TSA considering cutting security screenings at small airports

flyguy84 · Wed Aug 01, 2018 8:10 pm

This is such a ridiculous idea that I don't think it will EVER come to fruition. The fact they want to screen passengers at hubs rather than smaller outstations would absolutely kill connecting passengers.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/01/politics ... index.html

Sooner787 · Wed Aug 01, 2018 8:13 pm

Don't see why smaller airports can't have private screeners if they're following
TSA guidelines. Hell, chances are the private screeners would be an upgrade

evank516 · Wed Aug 01, 2018 8:22 pm

Sooner787 wrote:
Don't see why smaller airports can't have private screeners if they're following
TSA guidelines. Hell, chances are the private screeners would be an upgrade

I agree. If anything, bringing private screeners into the mix at smaller airports may be better. Just have the TSA do the security training and let the private screeners actually do the work.

FA9295 · Wed Aug 01, 2018 8:22 pm

It's pretty much all about saving money. I also think it's a ridiculous idea, and I sure hope to god that it never comes to this.

Blimpie · Wed Aug 01, 2018 8:36 pm

I thought some airports already do. HGR I know for a fact uses Washington County Sheriff officers to man the security checkpoint there.

flyingclrs727 · Wed Aug 01, 2018 8:47 pm

One big plus for using some smaller market airports is not having long TSA lines.

DocLightning · Wed Aug 01, 2018 8:51 pm

RJs of the sort that might fly into smaller airports can still cause a lot of damage when intentionally flown into something. Apparently, this idea has been floated a few times since 9/11 and it's (excuse me) gone down in flames every time. I suspect it will suffer the same fate.

LAXintl · Wed Aug 01, 2018 8:57 pm

I see this as an excellent idea.
Builds on the existing process at many airports with aircraft under <19 seats that don't have screening. Simply raise this limit to include 50-seaters now.
This would allow TSA to concentrate and fund resources at large airports.

adam47150 · Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:00 pm

Does SFB still use private security, or has security coverage reverted back to the TSA?

Vctony · Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:01 pm

SFB is private.

janders · Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:02 pm

Actually good idea imo.

Many don't realize the immense difficulty in hiring and cost involved in maintaining cadre of staff and equipment at smaller airports with a couple handful of flights.
Expanding the screening passengers upon arrival hub like done currently from even smaller markets does make sense.

Also lets remember, with things like DHS advance manifest submittals and no-fly list they already know who is on planes and means to block folks from being checked-in if there are concerns.

sw733 · Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:05 pm

adam47150 wrote:
Does SFB still use private security, or has security coverage reverted back to the TSA?

MCI is still private, too

n6238p · Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:06 pm

It absolutely is a bad idea from a security standpoint but a close second is going to be when passengers land and have to be rescreened at the bigger airport. There will be so many missconnects. On top of that, now you have to employ people to escort passengers from the airside back to security. You’ll have to buy busses and can’t use jet bridges that don’t maintain a sterile security area.

Who thinks up this s***?

910A · Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:09 pm

Nothing new here. Back in the 80's and 90's from CEC we would fly to either ACV or SMF (if ACV was fogged in) and go through screenings there. Make sense to me, it's expensive to perform a background check on several screeners, when they will only work 15 hours a week. Look at LMT for instance, they lost Horizon laid off the screeners, PenAir came screeners rehired, and KS was gone again before the ink was dried on the paper. Has for the bigger airports, say UA would block off a set of gates for the RJ's and screening can be done right there in the terminal, no mess no fuss.

Aliqiout · Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:15 pm

Because terrosists can't figure out how to get to small airports?

smokeybandit · Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:15 pm

Those airports might be more secure w/o TSA.

XAM2175 · Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:29 pm

flyguy84 wrote:
This is such a ridiculous idea that I don't think it will EVER come to fruition. The fact they want to screen passengers at hubs rather than smaller outstations would absolutely kill connecting passengers.

n6238p wrote:
It absolutely is a bad idea from a security standpoint but a close second is going to be when passengers land and have to be rescreened at the bigger airport. There will be so many missconnects. On top of that, now you have to employ people to escort passengers from the airside back to security. You’ll have to buy busses and can’t use jet bridges that don’t maintain a sterile security area. Who thinks up this s***?

This is done day-in-day-out across Australia right now and it seems to work. Airports served by sub-50-seat aircraft don't have to maintain security infrastructure, and since most smaller aircraft use remote stands anyway, terminals are configured to have the bus arrival gates swing between landside and airside as appropriate.

For passengers, if you're connecting to another domestic, you clear as normal. Connecting internationally, you'd have had to reclear anyway, and and if you're not connecting you don't need to care.

But then again, domestic security in Australia doesn't involve a deep-background check, nudoscope, and cavity search so maybe my perspective is a bit different.

Yflyer · Wed Aug 01, 2018 10:43 pm

There are, I believe, some tiny airports in Alaska that already don't have security screening at all, the sort of places served on 30 seat props from Pen Air, Era, and the like. ANC has a couple of gates pre-security where these flights arrive. Passengers connecting onward to a mainline AS flight are screened at ANC.

But if this was implemented in the lower 48 I'm not sure how it would work at the hub airports. No hub besides ANC that I'm aware of is set up to handle the arrival of unscreened passengers. All the gates are after security. Would the flights have to park at a remote stand and the passengers be bused around to the front of the terminal? That seems like kind of an awkward arrangement.

And yeah, this would pretty much kill the advantage of using smaller airports in the first place. IMO the best thing about small airports is the much shorter security lines, and the fact that you can avoid the usually much longer lines at the hub airport. And the need to be screened at the hub would necessitate longer connecting times, at which point it often becomes faster to just drive to the hub rather than using the small airport.

OSUk1d · Thu Aug 02, 2018 12:16 am

adam47150 wrote:
Does SFB still use private security, or has security coverage reverted back to the TSA?

And many people leave SFB to go to MCO because they don't like randomly having their hours cut or being lied to about everything. SFB has high turnover and these companies that do screening through the partnership program care only about money. If MCO ever actually went private like they always threaten, it would be an even bigger nightmare than it already is. Nobody would put up with that environment and constant threats from their employer for even less money.

SRQLOT · Thu Aug 02, 2018 12:27 am

I'm surprised that anti TSA people didn'y bring up the crazy conspiracy theory that DHS want another 9/11 to happen. That way TSA could get retrenched and get billions more dollars$$$

enilria · Thu Aug 02, 2018 1:03 am

Getting rid or shrinking TSA is a great idea, however, it would need to be replaced with private screeners. Doing rescreening at large airports would be a nightmare.

Super80Fan · Thu Aug 02, 2018 1:42 am

All I care about is that every single TSA employee at MCO is fired. My happiness towards the TSA would go up about 50%.

aeromoe · Thu Aug 02, 2018 1:58 am

Yflyer wrote:
ANC has a couple of gates pre-security where these flights arrive.

And depart... I flew ANC to SNP (St. Paul Island) on Pen Air in July 2016 with nary a security screening.

Moe

spacecadet · Thu Aug 02, 2018 3:49 am

enilria wrote:
Getting rid or shrinking TSA is a great idea, however, it would need to be replaced with private screeners.

So, going back to pre-9/11, then?

People need to be careful what they wish for. I'm sure this isn't universal, but a lot of people on this site probably don't remember what "security" even was back then. The TSA is hardly perfect and I criticize them as much as anybody, but pre-9/11 security basically didn't even exist. And that's how 9/11 happened. (Along with a lot of other hijackings, bombings, on-board shootings and other things, don't forget.)

Private screeners pre-9/11 were an absolute joke, and they were accountable to no one. Have a complaint about pre-9/11 security? Who were you going to complain to, your congressman?! (snicker)

Airstud · Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:39 am

I'm a total germophobe so the thought of going back to not having to take my shoes off is too tempting.

Don't get my hopes up.

spinkid · Thu Aug 02, 2018 6:37 am

People will complain about the high cost of TSA, and then farm it out to privatize, and we'll be right back where we were pre 9/11. Wages for those jobs will race to the bottom and so will turnover and when you're paying people minimum wage, you'll get that level of service both toward the pax experience and the level of security.

I feel like in today's society. IF this were to happen, we'd have a mass shooting incident a 50 seat RJ within a year. or on an Allegiant flight whey the only service is their's a few times a week.

As others have said, the rescreening at major hubs would create chaos. Its one thing when its a 9 seat aircraft 2-3 times a day. So, at MAX that is 27 passengers to rescreen

ChrisKen · Thu Aug 02, 2018 10:41 am

Airports around the world have been doing 'security' without problem for decades, how does the TSA manage to screw it up in America (and arguably for the rest of the world) on such a regular basis?
I've never taken more than a handful of minutes to pass through security at airports all around the globe. No precheck, no 'elite' status nonsense, no farting on, no ad-hoc rule changing, no faux 'authority', no scaremongering, just checked and on my way,

PITingres · Thu Aug 02, 2018 1:44 pm

spacecadet wrote:
enilria wrote:
Getting rid or shrinking TSA is a great idea, however, it would need to be replaced with private screeners.

So, going back to pre-9/11, then?

You betcha.

I defy anyone to name a single episode where enhanced screening has prevented a serious incident. I'm not talking about better intelligence, or better luggage screen, I'm talking about the BS that is 90% of at-airport TSA screening.

The nonsense has cost me and millions of other travelers irretrievable days of my life, pissed away standing in lines, that I can never get back. That surety balanced against the very miniscule chance of going down in an attacked airplane? I'll take the latter, thank you very much.

Edited to add: for anyone who thinks that they are safer thanks to the way TSA does screening, consider this: If I were a terrorist and wanted to kill a bunch of people, all I have to do is walk into any good-sized airport at a busy period. There's a couple hundred, nicely pre-collected into a small area and just standing there waiting for me. It's called the security line -- how ironic.

MatthewDB · Thu Aug 02, 2018 5:51 pm

spacecadet wrote:
enilria wrote:
Getting rid or shrinking TSA is a great idea, however, it would need to be replaced with private screeners.

So, going back to pre-9/11, then?

People need to be careful what they wish for. I'm sure this isn't universal, but a lot of people on this site probably don't remember what "security" even was back then. The TSA is hardly perfect and I criticize them as much as anybody, but pre-9/11 security basically didn't even exist. And that's how 9/11 happened. (Along with a lot of other hijackings, bombings, on-board shootings and other things, don't forget.)

Private screeners pre-9/11 were an absolute joke, and they were accountable to no one. Have a complaint about pre-9/11 security? Who were you going to complain to, your congressman?! (snicker)

I reject your whole premise. Airport screening didn't screw up on 9/11. The terrorists used items that were permitted at the time - box cutters and short knives were allowed items on airplanes prior to 9/11. Who screwed up? The CIA, the FBI, INS (most had over-stayed their visas) and those setting the rules. Did any of those change? Nope. We added security theater instead.

RL757PVD · Thu Aug 02, 2018 6:16 pm

There would be a few unintended consequences and challenges with this.

1) Opens up a new opportunity for small airports to gain non secure flights to NYC/DC. Non-secure flights would be attractive for airports like EWB, ILG and HVN to LGA/DCA

2) Creates a challenge for small airports with Allegiant, think of places like OGS that have Cape Air daily and Allegiant 2-4x per week on the A320. You would need to thoroughly inspect the holdroom every time in order to make it sterile again.

3) The cost of new infrastructure at the large airports would raise their costs. Where are you going to add a checkpoint in the terminal,or where are you going to fit an apron near the terminal landside that would facilitate non-sterile arrivals.

There should probably be a minimum threshold for TSA staffing though $10/passenger security fee for 4 people on a 9-seat C402 is not going to cover the cost for TSA.

klakzky123 · Thu Aug 02, 2018 6:28 pm

Yflyer wrote:
There are, I believe, some tiny airports in Alaska that already don't have security screening at all, the sort of places served on 30 seat props from Pen Air, Era, and the like. ANC has a couple of gates pre-security where these flights arrive. Passengers connecting onward to a mainline AS flight are screened at ANC.

But if this was implemented in the lower 48 I'm not sure how it would work at the hub airports. No hub besides ANC that I'm aware of is set up to handle the arrival of unscreened passengers. All the gates are after security. Would the flights have to park at a remote stand and the passengers be bused around to the front of the terminal? That seems like kind of an awkward arrangement.

And yeah, this would pretty much kill the advantage of using smaller airports in the first place. IMO the best thing about small airports is the much shorter security lines, and the fact that you can avoid the usually much longer lines at the hub airport. And the need to be screened at the hub would necessitate longer connecting times, at which point it often becomes faster to just drive to the hub rather than using the small airport.

Europe managed to split airports into Schengen and non-Schengen terminals that are properly split. Put some time and money into it and the US could eventually adopt a similar approach. But the odds of that are virtually zero.

enilria · Thu Aug 02, 2018 6:39 pm

LAXintl wrote:
I see this as an excellent idea.
Builds on the existing process at many airports with aircraft under <19 seats that don't have screening. Simply raise this limit to include 50-seaters now.
This would allow TSA to concentrate and fund resources at large airports.

Like you I think this could be done and I like a lot of things about it. Here are my today thoughts:

1) will airlines like it or not? It puts them in the rare position of status quo vs lower costs. I think some airlines will Support this, others not.

2) agree the risk of a plane as a weapon is about the same for a 9 seater or a 60 seater. Also, buses have 60 seats and we don’t have screening. Finally, the cockpit door upgrade was enough to stop most hijack situations. They really need to do it on aircraft weight to prevent A319s in 59 seat configs in biz markets. That would be more of a safety risk as a weapon.

3) There are big winners and losers here:
A) fantastic for small airports with only 60 and less seats.
B) terrible for hub airports and connecting passengers until airports are rebuilt. I’d propose that the PFC be immediately raises for non-exempt airports as this will cost a bundle to facilitate re-screening and even more to create bypasses for local passengers.
C) great for 50 seaters. The whole market will grow exponentially.
D) great for pilots. Massive new demand for pilots as 50 seaters proliferate.
E) great for people not wanting to connect. There will be a massive increase in point to point flights which dodge TSA on both ends. XJet Part2! I’d expect the NE Shuttles would go to all 59 seaters and see demand skyrocket.
F) hub demand will decline.
G) G4 and others at airports without screening will either need to pay for private screeners or they are screwed. This will wreck G4’s business model and raise their relative cost Another reason legacies will be conflicted.

So I’m summary:
-great for pilots and pilot demand/wages
-good for small airports
-good for travelers not connecting
-great for regionals
-great for 50 seat jets
-great for point to point routes
-great for EAS costs
-really bad for hubs
-bad for Allegiant
-bad in that pilot supply is already tight
-bad if the industry adjusts to this and then something happens to cause it to revert
-bad for connecting customers. I think worse than today.

Miamiairport · Thu Aug 02, 2018 9:49 pm

I flew out of Deadhorse AK a few years back. Just one TSA PreCheck style screening machine. Didn’t seem like TSA was really scrutinizing bags that much.

Armodeen · Thu Aug 02, 2018 10:11 pm

LAXintl wrote:
I see this as an excellent idea.
Builds on the existing process at many airports with aircraft under <19 seats that don't have screening. Simply raise this limit to include 50-seaters now.
This would allow TSA to concentrate and fund resources at large airports.

Because it's ok to murder only 50 people at a time?

TWA772LR · Fri Aug 03, 2018 6:11 am

I flew through SFO last year and they had private security.

Cubsrule · Fri Aug 03, 2018 6:23 am

enilria wrote:
terrible for hub airports and connecting passengers until airports are rebuilt. I’d propose that the PFC be immediately raises for non-exempt airports as this will cost a bundle to facilitate re-screening and even more to create bypasses for local passengers.

I’m not sure the infrastructure demands are as great as you suggest. Most airports have some space - think one of the ends of E at CLT or the appendage to B at DEN - where segregation should be possible. Checkpoint setup costs aren’t that high and I imagine TSA will just move staffing from existing checkpoints to the new ones. I expect at least some airports will require that local passengers clear security and use the existing exits. And for connecting passengers, the experience might actually improve. The checkpoints at the smallest airports often have terrible lines because they clear a whole plane load of pax at once and lack real Precheck.

aemoreira1981 · Sat Aug 04, 2018 3:05 am

I like this decision. Instead of having security for one outstation part-time, the local authorities can do it instead under prescribed guidelines and then return to patrol, especially at EAS stations.

ACDC8 · Sat Aug 04, 2018 3:23 am

Having commuted for the last 4 years from an unsecure aerodrome and connected through a secure airport. It is an absolute pain in the ass and takes up valuable time in order to make a connection.

MaksFly · Sat Aug 04, 2018 4:29 am

Armodeen wrote:
LAXintl wrote:
I see this as an excellent idea.
Builds on the existing process at many airports with aircraft under <19 seats that don't have screening. Simply raise this limit to include 50-seaters now.
This would allow TSA to concentrate and fund resources at large airports.

Because it's ok to murder only 50 people at a time?

Eh, TSA is largely "feel good" stuff anyway. Honestly, we can wipe away all of TSA if we instead focus on screening EVERYONE who goes inside an airport. Once you are in, you are good to go.

When traveling through Russia, there was tougher screening getting into the airport than the "TSA" equivalent to get to the secured area.

Besides the already published stats about TSA effectiveness... my own experience....

On two or three occasions I forgot to take out a pocket knife... about a 5" blade... out of my Tumi travel bag... along with laptop, etc. The two times I left it in there.... TSA missed it... at a major airport.... and this was not even TSA Pre-Check... this was before I got it.

Yet... flying out of Denver my 1 year old's apple juice warranted a bomb detective to come out to verify it was not some sort of an explosive device.... (young white couple in early 30s, traveling on a business trip for me, vacation for family.... with wife and 1 year old daughter... with car-seat and stroller.) Yep... the stereotype of a terrorist.

The other time was in EWR when TSA had an issue with razor blades for my safety razor..... had to toss them there.... meanwhile 9 out of 10 other times I flew with them on business, not even a word.

For the old timers... remember when you used to just walk onto the plane with no checks.... not tooo many terrorists then.

I have many friends who are in law enforcement, including TSA and Homeland Security... and even they will tell you the TSA is merely feel good stuff... the real guys and gals fighting terrorists are the ones working behind the scenes looking for bad guys and working under cover.

Put it this way....

You can get onto a crowded NYC subway, or almost any AMTRAC train without passing ANY security.... yet I have not heard of a train bombing....

So are Terrorists stupid or just people thinking TSA is effective? After all, a bad guy who wants to kill A LOT more people can simply walk onto any train, anywhere in the country, during morning or afternoon rush hour and kill more people than on an airplane....

... yet I don't see anyone passing through screeners and groapers there.

PatrickZ80 · Tue Aug 07, 2018 4:50 pm

Aliqiout wrote:
Because terrosists can't figure out how to get to small airports?

My concern exactly. What would happen if someone with bad intentions shows up at a small unscreened airport and boards a flight from there. They can basically bring anything on board since security is only done at arrival. That is, if the plane ever arrives....

Cutting security at small airports is asking for trouble, do they want another 9/11?

XAM2175 · Tue Aug 07, 2018 6:20 pm

PatrickZ80 wrote:
Aliqiout wrote:
Because terrosists can't figure out how to get to small airports?

My concern exactly. What would happen if someone with bad intentions shows up at a small unscreened airport and boards a flight from there. They can basically bring anything on board since security is only done at arrival. That is, if the plane ever arrives....

Cutting security at small airports is asking for trouble, do they want another 9/11?

MatthewDB wrote:
Airport screening didn't screw up on 9/11. The terrorists used items that were permitted at the time - box cutters and short knives were allowed items on airplanes prior to 9/11

PITingres wrote:
for anyone who thinks that they are safer thanks to the way TSA does screening, consider this: If I were a terrorist and wanted to kill a bunch of people, all I have to do is walk into any good-sized airport at a busy period. There's a couple hundred, nicely pre-collected into a small area and just standing there waiting for me. It's called the security line -- how ironic.

XAM2175 wrote:
This is done day-in-day-out across Australia right now

Aliqiout · Tue Aug 07, 2018 9:29 pm

enilria wrote:
LAXintl wrote:
I see this as an excellent idea.
Builds on the existing process at many airports with aircraft under <19 seats that don't have screening. Simply raise this limit to include 50-seaters now.
This would allow TSA to concentrate and fund resources at large airports.

Like you I think this could be done and I like a lot of things about it. Here are my today thoughts:

1) will airlines like it or not? It puts them in the rare position of status quo vs lower costs. I think some airlines will Support this, others not.

2) agree the risk of a plane as a weapon is about the same for a 9 seater or a 60 seater. Also, buses have 60 seats and we don’t have screening. Finally, the cockpit door upgrade was enough to stop most hijack situations. They really need to do it on aircraft weight to prevent A319s in 59 seat configs in biz markets. That would be more of a safety risk as a weapon.

3) There are big winners and losers here:
A) fantastic for small airports with only 60 and less seats.
B) terrible for hub airports and connecting passengers until airports are rebuilt. I’d propose that the PFC be immediately raises for non-exempt airports as this will cost a bundle to facilitate re-screening and even more to create bypasses for local passengers.
C) great for 50 seaters. The whole market will grow exponentially.
D) great for pilots. Massive new demand for pilots as 50 seaters proliferate.
E) great for people not wanting to connect. There will be a massive increase in point to point flights which dodge TSA on both ends. XJet Part2! I’d expect the NE Shuttles would go to all 59 seaters and see demand skyrocket.
F) hub demand will decline.
G) G4 and others at airports without screening will either need to pay for private screeners or they are screwed. This will wreck G4’s business model and raise their relative cost Another reason legacies will be conflicted.

So I’m summary:
-great for pilots and pilot demand/wages
-good for small airports
-good for travelers not connecting
-great for regionals
-great for 50 seat jets
-great for point to point routes
-great for EAS costs
-really bad for hubs
-bad for Allegiant
-bad in that pilot supply is already tight
-bad if the industry adjusts to this and then something happens to cause it to revert
-bad for connecting customers. I think worse than today.

Fantastic for small airports? Absolutely not. This would be the end of scheduled service at most lower 48 airports served mostly by aircraft with under 60 seats. Removing the benefit of shorter security lines, adding time and uncertainty to connections, and increasing security fears will siphon passengers to the highways.

It will also add a barrier to upgrading flights increasing the discomfort involved in a flight from a smaller airport.

The increased damage possible from a 60 seat jet versus a 19 seat turboprop is very significant.

IPFreely · Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:23 pm

MaksFly wrote:
You can get onto a crowded NYC subway, or almost any AMTRAC train without passing ANY security.... yet I have not heard of a train bombing....

Never heard of a train bombing? Really???

New York:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/08/07/pr ... oming.html

London:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/ex ... f609842519

St. Petersburg:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Sain ... ro_bombing

Moscow:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/ ... ons-terror

Minsk:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Minsk_Metro_bombing

Tokyo:
https://www.britannica.com/event/Tokyo- ... ck-of-1995

Brussels:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Brussels_bombings

Madrid:
https://www.cnn.com/2013/11/04/world/eu ... index.html

Manila:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rizal_Day_bombings

Istanbul:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-turk ... 3J20151201

India...too many to even count.

vegas005 · Thu Aug 09, 2018 5:48 pm

The TSA is shockingly over funded now ----

The FY 2017 Budget of $7.6 billion will allow TSA the opportunity to more fully address the additional requirements identified last year in response to findings from covert testing of screening processes and procedures by the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Specifically:
$3.0 billion to support 42,848 FTE Transportation Security Officers (TSOs), an increase of $72.1 million and 323 FTE over FY 2016, to ensure effective screening operations while minimizing wait times. This funding will help to ensure that TSA maintains an appropriate staffing level at our checkpoints.
$200 million for transportation screening technology, enabling TSA to continue improving the capabilities of its checkpoint screening equipment throughout nearly 430 airports. This amount continues the additional $15 million provided in FY 2016, and adds another $5 million for new capabilities to enhance the checkpoint x-ray units, thus increasing the TSOs’ ability to find prohibited items in carry-on bags.
$116.6 million to provide training for TSA frontline employees, including new basic training initiated in January 2016 at the TSA Academy located at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, Georgia. To date, 541 new hires have graduated from this program, and TSA will train another 4,835 frontline employees this year. In FY 2017 TSA will complete construction of modular facilities to house this effort, expanding capacity to 7,300 TSOs annually.
$83.5 million for TSA’s intelligence operations, an increase of $2.0 million to continue the expansion of intelligence officers in frontline facilities to improve information sharing.
$10 million to replace IT infrastructure, including network components and outdated operating systems, that has not only reached its end-of-life, but more critically has become vulnerable to cybersecurity threats.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net