"...hopefully providing a more seamless screening experience."
You know what works provided a more seamless experience? Just so away with the TSA. They only provide negative value. They are a time and money sink at the cost of our privacy
I'm genuinely asking, as I have no idea what's the background for the bad sentiment towards TSA I see here or what's the common thinking on the issue is
Edit: reading the replies I turned to wikipedia, I had no idea TSA was only founded in 2001, and that the responsibility for security used to be distributed among various companies. I'm out of context and have some reading to do
I guess I wasn't paying attention before. Were hijackings really a weekly occurrence before the TSA?
Except that there were relatively few hijackings prior to the TSA. Airport security of some form, sure, but it was wildly different than the TSA. I've had an infuriatingly large number of nonsensical encounters with the TSA and would love to see that agency torn down and replaced. If not both, then just torn down.
Arguably the two main deterrents from further hijackings in the US have absolutely nothing to do with the TSA: prior to 9/11, complying with hijackers was usually considered the "right" response. Also prior to 9/11, few if any airliners had secure cockpit doors.
It's not overly difficult to handle APU and engine startup on a modern plane, but there's still a bunch of other obstacles to overcome, wheel chocks, etc. And you're presumably not going to have a compliant tug to push you back (you can technically push back yourself with reverse thrust, but that's a whole thing unto itself).
And even if you could get past that, no one at ATC is going to give you taxi, runway, or takeoff clearance. I guess you could just go anyway, and of course ATC will get other planes out of your way, since that's the safest thing to do, but in all the time it takes for you to taxi and take off, the nearest Air Force base will have a lot of time to scramble a fighter to take you out as soon as you're airborne... or perhaps even before you take off.
A rogue plane unresponsive to ATC should trigger runway-blocking. This can be as simple as grounding aircraft where they stand.
AIUI, the cockpit doors are now relatively more secure, and there are significantly (i.e., 2 orders of magnitude) more federal air marshals. Not to mention the changed calculus for the passengers if a hijacking were to occur.
If there were no air marshals, and the cockpit door was replaced with a 1970s-style beaded curtain hippie door, I would still expect future hijacking attempts to fail.
Before 2001, a hijacking was almost guaranteed to be an inconvenience for the rest of the passengers. A diversion to another airport, being stuck on the plane while negotiations happen, etc. After 2001 every passenger is going to assume they're being commandeered as a missile. There will be tons of resistance from 1A all the way to 33F.
(Strong cockpit doors are still a good idea. I'm not arguing otherwise. But the changed calculus you mention is enormous. It alone I think would make successful hijackings a rare occurrence.)
I agree though. Anyone familiar with 9/11 would fight hijackers with their life.
There's not going to be a common hijacking scenario where the passengers have to get into the cockpit.
When the hijacker is the co-pilot
Hopefully the resistance begins before a hijacker has a chance to jump over the beverage cart while one of the pilots is going to take a leak.
None of the TSA screening changes would have made a difference. The knifes the hijackers used were placed on the planes ahead of time (the old metal detectors would have found them). Checking IDs against a no-fly list could be done in many less intrusive ways.
https://www.vox.com/2016/3/29/11326472/hijacking-airplanes-e... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings#19...
I think the answer lies in your phrase "similar authority." One idea is to privatize this job. The TSA culture is a joke. This is an agency who have failed to understand that their mandate is to protect people and that they are there to serve. Instead they treat flying public like adversaries while browbeating and infantilizing them. They seem to imagine that their mandate is to stress people out and confiscate toothpaste. It's hard to imagine a ruder public agency. Not all of course as sometimes you do get nice folks who understand they are there to serve. This is generally the exception though. It's so exceptional that when it does happen it's kind of shocking.
But IMO pre-9/11 airport screening was more or less just fine. The two biggest things that deter plane hijackings are 1) armored and (almost) always-locked cockpit door, and 2) the widespread understanding among passengers that if someone hijacks your plane, you should probably fight them, as there's a good chance the hijackers have suicidal intentions and you'll die regardless.
(And even if #2 fades away, #1 is still a pretty damn potent defense.)
Putting people through millimeter wave body scanners is unnecessary. Limiting (and requiring people remove and present) liquids is unnecessary. Removing large electronics is unnecessary. Removing a light jacket is unnecessary. Removing shoes is unnecessary.
Basically if we just made the TSA Pre Check screening process the standard for everyone (and dropped the liquid limits), we'd be fine.