TSA plans to reduce airport lines by opening enrollment for Pre-Check program

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/tsa-plans-push-to-reduce-airport-lines-opening-enrollment-for-its-pre-check-program/2013/12/03/3cac8e5e-5c2f-11e3-be07-006c776266ed_story.html

by adamnemecek • 13 years ago

26 52 13 years ago

washingtonpost.com

chrsstrm2• 13 years ago

It's actually a better move to enroll in Global Entry [http://www.globalentry.gov/] which gets you expedited entry at border crossings, includes you in the Trusted Traveler program (which is what Pre-Check is), and only costs $15 more ($100).

That being said, I don't know why we still need to remove our laptops from our bags. I look at my SSD MBP and my iPad and wonder, what's the difference? Does anyone still use those early 2000's 8lb doorstops we used to call laptops?

[edit: Trusted Traveler previously identified as Known Traveler, which was wrong]

adamnemecek3• 13 years ago

As far as I can tell, Global Entry is for re-entry to the US. Selected members of the program were offered to be in Pre-Check but they don't go hand in hand. And starting tomorrow, you will be able to apply for Pre-Check directly.

EDIT: Okay, I'm not sure about the relationship between Global Entry and Pre-Check. The TSA website says "Certain members of CBP's Trusted Traveler programs, including Global Entry, [...] that have been invited to opt-in qualify to participate." but other sites say that they are eligible automatically.

saryant2• 13 years ago

If you join GE you can add your Trusted Traveler Number to your airline reservations. Reports on FlyerTalk are that most get PreCheck 99% of the time after that.

The other way of joining Pre was to hold elite status on a participating airline and opt-in. This yielded far less success, anywhere from 0-90%.

As a United platinum member I was getting Pre about half the time, traveling weekly. I got GE over the summer and have gotten Pre 100% since then.

Even if you're eligible for Pre, the TSA doesn't always grant Pre as a "security measure."

chrsstrm2• 13 years ago

Trusted Traveler is what you could call the list that Pre-Check vets you against, so Pre-Check is really just Trusted Traveler. Yes, Global Entry is only for returning to the US (you couldn't imagine it would be more, it is a US-run program), but it does also enter you into the Trusted Traveler program. The only reason I know this is a recent client of mine is a travel industry expert who spent time clarifying the programs and how they interact with each other. Their frugal recommendation is, if you travel outside the US, the smart move is to do Global Entry, more bang for your dollar.

DannyBee2• 13 years ago

I am part of global entry. My trusted traveler number works as the number used for pre-check, and pre-check gets printed on my boarding passes.

Global entry has some other advantages if you travel internationally. Besides faster re-entry into the US, it also gets you into reciprocal programs in a bunch of other countries (for example, privium in the netherlands).

chakalakasp• 13 years ago

Yes, some people who do work still need those big things called laptops.

sim0n• 13 years ago

I also do work and travel with a laptop but it doesn't weigh 8lb. The point he was making is iPads aren't so different to laptops in 2013, so why are they treated so differently at airports?

mynameisvlad• 13 years ago

Or even Nexus, which is $50 for 5 years, includes Trusted Traveler and Global Entry, and also expedited entry into Canadian and at Canadian airports' security lines.

gergles• 13 years ago

Yes, except for the whole "you have to go to Canada for an interview" thing.

skwirl2• 13 years ago

"Opening the enrollment centers, 300 in all, will be a step toward TSA Administrator John S. Pistole’s grander plan to reduce the security hassle for low-risk passengers so his workers can focus on those who give some reason for suspicion."

Get ready for cries of profiling. Get ready for endless articles about people who were denied entry into this program with no reason given.

The reason grandmothers have to take off their shoes and jewelry and be groped is not for security. I don't know how the TSA plans on implementing this system without backlash.

mikeash3• 13 years ago

The TSA is probably not using these reasons, but there are security reasons to screen everybody. Any time you make an easy path through security, you invite your adversary to use it. You talk about screening grandmothers as if this was irrational; do you think there are no old ladies out there who harbor a deep hatred of the United States and are willing to carry a bomb onto an airplane? There certainly aren't a lot of them, but they don't need a lot, they just need one.

CamperBob2• 13 years ago

And it's not worth the cost of stopping her.

skwirl2• 13 years ago

Well, now the grandmother can just pay $85, and as long as she hasn't led a life of crime, she can take the easy path through security and blow the plane up with her granny panties bomb.

goldenkey• 13 years ago

As if terrorism was rational. Or wait, was it? ...

Any time you make an easy path through security, you invite your adversary to use it.

Well it's not like those terrorists would attempt the difficult risk-taking activities like signing up for a program and getting rejected..

chrismcb• 13 years ago

I've got an even better idea that will reduce security hassles... Ditch the TSA and the screening program.

molecule• 13 years ago

A racket is a service that is fraudulently offered to solve a problem, such as for a problem that does not actually exist, will not be affected, or would not otherwise exist. Conducting a racket is racketeering.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racket_(crime)

joshdulac• 13 years ago

While you were likely pointing out that the problem "would not otherwise exist", I'd like to propose that the problem might "not actually exist".

I was flying a few weeks ago and the pre-check line was backed up with 30+ people, while the normal security line was empty and I passed right through in seconds. I haven't been to Dulles in years (described in the article), so I'm not sure if it is worse there.

b6• 13 years ago

I don't want the TSA to be made tolerable, I want it to go away. I'm not going to enroll in this program. I opt out of the intrusive type of scanner every time I go through security. It's troublesome and annoying to them, and I enjoy the symmetry.

blisterpeanuts4• 13 years ago

Wow, I'm always running late--that would definitely make me miss my flight, 7 times out of 10!

tehwebguy• 13 years ago

Really? I've "opted out" on every flight and it's never caused me to miss a flight. I only fly maybe 12 - 15 times roundtrip per year so maybe that is the difference.

mikeash3• 13 years ago

Sounds like you should leave for the airport earlier.

seiji2• 13 years ago

Something I've never understood: when opting out they don't let you walk through the metal detector, they always force you to go around it. What's up with that?

[Source: opted out ~5 times in the past year at terminals lacking precheck lines.]

blisterpeanuts4• 13 years ago

This seems like a great idea. It would be more like the pre-9/11 era when you basically put your stuff on a ramp and then walked through a metal detector, no messing around with shoes, laptops, and bags of toiletries.

(Now I'd really love it if they could revise the liquids and gels restrictions so that I can bring 4 oz. yogurts again. Why did they make it 3.4 oz.? Is .6 oz. really the difference between a safe and healthy drink/food and a potential terrorist weapon?)

chaz2• 13 years ago

3.38 oz = 100 mL. Lots of toiletries come in 100 mL containers.

malandrew4• 13 years ago

What I don't get is what I do with this presciption medicine I take that comes in a 4oz bottle if I remember correctly. It's a schedule 3 controlled substance sold by only one pharmacy in the whole country. Taking it in any container but the original would be suspect since it's also a known street drug.

koenigdavidmj2• 13 years ago

Medical liquids can be brought through in any necessary quantity. Sai (link: http://s.ai/tsa/ ) tried this with juice but found that agents were not particularly willing to play nicely since juice doesn't seem like a medical liquid...whatever that means. I expect that yours should be a bit more obvious. In theory.

alooPotato2• 13 years ago

Is it just me or does it seem like the bottle neck at most of the checkpoints is NOT ppl taking off their shoes/coats/laptops out of the bags/etc.

It always seems to me like the bottleneck is the actual xray machine. Ppl seem to always be waiting to push their stuff through the xray machine before going through the body scanner.

The human looking at the screen is either the bottleneck or the machine itself can't run that fast, I'm not sure which.

If a significant proportion of ppl get TSA-Pre then we'll have the same problem no? It will no longer be fast unless they increase the # of xray machines per passenger. In which case, why not do that now, without the need for TSA pre.

adamnemecek3• 13 years ago

In my experience both are a bottle-neck. Any queuing theory experts here?

existencebox• 13 years ago

At the risk of oversimplifying, I think you're overcomplicating it. What's happening is the forced serialization of more "jobs" than there is "processing power" to deal with it. the problem I've always seen is simply one of, if you try to cram 500 people through 2 tiny doorways , no matter how efficiently you do it, it's going to take a while, especially if more people keep on coming.

I don't mean to say that the bottlnecks within the serialization don't make things worse, but that primary problem is just one of raw pipe width. (to keep using the beating-dead-horse-computer-metaphor.)

zaidf• 13 years ago

Funny you mention because I just returned from dropping off my Mom at the airport and made the exact same observation.

sanskritabelt• 13 years ago

Sometimes one, sometimes the other, depends on airport and time and tsa crew.

mmagin• 13 years ago

"TSA Pre✓™"

Are government agencies actually given trademark protection under the law?

malandrew4• 13 years ago

I don't see why not. There is value in protecting the mark from unauthorized use that could mislead people.

What I don't understand is giving government agencies any copyright or patent protection.

DannyBee2• 13 years ago

Yes, the US government agencies can own trademarks.

dredmorbius• 13 years ago

Yes.

http://www.dailydot.com/news/nsa-trademark-infringement-libe...

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/357309/nsa-registered-t...

There's no copyright in Federal works. Other forms of IP can be used.

malandrew4• 13 years ago

AFAICT this is just a backdoor attempt at a national ID system.

Anything that requires fingerprints is a huge step towards the same national ID cards required of Permanent Residents.

A huge question is whether fingerprints from a crime can be run against this database. IMHO, the fingerprints gathered for this program should come with a license where you only grant them usage of the fingerprints when IDing you in airports. Any other use of the fingerprints constitutes misuse and a gross privacy violation.

Personally, I am a permanent resident (looking to get citizenship), but I would hope that every American that cares about their individual rights and the principals that this country was founded upon would fight back hard against this sort of program.

koenigdavidmj2• 13 years ago

Any other use of the fingerprints constitutes misuse and a gross privacy violation

And just how do you expect that to be honored? Last time someone revealed that the government lied about this stuff was...well, Snowden.

joelrunyon• 13 years ago

If enough people join the pre-check program - won't we have the same issue that we currently do? It seems the more people that join this service, the less valuable it is.

blisterpeanuts4• 13 years ago

Maybe so, or else it might be like the highway toll transceivers (EZ Pass etc.) -- lots of people get them, and then they can zip right through, yet even today there are always really long lines piled up in the cash-only lanes.

I suspect that not a lot of people will fork over the $85, either because it sounds expensive or just on general principles. I would pay, but I imagine a lot won't.

seiji2• 13 years ago

Based on the number of people who don't use their phone for a boarding pass, there won't be a problem of the public signing up for an extra service.

GrinningFool• 13 years ago

When you can pay more ("Preferred Access") to get into shorter security lines and get through security more quickly, that just serves to underscore how little actual 'security' is really present. And I say this as someone who has stood in both the slow line and the fast line - this isn't me being grumpy because "those people" go through the line faster while I'm stuck.

And now "Pre-Check" is letting us get back to the level of actual security we had pre-911: reasonably effective and not in the way. Only now it's a privilege that must be applied for and paid for.

Quite the racket.

saryant2• 13 years ago

I'm not sure how the elite lines underscore that. It's the same security, you just have fewer people in line in front of you.

Those aren't even controlled by the TSA—the elite lines are handled by the airport because their customers (the airlines) ask them to.

alttab• 13 years ago

So wait a second. TSA gets introduced and it makes lines long and horrible. To get around that, give us full spying rights and $80.

This is a little too problem-reaction-solution for me.

FiloSottile• 13 years ago

Wow, so finally TSA went full-out on discrimination. "If you look ok, skip security"

TSA plans to reduce airport lines by opening enrollment for Pre-Check program

Related Stories