Will fewer screeners mean more delays?

08-07-2005

A reader, John R. Gotaskie, asks how the recent announcement by the Transportation Security Administration that it will reduce the number of screeners at Pittsburgh International Airport will affect delays at security checkpoints. The short answer is that no one knows. The long answer requires a bit of background.

Three years ago, when Congress created the TSA to guard the gateways to the nation's airports, it mandated that the total number of screeners nationally could not exceed 45,000 full-time equivalencies, or FTEs (an average of full-time and part-time workers). These are the federal employees who screen passengers through security checkpoints and their luggage through the checked baggage lines.

These 45,000 positions were then allocated among the country's 441 commercial airports, according to a national formula that considers the number of passengers, air lines, security lanes and a number of other variables. The original allocations were published in March 2004 based on previously gathered data, with the provision that adjustments would be made annually or as actual usage determined. At that time, the staffing level at Pittsburgh International was set at 340 FTEs. However, with the dramatic reduction in the number of US Airways flights from Pittsburgh International, TSA local staffing had actually dwindled to 312.

Under the TSA's latest allocation assessment, based on information gathered through March and announced July 27, that number should be 218. That works out to a reduction of 94 FTEs over existing levels and 122 from the original levels.

This reshuffling will affect most airports; most adjustments are relatively minor, but in addition to Pittsburgh there are other big losers (JFK, Detroit, St. Louis, Orlando) and big winners (Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Houston, Fort Lauderdale). You can find the TSA's full airport staffing report at www.tsa.gov. (Look in the Briefing Room under Publications and Reports.)

According to Anne Davis, TSA spokesperson for the Northeast, this figure of 218 is only a target, with no actual deadline and no layoffs. Rather the reduction is expected to be accomplished through normal attrition. Simply, when screeners quit, as they apparently do on a regular basis, they will not be replaced.

Unfortunately -- as travelers know who have shown up at Pittsburgh International expecting to catch flights, only to discover long lines snaking back from the security checkpoints -- the wait times sometimes can be as long as 45 minutes.

Although waits are much shorter most of the time, security at Pittsburgh International has some of the longest peak hour lines in the country. The longest backups have been occurring during morning rush hours, especially on Mondays and Saturdays, when up to 2,000 people per hour try to squeeze through the checkpoints.

According to the TSA, screeners are able to process a maximum of about 1,500 passengers per hour through the eight lanes of the Landside terminal security checkpoint, with a wait of 10 minutes or less. That works out to an average of 188 passengers per lane per hour, or an average of about three passengers per lane per minute. (Remember: the bottlenecks at the security checkpoints are a separate issue from bottlenecks at US Airways ticket counters, which can also be maddeningly long.)

Of course that processing rate assumes having a full complement of screeners per lane. If there aren't enough screeners, TSA regulations mandate that the lane must be closed down.

Now the airlines and TSA are supposedly working together to coordinate the number of screeners on duty with the anticipated passenger flow. But even using all eight lanes during peak hours, the peak overload now works out to something like an extra 1.1 passenger per lane per minute, or 8.8 passengers per minute, or 528 per hour. That's how the backup forms; any interruption in the smooth flow only exacerbates the problem.

In late June, airport authorities announced plans to alleviate this peak overload problem by adding four additional security lanes on the Landside Building's ticketing floor (up in the unused Commuter Terminal) and installing an escalator down to the shuttle. With plans for those lanes on a "fast track," airport officials hope to have them operational in time to handle the year-end holiday rush.

Of course, the effectiveness of this plan presumes a sufficient complement of screeners to work those extra lanes. Estimates are that once the new lanes are operational and an increased number of passengers is taken into consideration, the number of screeners is expected to be raised to 285.

Until then, the big question is: How will 218 screeners be able to do the work now being handled by 312?

Presumably, they can't. If a sufficient number of screeners is on hand to keep all eight lanes open during peak hours, the number of open lanes during other times will have to be greatly reduced. That has to lead to longer security waits. More efficient systems and a more educated traveling public may make it possible to process a few more passengers per minute, but it's doubtful any improvements can be significant and still maintain required security levels.

This also raises a question about this federally mandated cap of 45,000 screeners. Each passenger who boards a commercial airliner these days is assessed a security surcharge of $2.50 per flight leg, with a maximum of $10 per round trip. When passenger traffic increases, shouldn't more screeners be hired to staff these security gates, rather than adding to the traveling public's wait time?

Finally, it's also fair to wonder exactly how much these security efforts are accomplishing. While protecting America's skyways from the threat of on-board terrorism is clearly important, how much security is enough? By installing these barriers (that, truth be told, have so far served primarily to prevent otherwise innocent passengers from carrying nail files and lighters on planes) and then failing to staff them adequately, are we unnecessarily subjecting ourselves to another kind of everyday anxiety and expense?

[Back to Articles Main]