A Stitch in Haste

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which among other things runs New York's airports, and the Transportation Security Administration are considering allowing a private helicopter company to whisk elite travelers, for $140 one-way, from Wall Street to JFK Airport, with the added perk of having them clear security at the heliport rather than at the airport.

Okay, fine, whatever. Not something I would pay for, but if there's a market for it, then so be it.

Here, however, is the problem:

U.S. Helicopter plans to begin operating in mid-March. ... Its Sikorsky helicopters can carry as many as 12 passengers, and it expects to have three of them initially, ... giving it a capacity of fewer than 500 outbound passengers a day.

By contrast, about 50,000 travelers pass through security screening each day at Kennedy, according to the Port Authority. The security administration plans to spend $560,000 this year to set up and operate the checkpoint at the Wall Street heliport, on Pier 6 in the East River... Creating a checkpoint at the East 34th Street Heliport will cost about the same.

To supply the screeners at the heliports, the administration will have to reduce staffing at airports because Congress has limited their number nationwide to 45,000 since 2002.

Now wait just a minute. Not only would the Transportation Security Administration (i.e., taxpayers and fee payers) foot the $1.1 million bill to set up these new helicopter security checkpoints, but they would also divert employees from the 50,000-passenger JFK checkpoints to staff the (no more than) 500-person heliport checkpoints? All in the name of "revitalizing Downtown Manhattan" through an ultra-vanity shuttle service for a handful of Wall Streeters? (And besides, how does a second heliport at East 34th Street benefit Lower Manhattan, as opposed to benefiting U.S. Helicopter?)

You don't need an MBA or an economics Ph.D. or even a helocopter pilot license to know that this is insane.

If U.S. Helicopter wants to enter the airport shuttle business, then fine, more power to them. "Markets in everything" and all that. But let them foot the bill by paying for their own security checkpoint equipment and by paying the TSA the money to hire additional staff.

Airport security is necessary and proper. Stupid, expensive and wasteful airport security policies are not.

...I would hope they mean "No beverages past security." Is there a reason why they couldn't allow people to buy beverages once they're past security?

Just like they used to let us buy nail clippers in the gift shop after they confiscated them at the magnetometers.

There's necessary, there's prudent, and there's Homeland Security.

---

I'll bet dollars to donuts that the NSA warrantless wiretapping program did not in any way contribute to the thwarting of this apparent plot. But I'll also bet dollars to donuts that the apologists for the program will hold up this incident as somehow demonstrating the need for the program.

Meanwhile, a great big smooch to the U.K. authorities and operatives who actually did disrupt the apparent plan. Bravo.

---

The dumbest thing I've read today (of course, it's only 7:00AM):

British authorities said Thursday they had thwarted a terrorist plot to simultaneously blow up several aircraft heading to the U.S. using explosives smuggled in hand luggage, averting what police described as "mass murder on an unimaginable scale."

Roughly 300 people on each plane times nine planes equals 2,700 dead, give or take.

New Yorkers can "imagine" 2,700 dead in a terrorist act. Quite easily.

Britain has (partially) restored sanity in its air travel policies:

[P]assengers are now allowed to take items bought in the departure lounge onto planes.

Airports operator BAA put up notices telling passengers that they could buy any goods from shops in departure lounges, including liquids and electrical items.

However US airlines have maintained a ban on carrying liquids onto planes bound for America.

I presume that the U.S. TSA will relax the "no nothing, no way" ban on liquids within the next week or so. I pray that they do so before my trip to Prague.

The "no liquids past security" policy is debatable, but not ludicrous. The "no liquids on the plane" policy is, however, pure hysteria and the Politics of the Warm Fuzzy Feeling.

What does it say about the current state of air travel safety and security if we can't trust what is sold in the airport terminal itself? Is it not screened? Are the vendors not background checked? Do the employees not also go through security?

Either the "no purchases" policy is unnecessary, or we have much bigger problems than "Gatorade and a camera flash."

Let's hope — let's pray — that it's the former.

UPDATE: Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff hinted Sunday that the restrictions will be relaxed very soon -- perhaps in less than 24 hours. Good.

Quite a busy week in air travel news.

ITEM: I casually asked recently why anyone wouldn't pay $28 (or, for that matter, $100) to become a registered traveler with the TSA and thereby avoid at least some of the hassle of airport security. Well, 27B Stroke 6 has the answer:

Then after a traveler gets her boarding pass the normal way and heads toward the security checkpoint ... she goes immediately to the front of the screening line. Then she goes through screening as normal — with their liquids in a bag, laptop out of its case, shoes off, etc. So, what's the point of a background check if all you get is a better place in the same line you would have been without the card?

Good point, especially when some airports (e.g., Las Vegas) already have an express line at security for First Class travelers. If you're going to pay extra, then why not go all out? So much for that idea.

---

ITEM: Speaking of security, you may have seen by now this ubiquitous picture:

Such images may become routine for at least some "extra screening" passengers at certain airports. Which is not to say that they're terrorists, or actual or intended lawbreakers in any sense. One quote caught my eye:

The technology already is being used in prisons and by drug enforcement agents, and has been tested at London's Heathrow Airport.

So now air travelers, even those who "only" fail (almost always innocently) the magnetometer screening are still considered the functional equivalent of prison inmates and drug dealers. Splendid.

On the other hand, the TSA insists that the images will not be stored in any way and that those selected for additional screening will have the option — for now — of submitting to a traditional pat-down instead of the "nude-o-meter." But on the other other hand, then why bother? And how much will these machines cost? And who's paying for it? The mantra endures: It is better to feel safe than to be safe.

More thoughts from PHB, Windypundit.

---

ITEM: If at first you don't succeed, spy spy again --

The Associated Press reported Thursday that millions of Americans and foreigners crossing U.S. borders in the past four years have been assessed by the computerized Automated Targeting System, or ATS, designed to help pick out terrorists or criminals.

The travelers are not allowed to see or directly challenge these risk assessments, which the government intends to keep on file for 40 years. Under specific circumstances, some or all data in the system can be shared with state, local and foreign governments and even some private contractors.

Once again 27B Stroke 6 provides the proper historical context:

A similar system which would have rated every domestic passenger by their perceived threat level as Red, Yellow, or Green, was killed off by the government in 2004 after it rankled officials on all sides of the political spectrum.
...
The AP's big splash today is in recognizing the significance of the fact that this system has been ongoing for years.

You know a government program is out of control when even "the government" can't shut it down.

Who hasn't ever had an error on their credit report? (And keep in mind, incidentally, that a credit report is, at least nominally, reflective of purely voluntary activity. Every entity that reports on you received, at some point, your contractual consent to do so.) And even when you can identify, promptly, a mistake in your credit report, it is neither easy, fast nor costless to correct it. What, exactly, are you supposed to do if bad data gets onto your ATS report? (And consider the kind of data: "where they are from, how they paid for tickets, their motor vehicle records, past one-way travel, seating preference and what kind of meal they ordered" [sic!].)

Now here's the truly delicious irony of the ATS outrage: circle back to the first item in this post — the registered traveler idiocy. There are those of us — myself included — who would love nothing more than to reveal ourselves to the TSA (in credit terms, that is, not the nude-o-meter), if (and it's a big "if") it would get us some sort of expedited process at the airport. I would gladly proclaim, to the TSA or to anyone else, that I am in fact not a terrorist if I were rewarded for doing so. It seems like a perfectly round-peg-in-round-hole solution, which I suppose is precisely why the TSA can't see that.

More thoughts from Concurring Opinions, South by Southwest.

One of the key arguments of the apologists for the NSA warrantless wiretapping program (which, recall, authorizes spying on American citizens on American soil without a warrant) is that the congressional Authorization of the Use of Military Force ("AUMF") passed shortly after September 11 repealed the relevant provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ("FISA") covering the warrant requirement for domestic eavesdropping.

The problem with this argument is that there is no such repeal in the text of the AUMF. There is no mention of FISA in the AUMF one way or the other.

Therefore, the argument that "FISA no longer applies after the AUMF" requires a legal maneuver known as "repeal by implication." Which is problematic for the advocates of the NSA "Terrorist Surveillance Program," since it is among the most fundamental jurisprudential principles that the law abhors repeal by implication. It is always presumed to be an invalid method of statutory interpretation, for the rudimentary reason that if a legislature wants to repeal its own statute, then it is free to do so. If Congress wants to amend or repeal FISA, then it can proceed whenever it likes. (Indeed, FISA has been amended six times since September 11, but not via the AUMF.)

That was a rather lengthy wind-up to a somewhat unrelated pitch, but if the law abhors repeal by implication, then must it not also abhor what I call "repeal by chit-chat"?

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff says it should not surprise people that for years his department has searched for terrorists among tens of millions of airline passengers, cross-checking travelers' personal data against terrorist watch lists and analyzing them for potential terrorist activity.
...
"Yeah, they missed about 100 speeches that I gave," an exasperated Chertoff told National Journal on December 5. "I've talked about ... PNR data and biographic data and using it to analyze and connect the dots about people before they come into the country; I have to have given at least 20 speeches about it."

To which the only possible response is, "So what?"

Remember, Congress expressly defunded comprehensive risk profiling of air travelers. That is not disputed by Chertoff or anyone else.

No, DHS' defense of their Automated Targeting System is based on the bizarre reasoning that, since they went ahead and did it anyway (just under a different name) and Chertoff gave some speeches about it (not Congressional testimony, but some random speeches) and inserted some fleeting passages about it into the eddies and backwaters of the Federal Register, then that "must" mean that Congress approves of it and "must" have impliedly repealed the funding ban. Chertoff even claims to be "exasperated" that anyone could possibly think otherwise. Wasn't Congress listening to all those speeches Chertoff was giving? Doesn't everyone read every entry in the Federal Register?

Madness. Sheer madness.

Repeal by implication is presumptively invalid. Repeal by chit-chat is downright preposterous.

Via 27B Stroke 6 (times two). More thoughts at DeepLinks.

At least two airlines are scaling back their checked baggage allowances:

Budget carrier Spirit Airlines and British Airways have announced they will begin charging passengers extra for checking more than one piece of luggage.

The airlines say the fees are necessary to keep airfares down in an increasingly competitive industry.

Some airline analysts predict the practice will become an industry norm in the near future.

Two hasty stitches:

1. There is nothing "wrong" or "greedy" about an airline, or any other business, charging customers more for using more of their services. Two Happy Meals cost most than one Happy Meal, two hours of a lawyer's time cost more than one hour, two checked bags require more work than one checked bag, etc.

On the other hand, there's nothing particularly noble, or even efficient, about it either: Sometimes the more logical approach is flat-rate pricing for all (e.g, movie tickets, "unlimited nights and weekends"). The correct approach depends on the business model, the competition and the costs of pricing one way or the other. There is no "right" or "one size fits all" approach to such questions.

2. On the other hand, let's acknowledge, as I did previously, why airlines are suddenly more concerned about overtaxing their baggage handling systems (and "overtaxing" is indeed the correct word): The carry-on liquids (almost) ban.

For example, when I log on to Continental's website these days, I am greeted by a big banner announcement that bringing carry-on bags isn't really that much of a hassle and won't I please consider not checking my bags? Many people are fed up with the "clear plastic bag" nonsense and are opting instead simply to check a bag that they previously were willing to carry on board.

In case you haven't flown recently:

1. Remove my backpack; 2. Remove my jacket; 3. Remove my shoes; 4. Remove my iBook from the backpack, and from its case; 5. Remove my approved, one-quart sized Ziploc bag containing its legal allotment of three-ounce containers of liquids and gels from the backpack. Item 4 must be placed in separate tray, alone; Item 5 goes in a round plastic dish, also by itself; Items 1, 2, and 3 are piled together in a third tray. But not so fast, as a guard warns me not bury my shoes beneath the other items. He recommends I place them separately on the belt, or in yet another tray. So there I am, one person with four separate trays of belongings. And after those belongings are x-rayed, it's time to:

1. put my coat back on; 2. put my shoes back on; 3. re-pack the computer; 4. re-pack the approved, one-quart sized Ziploc bag; 5. Strap on my backpack. All of this with no chair or table, elbow to elbow with a dozen other people all doing the same thing.

Checking a bag suddenly sounds a lot more appealing, $10 surcharge notwithstanding.

Still, expect the liquids (almost) ban -- not imposed by capitalists but by bureaucrats -- to remain in place for quite some time. Because, recall, it is better to feel safe than to be safe.

Is that what they're calling it these days?

The U.S. border inspector who ignored a warning to stop a man who had contracted a dangerous form of tuberculosis from entering the United States has retired, officials said yesterday.

Russ Knocke, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security, said the officer no longer works at U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The inspector, an 18-year veteran whose name has not been disclosed, was under investigation and on administrative leave. The inspector was criticized last week at a congressional hearing on the case of Andrew Speaker.

My question is a simple one: since when does someone get to "retire" after only 18 years of employment?

According to this follow-through link from DHS, federal employees — like most people — must work 20 years to receive a pension, which is the normal person's definition of "retire." The only possible exception is if "Mystery Agent" is over age 62. But if that's the case, then he would have to have been over 44 when he started working for the Border Patrol. Who starts a career as a tertiary-level law enforcement officer at 45?

The answer to that question is somewhat easier: no one, by law: Today at least, one must be under 40 even to apply to become a Border Patrol agent. Did the age requirement change in the past 18 years?

Moreover, if "Mystery Agent" is under 55, perhaps even 57, then he is flat-out ineligible to retire, one way or the other.

So, given that there is scandal (not to mention XDR-TB) in the air, would it be an infringement of "Mystery Agent's" privacy rights if DHS were to disclose his age, and nothing more? Just to confirm that he was in fact eligible for (bona fide) "retirement" under federal guidelines?

Are we on the verge of a new air travel hysteria?

ITEM: Don't get sick on a plane —

Authorities at Miami International Airport detained a sick passenger Monday who had been on a British Airways flight from London, but health experts determined that she was not contagious and did not have an infectious disease.

The 45-year-old woman was believed to have a gastrointestinal illness and was being taken to a hospital, said Von Roebuck, a spokesman the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta. The woman had diarrhea and was vomiting, he said.

MY TAKE: I never went to medical school, but I'm pretty sure that diarrhea and vomiting are not indicative of contagious respiratory diseases such as tuberculosis — which are the only diseases truly at issue in commercial air travel.

ITEM: Seriously, don't get sick on a plane —

Health authorities released nine passengers who were ill on a flight from Mexico to Miami International Airport on Tuesday.

Authorities had initially reported 11 sick passengers on the Aeromexico flight from Merida, Mexico, but a spokesman for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said nine people were complaining of gastrointestinal-type symptoms.

MY TAKE: Both incidents — involuntary detention by government agents — occurred at Miami International Airport. Coincidence? Who knows? But again, "sick" has very little correlation with "contagious" and even less with "dangerous."

Given the intrusion upon personal freedom of movement in these incidents — upon people accused of no crime — it is obvious that, at the very least, government officials must act reasonably when contemplating detaining commercial air travelers. Summarily seizing, however briefly, anyone who reaches for a barf bag or visits the lavatory more than twice during a flight does not qualify as "reasonable."

Of course, it's time to rethink not just "sick passenger" rules, but also all the nonsensical, knee-jerk panic policies that make air travel insufferable. The laptop rule would be a good start. The shoe rule would be another. Relenting a bit on the liquids ban would be a third.

But in the meantime, can we at least settle on there being a "right to puke on a plane without being arrested"?