Just days ago, in the aftermath of the Delta terrorist attempt, Christopher Elliott and Steven Frischling posted the full text of the TSA’s security directive. Now both men have been visited by federal agents and served with subpoenas, demanding the name(s) of the person(s) who provided them with the text of the policy.

Is this really necessary? Several components of the changes were posted on airline websites, including Air Canada. News outlets covered the details over and over again. And travelers figured out the content of the directives really quickly, as security procedures changed around the globe.

TSA directives are categorized as “sensitive security information,” regardless of specific content, according to the Electronic Code of Federal Regulations title 49, section B, chapter xii, subchapter B, part 1520 (“current as of December 28, 2009,” which seems like it was updated after this incident…) And “covered persons” (such as airlines, airport managers, etc.) who have access to this information have a legal duty to protect the contents of sensitive security information. Notably, journalists and bloggers are not covered persons, so presumably cannot be guilty of any crime here by disclosing information — TSA employees, airlines, and airports might be. Thus, the subpoenas to find those who CAN be punished.

There are several questions at hand: First, should these security directives necessarily be considered secret? After all, they directly affect thousands of travelers daily, and govern the behavior of passengers in airports.

Second, is it necessary to use intimidation tactics and to violate the tradition of journalistic privilege, in order to conduct an internal investigation? I understand that TSA is concerned that they’re not following protocol, given the debacle of the improperly-redacted documents. But is this the way to do it?

And what the heck is going on with this tweet:

Frischling’s subsequent tweets state that he spent “two hours or so” with federal agents. In that case, the pictured tweet, sent minutes earlier, suggests a) the source of the leak was anonymous, and b) the feds are pressuring him to help them on a fishing expedition.

The biggest danger here is that bloggers and journalists will shy away from publishing information that they are legally entitled to do, for fear that the federal government will harass them. This can have a chilling effect on the dissemination of information in a democracy.

The logical inconsistency of the TSA policy was bad enough. Publicly going after bloggers who posted the policy — and criticized it — only makes the agency look worse.

Update late 12/31/09: The TSA has withdrawn the subpoenas, saying they were “no longer necessary.” Have they found the leak, or did they just recoil because of bad PR ? Stay tuned…

The TSA has backed off of some of the silliest policies implemented in the breathless reaction to the “crotch bomber” on Christmas Day. That’s a smidgen of good news. But that’s hardly the final word. A rundown of some of the latest questions, concerns, complaints, and updates:

Upgraded: The final hour of travel to the United States
The ban on movement in the last hour, and the ban on holding or doing anything, is over. Mostly. The choice is now in the hands of the captain of the plane. A pleasant change from the universal ban, but you are likely to see some variation out there.

Downgraded: Travel from Canada to the United States
Transport Canada has banned carry-on bags on flights to the US. It’s a short-term ban (through 9pm EST today, Dec 29), but it’s brutal. No carry-ons except those that are often called “personal items”:

Passengers may carry with them the following items: medication or medical devices, small purses, cameras, coats, items for care of infants, laptop computers, crutches, canes, walkers, containers carrying life sustaining items, a special needs item, musical instruments, or diplomatic or consular bags.

We’ll see how long this lasts.

Upgraded: Alaska Airlines
Nice move: Because this qualifies as “irregular operations,” Alaska Airlines is waiving the checked baggage fees for those who could otherwise have carried onboard. The full text: “To minimize boarding delays, passengers are encouraged to check all their luggage. Alaska Airlines and Horizon Air will waive baggage fees for items checked as baggage that the passenger otherwise would have taken aboard as carry-on baggage from Mexico or Canada.” Classy. Will any others follow suit?

Upgraded, slightly: Inflight entertainment systems
Onboard entertainment systems, which were sporadically shut down completely, should be back up and running. The map feature is expected to be turned off, because we all know that terrorists can’t look out a window or whip out a GPS unit…

Downgraded: Channel 9
United Airlines fliers who appreciate Channel 9 (the audio channel allowing passengers to hear the cockpit communication with air traffic control) will be sad to hear that the airline is shutting the channel off on international flights headed to the United States.

Downgraded: Patdowns
So passengers are being patted down at the gate. But Abdulmutallab had the explosives stitched into his underwear. Would that really have been captured with a frisking? How frisky?

Downgraded: Scanners
As mentioned in yesterday’s post, Amsterdam Schiphol Airport noted that they had a number of millimeter-wave scanners that were not being used on flights to the US. But even if these are put to use, it is a delusion to think that this will stop all terrorist attacks. Schiphol’s scanners are “not as powerful as the full-body X-ray machines used by border control agencies, which can detect items such as drugs concealed inside the body.” (A rundown of different scanners is here.) Committed terrorists will innovate, and that can easily mean bombs implanted inside the body. An attempt to kill the Saudi Arabia’s chief of counterterrorism, Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, was originally reported as having been carried out using a rectum bomb. That report was later discredited. But some version of such an attack, in the future, is potentially plausible.

Upgraded: Reality checks
For once, I have some praise for Kip Hawley, the former director of the TSA. Quoted in today’s New York Times, he says: “It is a fool’s errand to try to make the aviation system terrorist proof. The only way to do that is ground the airplanes.” True words, indeed.

So air travel to the United States has gotten exponentially worse in the past few days. It’s not news to anyone with regular access to the internet or a TV that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab tried to blow up a Delta (Northwest, technically) flight from Amsterdam to Detroit. Worse than the fact that there remain people who insist on trying to kill innocent civilians, the TSA has taken a bad situation and made it worse.

As you’re likely well-aware, the TSA has imposed strict new rules on air travel from abroad to the U.S. At-gate pat-downs of passengers and reinspection of their carry-on luggage will slow things down, but is no surprise. But the in-flight restrictions — detailed in security directive 1544-09-06 — are simply asinine, and take the notion of “security theater” to new heights.

During flight, the aircraft operator must ensure that the following procedures are followed:

1. Passengers must remain in seats beginning 1 hour prior to arrival at destination.
2. Passenger access to carry-on baggage is prohibited beginning 1 hour prior to arrival at destination.
3. Disable aircraft-integrated passenger communications systems and services (phone, internet access services, live television programming, global positioning systems) prior to boarding and during all phases of flight.
4. While over U.S. airspace, flight crew may not make any announcement to passengers concerning flight path or position over cities or landmarks.
5. Passengers may not have any blankets, pillows, or personal belongings on the lap beginning 1 hour prior to arrival at destination.

Bruce Schneier has the winning quip: “I wish that, just once, some terrorist would try something that you can only foil by upgrading the passengers to first class and giving them free drinks.”

The TSA’s new rules confirm several points, which were already well-known to longtime watchers:

• TSA is always fighting the last war.
  Every time someone tries to blow up a plane or otherwise harm travelers, the TSA jumps into action to close the loophole that that would-be terrorist was hoping to exploit. The bad guys will just change their tactics and find a new way to do it. It’s like we’re the 2009 equivalent of the French military, building a Maginot Line in response to the last attack. First, it was the box-cutters. Then, shoes. Then liquids. Now it’s explosives concealed under a blanket? The next attacker (and yes, sadly, there will be a next attempt at some point, I’m sure) just avoids the past prohibitions and attacks from another angle.
• TSA is focused on placing limits on things that are tangential to an actual attack.
  Abdulmutallab had attempted to blow things up in the last hour of the flight, so TSA’s response is to ban any activity during the last hour. It’s as time were the weapon, rather than the bomb. The ban on getting up in the last hour of the flight is similarly misguided. The ban is so huge, the umbrella so wide, that it fails to distinguish between activity necessary for an attack and activity coincidental to an attack. It’s as one were to state that the attacker wore pants, so no pants should be permitted.
• TSA assumes that threats will always be from abroad.
  The new restrictions are only applicable to international flights headed to the United States. So domestic travel is spared further restrictions, which is a relief, but international travelers are subject to dumb rules. If these rules were truly effective, and not just for show, they would be in effect for all travel, foreign and domestic.
• TSA assumes that terrorists lack deductive reasoning.
  The new rules specify that the inflight entertainment system’s live-updating map cannot be visible, and that the crew is prohibited from announcing the location of the plane en route. But if the “strict” rules kick in 60 minutes before estimated landing time, then any would-be terrorist with a modicum of logic would know that he’s close to his destination once the crew starts alerting passengers that they can no longer get up.
• TSA assumes that by doing anything — no matter how stupid — it makes Americans feel safer.
  “The boss is coming, look busy!” For some time, TSA has justified some of its rules (like the nonsense regarding liquids) by hiding behind a sham of national security, even when procedures don’t stand up to logic in the light of day. And it’s all done in the name of safety and security. But hopefully people are wising up. The logical fallacies in the current security directive are plain for all to see. If the public protests, then and only then will TSA be held to account. If the public argues that it doesn’t feel safer because of these rules, then we might get somewhere.

So what’s next?

There has already been some pushback against these rules, and there are reports that some of these bans are already being diluted, with discretion being granted to the pilots to decide whether or not to turn off the inflight entertainment system, for example. But most of the restrictions aren’t negotiable. (Though they do apparently expire at 2am GMT on December 30, 2009, aka 8pm EST on December 29. Go figure.)

Here are a few preliminary thoughts on what this incident, and the TSA’s reaction, hath wrought:

• Airlines will have to recalibrate their connection times for flights headed to the US.
  The 35-minute connection time in Munich that Lufthansa was offering me on an Istanbul-Munich-Charlotte itinerary last week? That should no longer be for sale. There’s no way you can handle at-gate searches and patdowns with that little time. Two hour connections should be considered a bare minimum.
• Inflight wifi rollouts on trans-continental routes may be stymied.
  If TSA assumes that terrorists will use information from the inflight Airshow map to plot their moment of attack, then imagine how they view internet access? There will be pushback, but expect TSA to set up roadblocks.
• Pack even lighter.
  Checked baggage fees are going to be harder to avoid. If you’re limited to one carry-on item, and you’ve been used to taking one rollaboard and a small bag with electronics, snacks, etc., then you’re going to have to pack even lighter, and/or get used to checking the bags.
• Dress warmer.
  If you’re a person who gets cold easily, wear layers during your flight. Since pillows and blankets are now threats to security, but sweaters and scarves are still okay, plan on bundling up.
• A better puffer machine should be on the drawing board.
  Since the would-be bomber might have been caught if he had passed through a “puffer” machine — a security screening machine that sent jets of air at you, in order to detect explosive residue — these machines might make a comeback. They weren’t very effective when tested, in large part because of the many false positives. But they might come back, if the technology improves.
• Backscatter x-ray machines will become more widespread, despite privacy objections.
  The NYT starts us on this path:

  To date, only 40 of these machines have been installed at 19 airports across the United States — meaning only a tiny fraction of passengers pass through them. Amsterdam’s airport has 15 of these machines — more than just about any airport in the world — but an official there said Sunday that they were prohibited from using them on passengers bound for the United States, for a reason she did not explain.

  I’m going to let that last item go … but this incident will likely push forward the rollout of backscatter.

• International travel to the United States will decrease.
  This is a no-brainer, but it deserves mention: Air travel was bad enough. International travel to the United States was bad enough. And now, it’s worse. The US should expect a decline in tourist dollars. And as long as the citizenry fails to object to their elected officials about dumb, arbitrary, do-nothing rules, then this decline is deserved.

If you’ve flown internationally over the last few days, you’re invited to post your tales from the front in the comments.

Upgraded: The notion of a contract in air travel
Downgraded: Airline logistics
The Department of Transportation has revealed sweeping new rules that govern airlines’ conduct, but implementation and enforcement will not be as easy as passing a new rule. Most headlines read that this is a big victory for passenger rights, with the bulk of the attention focused on a new 3-hour limit on time spent aboard a plane, pushed away from the gate. That’s something but this won’t please everybody. (If your flight would be able to take off 3 hours and 5 minutes after pushback, tough luck, you’re heading back to the gate at the 3 hour mark…) Ground delays suck. No doubt. But There will be unintended consequences, and airlines will find ways to address these logistical challenges.

More importantly, in my view, the rules include a provision that airlines can’t retroactively change the contract governing your ticket. This has always struck me as patently unfair: You buy your ticket in January for a March flight, and the airline changes its rules in February; until now, you’ve been stuck with the February contract. Now, the federal government has ruled that you’re covered by the original contract in effect when you made your purchase. Good.

Chris Elliott has pulled the highlights from the actual rules, if you want to review.

Downgraded: Globespan Airlines
Potentially Downgraded: Credit card processors
Scotland’s Globespan Airlines shut down abruptly over the weekend, stranding 4500 travelers mid-trip. For the time being, guidance from the company on rebookings, is available on the former airline’s website. But questions now turn to whether or not the airline’s credit card processor was to blame for the immediate death knell. The processor, E-clear, apparently held back between £30m and £35m due to Globespan. You may recall that Frontier Airlines blamed their credit card processor when they declared bankruptcy in 2008 (though they didn’t halt all operations at that point).

Upgraded, after days of being Downgraded: Eurostar
English Channel rail firm Eurostar had a miserable (and well-publicized) weekend, with a complete shutdown of all their trains, midway through the Channel crossing. And the company handled things rather poorly. For example:

When worried passengers [aboard the trains] challenged Eurostar officials they received a cursory shrug. Some became so desperate for information that they banged on the train driver’s door but could only hear him sobbing inside.

Awesome. That’s the kind of leadership in a crisis I look for… But the company is resuming service and has promised to make it up to the thousands of passengers it stranded, not just in the tunnels, but on both sides of the channel. They’ve vowed that “the company would reimburse them for expenses incurred while they were stranded.”

Upgraded: The number of stars in the Parisian hotel sky
Four stars? Not enough. Bring on the fifth star. At least they haven’t gone the way of the absurdist 6 and 7 star hotel…

Upgraded: Biofuels
A Seattle company has put in motion plans to create a large-scale biofuels operation aimed specifically at airlines. AltAir Fuels has signed up 14 airlines to be launch customers for jet fuel and diesel made from camelina, a mustard-like weed whose seeds can be refined.

While US airlines charge you a fee for checking a suitcase, checking a Christmas tree as checked baggage on German discount airline Air Berlin will be complimentary:

Titus Johnson, Air Berlin country manager UK and Ireland, said, “Most of the demand for this comes from our German customers – it seems they can’t bear to be parted from their trees at Christmas.” [...] “As our present to everyone, we will carry the trees without making a charge.”

Air Berlin will transport trees of up to two metres (6ft 6ins) in height free of charge in the cargo compartment until Christmas Eve (December 24).

Cut trees only, one presumes. (Tough luck for the fans of rootball-laden trees.)

No mention of trees in their baggage policy online yet, though it IS in a press release.

Even then, I’m surprised that policy permits the transport of trees across borders. Any borders according to the release. Anyone wanting to fly from Dusseldorf to Miami with a tree as checked luggage is unlikely to find a friendly reception by the Department of Agriculture on American soil…

(image)

The British High Court has stopped the British Airways strike that was set to begin on Tuesday, December 22.

The court ruled that the strike was illegal, on the basis of “balloting errors” in the union’s voting.

But the problems aren’t over for British Airways, and a new strike is quite likely in February if labor and management can’t come to an agreement. Once the holidays are over, the real fun begins. British Airways customers should be aware of that strike risk, going forward.

So where does this leave the passengers who canceled, rebooked, or otherwise changed their holiday travel plans because of the strike? Many passengers opted for a refund rather than a rebooking, and ended up buying new tickets on other carriers. The Guardian has a good summary of the options. One of the key takeaways is in this quote:

The airline will not be offering any special terms to those who thought they would be hit by the strike. A spokeswoman said: “We made it clear from the outset that the option we were offering ahead of any cancellation was the ability to rebook to a different date on another BA flight. As we did not make any cancellations, we did not rebook customers on other carriers. We did not encourage people to rebook on other carriers.”

I understand that position, legally, but it’s not going to go over well, from a PR perspective. The airline’s troubles will have already created a great deal of anxiety (and I’m not optimistic that the cabin crew will be at the top of their game during the next few weeks…) This just gives the flying public another reason to grumble. Smooth move, guys.

If you changed your flight to an alternative date, you might be able to switch your dates back to the holidays, if that’s your fancy. The December and January flights should be safe. If anything, they’re probably safer than any others on the BA schedule right now.

Good luck.

(image)