To paraphrase John Greenleaf Whittier, Of all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these: Rick Perry.
You might not link the bodacious Texas governor and Republican presidential hopeful with travel and transportation in a word-association test, but Perry and travel are more closely linked than you may think.
For one thing, there is the matter of Perry's own travel, which is considerable. The galivanting govenor is campaigning hard for the GOP nomination, which means hitting the hustlings in state after state. Just how much he's spending to do this - and who is providing the money - he declines to say, which, under Texas's ever-flexible regulatory regime, is legal. (See the Houston Chronicle's take at http://blog.chron.com, posted August 20).
Perry, while not a travel, tourism and transportation wonk as such, has nevertheless built a considerable track record of transit oddities.
Such as:
* He wanted to build a big toll road in Texas but backed off when property owners complained about losing land to eminent domain - that sounds like Big Guv'mint right there, don't it?
* Perry boosted a bill to outlaw full-body patdowns at Texas airports by Transportation Security Administration personnel who use them to keep terrorists off of airplanes; that plan, too, was dropped.
* Campaigning in Iowa, Perry vented about U.S. Department of Transporation rules that require farmers to pay for commercial driver's licenses if they drive their tractors across nearby roads. Just one problem: there is no such rule. Nor is there any such plan, according to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who was forced to issue a press release to counter the vaporous claim by the potty Perry.
In the meantime, Perry's in-state critics charge that he has let the Lone Star State's highways go to pot by failing to spend enough money to keep them up, let alone build new ones. That might mean taxes, which is, of course, an affront to Perry's tea party supporters.
In fact, government and taxes are responsible for creating America's transportation infrastructure, from the transcontinental railroads of the 19th century, to air-mail contracts and fat subsidies to the fledgling airlines of the 1920s, to the interstate highway system of the 1950s and '60s. Most recently, Washington helped out commercial airlines with government loans when the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 caused carriers to lose bags of money in the travel free-fall that followed.
I don't often write about politics in this blog. But, you know, sometimes the real world has a way of intruding into the world of travel.
Showing posts with label Transportation Security Administration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Transportation Security Administration. Show all posts
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Non-Screening Screening
Huh? Non-screening screening? Did I read that headline right?
You did. That hed stands above this post thanks to a new U.S. law that requires all air cargo loaded onto U.S.-bound passenger flights to be screened. Law or no law, much of it isn't. The law is toothless. The 75-year-old grandmother who was pulled aside for additional screening at the airport? She may be sitting above a dangerous package stowed in the cargo hold of her flight.
The cargo screening law went into effect August 1, three years after the U.S. Congress, alarmed by continuing clueless security, mandated that all cargo on U.S.-bound passenger flights be screened for dangerous materials intended to cause harm. The U.S. Transportation Security Administration said at the time the law went into effect that perhaps 80 to 85 percent of that cargo is being screened now, but the private contractors, foreign governments, airlines and airports charged with screening cargo haven't all complied with the law.
This, mind you, does not pertain to all-cargo flights such as the UPS and FedEx flights flagged for carrying menacing cargo from Yemen addressed to Jewish targets in Chicago - that's another issue.
More than nine years after the airborne attacks on the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001, you'd think there would be a greater sense of urgency, and that the TSA and other security agencies would be smarter about airborne threats, but you'd be wrong.
All this is limned in compelling detail in today's (Oct. 30) New York Times by reporter Christine Hauser. Hauser's piece (http://www.nytimes.com/) ends on an ominous note:
"... part of the problem is that the TSA as of earlier this year had not approved the use of devices to screen large pallets or containers of cargo. A significant amount of air cargo headed to the United States is also given an exemption from screening if it is in shrink-wrapped bundles, based on an assumption that the shipper knows the contents are secure ...''
Moreover, Hauser concludes, the TSA "does not have a reliable way to monitor the process'' at non-U.S. airports to ensure compliance.
You've heard the expression "not worth the paper it is written on''? Enough said.
You did. That hed stands above this post thanks to a new U.S. law that requires all air cargo loaded onto U.S.-bound passenger flights to be screened. Law or no law, much of it isn't. The law is toothless. The 75-year-old grandmother who was pulled aside for additional screening at the airport? She may be sitting above a dangerous package stowed in the cargo hold of her flight.
The cargo screening law went into effect August 1, three years after the U.S. Congress, alarmed by continuing clueless security, mandated that all cargo on U.S.-bound passenger flights be screened for dangerous materials intended to cause harm. The U.S. Transportation Security Administration said at the time the law went into effect that perhaps 80 to 85 percent of that cargo is being screened now, but the private contractors, foreign governments, airlines and airports charged with screening cargo haven't all complied with the law.
This, mind you, does not pertain to all-cargo flights such as the UPS and FedEx flights flagged for carrying menacing cargo from Yemen addressed to Jewish targets in Chicago - that's another issue.
More than nine years after the airborne attacks on the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001, you'd think there would be a greater sense of urgency, and that the TSA and other security agencies would be smarter about airborne threats, but you'd be wrong.
All this is limned in compelling detail in today's (Oct. 30) New York Times by reporter Christine Hauser. Hauser's piece (http://www.nytimes.com/) ends on an ominous note:
"... part of the problem is that the TSA as of earlier this year had not approved the use of devices to screen large pallets or containers of cargo. A significant amount of air cargo headed to the United States is also given an exemption from screening if it is in shrink-wrapped bundles, based on an assumption that the shipper knows the contents are secure ...''
Moreover, Hauser concludes, the TSA "does not have a reliable way to monitor the process'' at non-U.S. airports to ensure compliance.
You've heard the expression "not worth the paper it is written on''? Enough said.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Missing in Action: Common Sense
It is becoming clear in the aftermath of the unsuccessful bombing attempt on an airliner near Detroit on Christmas day that common sense has gone missing in action.
The would-be bomber, a 23-year-old Nigerian Muslim radical, was on a watchlist after his father alerted U.S. and Nigerian authoritites about him, yet his name wasn't placed on a no-fly list.
British authorities refused to extend his student visa and barred him from entering the United Kingdom, where he studied engineering, yet there was evidently no communication about the man between U.S. and U.K. security. Another fauilure to connect the dots? Looks like.
Before boarding the threatened Delta/Northwest flight in Amsterdam, the accused bought his ticket with cash and had only a small carry-on bag. Should this not have raised a red flag, prompting additional screening? I think so. Twice, when I bought one-way tickets in the U.S., I have received additional airport screening as a matter of course.
With an explosive device concealed in his underwear, the accused managed to pass through security and board the plane. What happened to all the elaborate security checks?
Now, in the aftermath of the foiled attack, the U.S. Transportation Security Administration has issued a set of regulations that include several provisions that simply boggle the mind. (tsa.gov, "TSA Guidelines for Passengers on Heightened Security Measures in Place Following Dec. 25 Incident.'')
Reaching the apex of reactive thinking, TSA has - in the sort-term, at least - given captains authority to ban movement around the cabin during the last hour of international U.S.-bound flights. Why? Because the apprehended terrorist made his move when his plane was being readied for landing. Could another terrorist not take action during another part of the flight?
Media reports say some airlines - apparently confused about what the TSA's new directives mean - suspended in-flight entertainment programs, including some programs on long-haul, trans-oceanic flights, when entertainment is badly needed. In-flight maps were not shown. Could a terrorist not simply look at his watch or look out the window to see where the plane is?
The last-hour stay-in-your-seat directive could be especially difficult for parents of young children to implement, could it not? Don't wee ones often have to use the bathroom?
Some U.S. airlines and non-American carriers with U.S.-bound flights have stopped passengers from using their laptop computers in-flight or made them put their laptops away during that all-important last hour. Doesn't this restrict legitimate business travelers who need to work en route? Will this hurt already ailing airlines even more by convincing bosses that staying on the ground is better than sending employees on business trips?
Word comes, too, that TSA and some airlines are limiting passengrs to just one small carry-on bag; all other bags have to be checked. Will this eliminate the threat of terrorism in cargo bins? Less critically - but still of interest - will stepped-up requirements to check bags cost travelers more money? Don't most airlines now charge extra fees for checking bags, rather than adopt the unpopular but common-sense policy of simply and cleanly raising fares?
There is evidence that TSA and individual airlines are relaxing some of the more inane aspects of the new rules after being very tight over the Christmas holiday weekend. We, as travelers, have to hope for a return to common sense when it comes to fighting the menace posed by fanatics who would bring harm to travelers and others. Safety and security in airplanes and airports is crucial; achieving it, however, won't come about by abandoning sound reasoning.
The would-be bomber, a 23-year-old Nigerian Muslim radical, was on a watchlist after his father alerted U.S. and Nigerian authoritites about him, yet his name wasn't placed on a no-fly list.
British authorities refused to extend his student visa and barred him from entering the United Kingdom, where he studied engineering, yet there was evidently no communication about the man between U.S. and U.K. security. Another fauilure to connect the dots? Looks like.
Before boarding the threatened Delta/Northwest flight in Amsterdam, the accused bought his ticket with cash and had only a small carry-on bag. Should this not have raised a red flag, prompting additional screening? I think so. Twice, when I bought one-way tickets in the U.S., I have received additional airport screening as a matter of course.
With an explosive device concealed in his underwear, the accused managed to pass through security and board the plane. What happened to all the elaborate security checks?
Now, in the aftermath of the foiled attack, the U.S. Transportation Security Administration has issued a set of regulations that include several provisions that simply boggle the mind. (tsa.gov, "TSA Guidelines for Passengers on Heightened Security Measures in Place Following Dec. 25 Incident.'')
Reaching the apex of reactive thinking, TSA has - in the sort-term, at least - given captains authority to ban movement around the cabin during the last hour of international U.S.-bound flights. Why? Because the apprehended terrorist made his move when his plane was being readied for landing. Could another terrorist not take action during another part of the flight?
Media reports say some airlines - apparently confused about what the TSA's new directives mean - suspended in-flight entertainment programs, including some programs on long-haul, trans-oceanic flights, when entertainment is badly needed. In-flight maps were not shown. Could a terrorist not simply look at his watch or look out the window to see where the plane is?
The last-hour stay-in-your-seat directive could be especially difficult for parents of young children to implement, could it not? Don't wee ones often have to use the bathroom?
Some U.S. airlines and non-American carriers with U.S.-bound flights have stopped passengers from using their laptop computers in-flight or made them put their laptops away during that all-important last hour. Doesn't this restrict legitimate business travelers who need to work en route? Will this hurt already ailing airlines even more by convincing bosses that staying on the ground is better than sending employees on business trips?
Word comes, too, that TSA and some airlines are limiting passengrs to just one small carry-on bag; all other bags have to be checked. Will this eliminate the threat of terrorism in cargo bins? Less critically - but still of interest - will stepped-up requirements to check bags cost travelers more money? Don't most airlines now charge extra fees for checking bags, rather than adopt the unpopular but common-sense policy of simply and cleanly raising fares?
There is evidence that TSA and individual airlines are relaxing some of the more inane aspects of the new rules after being very tight over the Christmas holiday weekend. We, as travelers, have to hope for a return to common sense when it comes to fighting the menace posed by fanatics who would bring harm to travelers and others. Safety and security in airplanes and airports is crucial; achieving it, however, won't come about by abandoning sound reasoning.
Saturday, December 26, 2009
After Detroit: The Way We Fly Now
Many details remain to be discovered about the attempted Christmas Day bombing of a Delta Air Lines/Northwest flight in Detroit, but one thing is perfectly clear: Travel and tourism in general, and civil aviation in particular, remain high-priority targets for globalized terrorists.
The latest murderous Islamic militant - identified in media reports as a 23-year-old Nigerian man who boarded the threatened plane in Amsterdam - to target innocent travelers was thwarted by alert passengers when he attempted to detonate an explosive device during landing at Detroit's international airport. Good on them. And shame on airport security officials who missed a chance to nab this would-be mass murderer while still on the ground. It's back to the drawing board for them, and the stakes couldn't be higher.
I have flown out of Amsterdam Schiphol airport, which has tougher security screening than most world airports. It was here that the would-be bomber, traveling originally from Lagos, Nigeria, changed planes for the United States. Passengers are screened again at the departure gate in Schipol airport just before boarding their flights. Additionally, the airport is testing whole-body X-ray screening machines that are said to be more sensitive in detecting objects concealed on the body than are other technologies. It's not clear at this writing whether the attacker passed through the latest high-tech screener or how he evaded other security measures.
In the short-term, the take-away for travelers heading to or from the United States is this: Travel will be slower and additional layers of airport and airline security - not all of them visible - will be in place, accounting for delays and frustrations. Understand and expect this.
This heightened security means that air travelers should leave for the airport earlier, be patient and expect their luggage and their person to be searched more thoroughly than in the recent past. Several airline Web sites - notably, Air Canada's site - have said U.S.-bound passengers should take just one carry-on bag onboard their flights, put away all bags, including laptops, during the final hour of flight, and say buckled in their seats during the last hour before landing. Air Canada cites the U.S. Transportation Security Administration for the rules changes, though the TSA as of this moment has not acknowledged making these requests.
Tighter security will certainly stay in place throughout the year-end holiday season, and probably beyond. Expect security to spike again if and when - and it's probably when - another incident occurs, and again during the busy summer travel season in the New Year.
It's sad and sometimes scary, but there it is. Some politicized religious fanatics still believe that the end justifies the means, and they are still doing their utmost to distrupt travel and cause as much harm as they can in the process. Don't let this stop you from traveling, but do take common-sense security precautions. After Detroit, this is the way we fly now.
The latest murderous Islamic militant - identified in media reports as a 23-year-old Nigerian man who boarded the threatened plane in Amsterdam - to target innocent travelers was thwarted by alert passengers when he attempted to detonate an explosive device during landing at Detroit's international airport. Good on them. And shame on airport security officials who missed a chance to nab this would-be mass murderer while still on the ground. It's back to the drawing board for them, and the stakes couldn't be higher.
I have flown out of Amsterdam Schiphol airport, which has tougher security screening than most world airports. It was here that the would-be bomber, traveling originally from Lagos, Nigeria, changed planes for the United States. Passengers are screened again at the departure gate in Schipol airport just before boarding their flights. Additionally, the airport is testing whole-body X-ray screening machines that are said to be more sensitive in detecting objects concealed on the body than are other technologies. It's not clear at this writing whether the attacker passed through the latest high-tech screener or how he evaded other security measures.
In the short-term, the take-away for travelers heading to or from the United States is this: Travel will be slower and additional layers of airport and airline security - not all of them visible - will be in place, accounting for delays and frustrations. Understand and expect this.
This heightened security means that air travelers should leave for the airport earlier, be patient and expect their luggage and their person to be searched more thoroughly than in the recent past. Several airline Web sites - notably, Air Canada's site - have said U.S.-bound passengers should take just one carry-on bag onboard their flights, put away all bags, including laptops, during the final hour of flight, and say buckled in their seats during the last hour before landing. Air Canada cites the U.S. Transportation Security Administration for the rules changes, though the TSA as of this moment has not acknowledged making these requests.
Tighter security will certainly stay in place throughout the year-end holiday season, and probably beyond. Expect security to spike again if and when - and it's probably when - another incident occurs, and again during the busy summer travel season in the New Year.
It's sad and sometimes scary, but there it is. Some politicized religious fanatics still believe that the end justifies the means, and they are still doing their utmost to distrupt travel and cause as much harm as they can in the process. Don't let this stop you from traveling, but do take common-sense security precautions. After Detroit, this is the way we fly now.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
How to Avoid Holiday Travel Hell
I'm not traveling this holiday season. In fact, I rarely travel during any end-of-the-year holidays in any year, as that's the time when travel snafus are apt to be the worst. It is, as we know, the time of delayed and cancelled flights, traffic jams, rotten weather, heaving, sweating crowds in airports, congested skies and jam-packed planes idling on the tarmac. So, I feel for you if you are traveling next week or the week after.
There are some things you can do to lessen the stress, particularly if, like many travelers, you will be flying to see loved ones or to take that special holiday vacation. Here are things that work for me, not just at holiday time, but anytime:
Don't check your luggage. Not any. Not if you can help it. More airlines charging more money for baggage checking fees this year - the fees are a revenue stream and the airlines are still losing money - make this an expensive proposition. Pack smart, pack light and carry it on if you can. Here's a bonus: If you haven't checked anything, you can skip out of those boring waits at the baggage carousel, leave the airport and be on your merry way.
Got presents? Consider shipping them ahead. If you do put gifts in your checked luggage or carry gifts with you for storage in the overhead bin, don't wrap them. Airport security may make you take off all those pretty ribbons and bows so they can peer inside.
Speaking of security, if you are traveling in the United States, the Transportation Security Administration - in a bid to cut down on 'false-positives' on the terrorist watch-list - is phasing in a new program called Secure Flight. The TSA now wants the name on your boarding pass to match the name on your identification - driver's license, passport, whatever - exactly, letter by letter. It's not being enforced strictly yet, but don't take any chances - check your primary ID and make sure you make your flight reservation under the exact same name. Is your frequent flier enrollment under even a slightly different name? Go back and correct it.
Check in online and print out your boarding pass. It will make you less likely to be involuntarily bumped if the flight is overbooked; latecomers who haven't checked-in get bumped first.
Sign up for flight alerts to your mobile device or computer. Most airlines will give you a heads up about changes, as will some commercial booking sites and services, like Expedia.com and Flightstats.com, in the form of a text message or an e-mail.
If your flight is long-delayed or cancelled, know your rights. If it's the carrier's fault - an aircraft mechanical failure, say - the airline must issue you a cash stipend, not a travel voucher. The errant airline is also responsible for helping find you a hotel room if necessary and ponying up some meal money. If it's not the airline's fault - heavy weather, say - they owe you nothing.
If they ask for volunteers to take a later flight, make sure it's not standby. If you are confirmed on the next scheduled flight - and the next flight is soon or at least that same day - fine. Want to check flight schedules yourself, to review your options? I like kayak.com, which presents airline flight schedules.
Stuck in the airport for an appallingly long time? If you don't have access to a first-or business-class lounge, buy a day pass to an airport lounge. Time passes faster and more pleasantly when you have snacks and drinks and a decent chair to sit in.
Oh, another thing: it may sound obvious, but make sure you have the phone numbers for your airline, several big hotel brands and your travel agent, if you used one. Program the contact numbers into your mobile device, or do it the time-honored way: Write them down.
Finally, if things go badly anyway, consider reporting the problem to regulatory authorities. In the U.S., consumer complaints can be sent to the Aviation Consumer Protection Division.
There are some things you can do to lessen the stress, particularly if, like many travelers, you will be flying to see loved ones or to take that special holiday vacation. Here are things that work for me, not just at holiday time, but anytime:
Don't check your luggage. Not any. Not if you can help it. More airlines charging more money for baggage checking fees this year - the fees are a revenue stream and the airlines are still losing money - make this an expensive proposition. Pack smart, pack light and carry it on if you can. Here's a bonus: If you haven't checked anything, you can skip out of those boring waits at the baggage carousel, leave the airport and be on your merry way.
Got presents? Consider shipping them ahead. If you do put gifts in your checked luggage or carry gifts with you for storage in the overhead bin, don't wrap them. Airport security may make you take off all those pretty ribbons and bows so they can peer inside.
Speaking of security, if you are traveling in the United States, the Transportation Security Administration - in a bid to cut down on 'false-positives' on the terrorist watch-list - is phasing in a new program called Secure Flight. The TSA now wants the name on your boarding pass to match the name on your identification - driver's license, passport, whatever - exactly, letter by letter. It's not being enforced strictly yet, but don't take any chances - check your primary ID and make sure you make your flight reservation under the exact same name. Is your frequent flier enrollment under even a slightly different name? Go back and correct it.
Check in online and print out your boarding pass. It will make you less likely to be involuntarily bumped if the flight is overbooked; latecomers who haven't checked-in get bumped first.
Sign up for flight alerts to your mobile device or computer. Most airlines will give you a heads up about changes, as will some commercial booking sites and services, like Expedia.com and Flightstats.com, in the form of a text message or an e-mail.
If your flight is long-delayed or cancelled, know your rights. If it's the carrier's fault - an aircraft mechanical failure, say - the airline must issue you a cash stipend, not a travel voucher. The errant airline is also responsible for helping find you a hotel room if necessary and ponying up some meal money. If it's not the airline's fault - heavy weather, say - they owe you nothing.
If they ask for volunteers to take a later flight, make sure it's not standby. If you are confirmed on the next scheduled flight - and the next flight is soon or at least that same day - fine. Want to check flight schedules yourself, to review your options? I like kayak.com, which presents airline flight schedules.
Stuck in the airport for an appallingly long time? If you don't have access to a first-or business-class lounge, buy a day pass to an airport lounge. Time passes faster and more pleasantly when you have snacks and drinks and a decent chair to sit in.
Oh, another thing: it may sound obvious, but make sure you have the phone numbers for your airline, several big hotel brands and your travel agent, if you used one. Program the contact numbers into your mobile device, or do it the time-honored way: Write them down.
Finally, if things go badly anyway, consider reporting the problem to regulatory authorities. In the U.S., consumer complaints can be sent to the Aviation Consumer Protection Division.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Two Blasts from the Past
Not too long ago, two ideas that have been kicking around in the United States for years - an airline passengers' bill of rights and a registered traveler program - were all but given up for dead. Now, both ideas have resurfaced, with a passengers' bill of rights gaining traction and some form of RT program getting another look.
A passenger bill of rights has been batted around since at least 1999, when numerous flight delays and cancellations raised the ire of travelers and attracted the attention of the U.S. Congress. Airlines vowed to fix the problems on their own. But they haven't. Six hundred thirteen flights were trapped on the tarmac for three hours or more during the first six months of 2009, according to Department of Transportation statistics. About 100,000 travelers a year are stranded on the tarmac, where they can be left without adequate food, water or ventilation.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Sen. Olympia Snow (R-Maine) are sponsoring passengers' rights legislation written into the Senate bill reauthorizing the Federal Aviation Administration. Boxer last month told a private stakeholders' meeting sponsored by the Business Travel Coalition and Flyersrights.org that federal regulation is all but certain. The Boxer-Snowe bill would allow passengers held on the tarmac to deplane after three hours so long as the captain thought it was safe.
The question underlying this idea - and it would have to be harmonized with a similar bill from the House of Representatives - is whether it would actually work. Airlines hate the idea of being told how to run their operations and warn of dire unintended consequences. We can say this is self-serving, but some academic observers of the travel industry lend a degree of support to the carriers, saying that a three-hour rule would only affect a small number of delayed flights.
The airlines, for their part, argue that delayed flights are statistically insignificant anyway. But this is tone-deaf when it comes to customer relations. I was once held on a plane on the tarmac for six hours at Frankfurt airport during a snowstorm in Germany, and it was agonizing, despite the fact that the carrier, United Airlines, fed everyone and even showed a movie. Statistics are cold comfort when you are one of the statistics.
The registered - or 'trusted' - traveler idea has been discussed ever since the 2001 terrorist attacks using hijacked aircraft in the United States. The first RT program - Verified Identity Pass, Inc., known as Clear - didn't get up and running until 2005. It signed up 200,000 customers at about $200 U.S. per pop, but couldn't make a commercial go of it, suspending operations this past June. By that time, the U.S. Transportation Security Adminstration, deciding the programs - which were supposed to vet travelers by checking criminal records and using biometrics - had no security value. Indeed, Clear and two small rivals were basically airport concierge services, taking members to the head of the security line, where they then had to take off their belts and shoes and take out their laptops like everyone else.
Now, though, major organizations such as the National Business Travel Association are urging a revival and expansion of RT programs, and an investment bank, Henry, Inc., is bidding to buy the assets of Verified Identity Pass. Testifying last week before the U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security, the NBTA's executive director, Michael W. McCormick, called for creation of a next generation of voluntary RT programs, to speed carefully vetted frequent travelers through inconsistent and vexing airport security.
The devil - as we are forever reminded - is in the details. And what eventually emerges from the Capitol Hill maw, if anything does, will be nothing if not detailed. Whether these old ideas will give travel a new face in the U.S. is far from certain, but these once-dead notions are showing intriguing signs of life.
A passenger bill of rights has been batted around since at least 1999, when numerous flight delays and cancellations raised the ire of travelers and attracted the attention of the U.S. Congress. Airlines vowed to fix the problems on their own. But they haven't. Six hundred thirteen flights were trapped on the tarmac for three hours or more during the first six months of 2009, according to Department of Transportation statistics. About 100,000 travelers a year are stranded on the tarmac, where they can be left without adequate food, water or ventilation.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Sen. Olympia Snow (R-Maine) are sponsoring passengers' rights legislation written into the Senate bill reauthorizing the Federal Aviation Administration. Boxer last month told a private stakeholders' meeting sponsored by the Business Travel Coalition and Flyersrights.org that federal regulation is all but certain. The Boxer-Snowe bill would allow passengers held on the tarmac to deplane after three hours so long as the captain thought it was safe.
The question underlying this idea - and it would have to be harmonized with a similar bill from the House of Representatives - is whether it would actually work. Airlines hate the idea of being told how to run their operations and warn of dire unintended consequences. We can say this is self-serving, but some academic observers of the travel industry lend a degree of support to the carriers, saying that a three-hour rule would only affect a small number of delayed flights.
The airlines, for their part, argue that delayed flights are statistically insignificant anyway. But this is tone-deaf when it comes to customer relations. I was once held on a plane on the tarmac for six hours at Frankfurt airport during a snowstorm in Germany, and it was agonizing, despite the fact that the carrier, United Airlines, fed everyone and even showed a movie. Statistics are cold comfort when you are one of the statistics.
The registered - or 'trusted' - traveler idea has been discussed ever since the 2001 terrorist attacks using hijacked aircraft in the United States. The first RT program - Verified Identity Pass, Inc., known as Clear - didn't get up and running until 2005. It signed up 200,000 customers at about $200 U.S. per pop, but couldn't make a commercial go of it, suspending operations this past June. By that time, the U.S. Transportation Security Adminstration, deciding the programs - which were supposed to vet travelers by checking criminal records and using biometrics - had no security value. Indeed, Clear and two small rivals were basically airport concierge services, taking members to the head of the security line, where they then had to take off their belts and shoes and take out their laptops like everyone else.
Now, though, major organizations such as the National Business Travel Association are urging a revival and expansion of RT programs, and an investment bank, Henry, Inc., is bidding to buy the assets of Verified Identity Pass. Testifying last week before the U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security, the NBTA's executive director, Michael W. McCormick, called for creation of a next generation of voluntary RT programs, to speed carefully vetted frequent travelers through inconsistent and vexing airport security.
The devil - as we are forever reminded - is in the details. And what eventually emerges from the Capitol Hill maw, if anything does, will be nothing if not detailed. Whether these old ideas will give travel a new face in the U.S. is far from certain, but these once-dead notions are showing intriguing signs of life.
Monday, August 17, 2009
The Secure Flight Scare...Relax
Domestic air travel in the United States is unpleasant enough without imagining things. That's what the rumors flying around about the U.S. Transportation Security Administration's new Secure Flight program are doing.
The other night, a news anchor at one of my local TV stations practically shrieked into the camera "What new information you're going to HAVE to give the government!'' in her intro to a report on the program - which is designed to deter terrorists from sneaking onto a flight.
Want to know what that information is? Your name, your date of birth and your gender.
Sounds like a dastardly guvmint plot, doncha think?
As misunderstandings go, it's not quite up there with people shouting down members of Congress and admonishing them to "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!'' - Medicare is a government program to begin with - but it's close enough.
Secure Flight started early this year when U.S. carriers were instructed to collect the above info from their passengers, and accelerated Aug. 15, when the TSA took over from the airlines to husband that info. Members of the traveling public have expressed concerns that they might be prevented from flying if their identification isn't in order, but in relatively rare cases will that happen under Secure Flight.
All told, it's a benign program that, if anything, arrives much later than it should have. It's been nearly eight years since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, when mass murderers used hijacked commercial aircraft; one would think that a nation that is serious about its security would have started collecting and cross-referencing such basic, basic information much sooner.
Will the program be implemented seamlessly? Probably not. But it should help reduce false-positives - that is, the detention of innocent travelers who have the misfortune to have a name that is the same, or nearly the same, as someone on a terrorist watchlist. Someone like Sen. Ted Kennedy, for example, who was hauled off to one side at an airport and questioned several years ago because someone that security officials are watching apparently has the same name.
The Secure Flight program requires only that travelers book their flights under the exact same name that they use on their main government-issued ID, whether that be a driver's license, a passport or something else. Reconciling the various forms of your name - a nickname on the ticket, say, but the full, formal name on your main ID - will have to be done. And that's all.
As reporter Michelle Higgins points out in her summary of what the new rules will and will not do (www.nytimes.com, posted Aug. 16):
"Under Secure Flight, the security agency checks a person's name against the terrorist watchlist shortly after a reservation is made, and usually well before someone gets to the airport and a boarding pass is printed, said Paul Leyh, the program director of Secure Flight. Once a person is cleared, Mr. Leyh added, Secure Flight gives the airline permission to issue that passenger a boarding pass.
"In other words, anyone with a boarding pass has already cleared Secure Flight.''
In other words...relax.There are much bigger things to worry about than this.
The other night, a news anchor at one of my local TV stations practically shrieked into the camera "What new information you're going to HAVE to give the government!'' in her intro to a report on the program - which is designed to deter terrorists from sneaking onto a flight.
Want to know what that information is? Your name, your date of birth and your gender.
Sounds like a dastardly guvmint plot, doncha think?
As misunderstandings go, it's not quite up there with people shouting down members of Congress and admonishing them to "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!'' - Medicare is a government program to begin with - but it's close enough.
Secure Flight started early this year when U.S. carriers were instructed to collect the above info from their passengers, and accelerated Aug. 15, when the TSA took over from the airlines to husband that info. Members of the traveling public have expressed concerns that they might be prevented from flying if their identification isn't in order, but in relatively rare cases will that happen under Secure Flight.
All told, it's a benign program that, if anything, arrives much later than it should have. It's been nearly eight years since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, when mass murderers used hijacked commercial aircraft; one would think that a nation that is serious about its security would have started collecting and cross-referencing such basic, basic information much sooner.
Will the program be implemented seamlessly? Probably not. But it should help reduce false-positives - that is, the detention of innocent travelers who have the misfortune to have a name that is the same, or nearly the same, as someone on a terrorist watchlist. Someone like Sen. Ted Kennedy, for example, who was hauled off to one side at an airport and questioned several years ago because someone that security officials are watching apparently has the same name.
The Secure Flight program requires only that travelers book their flights under the exact same name that they use on their main government-issued ID, whether that be a driver's license, a passport or something else. Reconciling the various forms of your name - a nickname on the ticket, say, but the full, formal name on your main ID - will have to be done. And that's all.
As reporter Michelle Higgins points out in her summary of what the new rules will and will not do (www.nytimes.com, posted Aug. 16):
"Under Secure Flight, the security agency checks a person's name against the terrorist watchlist shortly after a reservation is made, and usually well before someone gets to the airport and a boarding pass is printed, said Paul Leyh, the program director of Secure Flight. Once a person is cleared, Mr. Leyh added, Secure Flight gives the airline permission to issue that passenger a boarding pass.
"In other words, anyone with a boarding pass has already cleared Secure Flight.''
In other words...relax.There are much bigger things to worry about than this.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Keeping the Nation Safe from Toothpaste
Here is some recommended summer reading, travel division:
Check out the Room for Debate blog on the the New York Times site, www.nytimes.com. An Aug. 1 discussion excerpts a few of some 600 reader suggestions on how to improve domestic U.S. air travel, and it makes for reading that is by turns funny, infuriating, all-too-familar and occasionally thought-provoking.
The posting that resonated the most with me came from a reader who complained about the treatment from Transportation Security Administration airport screeners over toothpaste:
"On a recent flight from Phoenix airport, a security agent confiscated my toothpaste, because it was labeled 4 ounces and the limit was only three. This in spite of the fact that the squeezed-up tube showed that I had obviously already used up more than half of the contents. I realize that we have to take precautions to protect ourselves from the fanatics and nutcases of the world, but surely there is room for a little common sense.''
One would think so, dear reader and fellow-traveler, And yet, there seems to be something about toothpaste that makes American security agents all the more rigid and suspicious at airport screening stations.
Recently, my wife was stopped at San Francisco International Airport by a screener who rifled through her neatly packed carry-on suitcase, declining to say what he was looking for, while taking his sweet time while doing it. Finally, he pulled out an offending item: My wife's toothpaste, a 9-ouncer, which he confiscated. Too big, he said. It ran counter to the 3-ounce-maximum rule for liquids and gels, he said. When my wife pointed out that her toothpaste was a clearly labeled paste, not a gel, he said nothing. There was no relenting on an arbitrary decision and no apology for the wild goose chase and her now-riotously disorganized suitcase.
Look, we all realize that overworked and lightly paid airport screeners have an important job to do. But all too often, they're not doing it. Reporters and undercover Feds routinely sneak forbidden items through porous security in tests, and the frequent lack of courtesy at many U.S. airports offends foreign visitors unnecessarily and rankles Americans, themselves. The Times reader had it right: A little common sense, not to mention civility, would go a long way.
Oh, one more thing in that nytimes.com exchange that's worth noting: It includes a rare defense of (sensitive) profiling at airports:
"Get rid of the silly, non-effective so-called security measures,'' another readers writes. "My 71-year-old mother, with health problems, should not need to remove her shoes and be treated like a 23-year-old man. Exclusionary profiling makes sense at airports.''
Check out the Room for Debate blog on the the New York Times site, www.nytimes.com. An Aug. 1 discussion excerpts a few of some 600 reader suggestions on how to improve domestic U.S. air travel, and it makes for reading that is by turns funny, infuriating, all-too-familar and occasionally thought-provoking.
The posting that resonated the most with me came from a reader who complained about the treatment from Transportation Security Administration airport screeners over toothpaste:
"On a recent flight from Phoenix airport, a security agent confiscated my toothpaste, because it was labeled 4 ounces and the limit was only three. This in spite of the fact that the squeezed-up tube showed that I had obviously already used up more than half of the contents. I realize that we have to take precautions to protect ourselves from the fanatics and nutcases of the world, but surely there is room for a little common sense.''
One would think so, dear reader and fellow-traveler, And yet, there seems to be something about toothpaste that makes American security agents all the more rigid and suspicious at airport screening stations.
Recently, my wife was stopped at San Francisco International Airport by a screener who rifled through her neatly packed carry-on suitcase, declining to say what he was looking for, while taking his sweet time while doing it. Finally, he pulled out an offending item: My wife's toothpaste, a 9-ouncer, which he confiscated. Too big, he said. It ran counter to the 3-ounce-maximum rule for liquids and gels, he said. When my wife pointed out that her toothpaste was a clearly labeled paste, not a gel, he said nothing. There was no relenting on an arbitrary decision and no apology for the wild goose chase and her now-riotously disorganized suitcase.
Look, we all realize that overworked and lightly paid airport screeners have an important job to do. But all too often, they're not doing it. Reporters and undercover Feds routinely sneak forbidden items through porous security in tests, and the frequent lack of courtesy at many U.S. airports offends foreign visitors unnecessarily and rankles Americans, themselves. The Times reader had it right: A little common sense, not to mention civility, would go a long way.
Oh, one more thing in that nytimes.com exchange that's worth noting: It includes a rare defense of (sensitive) profiling at airports:
"Get rid of the silly, non-effective so-called security measures,'' another readers writes. "My 71-year-old mother, with health problems, should not need to remove her shoes and be treated like a 23-year-old man. Exclusionary profiling makes sense at airports.''
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
CLEAR-ly Opaque
CLEAR, the largest U.S. registered traveler program, failed yesterday when it couldn't reach an agreement with its largest creditor to continue operations. I suspect the program - and two microscopic-sized, rival RT programs still in existance - won't be missed, as most travelers didn't use it and few had heard of it.
Directly affected, however, are the several tens of thousands of people who ponied up $199 a year to go to the head of the security screening lines at about 20 U.S. airports. They got there by flashing a biometric CLEAR card embedded with personal information, such as their Social Security number. CLEAR's owner, Verified Identity Pass, Inc., said none of those people will get their money refunded, as VIP is broke.
It's a bleak end for the latest brainchild of entrepreneur Steven Brill, the major domo of Court TV, American Lawyer magazine and other ventures. Brill recognized an opportunity after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, for a program that could help speed selected air travelers through stepped-up airport security. But CLEAR's future was always opaque, thanks in part to government dithering. It took untill 2005 to get federal approval for CLEAR to take off, and it never did gather much momentum.
The mandate for RT programs changed under the new Department of Homeland Security from security-minded measures to airport concierge services for affluent travelers. Basically, the $199 a year gave customers a pass to the front of the line, where CLEAR employees helped them load and retrieve the little plastic bins for personal belongings. And that was it. CLEAR customers still had to go through the same Transportation Security Administration screening lines the rest of us do. This was a distinction without (much) of a difference.
The only difference most travelers will notice now is slightly longer security lines at some airports, especially at times favored by business travelers, who held the majority of CLEAR memberships. So on the West Coast, for example, those early-morning flights at 6 and 7 a.m. to the East Coast might be even more gnarly than usual. But there should be no major changes anywhere in the country.
Directly affected, however, are the several tens of thousands of people who ponied up $199 a year to go to the head of the security screening lines at about 20 U.S. airports. They got there by flashing a biometric CLEAR card embedded with personal information, such as their Social Security number. CLEAR's owner, Verified Identity Pass, Inc., said none of those people will get their money refunded, as VIP is broke.
It's a bleak end for the latest brainchild of entrepreneur Steven Brill, the major domo of Court TV, American Lawyer magazine and other ventures. Brill recognized an opportunity after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, for a program that could help speed selected air travelers through stepped-up airport security. But CLEAR's future was always opaque, thanks in part to government dithering. It took untill 2005 to get federal approval for CLEAR to take off, and it never did gather much momentum.
The mandate for RT programs changed under the new Department of Homeland Security from security-minded measures to airport concierge services for affluent travelers. Basically, the $199 a year gave customers a pass to the front of the line, where CLEAR employees helped them load and retrieve the little plastic bins for personal belongings. And that was it. CLEAR customers still had to go through the same Transportation Security Administration screening lines the rest of us do. This was a distinction without (much) of a difference.
The only difference most travelers will notice now is slightly longer security lines at some airports, especially at times favored by business travelers, who held the majority of CLEAR memberships. So on the West Coast, for example, those early-morning flights at 6 and 7 a.m. to the East Coast might be even more gnarly than usual. But there should be no major changes anywhere in the country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)