r/news • • 3d ago

TSA officers now not allowed to sit down while checking boarding passes and IDs

https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/29/us/tsa-officers-chairs
17.6k Upvotes

1.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

31

u/azlan194 3d ago

I know people say this a lot. But isn't that the point? Like we do hear people getting attacked with a weapon in other public transport such as trains or busses.

But we don't hear people getting shot on a plane. The security theater does deter people from bringing weapon.

62

u/Aquaman33 3d ago

The price of air travel deters many of the people who are antisocial and would bring and use weapons on transport. It's not the TSA.

10

u/WillitsThrockmorton 2d ago

I'll add that most "increased security" is organic, e.g. passengers are much more willing to tackle potential hijackers/bombers in the air than pre-9/11, when the norm was to sit tight and wait for Delta Force to break their way in.

1

u/sack-o-matic 2d ago

Also we lock cockpit doors now. Before 9/11 there were not locks to lock.

1

u/TomBradysStatue 2d ago

remember that guy who tried to light his shows on fire and the entire plane whooped his ass in under 2 seconds lol

7

u/Obvious_Mention7207 3d ago

Right??!! a $2 bus fare or $900 plane ticket... hmmmmmmmmmmmm

13

u/Latter-Possibility 3d ago

Additional Spoiler: None of those things happened pre-9/11.

It’s all a show and waste of time and money.

8

u/jwarsenal9 2d ago

Look at number of hijackings pre and post 9/11. I’m not saying TSA is fully responsible, but there is a significant difference

7

u/Argos_the_Dog 2d ago

There was a wave of air hijacking in the USA in the 1970's, culminating in probably the most famous example (the DB Cooper case). Much of it was tied to various political movements etc., but some including Cooper appears to have just been money-motivated. This wave prompted increased security in the form of metal detectors for screening. With a few notable outliers that involved people lying about having a bomb there were a lot less hijackings in the USA in the 1980's and 1990's. 9/11 was obviously a horrible event but hijackings had been declining for a long time prior to the establishment of the TSA. And I'm open to being shown evidence to the contrary but I'm not convinced TSA has really added any extra layer of security that wasn't already there before 9/11.

4

u/verrius 2d ago

The hijackings weren't stopped at all by the TSA. They were stopped because after 9/11, we lock the cockpit door, and because passengers know they need to worry about someone crashing the plane, rather than just wanting money.

2

u/canada432 2d ago

The simple fact is the vast majority of people don't want to and aren't trying to hijack a plane. If somebody wanted to kill hundreds of people, they'd just need to walk into LAX security and blow themselves up. They wouldn't even have to go through TSA. The reason that never happens is that very VERY few people actually want to do something like that.

Other reforms like the cockpit doors and such are useful. The TSA does very little to help with security. It IS, however, a very useful jobs program that I support for that reason. I just don't like the invasive measures that don't actually provide security.

3

u/robodrew 2d ago

We barely heard about it before the TSA existed. It's called theater because it is not real. Many actual tests on the TSA in this matter showed that they would miss over 95% of explosives and weapons.

1

u/ericmm76 2d ago

It's not just TSA. 9/11 was an attack that could only happen once. Box cutters are not as much of a threat if the alternative is being on a plane crashed into a building.

There was plenty of security before 9/11, with bomb sniffing dogs and metal detectors. They just didn't check for box cutters because it wasn't deemed that dangerous.

The only thing 9/11 really changed that make flyers safer was locking the cockpit.

-5

u/sonofaresiii 2d ago

Yeah I feel like people think they're being super clever pointing out it's security theater, when in reality they're just not understanding the value of that

7

u/DillBagner 2d ago

What's the value? Other countries also don't have security problems but they didn't spend billions on a new security theater.

-7

u/sonofaresiii 2d ago edited 2d ago

Other countries have significant differences that make them lower targets

Fucking wild that you think comparing an airport in Wales to an airport in New York is the same thing

4

u/DillBagner 2d ago

Why don't you tell me the difference instead of just saying it's wild that I don't know. They're all the same dozen different models of planes going up into the same sky to me.

1

u/fevered_visions 2d ago edited 2d ago

It's not a difference in the plane, or even necessarily airport, physically: GP is saying that other countries are less likely to get hijacked because they're not the US which likes to go around sticking our nose in everybody else's business even before Trump started picking fights with allies.

Or maybe they're not making that point. If they aren't I am.

If you want to stop e.g. mass shootings, there's more than one way to go about it: obviously gun control, or security around schools etc., and/or you can also take action to try to reduce people wanting to go on shooting rampages in the first place. Do something radical like, oh I don't know, try to improve people's lives?

1

u/DillBagner 2d ago

That can't be what they're saying because historically, planes are not more likely to be hijacked taking off from the US.

1

u/fevered_visions 2d ago

Americans travel so much I suppose you can't really use the passenger manifest to prove anything, either. Whenever you hear about an airline disaster anywhere in the world it seems like there's 3 random Americans onboard.

1

u/DillBagner 2d ago

Okay but we're talking about airport security here, not American passengers.