TSA announces game changing program to 'streamline security' that passengers will love
The new One Stop Security program (OSS) will be implemented from this week, as per Fox News.
The program will allow passengers who are arriving in the U.S. from international airports with connecting flights to bypass TSA re-screening to board their next flight if it is domestic.
It's expected to cut out long connection times, which typically include clearing U.S. Customs, claiming checked bags, occasionally rechecking bags, and then clearing TSA security, with American Airlines estimating it could cut down the connection time in airports by half.
David Seymour, Chief Operating Officer at American Airlines, described the program as one of the most forward-thinking enhancements that the airline can bring to international travel.
'It delivers a level of convenience and time-savings that's never been available before to customers connecting from international flights,' he said.
'With this game-changing program [our] customers will spend significantly less time worrying about an onerous connection process and more time enjoying their travel journey.'
American Airlines and Delta Air Lines partnered with TSA to launch the program in London's Heathrow International Airport on Friday. The process allowed customers traveling from London who were connecting through the airline's largest hub, Dallas Fort Worth International Airport (DFW), to clear U.S. Customs right at the arrival gate.
Delta Air Lines will launch its one-stop flight arriving at Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport by the end of July, according to TSA.
DailyMail.com has reached out to TSA for comment.
A 2024 article published in Airports Council International suggested that One-Stop Security will significantly reduce connection times and stress for transfer passengers.
'One-Stop Security significantly reduces connection times and stress for transfer passengers,' it noted.
TSA Deputy Administrator Adam Stahl told Fox News Digital more airports globally will be added to the program in the month ahead.
'It really is a commonsense security approach for us to streamline security from abroad to the United States,' he told the publication.
He added: 'It really underscores and piggybacks onto the president's and the administration's golden age of travel,' and promised there are 'no impacts to security.'
Last week, the Department of Homeland Security revealed it is reviewing the 3.4-ounce limit, igniting hopes of a long-overdue update to airport security protocols.
'I will tell you, the liquids [rule] I am questioning,' Kristi Noem told NewsNation chief Washington Correspondent Blake Burman at the inaugural Hill Nation Summit.
'So that may be the next big announcement is what size your liquids need to be. We're looking at it.'
Containers carrying liquids, aerosols, creams and gels over 3.4 ounces are not allowed in carry-on bags, and can only be taken onto flights if they are in checked luggage.
TSA enforces the '3-1-1 rule,' which applies specifically to liquid storage in a carry-on.
As per the policy, containers holding liquids must be the 3.4-ounce weight limit or less, all containers must fit in one quart-sized clear bag inside a carry-on, and only one of these bags is permitted per flier, according to the agency.
The new policy comes as the U.S. prepares for a barrage of large events in the next few years, including the Olympics and the FIFA World Cup matches.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
44 minutes ago
- The Sun
I changed phone deal to save money – then EE said I wracked up £94 in extra charges
Q. I've had a mobile phone contract with BT for the last eight years and currently pay £12.66 a month. In April, I was offered a new contract with more data for just £10 a month. 1 The contract was provided by EE as the two networks are merging. I was pleased with the offer so I agreed and signed up. But I was shocked when I received my first bill for March. I was charged an eye-watering £56 - £43.34 more than in February. The next month another shock bill followed, this time for £58. Both times I was told that I had gone over my data allowance. When I called and asked what I had used the extra data for I was told that the company does not have the information. I thought this was unfair, especially as I had set up a £40 bill cap on my account. I have spent hours on the phone trying to sort this out. Is there anything you can do? Malcolm Finch, via email. A. We all use data to scroll on social media, surf the web and stay connected to our loved ones. But in this situation your contract caused a disconnect between you and EE. It is important to read the terms and conditions of a mobile phone contract before you sign up. Although it may seem similar to your current plan, there could be higher fees or penalties if you make too many calls, use extra data or send lots of texts. This is what happened in your case. BT said you exceeded your data limit on your March and April bills. You were charged for the data you used up to your spending cap of £40 a month. A spending cap allows you to limit how much you can use your phone outside of your normal plan. BT has agreed to refund you £79.98 for the additional charges as a gesture of goodwill. A member of its team has also called to explain how the spending cap works so you do not get hit with a big bill again. This case shows how important it is to set a spending cap that you can afford. It should help you to limit how much you spend on roaming, picture messages and texts, which can stop you racking up extra charges. If you have a spending cap in place then your provider should let you know when you are getting close to your allowance. That's why I was very surprised that EE unwittingly let you rack up such a big bill, but I'm glad you have got your money back. Squeeze team total: £224,628.
BBC News
44 minutes ago
- BBC News
South Western Railway reduces some off-peak services in August
A train operator which runs services between London and the home counties has announced a temporary summer Western Railway is reducing some of its services from London Waterloo to destinations in Surrey, Berkshire and Hampshire between 28 July and 29 will affect off-peak services, which the company said have fewer customers during the summer advised customers to check its journey planner before setting off. Surrey stations affected are Shepperton, Guildford, Woking, Weybridge, Chertsey, Chessington South, Cobham and Stoke D' Berkshire Reading and Windsor and Eton Riverside will see reduced services, as will Alton in London stations affected are Hampton Court and Richmond.
Telegraph
44 minutes ago
- Telegraph
There's still one way that Britain can awaken from this nightmare
Sorry to keep banging on about how much worse things were in Britain in the 1970s. This must be like being lectured by your grandmother on how their generation survived the Blitz. But for those who lived through that pre-modern era when ordinary people were held hostage by titanic monopoly powers against which elected governments appeared to be helpless, it is difficult to see today's problems as the end of the world. It wasn't just the daily power outages which brought darkness and the shut down of all electrical equipment for hours at a time. There were as well the horrendous economic pressures which put today's difficulties into a sobering perspective. It may be true – as the young point out with some bitterness – that property was unbelievably cheap. At the end of the 1960s, it was possible to buy a suburban house in London for under £10,000. (TEN THOUSAND POUNDS.) The first great property boom soon quadrupled those prices but even in 1979 you could buy a four bedroomed semi-detached house in a good neighbourhood for around £50,000. But that home owning idyll is deceptive. What followed was a staggering, scarcely credible by today's standards, rise in inflation. At its height in 1975, the inflation rate was 26.9 per cent – which makes the obsessive concern over today's inflation increases look rather silly. What did that mean for all those people who had bought their homes at what we would now consider absurdly low prices? Their mortgages which had originally been linked realistically to their incomes – and all their household bills which were also being hit by the inflationary spiral – became terrifyingly unaffordable. This was a personal, familial crisis for countless households who suddenly discovered that they could not go on living as they had reasonably expected to do. The cost of their homes was suddenly way beyond the reach of their pay levels. The quality of life and the purchasing power of even well paid people, crashed with a suddenness that was deranging. It was now almost impossible for a mortgaged household to survive on one income so women had no choice but to go out to work. (Even though most mortgage lenders at the time would not take a wife's income into account which made practical planning problematic.) But it was not only the economics that was going badly wrong. The later 60s and the 70s produced some ugly social dynamics that are scarcely recalled now, perhaps because they are so shaming. There were menacing mobs of skinheads whose racism and anti-social delinquency were blatantly violent. My husband and I once stood over a pair of Asian boys on the tube to shield them from a pack of shaven headed thugs who were threatening to pull them off the train. Somehow London had gone from its world-conquering moment in the Swinging Sixties to this: rubbish piling up in the streets, endless transport strikes and a great many people deciding that it was time to leave the country forever. Those who lament today that 'nothing works' can scarcely imagine the havoc of unreliability that was everyday life in that chaotic decade. The antagonism toward the trade unions and the closed shop nationalised industries famously dominated the historic account of this awful period but what may be forgotten is the political despair that accompanied it. A succession of governments and party leaders had revealed themselves, to the disgust of the electorate, to be utterly useless. The 60s as we remember them had got under way with Harold Wilson who seemed to have achieved a fairly jolly accommodation with the most powerful trades unions. The 'beer and sandwiches at Number 10' technique of conciliation and kinship – which actually involved caving in to most union demands to avert strike action – seemed to offer some kind of sustainable mode of operation. Until it didn't. The unions would not be bought off indefinitely and their growing militancy was undermining major British industries like car manufacturing. The country then turned, more in desperation than hope, to the Conservatives under Edward Heath who promised legislation to curb the spread of disruptive union activism. When that proved an ineffectual disaster Harold Wilson was returned to power. He then retired from office (due sadly to the onset of dementia) and was followed by James Callaghan who had the misfortune to preside over the 1979 Winter of Discontent. The deterioration of confidence in the political leadership of the country, by this time, seemed irreversible. It was genuinely believed by a great many responsible people that national decline was not just inevitable but was already fully under way, and that this was attributable to the low standard of government performance: lack of conviction, failure of nerve and the poverty of ideas for dealing with the modern, post-imperial world. And what is more, this low standard was believed to be incurable. British politics was exhausted intellectually and morally. You know what happened next. The Callaghan government lost a vote of confidence in the House (dramatically by one vote). A general election followed which was won by Margaret Thatcher's new model Conservative party and – not overnight but over a period of several years – confidence was restored not just in the economic future but in the possibility of effective government. British politics was not dead after all: it had simply sunk into a defeatist depression. The Left which had been broken and demoralised first by its experience in government and then by the public renunciation of its trades union wing which had propelled the Thatcher Tories into power, now had to reinvent itself. First came the Social Democrats with their extreme Centrism, who were determined to 'break the mould' of party politics – which is to say, replace Labour and challenge the Tories' all out commitment to free markets. A lot of initial excitement was generated by this development, but it subsided into a footnote as the Thatcherite spirit of the 1980s swept it aside. Finally, Tony Blair's plagiarism of the Tory philosophy brought Labour back into the game. And so, confidence in recognisable party politics returned. What it took was nerve and fresh ideas. There must be a lesson there.
