On the Fly

TSA Nominee: An International Man of Mystery

2010-03-11T20:14:21Z

It should have been a big story when the White House finally came out with a new candidate for the hot-seat job at the head of the TSA. But it’s been four days since the candidate, retired Major General Robert Harding, was announced and the reaction has been . . . uh, a big yawn.

That’s because most of the usual suspects who’d be in the loop—the airlines’ DC lobbyists, security insiders and the like—were apparently completely caught off guard. Judging him on paper, swift confirmation for General Harding ought to be a no-brainer: his resume includes a 33-year career in the military, where his last posts involved security and intelligence gathering, Defense Department outposts around the globe, and after retiring, he founded his own security consultancy, which he sold a couple of a years go. But he appears to have no direct experience in transportation and, thus, is virtually unknown to the communities who are arguably the TSA’s constituency.

There are those who think that’s not such a bad thing. Those people probably haven’t been to an airport lately.
]]> Erroll Southers, was well qualified and had the additional advantage of having working in law enforcement at LAX, a major airport. It’s unfortunate he had to withdraw his nomination after Senators opposed to collective bargaining rights for screeners made it such an issue (he also had one incident of unfortunate judgment in his career, but that alone shouldn’t have tanked the nomination). So we must assume that Harding’s lack of ties to the industry—and his apparently lack of political baggage—is seen as a good thing.

DHS secretary Janet Napolitano talked up Harding’s expertise in intelligence and security, but the TSA job isn’t an intelligence post, per se, and while it relies on intelligence gathered by other agencies, it’s basically a management job. TSA, with more than 50,000 workers, would challenge the executive skills of Lee Iacocca.

All of this brings me to the mess that is now airport security. Two weeks ago, I flew out of Newark Airport on a Sunday morning from the same terminal where a grad student breached security during the holidays and shut down the entire facility for hours. So I expected it to be bad. What I didn’t expect was total chaos: lines stretching so long they snaked down the stairs to the floor below, red-jacketed "aides" (who are not TSA, by the way, but private contractors) screaming gibberish at top volume at passengers, fisticuffs breaking out among passengers who weren’t moving due to what they rightly suspected was rampant line-cutting by other frustrated fliers.

We arrived nearly two hours before flight time, with boarding passes obtained at home, and yet we barely made our flight. It took us 48 minutes to get through security. And the problem sure wasn't a lack of screeners.

Airport security, in short, is getting less efficient, more expensive, and ultimately not making us any more secure. In fact, one could argue that the chaotic scenes like those at Newark are a threat to security and at the very least make it easier for a bad guy (or clueless one, as we recently saw) to get through.

So, welcome, General Harding . . .

Sully Retires!

2010-03-03T18:41:56Z

Remember all the excitement over hero pilot Sully's "return" to flying back in October? At the time we wrote that Sully's first flight back would be one of his last. Clearly, he wasn't going back to his old routine of flying for a living.

Well, today Sully made it official: he's retiring. The news has already unleashed another slew of fulsome tributes to the hero pilot who saved the plane and the lives of all 155 aboard USAirways flight 1549. Oh, by the way, the announcement today also noted that a flight attendant aboard that plane is also retiring. The attendant, Doreen Welsh, was seriously injured in the crash, a fact that drew scant attention in all the fuss that followed last year.

Anyone could have foreseen that Sully wouldn't stick around the crew lounge for long. Ever since the crash on Jan. 15, 2009, Sully and his first officer on that flight, Jeff Skiles, have spoken out about the plight of commercial airline pilots--in the industry in general, and at their airline in particular. In the years following 9/11, their pay and pensions had been slashed and both of them had been working at second jobs before the Hudson river 'miracle' rescued them from obscurity.

Sully has since made millions from the sale of his book and his speeches (he charges around $90,000 a pop) so he doesn't need the job anymore. (Officially, he says he'll continue to work on aviation safety matters as a consultant.) Skiles is now an executive at the Coalition of Airline Pilots Association, where he spends at least 50 percent of his time, but you may yet hear his voice over the intercom-- he still flies the Airbus A320 as a first officer a couple of times a month.

Sully and Skiles are not alone in their disenchantment with their profession--worse, they say, is that the career of a commercial airline pilot is now seen as so undesirable that they wonder where the next generation will come from. Sully's path from the Air Force to USAirways was once standard--now it's almost unheard of, as few military pilots make the jump to civilian flying anymore.

So... guess that means one legacy of flight 1549 is to remove two more highly experienced and skilled pilots from the full-time workforce.

The Kid in the JFK Control Tower (and Other Bad News)

2010-03-03T18:07:49Z

Photo: alreadytaken / CC BY 2.0

As if Kennedy Airport wasn’t already the most-hated airfield in the world. Now you have two more reasons to avoid this “depot from hell” (in the words of The Airport author James Kaplan).

The important news is that JFK is shutting down its main runway for four months of construction work. The Port Authority claims that the end result will be a smoother operation, and that it’s preferable to get the work completed fast rather than keep the runway open and do it piecemeal, a process that could take years. They better be right on this one, because the airport is already a delay champ, ranking 28th out of 31 airports for punctuality (the other two major NY airports, Newark and LaGuardia, are also at the bottom of the heap—but more on that another time). What worries observers is that the airport may not make its deadline—what construction project ever comes in on-time?—and it could slip over into the peak season. And although airlines have been asked to cut back on flights, the airport is already overbooked, with more flights than it can handle during normal times. We’ll be tracking delays on some of the most popular routes every week and will keep you posted—and if you’re stuck in airport hell yourself, please send us a line.

But what everyone is talking about today is, of course, the kid in the control tower. Apparently, on February 17, an air traffic controller assigned to the airport’s tower brought his nine year-old son to work. I’ve been in that tower before, and it’s not the pristine, sterile space most people imagine. In fact, I was struck by the number of visitors who dropped in during two visits I made: congressional aides, local pols, employees of airlines serving JFK, and the like. We all observed the rules (e.g. no talking with controllers while they are directing plane), but this child appeared to be directing air traffic, judging from a transcript of the tape, which was leaked today after the news broke.

]]>
But judging from stuff I am reading on pilots' blogs this story is really getting overblown. The controllers can be accused of poor judgment, but it appears no one was in danger. Supervisors on hand watched everything.

From the following transcript, you can see that the airlines involved included JetBlue, Comair and Delta, as well as Aeromexico and Egyptair, and at one point a controller was heard warning the latter about wake turbulence.

The following comes from Avherald.com:

Son: "Jetblue 171, cleared for takeoff."
JBU171: "Cleared for takeoff, Jetblue 171."
ATC: "Aero Mexico 403, Kennedy, 31L position and hold."
AMX403: "Position and hold, Aero Mexico 403."
ATC: "Here's what you get, guys, when the kids are out of school."
Unknown pilots: (Laughter ) "Check, bring Mike to work."
Son: "Jetblue 171, contact departure."
JBU171 (amused): "Over to departure, Jetblue 171, awesome job."
ATC: "Have a good day."
Son: "(Unintelligible) Cleared for takeoff."
AMX403: "403, cleared for takeoff, thank you very much, you have a great day."
ATC: "Jetblue 195, Kennedy Tower, runway 31L position and hold."
JBU195: "31L position and hold, Jetblue 195."
Son: "Amex 403, contact departure. Adios."
AMX403: "Contact departure Aero Mexico 403, adios."
ATC (son coughing in the background): "Jetblue 195, winds 310 at 13, runway 31L cleared for takeoff."
JBU195: "Cleared for takeoff 31L, Jetblue 195."
ATC: "Jetblue 2, I am sorry, Delta 216, runway 31L, position and hold."
DAL216: "Hold 31L, Delta 216."
USA14: "Kennedy, Cactus 14, visual now 31R."
ATC: "Cactus 14, Kennedy, following an RJ, wind 310 at 15, 31R, cleared to land"
Son: "Contact departure, adios amigos."
JBU195: "Adios amigos, over to departure, Jetblue 195."
[Brief exchange between controller and Delta pilot]
ATC: "Egypt Air 986 heavy, caution wake turbulence from a Boeing 757 departure, runway 31L position and hold."
MSR986: "31L position and hold, Egypt Air 986."
COM6496: "Kennedy Tower, Comair 496, on the ILS 31R."
ATC: "Comair 496, following an A320, wind 310 at 16, 31R cleared to land."
COM6496: "Cleared to land 31R, Comair 496."
EGF4549: "Eagle 4549, left turn Victor, straight Bravo and monitor ground point 65."
EGF4549: "Victor Bravo point 65, 4549."
Son: "Good day, Dude."
DAL216: "Delta 216, see you later, Dude."

Lufthansa's Post-Strike Strategy--Giving Traveler's a Break

2010-02-25T22:34:01Z

Who said a pilots' strike can't have an upside for air travelers? To recover from the effects of a brief shutdown earlier this week when thousands of its pilots walked off the job, Lufthansa said it will waive all advance purchase requirements for tickets booked through Monday, March 1 with outbound travel through March 7, 2010.

The German line said that for "sheer technical reasons" it couldn't get the offer working on its website so to grab this deal fast, customers can call Lufthansa at 800-645-3880 or book it through a travel agent. The deal has some special benefits for business fliers who would normally pay full rack rate this close to departure--a Cook Travel agent tells us that a $8,700 trip from the U.S. to Frankfurt could be nabbed for just $1,950 and that there are "similar prices drops" in all LH markets.

What To Do If Your Travel Plans Are Crushed By a Labor Strike

2010-02-24T16:17:12Z

In anticipation of the labor action, Lufthansa scrapped around 800 of its 1,800 daily flights
Photo: caribb / CC BY 2.0

It’s only Wednesday, but we’re on our third strike of the week affecting air travel. After a brief walk-out by Lufthansa pilots and a new strike threat from cabin crews at British Airways, yesterday it was air traffic controllers in France who were protesting, forcing Air France/KLM to cut more than a quarter of its flights (mostly shorter domestic services) out of Paris’s Charles De Gaulle.

And this is only the start of what may be a long run of labor strife at airlines as workers rebel against the inevitable fallout from a wave of mergers and bankruptcies. A handful of behemoths currently dominate global air travel: Air France merged with Dutch flag carrier KLM in 2004; Lufthansa has gobbled up smaller rivals like Austrian; and British Air is hooking up with Iberia of Spain and entering into an alliance with American Airlines, which just got a preliminary nod of approval from U.S. authorities. If the past is any guide, that isn’t good news for airline employees. Mergers typically bring job cuts as airlines “rationalize” their route structures and cut redundant jobs.

At Lufthansa, while pilots headed back to work yesterday, the airline says schedules won’t return to normal until Friday. Why? In anticipation of the labor action, the airline scrapped around 800 of its 1,800 daily flights, including some to the U.S. (If you are booked on flight in the next few days, Lufthansa has set up a Twitter feed—twitter.com/Lufthansa_usa—to keep fliers informed.)

So if you’ve got plans to travel on an airline facing a strike threat—or to a country whose airport workers are similarly inclined—what do you do?
]]> Keep an eye on the calendar and have a back-up plan. Strikes are usually called weeks in advance as the two sides attempt to work things out. At Lufthansa, the next date to watch is March 8, which the pilots have set as their new deadline for a deal. But the odds the two sides will work things out doesn’t look too promising now: Pilots are concerned about outsourcing of their jobs to budget airlines operated by the giant German carrier and they’ve asked for a role in management decisions, which Lufthansa executives have flatly rejected. Meanwhile, Monday’s vote by BA’s cabin crews to authorize a strike kicks off a four-week negotiating period, meaning a strike could come in early or mid March. That raises the unpleasant possibility that two European mega-lines could be hit by a walk-out at the same time.

Even if there’s a strike, that doesn’t mean an airline is completely shut down. Airlines can call in supervisors and other management workers to take up some of the slack. For example, Lufthansa kept flying some key international routes during the shortlived strike. Check with the airline first to see which flights are running.

Demand the airline finds you a seat elsewhere. Temporarily shut-down lines will usually attempt to accommodate travelers on other airlines.

You are, of course, entitled to a refund if your flight is scrapped. But, of course, that’s a small comfort if your travel plans are grounded. And even though the EU has tough rules that compensate passengers in the event of delays or cancellations, airlines can avoid paying under “exceptional circumstances” such as a strike.

Small Planes, Big Questions - Will the FAA and Congress Take Action?

2010-02-11T19:24:27Z

All 49 passengers and one person on the ground were killed when Continental Connection flight 3407 crashed minutes before its scheduled landing at Buffalo International Airport on Feb. 12, 2009.
Photo: Dave Sherman / AP

Tomorrow marks the one-year anniversary of the crash of Continental Flight 3407 outside of Buffalo. That accident, which killed all 49 aboard and one person on the ground, ended the longest stretch-2 ½ years-that we’ve gone without a single fatal accident aboard a U.S. commercial flight.

It also ended something else-our apparent complacency over the de facto double standard that allows regional airlines to operate at a lower safety level than those of the major lines who slap their names on their planes.

]]> National Transportation Safety Board issued its final report and, as expected, was highly critical of the performance of both the captain and the first officer. The board noted that both of the pilots had had little sleep the night before, and were chatting and distracted when they should have been paying attention to the controls of plane-a high-performance Bombardier Dash 8 Q400.

And PBS’ Frontline this week aired an excellent documentary on the crash, “Flying Cheap.”

Much of this information-the low pilots’ pay that contributes to these punishing “commutes to work; the lax hiring and monitoring practices of the commuter lines’-had been reported before, including here at Condé Nast Traveler.

But it was good to see the NTSB coming out strongly on one airline practice that is often overlooked-the increasing trend of big airlines slapping their name on a smaller line’s plane- with little or no attention to what goes on behind the scenes at their partners. The board will hold a public forum on code-sharing later this year.

Continental 3407 was, after all, really flown by Colgan Air, a tiny operation. Continental sells the tickets-and by putting its name on the plane and two-letter code on the flight, it gets a lot of extra business. But that’s where the cooperation ends-typically the larger line has no involvement in other aspects of the regional carrier’s management.

Such code-sharing deals have been around for a long time, but as we revealed in our December piece this trend has escalated to the point where more than 50% of all domestic flights in the U.S. are flown by these small-fry lines.

So, what’s next? The action now shifts to the Federal Aviation Administration and Congress, where a bill is pending that would raise standards for all pilots by requiring they have at least 1,500 hours in the cockpit before they start flying paying customers-versus the minimum of 250 hours now.

FAA chief Randy Babbitt, however, has testified that he’s opposed to this new mandate and the airlines, naturally, are strongly against it.

But changing the hours required would be just one step in the right direction-and in the current downturn, few airlines are hiring anyway. Many pilots groups are pressing for more action on what they feel is the bigger threat-fatigue- and some have criticized the NTSB report for not making more of that as a factor in the crash.

Where Eagles Drink: Hosting a FlyerTalk Meetup

2010-02-02T20:02:08Z

(L-R) Shriram Krishnamoorthy (1.5 million miles), Adina Newman (922,000 miles), Seth Miller (1 million miles), Stephanie Baum (599,000 miles), Reb Baum, Randy Petersen of FlyerTalk.com (17 million miles), Tommy Danielsen

This morning’s unsurprising nod to Up in the Air as an Oscar best picture nominee means the exploits of the world’s most famous air warrior will be on theater screens for some time to come.

But the real inhabitants of “air world”--that bland universe so aptly limned by Walter Kirn in the 2001 novel of the same name-weren’t talking much about the movie when they met in a crowded basement bar in New York’s meatpacking district last night.

No, the chat revolved around far more important things, burning issues like-where’s the best mileage run these days (for non-road warriors, mileage runs are cheap flights that yield mucho miles)? Which airline has the best seats?

What brought 50 of these mileage addicts together was the publication of Greg Lindsay’s piece, "Triumph of the Air Warriors," in the February issue of Condé Nast Traveler. Lindsay had traveled with this gang of admittedly compulsive mileage freaks on a two day marathon organized by the Star Alliance, the giant airline fraternity anchored by Lufthansa and United, and the party was as much a reunion as it was anything else.

I felt like I was in an airport lounge with some 50 Ryan Binghams. Somehow the line “to know me is to fly with me” kept echoing in my mind.

Randy Petersen, Mr. Mileage himself, can take credit for getting the group together-they met, virtually, on his website, FlyerTalk.com, where they trade tips and horror stories and the like.

I got a kick out of meeting some of the personalities profiled in Greg’s story, such as Art Pushkin, described as a “legend in airline circles” for his formation of a group of rebels against poor airline service. It was called the Cockroaches--because that’s how USAirways made him feel.

Puskin told me about his new group, FFOCUS--or “Frequent Flyers Organized and Concerned about Unacceptable Service,” which he hopes will get the message to airline managers that it’s not acceptable to abuse their best customers.

I recognized Stephanie Baum, Adina Newman, Seth Miller and several others from their photos in our magazine.

I also met Tommy Danielsen, a Norwegian businessman who led the expedition and who promises an encore next year.

And lest anyone wonder about whether these mile-junkies aren’t just a tad too into their “air world” lives, Danielsen deadpanned: “We actually do have jobs.”

How do you think these people got to million mile status in the first place?

Related Stories
Triumph of the Air Warriors (Condé Nast Traveler)
10 FlyerTalker Tips to Maximize Your Miles (Condé Nast Traveler)
FlyerTalk.com

Where is the TSA Chief?

2010-01-28T18:11:05Z

At a House Homeland Security committee hearing yesterday, ostensibly to examine the “lessons” of Flight 253, those of us in the audience got another lesson in dysfunctional government policy making.

Rep. Peter DeFazio, the Oregon Democrat not known for mincing words, said it best: “We need a TSA Administrator,” he barked at a trio of witnesses who had the unenviable task of defending the administration’s response to the attempted Xmas day bombing of an airliner. “Can’t we just get it done?”

He's right! This isn’t the Farm Credit Administration we’re talking about here. It’s the agency that is supposed to protect our citizens from another 9/11 attack. It’s a critical post and needs someone with the expertise and political clout to get the attention of those who hold the purse strings.

]]> long vacancy in the boss’ office at Transportation Security Administration was already a scandal even before the failed attack. It has been a year since the previous administrator, Kip Hawley, resigned along with the other political appointees in the Homeland Security department-the usual ritual to allow an incoming administration to pick its own team.

The White House took eight months to name someone for the hot-seat job: a former FBI agent, Erroll Southers, who helped run security at LAX airport. Southers was clearly well-qualified, but ran into trouble when some Republicans objected to President Obama’s campaign promise to allow TSA officers to unionize, allowing a single Senator, Jim De Mint, to hold up the confirmation. There were other problems in Southers’ past and the sorry saga concluded last week when a beleaguered Southers took himself out of contention.

All this could be dismissed as the usual inside the Beltway machinations-nominees get derailed all the times, sometimes unfairly, but life goes on. Often federal posts are left vacant for months or years-and the TSA job has been helmed by ‘acting’ administrators-place-holders who don’t need Senate confirmation-several times in its eight-year history. Currently that spot is held by Gale Rossides, a well-regarded bureaucrat who’s been with the agency since the beginning.

The outrage at the vacancy is bipartisan: Rep. Peter King, Republican of New York, complained “I still can’t determine who is in charge and who makes the decisions” in the nation’s security apparatus. “We used to have [ex-Homeland Security head Michael] Chertoff out front. We used to have Hawley out front.” After Dec. 25, King said, “we expected more.”

Unfortunately, yesterday’s hearing suggested it’ll be many months before this gets resolved.

TSA, naturally, didn’t send anyone, and the DHS deputy who attended, Jane Lute, was pounded for everything from the failure to put the Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab on the no fly or selectee list to the failure of her boss, Janet Napolitano, to show up at the hearing herself, even though she was in town. When DeFazio proposed that the administration should just forge ahead and allow screeners to unionize first, then appoint a new chief who would free of that baggage-the response was stunned silence.

To be sure, DeFazio’s idea is unrealistic in the current climate. Opposition to a screeners’ union is, if anything, intensifying in some quarters-especially after a series of embarrassing snafus that have led to terminal evacuations-most notoriously, at Newark, where a screener briefly walked away from his post, allowing a man to enter the secure area through an exit lane.

More recently, a screener in Philadelphia planted a bag of white powder in the carry on bag of a young passenger as a “prank”, supposedly as part of a test of screeners’ skills in detecting dangerous substances. TSA quickly condemned the actions of the screener, who has since “departed.”   But such cases give more ammunition to the opponents of the union drive who claim that TSA has to be able to fire or reassign officers without a union in the way.

Supporters of the union argue that other law enforcement agencies have collective bargaining rights and there’s no evidence that it has impaired their effectiveness. All well and good-but is this the time to have this debate?

Some members of Congress are pushing to make the TSA job a ten-year appointment-presumably freeing it from politics. A laudable idea, which would likely doom it-but it’s a start.

Related Stories on Truth.Travel
Announcing the Kermit Tyler Award for America the Unready
Who Really Picked Seat 19A?
Fearing the Fear Related to the Dec. 25 Terrorist Attempt
What About the Baggage Below?
New TSA rules: Déjà Vu All Over Again

All Nippon Airways and Japan Airlines Battle for the Skies

2010-01-21T16:07:45Z

Photo: caribb / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

All Nippon Airways blasted into New York City last night, entertaining contingents of journalists, travel agents and corporate biggies in back to back receptions at the Times Center. ANA, which had typically played second fiddle to flag carrier Japan Airlines, had obviously scheduled this event long before its troubled arch-rival had been forced to declare bankruptcy just days ago.

ANA was here to roll out a host of service upgrades that will start appearing on long-distance flights next month—everything from giving coach fliers a few extra inches of legroom (to 34-inch pitch, which ought to ease leg cramps on the thirteen hour flight from New York to Tokyo) to new first class and biz class flat beds.
]]>
Then flight attendants came to my rescue, shoving a pillow under my head as I clumsily fumbled with the buttons needed to turn my seat into a flat bed. The bankruptcy news is hardly a shocker, told them. After all, every major U.S. airline with the exception of American has been in and out of bankruptcy in recent years, sometimes multiple times. It’s the rinse cycle of our financial system: the companies get protection from creditors so they can get their houses in order, and everyone’s ultimately better off than if the company had simply shut down overnight. And it has virtually no impact on service from the customers’ side—planes keep taking off and landing, you can keep your miles, business as usual. Except, of course, a large number of workers stand to lose their jobs, which will be a hard pill to swallow at the once-proud JAL and could affect their reputation for top-notch service.

So what’s the JAL situation mean to us? Well, it could influence the ultimate line-up of the alliance partners and it’s already set off a battle among two U.S. giants. American, which is already JAL’s partner by dint of the OneWorld grouping, is pushing to invest in the Japanese carrier while Delta, now a powerhouse in Asia through its merger of Northwest, is trying to lure JAL to its SkyTeam alliance. Both are offering big bucks to the crippled Japanese line—reporting upwards of $500 million—in exchange for a substantial stake in its future. ANA, meanwhile, is already in bed, so to speak, with United as part of the Star Alliance.

And speaking of beds… That new flat bed in business class was actually quite comfy. Combine it with the the new 17-inch video screens and video on demand and ANA could give JAL, United, and all the other players in the Pacific a run for their money.

Miracle on the Hudson Anniversary

2010-01-15T16:22:11Z

Capt. Chesley Sullenberger--aka "Sully"--is reuniting in a few hours with co-pilot Jeff Skiles and many of other 155 people aboard flight 1549 aboard a NY Waterway ferry--which will cruise out to the same spot where the Airbus A320 went down a year ago today. So.. can't we just finally put this story to rest? There have been umpteen articles, books, and now, documentaries, -- is there anything more to be said or done? Actually, today's event is to honor the rescuers--the Red Cross, the boat crews and everyone else who helped ensure that everyone got off the plane alive. Enough said.

Give the TSA Screeners a Break!

2010-01-13T20:58:16Z

I was interviewed by CNN anchor Tony Harris earlier this week about the latest lapses in airport security-mainly the failure to catch the infamous underwear bomber before he attempted to bring down Northwest flight 25. But since the more recent debacle at Newark Airport was on our minds, we also talked about my stint as a screener at the TSA three years ago and whether I thought security had improved markedly since then. [See clip above for my answers]

From his questions-and what I’ve been hearing from readers and sources around the country, the screeners aren’t getting much more respect from the public than they did right after 9/11.

]]>
So the Newark incident-in which a young Chinese doctoral student at Rutgers snuck past a reportedly distracted screener and through the checkpoint’s exit lane to the secure side of the terminal-is bringing all those unfortunate stereotypes back in a big way. I’m not out to defend the screener, but already there are too many conflicting reports on what happened-someone I know who’s reviewed the airport videotape, says that it appears the guy wasn’t talking on a cell phone as originally reported, but, rather, was shown to have spoken to the student and told him to step back, but then turned to answer a question from another passenger, which gave the first one his chance-and he took it.

But why was he talking to passengers at all? One problem may be inherent in the setup of that checkpoint at Newark. Apparently people waiting to see off friends or family congregate near that exit lane. At the checkpoint where I worked, the officer manning that spot sat far back from the throng-making it easier to spot someone approaching. The only people who were legally allowed to enter that way were air marshals, pilots toting guns or the like.

But the main message is that screeners are really only as good as the tools and support they’re given. The number of screeners hasn’t changed in years-it’s around 45,000, including part-timers-and at many airports they’re stretched thin (and others, though, it’s more like the “thousands standing around” joke about what TSA stands for). And one of the biggest hazards of the screener job is the tedium. Searching for the tiny number of baddies among the millions of innocent fliers who transit airports is inefficient, expensive and ultimately, it won’t work.

Most of the screeners are good at their jobs-they’re not chatting on the phone or nodding off. We have to find a way to expedite screening for the vast majority who pose no threat (if they submit voluntarily to pre-screening) so we can focus on the few who do merit more scrutiny.

Related Story
Inside Job: My Life as an Airport Screener

New TSA rules: Déjà Vu All Over Again

2010-01-04T19:34:10Z

The news about the “new” security rules that were rushed into being thanks to the would-be bomber in briefs is depressingly familiar. There will be more random searches, more bags will be swabbed for explosives, etc. It's the usual ratcheting up after a foiled attack.

International flights to the U.S. will get more scrutiny and a laundry list of countries whose passengers will get an extra frisking expands the axis of evil to include countries with no direct air service and few business ties to the U.S.-Cuba, Sudan, Libya, Yemen-as well as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and of course Nigeria, home of jockstrap jihadist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

]]> I learned while working at the TSA. Singling out people based on ethnicity or religion is verboten-but it’s OK if it’s based on a person’s nationality. The practical impact of this fine distinction means a huge number people who ordinarily wouldn’t warrant extra scrutiny will have to undergo pat-downs and time-consuming searches of their bags, because few if any airports have the full-body scanners that could do this same task in a matter of seconds.

Although Amsterdam is belatedly activating more than a dozen of these units it already had on hand, and Heathrow Airport is ordering them-it’ll take months if not years to get them to every airport with nonstop flights to the US (and Nigeria apparently said it would order them too, a rather remarkable turnabout from a country whose airport security is famously lax. )

All this simply serves to highlight how little we’ve advanced since 9/11 in the crucial area of passenger pre-screening. TSA, of course, doesn’t run the checkpoints at all the foreign airports that are now the front lines. The system thus depends on coordination among the airlines who have the lists of passengers, the TSA, which is supposed to help run the names before the flight takes off, local authorities, and the National Targeting Center. The point is that the better the information, the better the odds of identifying the people who truly merit more attention.

But exploiting the weak link is an obvious terrorist m.o.-and the fact that the Christmas Day bomber bought his ticket in Ghana with cash and then boarded in Lagos is such a classic step that it should have set off alarms at all stops along the way. On September 11, 2001, two of the hijackers of the first plane, including Mohammed Atta, began their trip on a commuter flight from Portland, Maine, to connect in Boston with the American airlines flight they were intent on using as a guided missile.

The hijackers correctly assumed they’d be able to breeze through security at the tiny Maine airfield-but they were wrong on one point: they apparently believed that they would not have to go through security a second time at Logan. Of course the second search was an ineffectual as the first-although the hijackers were flagged by a pre-screening system known as CAPPS likely because they were flying on one-way tickets. They were not searched and their bags were simply held until the airline was sure the passengers were on the plane. The assumption was, of course, based on the Lockerbie model-the unaccompanied bag.

And what about CAPPS 2, the new improved screening system that was supposed to take over this critical first layer about a year or so after 9/11?

We’re still waiting.

Related Stories
Announcing the Kermit Tyler Award for America the Unready
Fearing the Fear Related to the Dec. 25 Terrorist Attempt
What About the Baggage Below?
Who Really Picked Seat 19A?

Passenger Privacy Gone in Jock-Strap Jihadist's Wake?

2009-12-29T15:00:10Z

Soon he might be checking much more than your duffel bag
Photo: mrcrash/ / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

The TSA’s response to the jock-strap jihadist is mystifying some passengers. According to one of my checkpoint sources at a major U.S. airport, passengers who expected to see a huge visible response were almost disappointed—“they’re asking ‘where’s the security?’" this source reports. But on inbound flights from overseas, it’s the opposite approach: passengers on flights must remain seated one hour before landing, they can’t access their carry-on bags, dthey can't have blankets or laptops on their laps, and those flight-tracking maps that are integrated into seatback entertainment systems must be turned off.

All this would prevent one thing: an exact copy of last week's attempted attack on board a Northwest flight from Amsterdam. True, copycat crimes are a plausible scenario, but this is also security theater carried to a ridiculous extreme. Any self-respecting jihadist would certainly find it easy to circumvent these safety measures.

But here’s the issue facing the security community in the longer run: privacy, if we thought we had any left, is sure to be surrendered almost completely—and the ensuing debate will get downright embarrassing. Here, again, the take of one of my former TSA colleagues:
“As long as we cannot pat down the private area, we cannot be 100 percent secure.” This brings back memories of my job as an airport screener, and that unnerving moment in the pat-down when we were instructed to say, “I am now coming to a sensitive area.”

The good news, if there is any, is that we already have better technology in the pipeline to detect explosives and new body scanner machines will probably soon be installed at airports. Screeners are being told that they will be doing more swabbing of passengers' shoes and hands, presumably because anyone dabbling in these substances will have traces clinging to them.

Meanwhile, Joe Brancatelli posted yesterday’s DHS memo to airlines that operate flights abroad. Read after the jump for an excerpt.

Listen to Peterson talk about the challenges of terrorism security on NPR's The Takeaway this morning.]]>
1. BOARDING GATE

1. The aircraft operator or authorized air carrier representative must ensure all passengers are screened at the boarding gate during the boarding process using the following procedures. These procedures are in addition to the screening of all passengers at the screening checkpoint.
2. Perform thorough pat-down of all passengers at boarding gate prior to boarding, concentrating on upper legs and torso.
3. Physically inspect 100 percent of all passengers’ accessible property at the boarding gate prior to boarding, with focus on syringes being transported along with powders and/or liquids.
4. Ensure the liquids, aerosols, and gels restrictions are strictly adhered to in accordance with SD 1544-06-02E.

2. IN FLIGHT

1. During flight, the aircraft operator must ensure that the following procedures are followed:
2. Passengers must remain in seats beginning one hour prior to arrival at destination.
3. Passenger access to carry-on baggage is prohibited beginning one hour prior to arrival at destination.
4. Disable aircraft-integrated passenger communications systems and services (phone, internet access services, live television programming, global positioning systems) prior to boarding and during all phases of flight.
5. While over U.S. airspace, flight crew may not make any announcement to passengers concerning flight path or position over cities or landmarks.
6. Passengers may not have any blankets, pillows, or personal belongings on the lap beginning one hour prior to arrival at destination.

OJ Gate: When Flight Attendants Attack

2009-12-22T17:57:25Z

American Airlines has finally apologized for the bizarre behavior of one of its flight attendants on a recent flight, but only after the incident became an internet sensation. Delta even took a swipe at its arch rival by giving elite status to the passengers aboard this particular journey from hell. But regrettably no one involved has addressed the most disturbing aspect of this flying farce: the use, or misuse, of federal security rules that were designed to protect flight crews from attack.

The saga began when John Reed, a first class passenger on the flight to Dallas—Executive Platinum, no less—was subjected to a scorching tirade when he asked for a glass of orange juice. No one knows what set off the flight attendant, who angrily slammed down the passenger's breakfast tray, and the airline and employee groups are all refusing to elaborate, calling it a "personnel matter."

]]> eyewitness accounts, the flight attendant flew into such a fury that she marched into the cockpit and emerged with a written warning to the passenger that he could be charged with "interfering with a flight crew" which is against the law. In other words, get a flight attendant mad at you and you could greeted by the cops when you land.

There is no central source for air rage incidents (the government doesn’t compile them, citing the many jurisdictions that can come into play). Often, we only learn about them when a federal air marshal happens to be on board and gets involved.

It’s probably better that there was no air marshal aboard to witness this fracas. The TSA has been quietly cutting back on its ranks, according to my sources, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. The job is tedious, morale in the ranks was low (in part because they had so little to do), and the money spent on maintaining a full force of flying security guards could be better spent on real improvements to security (better machines and improved intelligence, for starters).

But back to what’s become known as OJ Gate: I've been on the receiving end of some pretty ugly behavior by irritable flight attendants, and I’ve witnessed passengers acting up, too. Flight crews do have the advantage, though, in that they can get you arrested. It’s a power that’s been abused at times—and, given the general edginess that defines flying post 9/11, it’s a power that should be used very sparingly.

Readers: Do you have similar flight attendant horror stories? Share them in comments below.

Passenger Rights a Reality!

2009-12-21T20:57:04Z

Photo: gasi / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Air passenger rights advocates won a big victory in Washington this morning, with the Transportation Department ordering airlines to let fliers stuck on planes go back to the terminal after three hours or face hefty fines.

There were the expected exceptions for safety and security, but essentially the new rule gives the ‘rights’ crowd everything they wanted--and dealt a huge blow to the airlines, which had fought federal intervention, claiming that it will result in ‘unintended consequences’ because it could encourage airlines to cancel flights outright.

And it doesn’t just deal with the so-called tarmac strandings. It also prohibits airlines from operating chronically delayed flights which it said it would treat as an unfair and deceptive practice, again, resulting in costly penalties for the offending airline. And DOT said it would soon come out with rules on baggage fees and full disclosure of the price of an airline ticket, fees included.

“This is the Obama (administration) passenger bill of rights,” said DOT secretary Ray LaHood, the former Republican congressman from Illinois who’s clearly figured out where the public sentiment lays on this one. In fact he said it was the overnight ordeal of nearly 50 people trapped in a commuter jet that moved him to crack down on the airlines to this extent-well beyond the proposals now pending in Congress.

But will this really make a difference? Won’t airlines simply invoke the ‘safety and security’ exemption? We won’t know until after the rule formally goes into effect, in April, but judging from the reactions so far, industry insiders expect it could work as advertised. FlyersRights.org founder Kate Hanni crowed that it was a “wonderful Christmas gift” to travelers and the Air Transport Association, which represents most large US airlines, issued a terse statement saying it would comply, but that it anticipates “greater passenger inconvenience” as a result.