•Also in this case abolish the TSA. Useless make work security theater.
I want to see the President of the United States stand in a crappy TSA line like the rest of us each time he boards his VC25.
Why? The point of TSA in theory is to prevent you from taking a weapon onto a plane. If you are flying on your own plane or one you lease what benefit is there in going through TSA?
The whole point was to stop people hijacking or destroying a plane. If you've got the money to fly private you could just rent the plane for a day and fly it yourself. Plus i don't think there's been a single case of people hijacking a private jet...
> Don't allow congresspeople to bypass the TSA
the only people in commercial airports who can skip TSA AFIAK is diplomats, and that would be based under international law exempting them from search by another nation
This depends on how you define "in commercial airports". Many commercial airports have a special VIP section, which I would call "in" that airport.
To make them experience the system that they're imposing on everyone else.
This is not accurate. Diplomatic pouches are exempt from search, but those require a bunch of accompanying paperwork. The diplomat or courier still has to go through security screening.
My favorite was when it was Rep Sensenbrenner (R-WI), who notably pushed hard for the sort of security theater he was then complaining about. I was already two drinks in when he stormed into the SkyClub all miffed. And then I got to sit next to him on the plane! I doubt the man could see the irony.
According to many reports, at least some do:
https://traveltips.usatoday.com/exempt-tsa-screening-109841....
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna40341995
And in cases where they don't get to skip it, they definitely get preferential treatment:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/congress-tsa-whitelist_n_5875...
Not to mention some who travel exclusively on private flights (military or otherwise).
I certainly wouldn't judge anyone for using precheck; it's probably the practical choice. I have simply chosen to be (politely) obstinate about TSA procedures as a form of protest; a little bit of monkeywrenching by doing it all the hard way.
I totally appreciate what you're doing! I wish there were a way to make it painful for the TSA.
People fail to realize that TSA is just the nationalization and standardization of the system in place pre-9/11. It wasn't new or unprecedented. Instead of a Wackenhut (now G4S) contractor making $17k scanning bags it became a government employee making $21k.
You are remembering a past that never existed if you think things used to be better.
Things are better now, unless you are 90 years old remembering the 1960s. A spate of communist hijackings of airplanes led to bag and bodily inspections in the early 70s.
Here's security officers hand-inspecting every single carry-on (and frisking every single passenger) in 1973: https://imgur.com/a/n2HRbtE
Here's the film Airplane 2 lampooning airport security in 1982: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCkagYixpuc
I started flying internationally constantly for work after Lockerbie. For years I had to remove and power on every single electronic device I carried (and I carried, for the time, many) to demonstrate no components had been replaced by explosives. Not only in the US but also Europe and Asia.
Today is better than any time in the past, again, unless you're on death's door remembering flying in the 1950s and 1960s.
Put your bags on the conveyer, walk through the scanner, done. Based on my observations the people who have problems with this are those unfamiliar with the procedures needed (like removing the Mr. T-style amount of jewelry they're wearing) to make things move smoothly.
Much better and faster than staff with nylon rods poking around in every bag and frisking every person.
This illustrates the misunderstandings about the TSA.
The TSA didn't make up the liquids rule. The British did and then they promulgated those rules up through the ICAO (international civil aviation organization).
The TSA implemented the rule because the US is a member of the ICAO, as did many other countries.
If the TSA didn't exist, the FAA or DOT would have implemented the liquid rule instead and a private security contractor would be throwing away water bottles instead of "wannabe cops working for the federal government".
Same with shoes.
https://www.icao.int/Security/SFP/LAGS_STEBS/Documents/A%20h...
The TSA can't even change anything if they try. They only implement rules as directed by Congress, the FAA, and the ICAO.
They tried to unban knives because their analysis showed that knives posed no threat to aircraft, but were overruled by Congress.
Point 1: the TSA in particular is not at fault for the modern state of airport security
Point 2: airport security is better than it has been since the 60s
You spent most of your first post arguing point 2, which is counter to my own experience, and which GP contradicted. Rather than address their points, you've ignored their argument and switched to point 1, which they didn't even challenge.
My summary of the situation: the culture of fear that arose in the wake of 9/11 has resulted in a slough of changes that as a whole have made the experience of getting on a plane materially worse than it was prior to 9/11. One of those changes was the establishment of the TSA. While the TSA does not itself bear much if any of the responsibility for the problems with the security process, they do serve as a figurehead for all of those changes. And yes, I agree with GP that airport security is much more inconvenient than it was in the 90s.
My indicator is how early you're advised to arrive before a flight. In the 80s and 90s, the common wisdom was to show up an hour early, or an hour and a half to two hours for international flights. After 9/11, that bumped up to an hour and a half for domestic, and now after COVID, they recommend 2 hours or more for a domestic flight, 3 during holidays.
This is a bad indicator because the driving force behind it are the retail establishments inside almost every modern airport.