I suppose a simple mechanical turnstile like they use in the subways would have been excessively cheap and reliable?

I get it - they want to guarantee that no one can enter from that side. However, these things are slow, claustrophobic, and - frankly - intimidating.

A simple subway turnstile can be easily bypassed, however, there are larger versions that run floor-to-ceiling that would work fine. I've seen ones made of metal and others - nicer looking - made of plexiglass.

Of course, a mechanical turnstile only costs a couple thousand. $60 million is much better; gives more people room to line their pockets.

Let's see a security guard (non-TSA) including taxes and bennies is probably going to cost about $20 per hour. Figure the airport is open 18 hours per day. So 18*20*365 = $131,400 annually. Then $60,000,000/$131,400 = 456.62. That means these doors could fund a security guard for 456 years. Even multiplied by three ($394,200) it is still 152 years.

Can we actually get someone who has some economic sense?

@Jim P.

Rationale: because Technology. And swindle.

I was thinking the same thing about turnstiles; however, you would not be able to fit luggage and a person in there. Although I completely understand the reasoning behind it, and think it is a good use of labor (because the guard basically sits there and watches people, doing nothing--yeah, one more guard to fondle us but at least one more guard to get the line moving). I also agree that some contractor (and the ever gullible TSA) sold this as some high-tech way to 'secure the airport'. I just think there must be some other way this could have been done much less intrusively and at lower cost, at whatever these 'turnstiles' are.

As one last thought: I believe the $60 million is the total slated to refurbish the entire airport and not the cost of the machines themselves.

As one last thought: I believe the $60 million is the total slated to refurbish the entire airport and not the cost of the machines themselves. -- coffee! at December 1, 2013 1:41 PM

You are correct in that. The cost is for the whole renovation.

But even just simple, one way, locking, swing gates set 10 feet apart with a video camera to monitor would effectively solve the issue. Especially if the exit was parallel to groping area.

Imagine a fire on a scale like that old White Lion concert disaster in New England starts up in an airport terminal? How fast will people be able to get out with these . . . THINGS . . . in the exits?

The picture isn't clear enough to tell for sure, but there may be something else entirely going on here.

Syracuse is in New York, where it gets darn cold in the winter.

And you are wondering ... so?

Those doors look like a variation on the revolving door.

And you are wondering ... so?

Compared with regular swinging doors, revolving doors drop a building's heat loss during the winter by something like 30% (according to a recent episode of the podcast 99% Invisible, which covers design that we are surrounded by, but don't really notice).

So maybe, just maybe, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the TSA.

Ah, Jeff the apologist is back.

""We need to be vigilant and maintain high security protocol at all times. These portals were designed and approved by TSA which is important," said Syracuse Airport Commissioner Christina Callahan."

What part of THAT quote did you miss?

I've been through Syracuse Hancock many times. These are being installed at the boundary between the secure area and the bag claim, well away from the exterior doors. Outside air getting in is not a concern here. They have ordinary revolving doors at the exits for that.

And yes, ordinary turnstiles would have worked just as well. Many miliary and NASA sites use a floor-to-ceiling model called a "cheese grater"; they are simple and secure. The ones I've seen are only large enough to allow personnel through, but I imagine that it would be no problem to make larger ones to accommodate luggage, same as revolving doors that accommodate luggage.

And I've worked in clean room facilties that had airlocks with interlocked doors. They aren't that hard or expensive to build. Even though this isn't an application that requires an airlock, if it were, it shouldn't cost that much.

Apologies, from the pictures, they looked like they performed an air-barrier function. After reading the link, which was after I commented, I found I was wrong.

However, I also noticed this:

The pods have already been installed at Syracuse International Airport as part of a $60 million dollar renovation.

Which means the doors, pace Amy, did not cost $60M.

Which means the doors, pace Amy, did not cost $60M. -- Jeff Guinn at December 2, 2013 5:46 PM

I did note that in a later post above. But regardless of the cost it is still a level of stupidity that will only facilitate the next terrorist attack.

Jeff, point taken on the cost... there are a lot of concourse renovations being done at SYR.