TSA lines are so out of control that travelers are hiring line-sitters (washingtonpost.com)

by bookofjoe 140 comments 115 points
Read article View on HN

140 comments

[−] oefrha 47d ago
From the last few paragraphs:

> There is an official way for travelers to bypass long TSA waits if they’re willing to spend: hiring concierge services to escort them through security.

> Perq Soleil is an airport arrival and departure assistance service that can help travelers through TSA in about a minute flat by accessing alternative lines usually reserved for airport staff and airline personnel. The company — which operates in more than 300 airports and 150 countries — charges a base rate that varies by location.

Talk about burying the lede. Apparently the airports “highly discourage” line-sitters, but if you use services that pre-bribed airports you can skip the lines entirely.

[−] PearlRiver 47d ago
The people arriving on private jets have always bypassed these bureaucratic procedures. Brotherhood and equality.
[−] ryandrake 47d ago
It's true equality: The rich and poor alike are allowed to fly on private jets or hire a departure assistance service!
[−] sysguest 47d ago
well jokes on you: if it was 17th century, we peasants wouldn't even be allowed to use that service
[−] miki123211 47d ago
As somebody who doesn't travel on private jets, I'm very, very happy that I'm not anywhere close to those people.

Imagine the pandemonium that would ensue if Taylor Swift were to enter an airport terminal through the normal entrance.

[−] hammock 47d ago
Why should private plane passengers be subject to TSA? TSA (paid for by you and me by the way, not for free) exists to protect the public from harm, on public flights by common carriers. It used to be contracted by airlines themselves. Unless you are the most extreme of pro-seatbelt law people, it would make little sense for TSA to screen anyone on a private plane manifest unless the client asked them to.
[−] AlotOfReading 47d ago
No, the TSA exists because 19 people hijacked 4 flights and succeeded in crashing 3 of them into various important buildings in the US on 9/11/2001.

Private planes are just as capable of crashing into buildings as commercial jets. The TSA has picked up some ancillary public safety functions over the years, but their raison d'etre is to prevent hijackings.

[−] thfuran 47d ago
No, the TSA exists because politicians felt they needed to be seen doing something after 9/11. If there were actually much political will for it to fulfill actual security purposes, it surely would’ve been reformed after it’s continually abysmal performance on security audits.
[−] garciasn 47d ago
No; the TSA exists because we needed a government jobs program that was easy to promote under the guise of terrorism.
[−] verall 47d ago
It's not nearly enough jobs to be a jobs program
[−] caminante 47d ago
By what standard?

Federal civilian workforce (ex Postal Service and Military) is only 3 million.

TSA has 60k employees.

That's a lot of permanent jobs.

[−] verall 46d ago
By your own numbers - 60k employees just doesn't touch a jobs program in a country of 350M people. The point of a jobs program is to provide jobs.

TSA was created to accomplish a goal - security theater (mostly), preventing another 9/11 (maybe more in theory than in practice), etc.

The New Deal WPA, according to wikipedia, supplied about 3M jobs at its peak in 1938, when the population was ~130M.

2.3% of the population vs 0.017%.

Also empirically - if it was a jobs program, it would be way better staffed..

[−] caminante 46d ago
>if it was a jobs program, it would be way better staffed..

You're saying it's not comparable to the size of the New Deal, the biggest jobs program ever in the US.

That doesn't disqualify it from consideration as a jobs program as there are many jobs programs much smaller.

Adding 60k to ~3 million is significant because it's permanent. These are low skilled workers (and security theater as you astutely say) mostly concentrated in large cities.

Whereas the New Deal was temp jobs that disappeared once grants and funding disappeared.

[−] AustinDev 47d ago
And they get Federal pensions and healthcare funded by tax dollars.
[−] schmookeeg 47d ago
In terms of menace potential, any private plane will lose to a van full of fertilizer and a baddie intent on causing destruction. It's a matter of scale.

Little planes, like this one [1] just don't do damage on the same scale as airliners.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Austin_suicide_attack

[−] woodruffw 47d ago
Most private planes taking off from commercial airports (the ones where TSA generally operates) are much larger than a Piper Dakota.

(But regardless, it’s not clear that the TSA is even performing that kind of calculus.)

[−] schmookeeg 47d ago
A G650 still loses to a motivated U-haul. :)

No argument though, just saying it's a hard problem, and the scaling issue makes it somewhat awkward to deploy security resources in proportion to the threat.

I don't have a solution. I'm not exactly thrilled with the current setup, but I try to stay quiet since I can't think of anything better.

[−] AlotOfReading 47d ago
Government building codes already anticipate the "van full of fertilizer" attack, as a result of the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. Federal building security is a separate matter though, with its own agency called FPS that predates DHS and TSA by decades.
[−] paradox460 47d ago
What about a private plane full of anfo
[−] ratrace 47d ago
[dead]
[−] frankbreetz 47d ago
The TSA was created because a plane crashed into a building. Private planes can crash into buildings. Why should they be exempt from TSA checks?
[−] hammock 47d ago
Lots of things can crash into buildings. Should they all be screened by TSA? Drones and their operators prior to every launch? 30 minute helicopter tours and high-rise HVAC drop offs? Private satellites?

Or is licensing and registration (of pilots and aircraft and manifest and flight plan) enough?

[−] Eddy_Viscosity2 47d ago
Governments are reactive. So if any of these other things ever successfully destroy a building then you can absolutely count on new rules and laws that, at a minimum, will include screening.
[−] jdiff 47d ago
Commercial drones can't bring down buildings. And they're still subject to an awful lot of regulations.
[−] hammock 47d ago
So it’s complete building destruction that is the protective mission here? Not loss of life or general terrorism or something else? I’m glad we are clarifying

I wasn’t aware that DJI drone with 60lb payload was subject to more regulations than a Citation leaving TEB but I guess I’m open to learning what those are.

[−] AzN1337c0d3r 47d ago
Were you born after 2001? Did you remember those planes that flew into the buildings?

Private planes can do the same thing.

[−] Simulacra 47d ago
This reminds me of when Steve Job's had his ninja throwing stars confiscated by (airport security) getting on his private jet.

Edited to clarify NOT TSA

[−] Gud 47d ago
It seems to me that the people flying private jets are the biggest threats to humanity.
[−] idiotsecant 47d ago
HN can always be counted on to have a good contingent of temporarily embarrassed billionaires ready to stick up for them at the slightest provocation.
[−] kacesensitive 47d ago
[dead]
[−] otterley 47d ago
I don’t even understand why this is an issue, because TSA screening is funded through user fees. There’s a line item of $5.60 per one-way ticket for exactly this that’s separate from airfare and other fees. (https://www.tsa.gov/for-industry/security-fees)

If this is so, why does Congress have to fund the program? Why not pass the funds through directly to the agency?

[−] arjie 47d ago
It seems that SFO's policy of having an intermediate company that buffers salaries is working well because I flew through there to Taipei after this whole situation and there was no wait.
[−] jt2190 47d ago
Only FOUR people actually used these services?

Edit: Newspapers have a long history of using headline editors who add “spin” otherwise reasonable stories handed in by journalists. This story was built by talking to a few entrepreneurs who offer line-sitting to see if they’d served any customers for airport security waits. Only one had.

[−] miyuru 47d ago
https://archive.ph/cwDaq (No account needed)
[−] porridgeraisin 47d ago
In Indian temples line-sitters are very common. Many queues are 5+ hours long.
[−] AVA_Travel 44d ago
The TSA experience is a big reason why some international travelers actively avoid US layovers. I've talked to people who book longer routes through Europe or Asia just to skip US airport security theater.

It's interesting that the market solution is hiring line-sitters rather than, say, pressure on TSA to improve throughput. Says a lot about how normalized the dysfunction has become.

[−] GaProgMan 47d ago
I flew out of SeaTac yesterday (March 28th), and the TSA there were pretty well staffed. Took me around 6 minutes, and that was only because the person in front of me was talking to the agent about the tote bag they got from Trader Joe's.
[−] api 47d ago
The basic competence of elected officials and they people they appoint matters.
[−] deadbabe 47d ago
I keep hearing about these long lines but I literally went to a major airport the other day for a flight and got through security in minutes.
[−] mrtksn 47d ago
I wonder why Trump just doesn't sell this himself, like golden tickets that you can buy from ICE where they just push back the free-tier line enjoyers to insert the patriotic gold level travelers.

In Turkey people with connections to the government get strobe lights permit to skip the traffic through the emergency line. There's so many opportunities both for monetization and loyalty rewarding.

Due to lapses like that sometimes I question my theory that all those people(Erdogan, Trump, Putin etc) are in the same group chat.

[−] ReptileMan 47d ago
Capitalism works quite well at solving problems.
[−] jeremie_strand 47d ago
[dead]
[−] cyanydeez 47d ago
[flagged]
[−] gsibble 47d ago
[flagged]
[−] alfanick 47d ago
I know it's bad, but yeah, I just hate waiting, it's stupid. So whenever I can I just go through "first class" security and nothing bad happens, just skipping the queue. Look decent, look busy, keep on walking and bam you're past the security in a minute compared to tens of minutes or hours. And don't ever remove that "short connection" or "priority" tag from your luggage, it indeed goes out first. Airports are so freaking annoying way to commute, take a bus/train/tram/taxi/car to the airport, figure out the maze, wait in queue, get bored after security (because you arrived to early not knowing how much you're going to wait in security), go to a gate, then a different gate, queue again, get inside, and wait again. Why did we do this to ourselves!?
[−] bookofjoe 47d ago
[flagged]