These Are The Only US Airports That Don’t Have TSA






The Transportation Security Administration, or the TSA, has dominated headlines in 2026 due to long lines and staffing shortages driven by a still, at time of writing, unresolved partial government shutdown. In case you’re not a frequent flier, here’s a quick rundown of the TSA. This government agency provides security for all transportation systems in the U.S., including commercial aviation, highways, ports, and more. At airports, the TSA screens an average of almost 2.5 million passengers every day at almost 440 facilities across the nation. They’re the ones checking your carry-on for banned items – but not every airport uses the TSA for security.

There are 20 airports in the U.S. that participate in something called the Screening Partnership Program (SPP), which allows them to use qualified private companies for security screenings in place of TSA officers. To qualify for the program, airports must contract with private companies that operate under federal oversight and that follow every procedure, policy, and guideline required by the TSA. Airports only receive approval to participate in the program if it does not put travelers at risk, increase costs, or reduce the effectiveness of screening both passengers and their luggage. Additionally, the TSA mandates all security standards and screening equipment.

Many of the airports that participate in this program are smaller facilities like Tupelo Regional Airport in Mississippi, but there are three larger airports where you won’t spot TSA security: Kansas City International, Orlando Sanford, and San Francisco International Airport (SFO), which is the busiest airport in the program. More than 54 million people flew into or out of SFO in 2025, and they likely benefited from the SPP.

Perks (and downsides) of the Screening Partnership Program

The difference between TSA-operated security and SPP-screened airports is typically not noticeable to most travelers. Recently, however, some airports staffed by the TSA saw hours-long security lines due to the partial government shut-down, which didn’t affect airports with private security. Some TSA workers stopped coming to work because they weren’t being paid. In early April, President Trump signed an order to retroactively pay all TSA workers, and lines have decreased significantly at most airports.

But facilities that participate in the SPP didn’t experience any of these issues, because the government shutdown doesn’t affect those private contractors. It was a perk for many travelers during those fraught weeks for sure, but there’s little evidence to support other potential perks, such as cost savings and better customer service. The Trump administration recently floated a plan to privatize all TSA screeners, in part to avoid future disruptions during government shutdowns. The administration claims the move could save the government $52 million, but it would likely mean lower pay and fewer benefits for those private workers. Private security must still adhere to TSA safety standards without exceeding what it would cost the TSA to perform the same tasks. Private companies are also vulnerable to the same risks as companies in other industries, including economic downturns, and it’s unclear how that could potentially affect airport security. For now, the next time you fly during a government shutdown, skip the delays by choosing SFO or other SPP-screened airports — or, if you’re lucky enough, take a private jet.





Source link

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get our latest articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, we promise.

Recent Reviews


Amazon Fire Phone Jeff Bezos

Bloomberg / Getty Images

Follow ZDNET: Add us as a preferred source on Google.


ZDNET’s key takeaways

  • Amazon is reportedly developing a new Fire Phone.
  • The previous model had several issues, including an inferior app store experience.
  • Under new supervision (and with more experience), Amazon can do better this time.

Well, I don’t know about you, but I certainly didn’t have “new Amazon smartphone” on my 2026 bingo card. As it turns out, according to Reuters, the retailer may be developing a new smartphone, internally known as “Transformer.” 

Those familiar with the industry will instantly draw parallels to Amazon’s previous smartphone effort, the Fire Phone from 2014. Appropriately, that phone ended up as part of a fire sale about a year later.

Now, in 2026, with no fewer than five phone brands in the US — Apple, Samsung, Google, Motorola, and OnePlus — Amazon faces a lot of competition. In fairness, it also has two fewer platforms to compete against. In 2014, Windows Phone and BlackBerry were still very much part of the smartphone conversation; these days, not so much.

The AppStore problem

But there’s one mistake Amazon made in its first effort that will absolutely torpedo its chances at succeeding — the Amazon AppStore and specifically the decision to forego Google Play services. Google is simply too valuable in too many lives to not support the platform. Oh, and the Amazon AppStore is terrible.

Also: What’s right (and wrong) with the Amazon Fire Phone

It has admittedly been a few years since I last inventoried the Amazon AppStore, but when I last checked, the Amazon AppStore was a wasteland of half-supported or unsupported apps, with two notable exceptions. Finance, home control, and communication apps were either absent or had not received updates for years prior.

The only apps in the Amazon AppStore that remained up to date were productivity apps (largely powered by Microsoft) and streaming apps. Those two categories work very well on the cheap, underpowered hardware that Amazon usually launches, and that’s fine. A coffee-table tablet is a nice thing to have lying around.

A spark of hope

Amazon Fire Phone

Liam Tung/ZDNET

But a phone is another animal entirely. If a tablet is a device to entertain, a phone is a device for everything else. One of the key reasons Windows Phone failed was its lack of an app ecosystem. The Senior Vice President of Devices and Services,  Panos Panay, is very familiar with that saga, so I’m hopeful that he will make the same arguments to the powers that be at Amazon. 

Honestly, if there is anyone who I think can pull off an Amazon phone revival, it’s probably Panay, who understands design and product development better than most, and to be perfectly honest, he’s my absolute favorite product presenter.

Also: Amazon Fire Phone review: Not a great smartphone

Of course, all of this is early days. This phone is being worked on internally, and even Reuters reports that it could get the axe long before it sees the light of day. Personally, I’m intrigued by the idea, but I sincerely hope that Amazon doesn’t make this the shopping phone it tried to build in 2014. 

If Amazon just wants to make a nice, well-built smartphone, with a skin that pushes Amazon content to the fore, I’m fine with that. But leaving Google behind is a mistake that Amazon cannot afford to make again. Fool me once, and all that.

So, if this phone is to have a chance at success, it needs to embrace Google services so it can be a phone that everyone can use. Amazon has the brand power to make a phone like this work, even up against juggernauts like Apple and Samsung, but it needs to approach this correctly, lest it end up in yet another Fire phone fire sale.





Source link