Why is it the TSA keeps adding new, bizarre, “security theater” restrictions on travel (e.g., the Global War on Liquids), but seems more than willing to reduce restrictions if there’s money involved?
The Transportation Security Administration is testing whether it can ease a post-9/11 policy that bars people from meeting relatives and friends at airports as they come off flights.A test program at Dallas/Fort Worth and Detroit airports could pave the way for other airports to allow non-travelers through checkpoints to meet passengers or shop at stores and restaurants.
“There are a lot of airports that would like people without boarding passes to have access to concessions,” said Michael Conway, a spokesman for Detroit Metro Airport, which starts its test next week. Dallas’ test started last week.
So, four years after airports have adjusted to keeping non-ticket-holders back behind security — a restriction that really didn’t impact anyone except shop-owners — it’s now going to be safe and efficient to let them back out to the gates again? Feh.
The DFW/Detroit tests are restricted to folks who are staying at the airport hotels, so that they can drop money at the overpriced shops and restaurants at the airport.
The Dallas and Detroit airports say their waiver will let people at the airports’ terminal hotels patronize dozens of shops and restaurants beyond security checkpoints. That helps attract tourists and conferences, said Jim Crites of the Dallas airport.
“For airports, it provides additional non-aeronautical revenue and passenger service,” said aviation consultant Stephen Van Beek.
I.e., it’s all about the money.
The TSA insists it won’t do it if it lengthens lines, but, by definition, any increase in traffic is liable to lengthen lines. And although the pilot is just with a limited number of people, as soon as you start making large exceptions, more exceptions will be pushed for.
It seems to me that one of these cases should be true:
- Only minimal security reviews of ticketed passengers are necessary, so we should do away with most of the checkpoints and so let everyone through.
- Stringent reviews are essential, and the more people who get closer to the planes the greater the risk, so we should only let through the minimal number of people necessary.
As opposed to:
3. Earn big money operating an airport concessoin! Let the TSA show you how!
(via J-Walk)
A quick search on Google didn’t turn anything up, but I wonder to what degree the increase in airport security has cut back on air travel, thus costing the airlines money? I personally have travelled less by air than I would have if I hadn’t had a couple of bad experiences with the TSA goons.
Of course reduced air travel would also tend to hurt the terminal concessions because there are fewer potential customers going through the airports.
Oh, and whatever happened to the devices that were supposed to allow the security screeners to “see” through travellers’ clothing? I’m betting the airlines lobbied fairly hard against the use of those machines because it would have resulted in a serious reduction in the number of air travellers. So maybe the fact that these machines are not in wide use is another victory for financial concerns over real security.