail clippers have been prohibited at various times. But I guess if you didn't personally see it then it simply never happened, eh Bob?

Nail clippers have never been prohibited by the TSA.

You do realize that there was a time before the TSA got around to publishing an exhaustive list of items that were allowed and not allowed, right? Back then there was a lot less clarity on what they were looking for, let alone why. All I can tell you is what I've seen with my very own eyes as an agent removed a pair of toenail clippers and tossed them into a collection bucket. Since then I've made a point of only packing much smaller finger nail clippers and haven't lost any. But I'm a big guy with big hands and it would be nice to have clippers that are more in line with my size. Maybe I'll give it another try on my next flight.

 

[BobWeaver]

The majority of airports (with the exception of course being the more major airports) still use walk through metal detectors, not the advanced imaging scanners. I fly about 6-8 times per year out of all different sized airports. This makes me wonder how long it's been since you've flown.

Even if this were true (which it's not anymore, given the pace that the scanners have been rolled out to such exotic large destinations as Cedar Rapids, IA, Spokane, WA, Corpus Christi, TX, Ketchikan, Alaska and, ironically enough, Augusta, GA, which you apparently just were), those locations with solely Walk Through Metal Detectors have still done away with the hand held detectors, and resorted to FULL BODY RUBDOWNS for any metal detector alarm, as well as anyone who for medical reasons cannot use them.

Makes ME wonder how long it's been since you paid attention to what you were walking through at security.

For such a new member here, your tone sure is surprising. I haven't flown through AGS in a couple years. I drove to the Masters, smart guy.

Since a majority by definition is a subset of a group that consists of more than half of its population, yes, it is true that the majority of US airports do not have AIT scanners.

If you trip the detector, they send you back through and verify that you have everything out of your pockets, etc. A second trip will require that you receive the pat-down. The wands have been gone for some time, but the millimeter wave machines enable a TSO to specifically locate any foreign object on a passenger anyway, making the wands somewhat redundant.

 

[jis]

If you trip the detector, they send you back through and verify that you have everything out of your pockets, etc. A second trip will require that you receive the pat-down. The wands have been gone for some time, but the millimeter wave machines enable a TSO to specifically locate any foreign object on a passenger anyway, making the wands somewhat redundant.

In my experience when they detect an anomaly in the mm-scanner they apparently check only the specific point of anomaly and do not give you a full body massage. This specific check of a piece of cardboard inadvertently in my pocket was somewhat revealing to me.

 

[JoeBas]

For such a new member here, your tone sure is surprising. I haven't flown through AGS in a couple years. I drove to the Masters, smart guy.

Since a majority by definition is a subset of a group that consists of more than half of its population, yes, it is true that the majority of US airports do not have AIT scanners.

If you trip the detector, they send you back through and verify that you have everything out of your pockets, etc. A second trip will require that you receive the pat-down. The wands have been gone for some time, but the millimeter wave machines enable a TSO to specifically locate any foreign object on a passenger anyway, making the wands somewhat redundant.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that personality was determined by post count. And you'll have to forgive me, like any red-blooded American I tend to get a little testy when I'm called a liar.

This would be an interesting exercise, determining if a majority of the commerical airports in the country now have AIT. From a list elsewhere...

ABQ

AGS

ALB

ATL

ATW

BGR

BDL

BIS

BNA

BOI

BOS

BRO

BUF

BWI

CAK

CSG

CLE

CLT

CID

CMH

CRP

CVG

CWA

DAL

DAY

DCA

DEN

DFW

DTW

DSM

ECP

ELP

EWR

FAR

FAT

FLL

FNT

FWA

GEG

GFK

GNV

GPT

GRB

GRR

HNL

HOU

HRL

IAD

IAH

IND

ITO

JAX

JFK

JNU

KTN

LAS

LAX

LGA

LIH

LIT

LRD

MAF

MIA

MCI

MCO

MDT

MDW

MEM

MFE

MHT

MKE

MLB

MSP

MSY

OAK

OKC

OMA

ONT

ORD

PIE

PIT

PBI

PDX

PHL

PHX

PNS

PVD

PSP

PWM

RAP

RDU

ROC

RIC

RSW

SAN

SAT

SAV

SDF

SEA

SFO

SMF

SNA

SJC

SJU

SLC

SRQ

STL

SWF

TLH

TOL

TPA

TUL

US & International Airports receiving AIT soon

ANC - Supposedly receiving the devices this fall...

BHX - Arriving later this year..

COS - Receiving in 2012. Type unknown.

DAY - Receiving before Thanksgiving, and in use by Christmas

ICN - According to airport information, receiving devices "soon". None installed as of December 2011

ITO - Receiving MMW with ATR

JAN - Supposed to arrive in a few months

MSN - Receiving within one year

OGG - Receiving MMW with ATR

Domestic airports not using AIT

ABE -

ACY -

AVL -

BHM -

BTR -

BTV -

BUR -

BZN -

CHA -

CHS -

CLD -

DAL -

DAY -

DUS -

GTR -

HPN -

ICT -

JAN -

LOS -

KOA -

KWT -

LEX -

MBS -

MGM -

MHT -

MEL -

NOR -

NRT -

OKC -

ORF -

PER -

PHF -

PUQ -

PVG -

SAV -

SBA -

SBP -

SCL -

SYR -

TUS -

TVC -

List "A seems much bigger than list "B", so I guess that I'd call that a "Majority"... though this is not independently verified, but from a collaborative wiki project.

And again, your comments assume that everyone is ready, willing and able to go through the scanner as prescribed by the TSA... which is again not necessarily the case.

 

[jis]

I believe that a majority of US airports has at least one scanner installed somewhere. I am not sure that a majority of all security check positions have scanners yet though. Is that sort of information available somewhere?

 

[JoeBas]

I believe that a majority of US airports has at least one scanner installed somewhere. I am not sure that a majority of all security check positions have scanners yet though. Is that sort of information available somewhere?

The wiki I lifted that from had extraneous details about which checkpoints did, but not information about how many total or what percentage, etc.

That would really get hair-splitty, too, since some checkpoints are equipped with both and use one or the other depending on load factors/line length/etc. Not to mention daily fluctuations in checkpoints open vs. closed, etc. Thing to keep in mind is that it's all going one way - TOWARD AIT - as no checkpoints are going from AIT to Metal Detector, but the roll-out of AIT continues.