WSJ: Looking to Speed Security for Frequent Fliers - Real or Imagined Benefit?

Discussion in 'Travel Security' started by gobluetwo, May 11, 2011.  |  Print Topic

  1. gobluetwo
    Original Member

    gobluetwo Silver Member

    Messages:
    806
    Likes Received:
    1,012
    Status Points:
    825
    By Scott McCartney in the Middle Seat feature from May 5

    Also talks about how this would be based on flight history and that, as such, this could be seen as a frequent flyer benefit. Also talks about the "success" of the secure flight program.

    So, is this a real or imaginary benefit? PR spiel, or do they believe what they're saying? The article closes with a comment by John Pistole:

    At the very least, it suggests they're hearing the concerns of the public (or acknowledging they have to avert a public relations disaster). Thoughts?

    EDIT: Looks like there was a similar post a few months ago which links to an MSNBC article which refers to a "risk management approach." The Middle Seat piece seems to refer to a somewhat more-developed iteration of the proposal.
     
    jmrich1432 likes this.
  2. viguera
    Original Member

    viguera Gold Member

    Messages:
    4,737
    Likes Received:
    6,913
    Status Points:
    4,745
    I think at the end of the day it's a problematic approach regardless... a dedicated terrorist -- or team of terrorists -- could easily spend months, even years if they wanted to, securing this "trusted" status by simply traveling as a normal person back and forth with no ill intentions. All that takes is time and money, and not much of both depending on what criteria they set.

    And once they earn this coveted trusted status and you start looking at relaxed security -- even if slightly -- for them, you could then start working on your real plan.

    The long con has been in the works since the beginning of time... women will argue that men do it all the time when courting them... start off one way, secure trust, then reveal your true intentions. :)
     
    gobluetwo and BurBunny like this.
  3. BurBunny
    Original Member

    BurBunny Silver Member

    Messages:
    355
    Likes Received:
    375
    Status Points:
    475
    Oh thank you for my morning giggle!

    I agree that as presented above, the system would be problematic, though I think even more so logistically. So the airline computers are going to assign risk based on who is booked on a particular flight? Oh yeah, that's going to work well.

    The best solution I see is to extend the "trusted traveler" programs such as Global Entry and NEXUS to departure as well, so those who want an expedited experience can have enhanced background checks performed and receive expedited creening. Combine that with the "expert" traveler lines for those who are frequent flyers (and are efficient through the scans) but who don't necessarily want to pay for the screening and you'll have taken a huge number of people out of the general screening so they can take more time and do a better job on everyone else.
     
    gobluetwo and Concerto like this.
  4. milchap
    Original Member

    milchap Gold Member

    Messages:
    27,699
    Likes Received:
    148,145
    Status Points:
    20,020
    I was also thinking the same thing.
     
  5. JALPak
    Original Member

    JALPak Gold Member

    Messages:
    152,236
    Likes Received:
    53,266
    Status Points:
    20,020
    Wouldn't that freak you out if you usually have the barcode and are able to use the expedite line and all of a sudden you can't use it for the same flight? :eek:
     
  6. mikeef
    Original Member

    mikeef Silver Member

    Messages:
    507
    Likes Received:
    837
    Status Points:
    795
    I've got a better suggestion to expedite the security line: Eliminate the ID check, allow us to keep our shoes on, 86 the prohibition against liquids and only use metal detectors. Not only would this speed up the lines with no diminuation of security but it would also save the government money, since it would be able to eliminate 1/3 of the employees manning the stations.

    Mike
     

Share This Page