It’s a $20 million fight. Pittsburgh International Airport officials say the U.S. Transportation Security Administration must cover most of the $20 million cost to build a massive baggage screening system to accommodate US Airways. The Allegheny County Airport Authority will install the system, which scans bags for explosives, and seek reimbursement from the TSA. The agency says it has some money for such projects, but not nearly enough for all the airports asking for it. “The funding for this reimbursement program is limited, and there is a lot of competition among airports to get these grants,” said Mark Hatfield, a TSA spokesman. “They are being assigned on a need basis, based on the quality of the applications.” “They are required under the law to pay,” said Kent George, director of the airport authority, which runs Pittsburgh International for the county. “What we’re trying to do is get them to a point that we are a higher priority than somebody else is.” Airports were required following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to begin checking all luggage with electronic equipment that scans for explosives. Pittsburgh International and other airports are building explosive-detection equipment into their existing networks of conveyor belts that move luggage from ticketing counters to loading areas. The more efficient system saves time and labor costs because it requires fewer people to operate and scans luggage en route to planes. Now, US Airways passengers tote their luggage to the ticket counter and then to the baggage scanners. From there, scanned baggage is placed on the conveyor system to reach airplanes. Passengers then head to the security line so they can be scanned. The new system is intended to ease some of the hassles of the new security systems at the airport, making life easier for many travelers. “Anything that would save me time is important,” said Linda Morse, 52, who was flying back to Boston Sunday afternoon on a US Airways flight. Nick Macmillan, 45, of Greensburg, who says he flies about 60 times a year, said the saved time would add up and be appreciated, as long as ticket prices don’t rise as a result. “If it adds $15 to my ticket, I’ll lug it,” Macmillan said yesterday. Mike Frabotta, 32, of New Castle, who flies frequently, said security is still his main concern, and another five or 10 minutes here or there really isn’t that much of a consideration. “To be honest, I don’t mind the extra minutes to know I’m safe,” Frabotta said. Passengers using other airlines at Pittsburgh International won’t face that hassle by next summer. In July, the TSA approved a $15 million baggage-screening system on the separate conveyors that serve other airlines. But the agency dragged its feet on whether it would pay 90 percent of the cost, so George sought and won a grant from the Federal Aviation Administration for $11.3 million. The airport authority will pay the rest. If the TSA declines to pay 90 percent of the cost of the US Airways system — $18 million — the airport authority could again turn to the FAA. If the FAA says no, the authority is on its own. No timetable has been set to complete the yearlong project. Nationwide, the cost of installing the systems at major airports could reach $5.5 billion, said Stephen Van Beek, senior vice president of the Airports Council International-North America, an industry group. Weighing in their favor are the systems’ efficiency. Plus, they save money, Van Beek said. A Dallas-Forth Worth International Airport study found the cost of installing the equipment would be recovered in three years from related savings, he said. The TSA has budgeted $150 million in 2004 for the systems, allowing it to offer up to 10 grants nationwide. “There’s a fair amount of understandable politics that goes on here,” Van Beek said. “There is a scarcity of funds.” So far, the TSA has committed money to the Dallas-Fort Worth, Boston, Seattle-Tacoma, Las Vegas, Denver, Los Angeles and nearby Ontario, Calif., airports. The TSA will spend $670 million over the next four years at those airports. Van Beek said Pittsburgh International is a good candidate because it is a hub for US Airways and has a central baggage conveyor system, unlike other airports that run multiple conveyors. That keeps construction costs lower. “It would make sense to do it in Pittsburgh,” he said. “It’s more consolidated. Pittsburgh’s one of those places that if you were looking with scarce dollars, I would look first.” Pittsburgh International also makes sense because it stands to lose up to 165 of its TSA security screeners as part of the agency’s layoffs nationwide. The TSA employed 570 people here earlier this year. That’s now down to 460, with the remaining cuts delayed at least temporarily. With fewer people to screen passengers and luggage, it makes sense for the TSA to pay for a system that would ease the burden for screeners who might be straining to keep up, Van Beek said. Staff writer Dan Reynolds contributed to this report.

---

Copyright ©2026— Trib Total Media, LLC (TribLIVE.com)

---