The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has just implemented one of its most significant policy shifts in decades, which I imagine most travelers will be quite happy about. I first covered this a couple of days ago, but there’s now an official press release, as I know some people were questioning whether this announcement was legitimate or not.
In this post:
TSA updates rules regarding shoes at security
As of Tuesday, July 8, 2025, the TSA no longer requires passengers to remove their shoes when passing through security checkpoints nationwide.
For context, this hasn’t been necessary for a long time for those with TSA PreCheck. Furthermore, enforcement of this has been inconsistent in recent years, with many non-PreCheck checkpoints not requiring shoes to be removed either. However, this is now an official policy across airports and checkpoints in the United States.
The only exception to this rule is for those who are unable to present a REAL ID, as those passengers are subject to extra screening (REAL ID requirements were finally implemented as of May 2025). Furthermore, if you have to go through secondary security, then you can also be asked to remove your shoes.
Why is the TSA finally changing its shoe policy?
What has changed that’s suddenly causing the TSA to update its policy on passengers wearing shoes at the checkpoint? Here’s the official explanation, per Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem:
“Ending the ‘Shoes-Off’ policy is the latest effort DHS is implementing to modernize and enhance traveler experience across our nation’s airports. We expect this change will drastically decrease passenger wait times at our TSA checkpoints, leading to a more pleasant and efficient passenger experience. As always, security remains our top priority. Thanks to our cutting-edge technological advancements and multi-layered security approach, we are confident we can implement this change while maintaining the highest security standards. This initiative is just one of many the Trump administration is pursuing to usher in the President’s vision for a new Golden Age of American travel.”
Per an internal memo, the organization explained that this updated rule is a result of both technological advancements and a comprehensive reassessment of threat-level risks.
The claim is that modern scanning equipment is now able to detect potential hazards without requiring shoes to be removed. It’s interesting to note that the TSA is planning on maintaining its restrictions on liquids until 2040, despite screening technology being improved there as well. So the difference in how those two things are being handled is quite interesting.
More broadly, I have to imagine that this change also reflects the political climate. In recent times, we’ve seen bills introduced to abolish the TSA, with many claiming that the TSA is bloated, inefficient, and ineffective. So one wonders if that negative perception of the organization might be causing some policy updates, in order to improve optics.
The requirement to take off shoes at security was first introduced after Richard Reid, often referred to as the “shoe bomber,” tried to detonate explosives in his shoes onboard a transatlantic flight. Fortunately he was stopped, but he’s had quite the lasting impact on our aviation ecosystem.
Bottom line
The TSA has updated its policy on passengers needing to remove their shoes at security. This is no longer required, with the only exception being for those who don’t have a REAL ID. So even without PreCheck, you can expect that you can now keep your shoes on when passing through security.
This is certainly a change that will streamline the security experience for passengers, so I’m curious if it makes the screening process materially more efficient.
What do you make of the TSA no longer requiring shoes to be removed?
I think everyone should be able to bring a 1 gallon jar of chili.
As long as they keep swabbing people for bomb residue, we will be fine.
Hit rate on the swab would be amazing statistic.
This is a very sad day for all foot fetish frequent flyer out there
Disgusting.
Over the past year I've flown through several airports in Europe that no longer require liquids to be removed, as they had replaced older scanning machines with the latest models: Rome FCO, Amsterdam, Budapest (and I think Helsinki)
Just been announced two airports here in England are lifting the liquid restrictions to two litres. New scanners, I believe.
TSA is a big expensive joke. They provide absolutely nothing to keep anyone safe. They do contribute to the high numbers in bottle water sales, they do confiscate and keep valuable travelers items, they do steal luggage and valuables from travelers. Just look up how many of them have gotten caught. They have no special skills, they hire anyone. The screening at Disney is way more safer than the screening at TSA. They are the...
TSA is a big expensive joke. They provide absolutely nothing to keep anyone safe. They do contribute to the high numbers in bottle water sales, they do confiscate and keep valuable travelers items, they do steal luggage and valuables from travelers. Just look up how many of them have gotten caught. They have no special skills, they hire anyone. The screening at Disney is way more safer than the screening at TSA. They are the biggest waste of taxpayer dollars, nothing but a big scam.
I’m sure you’ll still have to remove your shoes if you’re wearing boots that have a metal shank. I have TSA ✅ and Clear, and if I’m wearing my boots with a metal shank they make me take them off.
The TSA is big govt’s attempt to massage the fears that the flying public has or that have been planted in their heads by propaganda. It’s a farce. An EXPENSIVE farce. They have never been able to enforce their own rules across the board without bias or exactly the same from one airport to another. As a commercial pilot who has KCM (known crew member) access and being one of the most highly vetted individuals...
The TSA is big govt’s attempt to massage the fears that the flying public has or that have been planted in their heads by propaganda. It’s a farce. An EXPENSIVE farce. They have never been able to enforce their own rules across the board without bias or exactly the same from one airport to another. As a commercial pilot who has KCM (known crew member) access and being one of the most highly vetted individuals in the country, we STILL get “randomed” for zero reason and have to go through the precheck lines anyways. Same old, same old typical government intervention that just doesn’t work. Abolish the TSA.
While a lot of it is security theatre and I agree that TSA had and still has issues following its own procedures, I disagree that you getting randomly checked occasionally is a bad thing. We're all human, and even if we're squeaky clean up until we get access, we can make mistakes or take advantage of our position out of greed. Bad things can happen to us. Bribery, blackmail, extortion, all of these things could...
While a lot of it is security theatre and I agree that TSA had and still has issues following its own procedures, I disagree that you getting randomly checked occasionally is a bad thing. We're all human, and even if we're squeaky clean up until we get access, we can make mistakes or take advantage of our position out of greed. Bad things can happen to us. Bribery, blackmail, extortion, all of these things could cause somebody with access to become a bad actor. The random searches are there for that purpose. They're an additional security layer against coercion, and a disincentive to those who might consider abusing their access out of greed.
I think TSA does need to be reformed, but I disagree with privatization. Privatization is not a panacea, and often it turns out more expensive because now the government has to make sure the private contractor profits while still providing a similar level of service and duplicating all the administration overhead.
Your logic that anyone can suddenly become a bad actor and therefore random screening is good even for the most vetted individuals is the literal definition of fear-mongering.
Based on your logic, no one can ever assume they are safe anywhere they are. We should randomly screen people who board an Amtrak train. We should randomly screen teachers or people who entering a fitness gym.
Increases security and a sense of safety derived...
Your logic that anyone can suddenly become a bad actor and therefore random screening is good even for the most vetted individuals is the literal definition of fear-mongering.
Based on your logic, no one can ever assume they are safe anywhere they are. We should randomly screen people who board an Amtrak train. We should randomly screen teachers or people who entering a fitness gym.
Increases security and a sense of safety derived from that security is purely your own perception based on fear. You don’t fear for your safety at Amtrak or the local gym so there’s no security. But you have a real genuine fear of commercial airline pilots becoming bad actors that you think a large scale nation-wide screening system needs to be in place? Be reasonable..
@GPH
It's not fearmongering. It does come down to risk vs ability to alleviate that risk. In airports, security checkpoints are already in place at every point leading to the secure area.
It's a miniscule extra burden to occasionally check previously vetted people, which both discourages flight attendants or pilots from abusing their position to smuggle contraband and is an added insurance policy against 3rd parties coercing flight crews.
In terms of...
@GPH
It's not fearmongering. It does come down to risk vs ability to alleviate that risk. In airports, security checkpoints are already in place at every point leading to the secure area.
It's a miniscule extra burden to occasionally check previously vetted people, which both discourages flight attendants or pilots from abusing their position to smuggle contraband and is an added insurance policy against 3rd parties coercing flight crews.
In terms of actual risk, a plane getting blown up or crashed is going to kill at least a hundred people and risk hurting or killing people on the ground. By comparison, terrorist attacks on rail systems are much less likely to kill or injure as many people simply because the train doesn't wreck itself with no chance of recovery and the death of all onboard if one carriage has a bomb go off. Same for setting a bomb off in a gym. Additionally, regular cops can respond to incidents on the ground. Cops can't respond to incidents in the air.
I generally don't fear for my safety anywhere, except occasionally on the interstate when people are driving especially crazy. But that doesn't mean that people haven't tried to blow up airplanes before, and we should have security checks to prevent that from happening again.
Do you think that because of your status you should not have medical examinations, or pilot competence checking?
Some of the TSA rules are the most idiotic I've ever heard. But when we got locked down and just about force vaxed for covid I wasn't surprised purely because of what we have to go through just to board a flight. Amazing. A bottle of water/juice and a jug of tea? Skin lotion? Seriously. How could my Samsung tablet be a threat? Basic security. Deal wit the serious stuff. But no. The abundance of caution makes everyone safe and miserable.
I will not defend the attitude of the TSA - they have much room for improvement.
But bombs disguised as laptops, and explosive combinations disguised as juice/skin lotion etc, are very real tools of Islamic State etc
What about overseas travelers
Pretty much all overseas travellers use passports.
Do all passports count as REAL ID ?
Yes, passports are a form of REAL ID.
Happy to see this rule finally discontinued.
Former airport security staff confirmed in private conversations, that they always wanted it to be maintained, because of sadistic motives: They really loved to watch people who struggle to take their shoes off and put them on again.
If a single shoe incident has caused such a harsh reaction by the TSA, maybe we should expand tgst type of reaction to shootings.
Outside of the Americas, that is regarded as fairly sensible.
The reason it’s sensible outside of the US is because those countries don’t have a sadistic cult known as the NRA.
I wonder how many NRA people call themselves pro-life - because supporting unrestricted sale of a product designed to kill people isn’t pro-life. And why doesn’t the NRA care about police brutality despite claiming guns protect against “tyranny”?
99.9% of travellers would gladly keep taking their shoes off - in return for getting rid of the TSA.
People don't buy shoes airside, but they sure buy a lot of liquids because of the rules.
I suspect lobbying somewhere given the far out timeline
Haha no. It’s straight up that they don’t expect airports to buy the new scanners across the entire US until then. Also, as the UK found out, they’re heavy and some airports are having to strengthen flooring to handle them.
How about a compromise on the "liquids issues"?
Those with TSA Pre-Check and/or CLEAR should be allowed to bring larger sizes of bottles of liquids--and more bottles than will fit into a 1-qt ziplock bag--onboard in carryon luggage. Random checks of bottles could still be done (I have had my little bottles swabbed and tested for 'dangerous compounds')
Those without either standing will remain subject to current regulations.
This could be a money-maker for the...
How about a compromise on the "liquids issues"?
Those with TSA Pre-Check and/or CLEAR should be allowed to bring larger sizes of bottles of liquids--and more bottles than will fit into a 1-qt ziplock bag--onboard in carryon luggage. Random checks of bottles could still be done (I have had my little bottles swabbed and tested for 'dangerous compounds')
Those without either standing will remain subject to current regulations.
This could be a money-maker for the Feds, as more people will pay for Pre-Check. But it could be a money-loser for airlines as the need to put those larger quantities into checked bags will go away--along with some of the checked bag fees.
I haven't seen the plastic bag/1 bag per traveller part of the 3-1-1 rule enforced for at least 10-15 years. They seem to only be focused on the size of the containers (ensuring they are less than 100 ml/3.4 oz). They are more anal on the plastic bags in other parts of the world like Europe (although this is also changing steadily).
Finally, the TSA in America is following the precedent set by EVERY other nation's airport security. In Australia, we don't even have a liquid restriction or ID requirement on domestic flights
Well, there are a couple of airports that do not make you remove anything from your suitcase or take your shoes or belt off, but that's rare. Even those airports still maintain the liquid rule. Perhaps when other countries start to implement the liquid rule so will the US.
UK is on the cusp of beginning the relaxation of liquid restrictions. It's a pretty big moment, considering the British authorities have been quite strict about this compared to other nations. One of the first airports to have relaxed these is Edinburgh, which has direct flights to the US (the other one being Birmingham).
The EU has been behind on this implementation, however, so my theory is that it might be a few years before...
UK is on the cusp of beginning the relaxation of liquid restrictions. It's a pretty big moment, considering the British authorities have been quite strict about this compared to other nations. One of the first airports to have relaxed these is Edinburgh, which has direct flights to the US (the other one being Birmingham).
The EU has been behind on this implementation, however, so my theory is that it might be a few years before the whole of Europe is on the same page.
We could see a newer apparatus in certain Asian airports though (Hong Kong, etc.) in the coming years.
It used to be that you could keep your shoes on if you were 75 and over.
I think this move is mainly to oppose doing away with t.s.a. quicker screening but more vulnerability. Least we let our guard down .
Which always seemed daft to me.
What was to stop a bomber organising a latex mask and fake ID showing them being over 75?
75 year olds can't be bothered with all that crap, @Albert.
Wow, cool, it only took 24 years to finally figure out that shoes aren't actually dangerous!
That's a sprint compared to how long it's taking to figure out that liquids aren't dangerous, either.
Do you know it doesn't take much to take a plane down with explosives. Former t.s.a . Worker god bless TSA
Flying domestic here in Türkiye and I never had to take my shoes off.
It's all security theater, anyway, to assuage the 'they're out to get me' paranoia of the general traveler. Anyone truly intent on blowing up a plane can still easily do it. We spend trillions on this nonsense.
Did SLC get the memo. They obviously didn’t get the one where persons 75 yo and older do not have to remove their shoes. On May 27, 2025 I flew from MSP to SLC. When I went through TSA at MSP I was told I didn’t have to remove my shoes. When going through TSA in SLC I was told I had to remove my shoes. I was 75 yo and have arthritis in my...
Did SLC get the memo. They obviously didn’t get the one where persons 75 yo and older do not have to remove their shoes. On May 27, 2025 I flew from MSP to SLC. When I went through TSA at MSP I was told I didn’t have to remove my shoes. When going through TSA in SLC I was told I had to remove my shoes. I was 75 yo and have arthritis in my feet. It is painful for me to go barefoot or even in stocking feet. Having a pacemaker I was sent 3 stations away because the equipment was too old to accommodate my pacemaker. After I made it through “checkpoint Charlie” I asked an agent why I had to remove my shoes there but not MSP he just shrugged and said “everyone does it different. If I had known the “rule” at that time I would have asked to speak to a supervisor. I’m not a frequent flier and haven’t flown by myself since before 9/11. These agents need more training on ALL of the rules.
I fly often, internationally. I have no idea how they do it, but in the USA, EVERY SINGLE TSA agent is just rude, 100% nasty rude.
I support anything to eliminate these horid humans. I never have this complaint in any other country, this is a USA, TSA thing.
Yea, well they had me remove mine yesterday in Missoula.
Not sure if policy started some days ago. Just yesterday, 7/6 was told not to remove shoes at MCO
Great it was a real inconvenience as I handicapped and it would be hard for me to do that thank you so much
How about the way they treat us: taxpayers????
This is the best decision for airline travelers. Removing shoe have been a really big issue for me. I have balance issues and I feel 2x due to having to remove my shoes. It certainly should increase quicker security screenings.
I currently have a return flight on the 19th and this is nice to have learned that TSA no longer requires travelers to remove their shoes.
Thank you TSA
They could've at least put some seats by security so you can put on your footwear without any problems. And I've also learned to carry some shower caps to put on your feet so they don't get dirty.
The liquid ban still in effect is thanks to the lobbyists! You can stop at a store on the way to the airport and grab a bottle of water and so forth and pay a normal price, but with the liquid ban you are subjected to the huge mark up at the airport post security. The vendors pay a ridiculous price for rent at airports and want a return. That’s why you don’t see moving walkways anymore.
That's what I said below, it's more of a commercial decision than anything else really. And they want you to walk around and spend money at the shops.
...or you could do as many seasoned travelers do and carry an empty (doesn't even have to be an expensive Yeti type, can call literally be an empty bottle water) bottle, and fill it up in the bottle nozzle at the water fountains most airports have.
What if you bring your coffee from home or your local coffee shop or even a Starbucks where prices are much less at your main street compared to an airport terminal and want to take your time enjoying it while waiting for your flight? Or what about you want to bring a Gatorade, soda, or even milk/juice boxes for the kids? It's not just water!
I agree that the liquid restriction is probably unnecessary. At least to my understanding, liquid explosives tend to be very sensitive to heat/shock to the point that they're essentially unusable without some kind of solid stabilizing component. It's just really unlikely that somebody could get it onto a plane without a premature detonation at some point or being caught by security.
The TSA is useless. A massively over bloated gov agency that is full of waste and inefficacy, not to mention rude employees that make travel any more miserable. The TSA has never prevented a terrorist attack, and needs to be replaced with private security companies asap!
You might as well go back pre-9/11 and get rid of DHS while you're at it.
The statistics show TSA has intercepted a whole heap on carry-on firearms loaded and not, so they are not totally useless @Jackson.
Did you read the Yahoo article you linked or watch the video in the article? Nothing in there links back to anything official. The video creator says twice that everything is alleged and not confirmed. Do you have something from TSA that says this is happening?
Creator also says "as early as Monday" so he even hedges the effective date yet it's reported as fact here.
Also, the rule has neem for years that those over 75 don't have to remove their shoes.
My question is if you only have a passport, are you still requested to take off your shoes. I'm also a senior
You keeping shoes on no mater what
A passport is a form of RealID.
The traveling public need to wake up. TSA is not the enemy. We do our job with keeping America safe and preventing planes from falling out of the sky. The political aspect or not does not concern us! We do our job!
The public needs a much better understanding of what TSA does and then maybe they will have a different perspective and respect for what we do!
God Bless America!
The TSA is useless. A massively over bloated gov agency that is full of waste and inefficacy, not to mention rude employees that make travel any more miserable. The TSA has never prevented a terrorist attack, and needs to be replaced with private security companies asap!
Didn’t you already say this?
I agree with everything you said up and until you said they should be replaced by private companies. Please no more incompetence. Private contractors are worse than government agencies.
I agree. Besides being marginally inconvenient, most people don’t understand how airport security works. I’m sure I can be more efficient, consistent or even more friendly, I feel safer flying with TSA on the job.
How many terrorists has the TSA caught since it's inception?
And how many innocent people has it put on the no fly list?
You as an individual doing your job is irrelevant the TSA system is unreasonably inconvenient and unnecessarily costly for travelers. We're being punished for the actions of a few radical nut jobs. It's ridiculous. And are you guys trained to be brash, rude and inconsiderate? Is that part of your job description? To humiliate people that you are supposedly protecting? Sometimes you have to recognize that whole you may mean well, the job you're "just...
You as an individual doing your job is irrelevant the TSA system is unreasonably inconvenient and unnecessarily costly for travelers. We're being punished for the actions of a few radical nut jobs. It's ridiculous. And are you guys trained to be brash, rude and inconsiderate? Is that part of your job description? To humiliate people that you are supposedly protecting? Sometimes you have to recognize that whole you may mean well, the job you're "just doing" might be the problem even if you're not.
To the person who called himself/herself “abolish the TSA,” it appears you’ve forgot—or perhaps never knew—about the plane landing in Detroit, that had a terrorist on board with explosives embedded in his shoes.
The only reason why that plane didn't catch on fire and go down is because the terrorist was incompetent and wasn't able to set off his explosives.
You must be thinking of Richard Reid, aka "The Shoe Bomber". If you are, that was on AA 63 from Paris to Miami in 2001. Richard looks like he can't even tie his own shoelaces. So no surprise that he wasn't able to detonate the explosive. Perhaps he should have read the instructions......if only he knew how to read. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid
Or he could be thinking of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab on NW 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit. Probably got his incidents and flights mixed up ;)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Airlines_Flight_253
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_Farouk_Abdulmutallab
Speaking of explosives, there's PR 434 from Manila to Tokyo way back in '94 that did explode, but was not catastrophic due to a different 747 variant used.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Airlines_Flight_434
Or he could be thinking of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab on NW 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit. Probably got his incidents and flights mixed up ;)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Airlines_Flight_253
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_Farouk_Abdulmutallab
Speaking of explosives, there's PR 434 from Manila to Tokyo way back in '94 that did explode, but was not catastrophic due to a different 747 variant used.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Airlines_Flight_434
To the person who called himself/herself “Al in Silicon Valley” it appears you’ve forgot—or perhaps never knew—about the plane landing in Detroit, NEVER went through TSA!!!!
Nor did the underwear bomber who you're actually thinking of nor the shoe guy who landed in Boston. None of them went through TSA.
And you're a disgrace to human and AI. Idiot pretending to be an algorithm is the dumbest of all.
It has to do with perception more than reality. And it has to do with politics. One person one time trying to do something unsuccessfully resulted in inconveniencing people for decades for a small risk. If one factor is seen that might have a chance of causing a problem in an airplane, it's addressed. But when other factors that definitely caused problems in school shootings are seen, no steps are taken to mitigate those risks....
It has to do with perception more than reality. And it has to do with politics. One person one time trying to do something unsuccessfully resulted in inconveniencing people for decades for a small risk. If one factor is seen that might have a chance of causing a problem in an airplane, it's addressed. But when other factors that definitely caused problems in school shootings are seen, no steps are taken to mitigate those risks. It's not really about mitigation.
Likewise, steps are taken to minimize blowing up a planeload of people on an airplane, but not to protect a larger number who have yet to go through security and are in a crowded location.
With luggage, there are steps taken to prevent certain things from getting on airplanes, and people are told to be vigilant if they see unattended bags. But few airports check luggage and tags as people leave the airport, so a person could easily walk into the airport at the baggage claim area, leave baggage unattended without people caring (such as putting it on the carousel) and expose many planeloads of people to more risk.
Nobody is looking at things systemically and trying to assure a consistent level of security in all high risk areas. Letting people on an airplane with a bottle of water is less risky than letting a person walk into a playground with a rifle, but it comes down to public perception. If one political party supported a fundamental right to bring water on airplanes and another opposed it, it would be different. But with all sides not objecting to it, people will give up freedom for virtually no gain.
Your entire post can be summed up how they (ab)use propaganda to control the public.
PATRIOT Act.
Now if we can only get rid of 3.5 ounces.
It's about time, especially since it can severely impact seniors who may have related health issues !
Good thing seniors over 75 keep shoes on anyway .. so that comment was not neededed.. and even if they can’t take them off all you have to do is tell them.. TSA chill if you are
Won’t shoes that have metal arch supports in the sole still set off the metal detector thereby requiring that you remove your shoes and go back through the detector?
I flew yesterday and today and had to remove shoes.
So I am skeptical this is a policy
Station manager hasn’t checked their emails yet for the day lol
A tiny step to making America great again!
A huge barrier to making America great again is for AA to give good service again. That is impossible.
One tiny step to Make America Great Again!
A huge barrier to making America great again is for American Airlines to have good service again.
It is BS. I flew yesterday and today and shoes were removed.
Good news. About 95% of the world doesn't have a rule to remove shoes at security for airports. The US has long been one of the outliers. Though I have Pre-Check and hence have been free from this rule for some time, it's nice that all travellers will stand to gain here.
In the long run, I think the liquids rule should go, considering other countries like Britain et al. are making progress in removing...
Good news. About 95% of the world doesn't have a rule to remove shoes at security for airports. The US has long been one of the outliers. Though I have Pre-Check and hence have been free from this rule for some time, it's nice that all travellers will stand to gain here.
In the long run, I think the liquids rule should go, considering other countries like Britain et al. are making progress in removing this. Of course, it will take more time, as America has about 450 odd airports, and we should be patient for any sign of change. But it must be done nontheless.
It could absolutely be rolled out faster. That's a question of funding and political will, but for unfortunately the current political priority ball is making the uber-rich richer, resulting in no funding.
Look up One Stop Security. TSA is planning to recognize certain overseas airports (starting with Heathrow) as providing equally effective security, so passengers coming from those airports to the US and connecting to another flight won't have to go through security again.
Heathrow generally doesn't require people to remove shoes.
Agreed. European airports don't really have a mandate to remove shoes for security. The only exceptions are footwear with metal or high heeled shoes/boots. But I usually wear trainers (what Americans call running shoes), so it's pretty convenient.
Equally effective?
You mean more effectively and efficient.
How will those passengers then be exempted after going through immigration and customs?
Excellent question. Once you clear immigration and customs, you are directed landside (at least in all of the US airports where I' have arrived from an international flight). Then you have to go through security with everyone else flying from the airport if you have a connecting flight. Even if a provision is provided to go directly airside once you have cleared immigration and customs, there would need to be some means to separate out...
Excellent question. Once you clear immigration and customs, you are directed landside (at least in all of the US airports where I' have arrived from an international flight). Then you have to go through security with everyone else flying from the airport if you have a connecting flight. Even if a provision is provided to go directly airside once you have cleared immigration and customs, there would need to be some means to separate out arrivals from countries with "effective" security.
BTW, back in March I flew to the US from LHR. I was required to remove my shoes at fast track security.
The USA has virtually no international transit so that point is moot
I’ve read the ESTA fee will more than double from USD21 to 40. The international tax will increase from USD6 to 30.
With international traffic falling as I can see the figures for LAX online and it’s dropping month by month, because of the lunatics running the country. They are too preoccupied with building concentration camps and vilifying anyone who isn’t aryan.
LHR T3 security power-trippers are renowned for being security zealots to the point of bloodymindedness. Always guaranteed to be an unpleasant experience.
FYI, the 'shoes off' deal disappered at every airport outside the USA years ago. The current fad is belt off~ even more nonsensical.
Bout time. Shoe policy was always security kabuki - other countries with comparable threat levels abandoned it years ago. The timing feels politically motivated given recent TSA abolition bills, but I'll take practical improvements however they come. Now if only they'd apply the same 'technological advancement' logic to the liquid restrictions they're keeping until 2040.
I would love to bring my own water and coffee. Just put it on the belt with everything else and get on with it. We're spending millions if not billions on all kinds of tech and we can't even something as simple as water and coffee.
I agree with the sentiment, but I really don't want people's spilled coffee on my bags if they "put it on the belt".
Then put it on the tray with the cover on lol
I feel like the liquids is more of a commercial decision as the shops are afraid to lose some amount of business as airport prices are double than what would you get at the corner store.
NOT double.... Triple or quadruple or more! At PHX, a soft drink (cola) costs $7.50! Way more than the usual $1.50 to $2.95 range in corner stores in Phoenix.
A way to keep the rich richer?
Cmon
This is bullying people without REAL ID.
See how mothership wants to indirectly force everyone under surveillance.