I mean no disrespect, but this is probably the strangest and worst take that I’ve seen from any semi-serious aviation industry executive…
In this post:
Boom CEO opposes the concept of airport security
Boom is the aeronautics company that’s trying to bring back supersonic travel, with its signature Overture product. There’s no denying that there are a lot of smart people working at the company, and that the technology to bring back supersonic travel is there. However, I think the market has evolved, and I don’t think there’s any business case for it, especially with the operating limits of the Overture. Anyway, that’s neither here nor there…
The reason for my post is that Boom CEO Blake Scholl is quite a guy, who has a lot of opinions on a lot of things, and he likes to share them online. His latest claim isn’t just strange, it’s downright concerning.
US Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has been asking for feedback from the public about the pain points of travel, and highlights how the TSA is the number one complaint. It’s not surprising to see him focus on that, given that the Trump administration is trying to abolish the TSA, replacing it with private security.
But Scholl has a more radical idea — just get rid of airport security altogether! As he explains:
Keep reinforced cockpit doors. Keep bag/passenger matching. Keep screening passenger manifests.
But delete the TSA. Let us just walk onto airplanes like we do busses and trains. It will all be ok.
Do I need to explain why this is a bad idea?
Explaining to an aerospace CEO why we need airport security almost feels sillier than trying to explain to my nearly three-year-old why he needs to wear pants when we leave the house.
Reasonable people can disagree on whether airport security should be conducted by a government organization or privatized. If you ask me, reasonable people can’t disagree on whether we should have airport security at all.
Yes, of course reinforced cockpit doors are important, as is screening manifests. But there’s simply no way that’s enough:
- Look at the number of mass shootings we have in the US, including at schools; in so many situations, they’re done by people without criminal records
- A bus or train can pull over if something happens, while a flight over a body of water potentially can’t divert for hours
- A reinforced cockpit door doesn’t help if someone brings a bomb onboard an aircraft
- People behave their worst onboard planes, and with the TSA stopping thousands of guns at airports each year, I imagine it would be a matter of time before an onboard confrontation escalates
More than anything else, I find Scholl’s perspective kind of concerning. One thing I greatly respect about the aviation industry is the unwavering commitment to safety by all stakeholders. The industry getting as safe as it is today isn’t a coincidence.
Scholl really thinks we’d never see an attack if airport security were eliminated? Or is a crash here and there no big deal?
If I didn’t know any better, I’d say he’s just one of these Twitter/X engagement baiters, who makes money based on how often his posts are viewed, and therefore makes outlandish claims. But for the CEO of an aerospace company who wants to be taken seriously by airline executives, I just find this to be bizarre, and to undermine what Boom is reportedly working toward.
Bottom line
Boom’s CEO seems to think that we should abolish airport security altogether, and that reinforced cockpit doors and manifest screening do the trick. While there are lots of aspects of aviation safety we can reasonably disagree on, I’d like to think that 99.99999% of people don’t think that just abolishing airport security altogether is the right move.
Do any OMAAT readers agree with Boom’s CEO? If so, please help me understand!
Ceos are not accountable for anything. If things go wrong the'll just get $100 million to leave the company, blame it on another ceo or just say oops someone on my team didn't give me all the info so not my fault.
Ben, how can the CEO of a company called BOOM understand any argument about the bomb risk ? Even only alluding to sonic boom, one would expect the company to be called LOBOOM or NOBOOM. That company's name is ridiculous.
I prefer we go through the path of reducing the level of procedures and restrictions. Requirements like restricting liquids, taking off shoes, removing large electrical items are unnecessary today (though they made sense in the 2000s when the threat of terrorism towards air travel was still high). If you streamline the experience without compromising security, that will accomplish the task of cutting burdensome regulations.
It irks me so much that even before the current admin TSA was estimating it'd be 2040 when they finally got all the new scanners online to allow larger liquids to be carried on. Something that would massively improve passenger experience, and they're taking 15 years to do it. Italy built a 12 mile subway line with dozens of archeological digs on the side in less time.
Scrap the domestic passenger manifest screening by the government —- it’s hokey pokey pre-crime witchcraft — but we need to screen for weapons/explosives/incendiaries.
Anyone who agrees with this should read "The Skies Belong To Us" and then think again (or rather actually think for the first time).
What a truly spectacular idiot. This guy must think that tariffs really are great.
Simple, no need for security if you do three things.
1. Everyone flies naked. (nothing to hide)
2. No carry ons.
3. No checked bags.
Have you heard of "keestering"? Not to worry, the Anal Logic airport probe decide that's pictured in the article will be put to good use extracting contraband.
*device.
Sometimes, people feel compelled to live up to their name: (e.g., Madoff).
This chap leads a company called Boom, and that is exactly what the end of airport security screening would lead to.
No TSA equivalent for domestic flights in New Zealand. It works for them, why not the US? SFO uses private security and they are just as bad as the TSA.
@ ted poco -- Without even addressing the difference in gun ownership and crime between the US and New Zealand, note that only planes with fewer than 90 seats aren't security screened on domestic flights in New Zealand. That's very different than what's being proposed here.
Maybe there aren't as many crazy people in New Zealand as here? Or maybe they don't have endless wars and try to piss off everyone in the world?
For domestic flights over the continental US, it would be ok if there was the will for immediate diversion. Someone waives a pistol, immediate diversion. But for practical purposes, some screening to screen for guns like is done now is a good idea.
I do not think there is much effective screening for bombs. Some screening but not that good.
"Immediate diversion" from 30k feet still takes a little while. "Immediate diversion" from a highway takes several seconds to pull over.
The American government- from one idiotic comment to another. At least they are all consistently stupid. As an aside, I’ve just watched some republican moron thinking quoting Goebbels was appropriate.
People walking onto aircraft with knives and guns. Airlines are targeted more so than other forms of transport
The USA can get rid of it and the rest of the world can suspend all flights there.
He’s just living up to his company’s namesake.
Elect clowns, expect a circus.
I don't think many people have realised that we are living in a dystopia where extremely rich and powerful people, with god complexes and deranged ideas about how the world should be, run our societies.
He's right. TSA misses stuff and is largely theatre. Countless other forms of transportation and public places are fine without forcing such theatre.
@ oleg -- To clarify, are you saying that planes would be safe if we didn't screen passengers, or just that a few planes being blown up every now and then isn't a big deal if it makes our lives more convenient?
For example, we also see school shootings every so often, and as a country, we seem fine with that, to the point that we do little to stop them.
I agree with Oleg, and seemingly so did a lot of countries make a similar determination about how to treat the Covid pandemic. Some countries overreacted ( my own country Australia) and invoked harsh lock down policies to try to protect everybody at no thought to the long term damage, while other countries let it rip on the premise that there will be deaths, but that is ok in comparison to harsher restrictions for all....
I agree with Oleg, and seemingly so did a lot of countries make a similar determination about how to treat the Covid pandemic. Some countries overreacted ( my own country Australia) and invoked harsh lock down policies to try to protect everybody at no thought to the long term damage, while other countries let it rip on the premise that there will be deaths, but that is ok in comparison to harsher restrictions for all. This is analogous to long lines at security, being policed by unpleasant and inefficient security staff to try to prevent any flight danger, but everyday reports of failures in the security are broadcast around the world. What has really been learnt in the 20+ years since these policies were first enacted? When still a tube of toothpaste or deodorant is confiscated as a deadly weapon???
You're right that TSA is mostly security theater. That doesn't equate to throwing away security but do it better. Much of the technology that can do it better than low paid mall cops wasn't around in 2001. The fact that in the year 2025 we have a $20 an hour person staring at a crappy computer screen image is mindboggling.
Congratulations on having the IQ of a snail.
Why screen manifests at all then?
If you don't have security, you don't know who's boarding. Anyone can book a ticket under any name, right?
On the former watchlist, fine, I'm John Doe today.
Relaxing security at airports it will be a matter of time before something bad happens.
"reasonable people can’t disagree on whether we should have airport security at all."
Yet until September 11, 2001, quite a few reasonable minds disagreed with you about this.
"A reinforced cockpit door doesn’t help if someone brings a bomb onboard an aircraft"
Neither does the ability of a bus "to just pull over" once the bomb has been detonated.
Look, I'm not neccessarily saying the best approach is to just get rid of security, but...
"reasonable people can’t disagree on whether we should have airport security at all."
Yet until September 11, 2001, quite a few reasonable minds disagreed with you about this.
"A reinforced cockpit door doesn’t help if someone brings a bomb onboard an aircraft"
Neither does the ability of a bus "to just pull over" once the bomb has been detonated.
Look, I'm not neccessarily saying the best approach is to just get rid of security, but to act like its such an absurd take or that we should not at least move in that direction somewhat is very narrow minded.
@ ML -- "Yet until September 11, 2001, quite a few reasonable minds disagreed with you about this."
That was 25 years ago, and the world has changed. Until some point in history, people also disagreed about whether slavery was moral or not.
"Neither does the ability of a bus 'to just pull over' once the bomb has been detonated."
The reality is that in terms of the global impact, a plane blowing up is...
@ ML -- "Yet until September 11, 2001, quite a few reasonable minds disagreed with you about this."
That was 25 years ago, and the world has changed. Until some point in history, people also disagreed about whether slavery was moral or not.
"Neither does the ability of a bus 'to just pull over' once the bomb has been detonated."
The reality is that in terms of the global impact, a plane blowing up is much more significant than a bus blowing up. Both are of course terrible tragedies, but if a bus blows up, people would be sad, but not much would change. If a plane would blown up, it could completely change the airline industry, and massively reduce demand for travel.
@ML
A typical bus carries 60-80 people at the upper end, not the 130-400 of a loaded plane, and if a bomb is detonated aboard a bus there's much lower risk of the bus itself causing additional casualties. Unlike debris from a plane falling from thousands of feet up over a city. Similarly for a train, a bomb going off both doesn't mean the guaranteed death of everyone on the train as it would...
@ML
A typical bus carries 60-80 people at the upper end, not the 130-400 of a loaded plane, and if a bomb is detonated aboard a bus there's much lower risk of the bus itself causing additional casualties. Unlike debris from a plane falling from thousands of feet up over a city. Similarly for a train, a bomb going off both doesn't mean the guaranteed death of everyone on the train as it would for an aircraft, and the train is also less likely to injure bystanders or damage property beyond its right-of-way.
At the end of the day, it comes down to risk vs convenience. Aircraft are inherently more at risk of killing all onboard and injuring bystanders if there's a mechanical failure or a violent act by a passenger. Aircraft also already take a long time to load/unload, so security checks prior to boarding are far less onerous in terms of additional time needed to fly. Buses and trains load and unload very quickly, and especially in terms of mass transit adding airport-style security checks would make them far less convenient to use, and given that buses and trains have inherently less associated risk there's no rationale to implement such checks.
Heck, as an example, if you tried to screen passengers getting on the subway in NYC the entire city would grind to a halt. For comparison, on a peak travel day security at ATL airport screened about 116k passengers. The NYC subway has a daily ridership around 3.6 MILLION. There's no technology on earth that can screen that many people to the level airports do without significantly slowing down operations.
And in NYC, there are tens of thousands of cops patrolling the subway system. There's no one on an airplane in the air, unless you start arming the pilots and flight attendants. I am sure everyone is looking forward to a gun fight on your future flight.
Basically the people running this shlt show now don't care about anything as long as they can make an extra buck. What do they care about airport security? They can fly private.
He's right. No real difference with bus and train. What if someone brings a bomb aboard a bus or train? Why don't we have security there? We should! Or you don't care about safety?
@ echino -- We often do have security for trains (for example, I often take the Brightline in South Florida, and it has security). But I'm not sure a shortcoming in security in one plane is a reason to abolish a security measure in another place?
@echino because a bus or train can stop pretty quickly and people can get off. If something happens a bus or train is not crashing down from 30k feet, guaranteeing that everyone onboard will die. If something happens, busses are on major roads and many (most?) train lines run at least near roads, easing access by emergency services. A bus or train isn't going to take out a building. Need I go on about the...
@echino because a bus or train can stop pretty quickly and people can get off. If something happens a bus or train is not crashing down from 30k feet, guaranteeing that everyone onboard will die. If something happens, busses are on major roads and many (most?) train lines run at least near roads, easing access by emergency services. A bus or train isn't going to take out a building. Need I go on about the differences between if an emergency, or even accident, happens on a bus or train versus an airplane?
Oh yeah. You are so right! How come no one thought of that over the last 100 years of air travel? Genius! You are as smart as Donald!
So a few things here:
1. Until supersonic travel can be as cost effective as present commercial air travel it's going nowhere. Plane speeds have not changed since jets were introduced in the 50s/early 60s and the Concord never made commercial success
2. Presumably biometrics and AI could be used to do screening not mall cops. Also, the better use of No Fly Lists so that people that should not be on planes...
So a few things here:
1. Until supersonic travel can be as cost effective as present commercial air travel it's going nowhere. Plane speeds have not changed since jets were introduced in the 50s/early 60s and the Concord never made commercial success
2. Presumably biometrics and AI could be used to do screening not mall cops. Also, the better use of No Fly Lists so that people that should not be on planes can't even book a ticket. But there's a lot of potential issues there, including getting on the list if you have the same name
3. None of this solves the biggest threat that has grown after 9/11. Mentally unbalanced individuals, excessive alcohol, abuse of drugs, almost always a combination. If the police have to be called and if they have to arrest/trespass that individual should be placed on a total No Fly List. We don't need drunken, strung out adult toddlers getting on airplanes.
"lane speeds have not changed since jets were introduced in the 50s/early 60s"
Incorrect. They have changed, they've gone DOWN.
The C990, B747, and L1011 were all significantly faster than today's B787 and A350, and the A340 and B777 before them.
Boeing, when it was still a fine company, did research before planning the 787. They offered the industry a choice of a more efficient jet with better economics OR a jet with the potential to fly faster though still subsonic. The industry clearly indicated a preference for better costs vs speed.
This feels like one of those tech CEOs who see regulations as only pesky things that should go away rather than items that are often written in the blood of those who lost their lives or limbs when the regulation wasn't in place. The difference is that we aren't talking about an app, we are talking about airplane safety.
While not directly impacting his planes, his thoughts on safety regulations here make me a little...
This feels like one of those tech CEOs who see regulations as only pesky things that should go away rather than items that are often written in the blood of those who lost their lives or limbs when the regulation wasn't in place. The difference is that we aren't talking about an app, we are talking about airplane safety.
While not directly impacting his planes, his thoughts on safety regulations here make me a little nervous about how willing he may be to brush aside regulations when building his aircraft.
Agreed. Seemed to go fine for Stockton Rush and his buddies.
If only more billionaires would emulate Rush's example.
"... explain to my nearly three-year-old why he needs to wear pants when we leave the house."
This has to be the best line of the day! Good question to ask his parents, too!
No doubt he flies private, so the safety & security of common folk is of little concern.