Montana wants millions in airport security

[Ned]

Does this make any sense to you? Montana carries fewer passengers per year at all its airport than JFK alone, handles in a month.

Lightly populated Montana wants millions in airport security (http://www.travelmole.com/stories/1127001.php?mpnlog=1&m_id=_r%7EAdddv)

TravelMole.com--March 6, 2008--Here’s more than a half dozen airports that carry an average of two passengers per flight. But Montana’s seven facilities want $2 million a year to run checkpoints.

Does that make any sense?

Even the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), not known for its fiscal responsibility, is hesitating.

TSA spokeswoman Ellen Howe said the request is being considered, but "there is some internal debate about the effectiveness" of setting up checkpoints to screen so few passengers, according to the AP.

The Montana airports are some of the smallest in the nation; at this time, they aren't required to be screened.

Montana officials say screeners will help security and draw passengers to the small airports.

"TSA security would increase our ridership considerably," said John Rabenberg, aeronautics director of the Montana Aeronautics Board.

The seven airports requesting security are served by 19-seat turboprop planes that carry an average of two passengers per flight, according to federal data.

The airports are among a dozen or so that have never had security checkpoints.

Federal regulations require passengers to be screened only if they are boarding planes with more than 61 seats, according to the AP.

The TSA's reluctance has brought complaints from Montana officials. Sen. Max Baucus said he and fellow Montana Democrat Sen. Jon Tester "will continue to hold TSA's feet to the fire until this screening is up and running."

[Loonbeam]

My first thought, was..."If they want screening so bad let them pay for it.."

My second thought was, given the following quote, ""TSA security would increase our ridership considerably," said John Rabenberg, aeronautics director of the Montana Aeronautics Board." - Yeah, Right..

But then I thought a little more, and I think there may be a case here, but not from the angle they are approaching. It would depend on how many of these planes connect to larger airports and if the passengers are screened on arrival (questions I do not know the answer to). If they are not, this could be a significant security hole, where someone could go on a small plane with a prohibited item and connect onto a larger flight...

Any of our travel pros know how this works?

[Ned]

I think it is a security hole, but it's only one of millions in the TSA system. Don't forget that more than half the agents testing the TSA security in airports across the nation were able to carry fake bombs past security during the tests. TSA security neither makes me safer, or makes me "feel" safer.

My first thought, was..."If they want screening so bad let them pay for it.."

My second thought was, given the following quote, ""TSA security would increase our ridership considerably," said John Rabenberg, aeronautics director of the Montana Aeronautics Board." - Yeah, Right..

But then I thought a little more, and I think there may be a case here, but not from the angle they are approaching. It would depend on how many of these planes connect to larger airports and if the passengers are screened on arrival (questions I do not know the answer to). If they are not, this could be a significant security hole, where someone could go on a small plane with a prohibited item and connect onto a larger flight...

Any of our travel pros know how this works?

[AaronK]

I thought I read somewhere that when these unscreened passengers arrive at a larger airport, they are funneled straight to screening (do not pass go, do not collect $200).
Personally, no one should be stepping aboard a commercial liner without screening. How much does it cost to implement 1 security lane at each airport, using a TSA contractor?

[Ned]

The first thing you need to do, for the 2-5 people per flight, is have that security lane. That may mean some airport redesign to block entry to the gate(s) to force everyone through the line. You've got to purchase the equipment, which isn't inexpensive, and if you're going to do it right, you need the other x-ray equipment to give the once over to the checked-in luggage. You need a metal detector, and the explosive detector equipment, and some wands, and you need at least 6-8 TSA agents plus at least a couple of supervisors. That may seem like a lot of TSA personnel, but you need extras so you have subs, at least for vacations and sick days and lunch hours. According to the flight schedules, if the flights go from early morning through early evening you'll need shift people, which is why I said at least 6-8 plus supervisors.

That's not going to be inexpensive. And don't forget about utilities and maintenance to run the equipment.

Montana says it needs $2M/year for very few passengers.

I thought I read somewhere that when these unscreened passengers arrive at a larger airport, they are funneled straight to screening (do not pass go, do not collect $200).
Personally, no one should be stepping aboard a commercial liner without screening. How much does it cost to implement 1 security lane at each airport, using a TSA contractor?

[Loonbeam]

It becomes a risk/reward scenario then.

If we make the assumption that each airport needs to be staffed by one TSA agent at all times, that means each airport needs 2-3 agents depending on operating hours, with one part time, and a supervisor who should cover a region. The salaries and costs for that would equal at least 2M per year.

Personally, I lump these airports under general aviation in risk factor and feel they should be subject to the same rules.

[SWABoeing737]

At first I was thinking, "No, it's Montana. Who goes there?"

But now that I think about it, I'm sure it would only be a matter of time before terrorists, domestic or foreign, find this gap in security and take advantage of it.

[JBM]

Or, make the airline responsible for certifying the security of small-capacity planes? If you will, "deputizing" a gate agent to check baggage, by hand if necessary.

[deangreenhoe]

Or, make the airline responsible for certifying the security of small-capacity planes? If you will, "deputizing" a gate agent to check baggage, by hand if necessary.

That's the best solution I've read so far. Did SGM Benny come up with that one? :D

Seriously, if they have only 4 or 5 passengers per flight, how much extra time can it take for even the gate agent to perform the screening?

I also think that any potential terrorist is going to rely on confusion and inattention to go undetected. In that small of a group of passengers it would be pretty difficult to blend in with a crowd.

I like JBM's idea (or Benny's.)

[trojan]

Was there not a finding issued just last week that drastically increases the screening for charter pax? Their luggage must be passed through the same process as commercial pax, according to the article I read. At least, I thought I read. This begins in 12-18 months, I believe.

So, if these unfunded mandates are to be implemented, who should pay?

Ned's description of the capital and operating costs for even the smallest TSA-certified facility were excellent. This is a classic example of where on the one hand, we demand champagne service from our government, while insisting we pay for beer.

With fuel costs literally crippling aviation, what are the chances that private companies would be made to shoulder this additional burden systemwide? After all, connecting pax form tiny facilities board legacy equipment all the time. There is a direct interest to the legacies that all pax undergo the safety gauntlet, no?