Podcast: Are Changes Coming In U.S. Airport Security Screening?

Aviation Week Network editors discuss whether it’s the right time to update airport security rules and restrictions that have been in place since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Subscribe Now

Don't miss a single episode. Subscribe to Aviation Week's Window Seat Podcast in Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get podcasts.

Discover all of our podcasts on our at aviationweek.com/podcasts.

AI-Generated Transcript

Karen Walker: Hello everyone and thank you for joining us for Window Seat, our Aviation Week air transport podcast. I'm ATW and Aviation Week Network air transport editor-in-chief Karen Walker, and I'm delighted to welcome you on board. So, this week we're going to talk about some of the changes and potential changes being considered by the US government related to airport security screening. So, I am absolutely delighted to welcome two of my colleagues based in the US, and they are Aviation Week senior editor Christine Boynton and ATW and Routes senior editor Aaron Karp. Christine, Aaron, welcome. Thank you for joining us today.

A little bit of background to set the scene for our discussion. The US Transportation Security Administration or TSA was formed as a response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks in September 2001 when four US airliners were deliberately crashed by men who hijacked the cockpits, killed the pilots, and flew the planes—two American Airlines and two United Airlines planes—into the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon Building just outside Washington DC. A fourth plane, which is believed to have been headed to DC and targeting either the White House or Capitol Hill was crashed into a field in Pennsylvania when passengers attempted to remove the hijackers.

Then-President George W. Bush signed the Aviation and Transportation Security Act into law in November that year requiring screening to be conducted by federal officials: A hundred percent checked baggage screening, the expansion of the Federal Air Marshal service and the installation of reinforced cockpit doors on airliners. TSA then became part of the Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, which was also formed in response to the attacks. At that time, there was quite a lot of focus on the airport security loopholes that were common at US airports in the pre-9/11 days, and which made it easier for the hijackers to both monitor and select flights beforehand and then get through security armed with box cutters and other things they used for the attacks. For one thing, you didn't need to be flying or have a boarding pass to go through security and to the boarding gate areas known as the airside of terminals.

Then in December 2001, a passenger on an American Airlines flight from Paris to Miami attempted to ignite explosives hidden in his shoes. That attempt, which was thwarted by a flight attendant, prompted more security rules. From then on, people had to remove their shoes and devices for separate screening, and all liquids and gels were banned from carry-on luggage. Later liquids and gels were again permitted in carry-on luggage, but they were restricted to the now-infamous 3.4 oz. containers inside a one quart clear and sealed plastic bag. Now, these were supposed to be temporary measures, but as we all know, they essentially continue today and are largely adopted by most other countries and governments around the world. But now we have a new Trump administration in place since January and a new DHS secretary Kristi Noem. There’s talk of some things changing. It should be noted that TSA is currently without an administrator.

So, with that background, let's turn to our editors and the discussion.

Aaron, I'd like to start with you, and could you please give us a little bit more background to all of this? You and I were colleagues at another publication on September 11. I was running our bureau from an office, a short way from the Pentagon. You were on assignment in Montreal covering a major international airport convention that was about to open on that awful morning. So, tell us a bit about that day and the reactions you saw from airport leaders there and just how different security was at US airports before 9/11.

Aaron Karp: Yes. Well, I was at the Airports Council International World Conference in Montreal, and pretty much every director of a North American airport, every director of a US airport, was in Montreal at that time. And I'll never forget, the convention was opening and the Canadian Transport Minister was giving remarks. All of a sudden, someone handed him a piece of paper and he immediately, mid-sentence, stepped back from the microphone and very quickly left. And then David Klavin, who was then head of ACI North America, announced the conference was being suspended. They didn't know what was going on. A plane had apparently hit the World Trade Center. Then back in Washington in the bunker of the White House, Norman Mineta, who was the transportation secretary, and Dick Cheney, who was the vice president, because of course George Bush was not in Washington at the time, decided to do a ground stop at every airport and planes that were in flight headed to America had to go somewhere else.

Many of them actually went to Canada, and as I said, all the North American airport directors were in Canada when this ground stop at their airports was happening. And so, they frantically, I remember multiple, you couldn't fly initially, you couldn't take trains, and I remember two or three or four airport directors would try and rent a car together and get across the border and somehow get home. Eventually I did come home and then I spent a couple months almost every day on Capitol Hill while they debated the legislation that would create the Transportation Security Administration. And I think there's some history involved with that that's important to talk about. When TSA was officially formed, when the legislation was signed in November 2001, and for the first year it was part of the Department of Transportation, and Norman Mineta, who's a very admired figure in terms of aviation policy, was in Congress and in later as DOT secretary; it was his responsibility to set up the TSA. Norman Mineta as a child had been in a Japanese internment camp in World War II and he and George Bush felt the same way.

And the legislation had said all people to be screened; [it] felt that there couldn't even be any whiff of racial profiling or signaling someone out because they were different. And so, when TSA first started, it was really all about the physical screening and treating everyone the same. And just a quick story, I was at [Reagan] National Airport not long after TSA started and I saw Senator Jay Rockefeller who was head of the transportation committee in the Senate and was the leading—he wrote the legislation—he was the most important figure in writing legislation. And so, I saw him standing in line, holding up his pants, his shirt untucked, and being screened. And from an intelligence standpoint, like a CIA intelligence standpoint and a resources standpoint, there was no chance, no chance whatsoever he was a threat, yet he was being screened like everyone else. And that was sort of the mindset at the time that if you were 85 years old or six years old or 40 years old, everyone was treated the same.

And I remember having a lot of conversations with security experts at the time saying this was like looking for a needle on a haystack because if everyone's the same, you're just using your resources to treat everyone the same no matter how much of a threat they would be. So, as time went on, the TSA started to realize that they needed to have a better system of ruling people out. A significant part of that was PreCheck, which came in 2013, where PreCheck is an incentive to passengers that they can get in a line that goes faster. But for the TSA, it's really an intelligence tool where they get information from people and they can rule a lot of people largely out and put them in a different line, give them less scrutiny. A few years ago, they decided people over 75 could keep their shoes on and would be given less scrutiny because they were less of a threat. Now they're rolling out family lanes where people traveling with children will go through a separate lane. And so, as you can see, as time's gone on, there's been a real emphasis to use intelligence as much as just the physical security to rule people out and try and figure out who are the greatest threats and how can we use our resources.

Karen Walker: Yep. Quite a different world then. Even now, it makes me feel sad to just hear again what it was like on that day and working through it, basically, we were, weren't we? So, Christine, bring us up to the current day. Can you sum up what some of the changes are that the new DHS Secretary Noem has either authorized or says she's considering?

Christine Boynton: Sure. So, several changes have been announced or teased recently, including an end to the rule that required passengers to remove their shoes during airport security screening. Secretary Noem has also announced new dedicated security checkpoint lanes for families traveling with children, and that's something starting first at Orlando International and Charlotte Douglas, as well as dedicated PreCheck lanes for service members and their families. Broader changes could still be ahead. The secretary has teased that changes to the liquid restriction policy may potentially be the next big announcement. So overall, she's described a vision for a more streamlined version of airport security where passengers could walk through a scanner and really just go directly to their plane.

Karen Walker: So, Aaron, it's interesting because some of these changes, of course, as you alluded to earlier, they've sort of been happening for some people already. If you've got TSA PreCheck and you keep your shoes on and keep your laptop in your bag for example, but you still have to have the small amounts of gels in particular containers. What do you think are the most significant things about these announcements and why do you think they're coming now after the status quo has been maintained for so long?

Aaron Karp: I think there's three things that are converging. One is, as I talked about, there's really more of a thought of using intelligence, and I'm thinking about things that way and ruling people out using your resources to really focus on the people who may be a threat. The second thing is the significant increase in technology. And so, there's a belief that the technology has gotten much better, and because it's gotten much better, there may not be the reason to do the kind of physical screening that we've done in the past. The third thing, which I think is very significant, is that passengers have shown a great willingness to trade in privacy for more convenience. And so, for example, we all know now that when we check in, when we first go through the TSA line and when we show our ID, we get a picture taken which does facial recognition.

And around the world, there are places, for example, Abu Dhabi airport is an example, Singapore is an airport, where people are using their faces actually as their identities. The surveys taken all around the world show that, and this has surprised me actually, that people, a wide majority of people say, I'm willing to give up a privacy for security. And I was down in Atlanta recently at the American Association of Airport Executives Conference and the chief information officer of Atlanta Hartsfield, which is the largest airport in the world, was there. And he said that because of this, because of the facial recognition, because the passengers are willing to give up convenience, that you can move towards a system where people are just using their faces, their faces are identified, and you can know who they are, and that may allow people to move through very quickly.

And he envisions a future where you walk into the airport, your face is identified by the surveillance cameras—Atlanta has 3,000 surveillance cameras, and now they're going up to 7,000 just in the airport—and so that the security would be done sort of along the way and that the physical checkpoint would just be part of it and you could move through based on being willing to give up your privacy and based on using more intelligence to figure out who's there and more sophisticated technology. So, I think it's the technology, the intelligence, and the passenger's willingness to give up privacy that are converging right now.

Karen Walker: That's very interesting. Yeah, you're right. Again, there was a lot of suspicion about giving personal information. Originally that is largely gone because people want to, there's big queues at airports now with the surge of people coming back in and they want to get through quickly. And if technology enables that, they're willing to play a part. TSA PreCheck, of course, the US system for fast-tracking through security, is really about that; you're giving up personal information, willing to have a background check, et cetera. Christine, I'm just curious, do you have that?

Christine Boynton: Oh yes, I have PreCheck. I have Clear, yes.

Karen Walker: Exactly. When you travel a lot, it's really important and to really valued. I just wonder, what's your thought? It seems to me there isn't really much additional benefit to TSA PreCheck people, for this because several of the things that are either coming in or have been talked about, they already have. I'm just wondering whether this might lead to longer queues at TSA PreCheck.

Christine Boynton: That's a really good point, and one of my first thoughts was keeping your shoes on was maybe a primary benefit of TSA PreCheck. So, it maybe does dilute a bit. Some of the program’s benefits, some of those advantages. At the same time, creating dedicated lanes for families is aimed at making the process smoother and faster. So that could be a benefit when it achieves a wider rollout and looking into the future, the overall goal of the existing PreCheck program is really to provide an expedited screening experience. So, if this vision of kind of a faster, more walkthrough screening comes to fruition, I suppose a need for PreCheck could become obsolete, kind of down the line.

Karen Walker: Yeah, that's an interesting thought. Aaron, there's an interesting wrinkle to all of this. An indication that DHS is actually willing to go to the private sector for some of the airport security work. I'm assuming some of the stuff that's actually done by TSA, part of DHS. Talk about that. What are we hearing and what do you think about that?

Aaron Karp: Well, the TSA has always relied on the private sector for the technology—the scanners and the machines that are screening the bags have always been produced by the private sector. I think one of the differences now is that even as the technology advanced, the basic structure of the checkpoint has remained the same. And I think the indication now—they put out a request for information from the private sector for technology solutions—and the impression I get now is what they're saying is, can you provide us technology that would allow us to alter how the checkpoint is organized and how it works using AI, using robotics, using the CT scanners, I think are a big deal over in the UK. They're trying to get rid of the liquid ban, and if an airport puts in a CT scanner, they can get approval. Right now, only two airports have been approved, and it’s sort of a very slow process, but the idea is to have technology that would allow the checkpoint to be operated differently because the basic structures remain the same, but they're looking for technologies say that could do something that a screener is doing.

So, I think that's the big difference now, is looking for things that could actually alter the checkpoint, alter the way TSA operates, because you incorporate technology, you incorporate AI, and I think that's the big difference in the way they're looking at technology now.

Karen Walker: So it may just be a case of, hey, we've been doing this a long while, but we've been essentially doing it the same way for a long while, and is it time to look at things that, as we're many decades ahead now, what could be done differently and more efficiently and still maintain those high security standards? I mean, I think it's worth pointing out that there has not been a hijacking or bombing of a US airliner since those 9/11 attacks, which is, in itself, proof that it's worked. So, my next question too, I'm going to ask each of you is do you think that these new things that are being talked about, new processes and practices, are they a long-overdue step or is it too much too quick? Do you think we're going to be as safe as the essential question, Aaron?

Aaron Karp: As I said before, in terms of just purely a security standpoint, if people are more and more willing to give up privacy, if they're more willing to use their face as their recognition where you can scan their face and then immediately do this huge scan of every identity they have and whether they're on any lists or anything, I think that makes it much easier to have a more permissive, faster screening process because you have an idea of who's going through. And like I said before, there's always been this effort that—like I said, PreCheck, my feeling is, and this is just my opinion, is that eventually, basically everyone's going to be PreChecked; that you buy a plane ticket and you do PreCheck, and there'll be a small tax added to the plane ticket. And so, everyone will essentially do PreCheck.

Like I said, there are airports now, Abu Dhabi is an example, where if you're willing to do it, and many passengers are, especially frequent business travelers, where at every touchpoint from check-in to screening to boarding the plane, you just look at a camera and they take a picture of your face. And when you talk to them, they say people are zipping through 15, 20 minutes to walk into the airport and get to your gate. There's more talk about, I talked about the extraordinary amount of surveillance cameras that are now being put into airports, and what they're going to do in Atlanta is put an overlay so that they can identify someone who may be problematic walking through the airport, put a red dot around them—say, this person is here, go there and look for them. In conversations I've had with neighbors and so on, I've talked about in this business of going into the airport and immediately knowing who you are, immediately having your bags perhaps scanned by machines.

And I've expected people to say, wow, that sounds very like “1984” kind of thing. But people will say, “Well, I wouldn't want that in the grocery store, but it's such a hassle to get through the airport that I may be willing to put up with that in the airport.” And I think that is just something that I think has surprised governments and I said have surprised me to an extent that so many people say, I just want to get through, and if it increases security and lets me get through, I'm willing to give them information about myself. I'm willing to be identified by my face. And once you go to that step, then from an intelligence standpoint, you know who the people are before they get to the security checkpoint, or you know who they are as soon as you take a picture of their face, and therefore you know that someone's probably not a threat. And so, you can have a more expedited process or perhaps have a line where you pull out the people that you deem are a bigger threat. So yeah, I think the direction things are going is a real desire by airports, by airlines, by governments, just to move people through and get people moving through the airport and get rid of this hassle point that has been there for 25 years of the security checkpoint.

Karen Walker: Christine, again, you travel a lot. It always amazes me. I mean, Aaron's correct. People are way more familiar now, but with what's involved and it's a hassle. They're expecting long queues often, et cetera. But it still amazes me, even in PreCheck, how often I get behind the person who is bringing out huge bottles of shampoo and all the rest of it, all the things. I mean, they're still doing it, so I'm not sure that we can entirely get rid of all of the hassle. I'd welcome your comments on that, but also again, do you think this makes sense to be changing some of these rules?

Christine Boynton: Sure. So, I mean, I think the two important questions to be asking here are has the threat level changed and/or is the technology ready and in place to support these kinds of shifts? Yes, the US has maintained a strong safety record since 9/11, as you pointed out, Karen. That is with the comprehensive system currently in place. Secretary Noem has said that security remains the top priority, and she's pointed to technology advancements and a multi-layered approach as giving DHS the confidence that changes can be implemented while still maintaining the highest security standards. So, on the question of whether it's long overdue or much too quick, it'll really depend, I think, on how well the technologies can perform, how thorough security staff are trained, and whether any vulnerabilities are created by relaxing some of our more visible screening measures that we have today, and then how to compensate if so. But I do think it's worth noting that TSA has already made some steps from a one size fits all approach to what we've been talking about to a more risk-based one—Global Entry, TSA PreCheck and other trusted traveler programs are examples of that. So, I guess on one side, its convenience, right? No one likes waiting in a line or taking your shoes off or being patted down if the thing lights up. But on the other side, there's risks. So, it's making sure you're walking that line very carefully and making any changes very thoughtfully.

Karen Walker: And thoroughly testing it. Aaron, what are your thoughts?

Aaron Karp: Yeah, I wanted to say that one thing we should keep in mind here is that the TSA ends up confiscating about 6,000 to 7,000 guns a year at checkpoints. It always shocks me to see, they put it out press releases saying we got this many guns at this airport, and the majority of those guns are actually loaded guns. And so, I think when we think about that, that's something that the current system is stopping. That's something that physical screening is stopping. And so, I think that's something that should be thought abou—that that's happening every day at US airports every day. People are trying to bring guns through, often loaded guns. I think most of them are. There are a lot of guns in the US and most of them [owners] are law abiding citizens and some of them are hunters and that sort of thing, and they're not trying to take down a plane, but it just shows you that you talk about people having their shampoo out, people are coming to the checkpoint with an actual loaded gun.

And so I think that that's something that has to be thought through. And just the one thing is you can't prove a negative. So, we say nothing's happened—whenever there's a plot foiled or something happens, we know that it was foiled, but you don't know how many times on a daily basis something was stopped just because someone was stopped at a checkpoint or a gun was confiscated or something like that. And that's not news. When the process goes normal, that's not news. It's when something happens. And so, I think there has to be a lot of thought. In talking with a lot of security people through the years, they have always sort of talked about how they think the process is not as thoughtful as it could be, and that you have to just have a multi-layered approach, as Christine said. One other thing to mention is that you may notice when you're walking through a checkpoint that there are some TSA agents who are just kind of standing there, and they may look like they're doing nothing, but what they're often doing is observing people's behavior, and they're looking for someone that's shifting from foot to foot, maybe sweating, maybe looks like they're really nervous.

And in that instance, that's a different kind of security. And so that's another thing that's being used. And I would mention one more thing, and I think this will warm your heart, Karen, as a dog lover, is that when the places where they have enough canines to sniff the bags, people will say that's in many ways the best kind of security. And there have been checkpoints I've gone through where they have the dogs and then they let you keep your shoes on, they let you keep it [laptops] in your bag, and there's not enough of them. But in many cases, for all the technology, we talk about dogs that are trained and have such a strong sense of smell and can detect when people are maybe a little nervous. That is a security method that's proven to work for a long time. And so you wonder about, there's so many different ways to do it and so many different options, and I think it's just finding the right balance of security and privacy and just making sure that you're stopping the guns, you're stopping everything, but also not doing it so that the people who aren't the threat, the 95–99% of people that aren't the threat, aren't being stopped and resources aren't being used to screen them and talking about invasion of privacy due to pat downs that may be very invasive.

And so, I think it's a real balance, and I think it has to be thoughtfully done. But I think many of these measures were put in place before PreCheck, even before there was this kind of technology. And when a temporary measure is put in place, it's very hard to get rid of it. I learned recently that passports were a temporary measure put in place during World War I for travel, and of course that wasn't temporary at all. It's now standard and has been for 100 years. So, it's complicated. It's not an easy thing. It's a really complicated problem, and I think it just has to be thought through, and looking at the technology, the intelligence, the different methods you can use, and how much privacy people are willing to give up and just come up with the most sensible solution.

Karen Walker: I think that you're right. The key word that you're raising there is thoughtful. It has to be thoughtful. That's why I was really asking is this too much too soon? Whether it's trying to be a crowd pleaser, a new administration trying to please the crowds, but it still has to be very thoughtful. By the way, Aaron, we're all dog lovers on Window Seat. So many dog lovers on Window Seat. I love seeing those dogs working at the airports. They've said it again and again, you can't beat that technology.

So, Christine, can I just ask you one last thing here? As I mentioned right at the beginning when TSA, when all those new rules came into the US post 9/11, essentially the same rules were adopted major airports all around the world. It's fairly consistent, the standards. So, do you think other governments and airports around the world will similarly change their rules if the US changes them? Or will we be in a situation where if you're flying in and out of the US, you have one type of security? In other words, if you're traveling internationally, there's no point in taking your big shampoo bottle when you get to another airport outside of the US, it's got to be going into a little container. I know I keep going on about shampoo. The guns and the knives are far more important, but you know what I'm saying?

Christine Boynton: Sure. Well, I think it's likely maybe that shampoo bottle would be taking a one-way trip. There is of course, historical precedent, as you say, for these changes to be kind of followed in other parts of the world. And as Aaron mentioned earlier, the UK is already in the process of slowly lifting similar liquids rules at airports with appropriate CT scanners. But widespread adoption will likely take some time, especially at those airports that have less resources, technology gaps, or even higher assessed risk. So, I do think that it will be on a very case-by-case basis as each region, each airport proceeds very thoughtfully and carefully.

Karen Walker: Yep, good point. So, in other words, if we do see more changes coming in the US, we would actually have, probably for quite a while, different standards around the world. So, you'd have to be sure of what you're going to be dealing with for the whole of your journey and be prepared for it. Or else, as you say, your shampoo has only got so far with you. But anyway, it's going to be interesting. We've been sitting with these rules, as you said, and for a long while, and they tend to come in as temporary, but then stay permanent. But it will be interesting as we see maybe some shifts here, but as long as everyone stays safe, eh?

So, Aaron, Christine, thank you so much for joining me today. Really appreciate it and appreciate the discussion. Thank you also to our producer Cory Hitt, and of course, a huge thank you to our listeners. Make sure you don't miss us each week by subscribing to Window Seat on Apple Podcasts or wherever you like to listen. This is Karen Walker disembarking from Window Seat.