Velotta: Las Vegas could benefit from TSA trusted traveler program
A trusted traveler program is an idea that should really fly.
Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
StumbleMonday
11 July 2011
3 a.m.
Richard N. Velotta
VEGAS INC Coverage
We’ve all done our fair share of complaining about the hassles we encounter at those airport security checkpoints overseen by the Transportation Security Administration. But how many people would be willing to enroll in—and pay for—a trusted traveler program that offers less screening at major US airports for any American citizen who pays an annual enrollment fee of $100 to $150 and undergoes a criminal-background check?
A recent study by Equation Research for the U.S. Travel Association quantifies what many in the industry have suspected all along: The more frequently you fly, the more willing you’d be to pay for a trusted traveler program. Nowhere would a trusted traveler program be more beneficial than Las Vegas, where McCarran International consistently is the second busiest “origination and destination” airport in the country, meaning that most of its passengers arrive here or take off from here rather than catch connecting flights.
But maybe the best news, association Executive Vice President Geoff Freeman says, is that most travelers would benefit even if they don’t enroll.
“It’s one of those rare situations where you can say that this would be a win-win-win situation,” Freeman says.
He reasons that it’s a win for those who enroll because they’ll move faster through the process, probably in dedicated lines. With trusted travelers no longer in main lines, there would be fewer people to process, shortening that wait. The final win, he says, would be for the TSA because it would have more information on trusted travelers and could focus its limited resources on keeping the wrong people off planes.
The Equation Research study was conducted online in 1,007 ten-minute interviews from May 12-17. Survey invitations were sent nationally to a representative group of US consumers 18 and older. The survey results have a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points. The study showed that among all travelers, 45 percent would be “very likely” or “somewhat likely” to enroll. But among frequent leisure travelers, defined as those who take more than five trips a year, the percentage rises to 61 percent. Among frequent business travelers who also take more than five trips a year, the percentage is 75 percent.
Clearly, the more you fly, the more the process bothers you, and business travelers are most likely to fork over $100 to $150 a year, probably because they know their companies would pay for it.
“I think one of the big things that we’ve learned is that the security process is not a one-size-fits-all experience,” Freeman says.
The US Travel Association is working with TSA Administrator John Pistole to consider details of how a trusted traveler program would work while lobbying Congress and the Obama administration to keep the proposal on track.
“We’re excited to work with the TSA on this,” Freeman says. “It’s a major accomplishment to get the wheels turning.”
Freeman says the main components of the system would be the investigatory process on applicants and a means of positively identifying enrollees when they arrive at the security checkpoint. That could mean the installation of fingerprint or iris scanners or some other biometric identification technology at the airport.
But why have trusted travelers go through the process every year? Freeman admits that could be something worked out in details. I’d think most people interested in such a program would be trustworthy enough that there would be no need for additional investigations every year.
A separate study commissioned by the Travel Association in December found that survey respondents said they would be willing to take two or three more trips a year if the hassles of checkpoint security could be reduced without compromising security. The association says those additional trips would result in an additional $84.6 billion in travel spending and support 880,000 jobs.
Tourism hubs such as Las Vegas, Orlando and New York would be the biggest beneficiaries.
It seems like a no-brainer to push ahead on something that would relieve our collective aggravation at the airport, create jobs in a city that really needs them and is paid for by travelers who would benefit.
Share
Discussion 1 comments
Comments are moderated by VegasInc editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy.
Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their VEGAS INC account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.
Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.
If you have a LasVegasSun.com account, you are already registered.
Most Popular
- Viewed
- Discussed
- E-mailed
- Can old Sahara site become a symbol of Las Vegas’ rebound?
- With Ron Paul’s infiltrators, clout of state GOP party further erodes
- School District to lay off 1,015 teachers, literacy specialists
- Coolican: Courageous first move could bring success to north portion of the Strip
- North Las Vegas slashes budget, clearing way for 200 layoffs
I think it is an excellent idea. I would gladly pay the nominal fee to avoid the airport security issues. US Government benefits too. Airport security benefits too. A win win for everybody.
While the so-called Trusted Traveler program sounds like it might be a good idea, it's ethically indefensible. And is another scenario ripe for abuse.
You'll have to give the government personal biometric data -- retinal scans, fingerprints, god knows what else (and sure, they'll never compromise that data!). Then you have to be a frequent flyer or just wealthy. Otherwise, you're screwed. Why should people who can't afford to fly very often have to endure more scrutiny? Is it okay that the hoi polloi continue to get abused, as long as the wealthy aren't inconvenienced?
And don't you think that people with the patience and fortitude to plan 9/11 will also able to get around this system?
Furthermore, even those who do agree to provide all this info will still be subject to more invasive searching if the TSA finds an "anomaly." That's their all-purpose trigger for abuse now; it's not going to change once this system is in place. And good luck getting your info straightened out if our overlords make a mistake. They can't keep their Watch Lists and No Fly List accurate now. Imagine if they mess up one digit on data entry in your profile. You could find yourself sitting in a jail cell somewhere, insisting you are who you know you are, while they insist that no, you're not, because they're never wrong!
Hey here's an idea -- in honor of the late, great Color Code Terror Threat alert system, let's just slap a big ol' orange sticker on the "risky" travelers. Yeah, history has never shown us anything like that before!
When are we going to grow up in this country and accept that life includes risk? We accept risk for all other activities in our lives. Talking on your cellphone while driving will get you killed a lot faster than some bogeyman terrorist will. You're more likely to be struck by lightning than to be the victim of a terrorist attack. Yet we cling to this childish fantasy of 100% security at the airport. And are willing to give up all our rights at the drop of a hat, just because some authority figure tells us to.
If the Brits had behaved like this during the Blitz, they never would've gotten through it. Instead, they got up every morning, cleared the rubble, mourned their dead, and moved on.
The question is, are you going to live your life like a dignified human being, or like a worm?
This would be a great program. At one time, there were two competing programs for which an annual "line pass" could be purchased for a $100 annual fee, putting the "trusted traveler" at the front of the TSA line at participating airports, including Reno, though receiving normal screening. Unfortunately, McCarran officials stupidly opted not to participate in those programs. Let's hope that if a program as described in the article comes to fruition, our local airport officials will be smarter this time.
"Trusted traveler" was a stupid idea then, and it's a stupid idea now. The "trusted travelers" got a line pass, but they received the same screening as everyone else -- why? Because any halfway-competent terrorist organization has (or can recruit) people who can pass a "background check."