Here’s an interesting tale…

The Transportation Security Administration is reportedly job recruiting on pizza boxes…

Here at the airport we can scan the terminal’s wi-fi network and determine what kind of computers are online. Usually it reveals mostly Windows computers. But this morning it was showing mostly Apple products. Here’s the breakdown:

• 5 Apple laptops
• 3 Apple iPhones
• 2 Apple iPod touch
• 2 Windows laptops

Ummmm…perhaps folks are tired of crashing PCs?

I do these scans occasionally when pondering such heady questions like, should the airport have an iPhone app? This morning the thought process yielded a new question: do owners of Apple’s new iPad have to remove the device from its case when going through airport security? It’s smaller than a laptop, but bigger than a “smart” phone…

A quick Google search reveled a blogger at Forbes.com has already tackled this question.  Bottom line, according to Forbes: TSA says you can leave your iPad in the case/bag.

Most of us don’t carry a lot of cash when we travel, but just in case you do, here’s a story for you…

According to the Washington Times, TSA screeners have new rules: “The new rules, issued in September and October, tell officers “screening may not be conducted to detect evidence of crimes unrelated to transportation security” and that large amounts of cash don’t qualify as suspicious for purposes of safety.”

Yes, that’s right…before these new rules came out, large amounts of cash made you a suspect. The issue came to a head last year when a campaign worker for U.S. Rep Ron Paul was stopped at Lambert Field in St. Louis because he had more than $4,000 in cash. TSA employees demanded to know why he was carrying so much. The wise campaign aide recorded the encounter on his iPhone (bureaucrats absolutely hate recordings, but I digress).

Read more about TSA mission creep in this previous post.

Earlier this week we received this email from Chris:

“My eleven year old daughter left on a flight from Springfield Airport Sunday night to O’Hare and then on to Charlotte. She inadvertently had a few items in her carry on (face wash, perfume, lotion) that had to be thrown away. My daughter was visibly upset because she paid for these items out of her own money. It’s too bad arrangements could not have been made to get these items either put in her check-in bag or sent to her. This is another example of poor service with both the Government and with the airlines. So much for customer service. My daughter will remember this for a long time and I will not forget the disappointment at having her items taken from her.  Nice job guys!!!!!!”

While the Airport does not play a direct role in the security screening process, we did offer these thoughts:

We understand how you and your daughter feel. Unfortunately, this is a situation without a practical solution. Here’s why…

Dozens of passengers go through the security line every day with forbidden items. Most of these people are running late. Imagine what would happen if they had to get in another line to make arrangements for their forbidden items—arguments would ensue over who was going to pay for postage and how much. What’s the declared value of the item? The list goes on. Bottom line: people would end up missing their plane.

Putting the forbidden items into checked bags won’t work because the checked bag has already gone through security screening downstairs and put on the plane. Imagine what it would be like trying to locate checked bags for every person who has a forbidden item. You could literally spend a couple of hours doing that for every plane load full of people.

If your daughter would like to learn more about what can and cannot be taken on a plane, these links are a good place to look:

http://www.tsa.gov/311/index.shtm

http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/prohibited/permitted-prohibited-items.shtm

Today we ran across two stories at opposite ends of the spectrum.

First of all there’s a story in Wall Street Journal that does a good job reporting what many consider mission creep at the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). The lede paragraph sums it up:

“The Transportation Security Administration has moved beyond just checking for weapons and explosives. It’s now training airport screeners to spot anything suspicious, and then honoring them when searches lead to arrests for crimes like drug possession and credit-card fraud.”

And then there’s an editorial in today’s New York Times that effectively endorses TSA mission creep!

Playing off U.S. Representative  Dan Lipinski, who wants a new federal law to standardize the size of allowable carry-on bags, the paper endorses the notion that TSA should be the bag size enforcer. The paper writes:

“It’s a simple but smart idea to enforce carry-on rules at the security checkpoint, not on the plane. In a world that involves so many trade-offs, so many brain-numbing indignities and tests of patience, this is a plan worth lining up behind.”

Run and hide! I don’t think the editorial writers have thought this one through…

Read more about Representative Lipinski’s legislation here and here.

“The Transportation Security Administration is getting ready to take over responsibility from the airlines for checking passengers’ names against terrorist watch lists, and is advising travelers to start booking airline tickets using their full name as it appears on their driver’s license or passport.”

That’s the lede in a story today in the New York Times.

So if you happen to be Bob Smith, and you book your airline ticket using that name, you’d better be sure that your official ID says “Bob.”  No Roberts, Robs, Robbies or Bobbies.

“Senator Feingold of Wisconsin is offering the most detailed legislative proposal yet to rein in the essentially unfettered authority customs officials have claimed to search laptops, cell phones, and other electronic devices travelers bring into or out of America.”

That’s the lede from a story today in The New York Sun. Right now federal officials have virtually unlimited power to inspect electronic devices coming into the country. We first blogged about this issue in early August.

A few of you might have read a letter printed earlier this week in the Springfield News-Leader. It was on the front page of the Voices section and bore the headline, “Flight intolerably bungled by TSA, airline, airport.”

It was a discouraging story told by airport customer Crystal Bell. She tells of her evening arrival at the airport only to find that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) had closed the security check point — despite the fact that her flight had yet to leave.

Besides sending the letter to the paper, Ms. Bell also sent a copy to the airport. The day after we received it, Gary Cyr, airport director of aviation, called her and offered apologies. But in the same breath he also said, “Please know that if I had any control over this it would not have happened.”

That quote probably sums up the airport’s predicament best. As I’ve said many times in this blog, the airport is a landlord. We own the terminal and the other capital infrastructure. We rent space to the airlines. We do not, and cannot, control the way they do business. Our TSA relationship works the same way.

In the case of the closed check point (and this wasn’t the first time it had happened) there was a breakdown in communication between the airline and the TSA. While the airport does not control these two entities, we do have some influence. We’ve talked to both organizations about the problem and we’ll continue to do so.

Flying overseas soon? If so, you need to read a story in the Washington Post concerning laptop computers and other digital devices…

“Federal agents may take a traveler’s laptop computer or other electronic device to an off-site location for an unspecified period of time without any suspicion of wrongdoing, as part of border search policies the Department of Homeland Security recently disclosed.”

The story continues…

“”They’re [ Department of Homeland Security ] saying they can rifle through all the information in a traveler’s laptop without having a smidgen of evidence that the traveler is breaking the law,” said Greg Nojeim, senior counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology. Notably, he said, the policies “don’t establish any criteria for whose computer can be searched.”"

Read more here.

A doozy of a news story from Reuters today concerning a security checkpoint experience in Lubbock. I think it’s safe to say that TSA horror stories are not as common as they sometimes seem to be. Still, TSA is concerned enough to have recently started a public relations blog to address public concerns and questions.