Does anyone else feel like a criminal when going through TSA?

[EACarlson]

Honestly, I don't have an answer for your airline "rights". But I still go back to there is no "right" to fly commercially. Yes, you have the right to travel. But nothing in that right says you HAVE to be allowed to fly commercially. Like I said, want to fly and not go through TSA? You're free to hire (or purchase) your own plane/pilot.

I see TSA as a "necessary evil". And before someone misconstrues what I'm saying, I don't think TSA (or their agents) are "evil". I think the vast majority of them are trying to do their jobs and get through their shift. I do believe there are some "poor" agents and some that see their role as a power trip.

I also think we need SOME kind of security other than locked cockpit doors and relying on passengers to overcome hijackers.

As far as your 4th amendment claim, has it not been challenged properly or does the court system disagree with you?

Airport Security is a necessary evil. Having it done by a government agency that has no incentive to do things to actually make travel safer or make the process less intrusive to the public they are supposedly serving is not. There is no security reason to allow liquids of 3.4 ounces but not 16.9 like the bottle of water or pop I want to bring with me. No reason to allow ice if it's fully frozen but not if there is an inch of water in the container as well.

The TSA is there to keep our skies safe. If one airport was allowed to be more lax with security that is where terrorists would go. That isn't to say at least some of the TSA isn't security theater, they are, but the government should be applying uniform rules to the airports. Since flying is a privilege and not a right they aren't taking away anyone's rights.

We already have greatly varying levels of security between airports. I guarantee you there is a huge difference in levels of security amongst the 5 airports I'll be at this month.

 

[JLTraveling]

It does seem like security theater but since no large terrorist attacks have occurred in the last 20 years they must be doing something right.

Wow, can we say false equivalency? It is true that there have been no major terrorist attacks on US airlines in the past 20 years. But it is EQUALLY true that there were no major terrorist attacks on US airlines in the 20 years PRECEDING 9/11 either. In fact, other than 9/11, the ONLY major terrorist attack that has ever occurred on a US airline was Pan Am 103, which actually originated in Frankfurt, Germany, and blew up over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988. It just happened to be a plane that was en route to the US, and a line that was US-based.

9/11 was a perfect storm of incredibly freakish factors. Over on the Damar Hamlin thread, plenty of people are arguing that his injury isn't a reason to change anything about pro football, because it's so incredibly rare. But on THIS thread, people are arguing that a literally once in aviation history event is a perfectly good justification for a shadowy government agency to control all US airports. It makes zero sense.

 

[wvjules]

I forget who said it about the airlines rights or whatever the wording was...do you suggest that each individual airline do their own screening and make their own rules?

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

There is no security reason to allow liquids of 3.4 ounces but not 16.9 like the bottle of water or pop I want to bring with me. No reason to allow ice if it's fully frozen but not if there is an inch of water in the container as well.

FWIW UK airports in June 2024 and on they are adjusting their restrictions. New ones will be "Air passengers will be allowed to carry 2 litre bottles of liquid from June 2024 onwards. The current limit is 100ml. Liquids will no longer have to be in plastic bags, nor will laptops and tablets have to be removed from bags when you go through airport security."

But in fairness at least the no bags and laptops and tablets part is because of 3D scanners something of which we are slowly getting here and have only been used at a handful of airports in the UK. There are already airports with the better scanners that allow for you to not have to remove anything from your bag. It's possible over time that liquid requirements may adjust here.

 

[sam_gordon]

What about the security measures that I suggested upthread? There's a gaping gulf between "no security" and "government security." The TSA is only a "necessary evil" because people lost their freaking minds after 9/11 and the couple of failed attempts since (underwear bomb? shoe bomb? They didn't freaking work.) So rather than apply logic and common sense, the government decided to quell the masses with a bunch of security theater.

Do you want me to respond about every specific measure suggested?

Not possible. We live in Seattle. It would take a week to get to Florida.

Actually, you can fly and not go through the TSA checkpoint. People don't want to spend the money though.

Airport Security is a necessary evil. Having it done by a government agency that has no incentive to do things to actually make travel safer or make the process less intrusive to the public they are supposedly serving is not. There is no security reason to allow liquids of 3.4 ounces but not 16.9 like the bottle of water or pop I want to bring with me. No reason to allow ice if it's fully frozen but not if there is an inch of water in the container as well.

I agree with you on the liquid part. And, as I mentioned, put seven 3 oz containers together and you're at 21 ounces. Get a couple people working together and you can have all the liquids you want. I don't agree with the liquid rule (I'm not sure what they're trying to prevent). But, are we talking about efficiencies or violation of rights? IMO, those are two totally different arguments.

 

[JLTraveling]

I forget who said it about the airlines rights or whatever the wording was...do you suggest that each individual airline do their own screening and make their own rules?

I'd be 100% fine with that. Then consumers could choose which airline to go with based, in part, on their security measures. I do recognize that it could prove to be impractical/unwieldy, depending on the airport. Which leads me back to private security contractors. If an airline doesn't like the security contractor at MCO, but they're good with the one at TPA, they could choose to only offer flights to/from TPA. As it currently exists, though, even legacy airlines that existed long before TSA are now forced to accept this government overreach in order to continue doing business.

 

[White Cat]

When I fly, I fly out of one of the Chicago airports (Midway or O'Hare). Security is rather tough but nothing out of the ordinary.

But I once had to go to Wyoming to do some training. I flew in and out of one of the smallest airports I've ever seen. When I left, though, I was scanned and patted down. All of my carry-on luggage was opened and swabbed for explosives. For some reason, that tiny airport had the toughest TSA security measures I've ever experienced.

Similar to the very small Tyler Texas airport.

 

[EACarlson]

I forget who said it about the airlines rights or whatever the wording was...do you suggest that each individual airline do their own screening and make their own rules?

I want the system to go back to what it was pre 9/11. The FAA set the base requirements and the airport operators contracted out the work within those requirements. Multiple good reasons for this, when a private contractor goes over the line and does things that are prohibited there are actual consequences, both to the individual and the company. When a federal agency/employee go over the line, nothing happens. Cost savings to all involved. Without the federal employment guarantees, it would be markedly less expensive and could actually increase staffing for the same cost.

FWIW UK airports in June 2024 and on they are adjusting their restrictions. New ones will be "Air passengers will be allowed to carry 2 litre bottles of liquid from June 2024 onwards. The current limit is 100ml. Liquids will no longer have to be in plastic bags, nor will laptops and tablets have to be removed from bags when you go through airport security."

But in fairness at least the no bags and laptops and tablets part is because of 3D scanners something of which we are slowly getting here and have only been used at a handful of airports in the UK. There are already airports with the better scanners that allow for you to not have to remove anything from your bag. It's possible over time that liquid requirements may adjust here.

That would be a step in the right direction. Although I haven't taken electronics out of my bag or had my liquids in a plastic bag in the four years I've had Pre.

 

[sam_gordon]

I want the system to go back to what it was pre 9/11. The FAA set the base requirements and the airport operators contracted out the work within those requirements. Multiple good reasons for this, when a private contractor goes over the line and does things that are prohibited there are actual consequences, both to the individual and the company. When a federal agency/employee go over the line, nothing happens. Cost savings to all involved. Without the federal employment guarantees, it would be markedly less expensive and could actually increase staffing for the same cost.

That would be a step in the right direction. Although I haven't taken electronics out of my bag or had my liquids in a plastic bag in the four years I've had Pre.

I wonder what the "base requirements" would be now? Would the FAA require the body scanners? Require limiting liquids?

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

That would be a step in the right direction. Although I haven't taken electronics out of my bag or had my liquids in a plastic bag in the four years I've had Pre.

I'm sure you understood though that pre-check was obviously not what I was talking about

You complained about the liquid requirements I responded that UK in June 2024 is loosening that restriction as well as allowing the liquids to not be in a plastic bag. Even with pre-check you are still restricted on both. But I could see if UK's adjustment goes well (or even before it's been implemented for a while) the U.S. could look to adjust theirs.

Whether we view security as an annoyance I can recognize that over time they have looked to adjust things especially when technology allows for this and in recent years it's been getting better and better on this.

 

[Minnesota!]

Not nervous, but always anxious that I did something wrong - left a bottle of water somewhere, or the like. I am cool when the agents are cool. If they are grouchy, I get anxious.

 

[fly girl]

Well I definitely have never felt like a criminal going through TSA, especially since I did it on an almost daily basis for 20+ years.

I have gone through airport security as an employee and a passenger. I will tell you before they made lanes just for crew, we would get booed for skipping the line. Now let me ask you, who goes into their work 2 hours before you need to be there to stand in a security line? We made that announcement on the aircraft several times after passengers who we skipped ahead of made snide comments during boarding. That typically shut them up.

My most difficult TSA was in Boston right after 9/11. Apparently, my feminine items (TMI: tampons) looked like "tiny bombs" all stacked together to male TSA agents. The best part ... it was an odd trip in which my entire crew was all male. So yeah, I got teased relentlessly by five males for the rest of the trip. I can't blame them as I would have done the same if it was reversed.

I have been the selected one. I have been patted down. My bags have been searched and re-searched again. I have had my hands swabbed so many times I lost count. Am I going to quit flying? Hell no! Am I in love with the TSA and think they are as top notch as some other countries? Hell no! But they are doing most things right, even if some of it is theater.

And I would love to have my liquids back again, but is it the end of the world? No, you get over it and move on.

I am going right along with @Dan Murphy and taking @sam_gordon post:

I've never felt like a criminal, or thought I was doing something "wrong". I've had nice, friendly, joking agents, and I've had rude agents. I've had my shoes swabbed, I've been wanded, and I've been "frisked". I've had my bags opened and searched.

I've never really understood the hate/fear some have of TSA. I remember metal detectors and security WELL before TSA was in existence. There are some "good" TSA officers and some "poor". Funny, I run into "good" and "poor" people in every place I do business.

You have good and bad TSA agents, and of course the power hungry ones. The only thing I will ALWAYS make them do if they are searching me or my bag is to put new gloves on. You can ask them to do that, and they have to oblige.

I have never felt that my freedom has been taken away by going through TSA security. Yes, it is our new normal; you change, adapt, and move on. Same as COVID. No doubt it stinks at times! But complaining about it incessantly every time you go through it and longing for the years past isn't going to change any of it. All it does is make you a pita to be around.

 

[JLTraveling]

I wonder what the "base requirements" would be now? Would the FAA require the body scanners? Require limiting liquids?

Not likely. The TSA was briefly part of the Department of Transportation, but moved to Homeland Security in 2003. The FAA is now, and always has been, an entirely separate entity with entirely separate concerns. They even say as much on their PackSafe website: "The Transportation Security Administration also has rules on "prohibited items" that pose a security threat. Though they sometimes overlap, the TSA security rules are separate from the FAA dangerous goods safety rules." https://www.faa.gov/hazmat/packsafe/

So no, I don't think the FAA has any reason to implement TSA-style security theater requirements. I think they'd go back to basic common sense.

 

[sam_gordon]

Not likely. The TSA was briefly part of the Department of Transportation, but moved to Homeland Security in 2003. The FAA is now, and always has been, an entirely separate entity with entirely separate concerns. They even say as much on their PackSafe website: "The Transportation Security Administration also has rules on "prohibited items" that pose a security threat. Though they sometimes overlap, the TSA security rules are separate from the FAA dangerous goods safety rules." https://www.faa.gov/hazmat/packsafe/

So no, I don't think the FAA has any reason to implement TSA-style security theater requirements. I think they'd go back to basic common sense.

I have a bridge to sell you too.

 

[wvjules]

To those saying that their 'rights' have been violated, do you feel that 2A rights are violated by refusing loaded guns past TSA and on planes? Should that be up to individual airlines as well?

 

[JLTraveling]

I have a bridge to sell you too.

Why? What makes you think that the Dept of Transportation has AT ALL the same mindset as the Dept of Homeland Security? Pretty sure they don't care what you're reading on the flight either, but the Patriot Act sure took away our right to privacy regarding our choice of reading material...

 

[JLTraveling]

To those saying that their 'rights' have been violated, do you feel that 2A rights are violated by refusing loaded guns past TSA and on planes? Should that be up to individual airlines as well?

Not at all. ACTUAL weapons shouldn't be allowed on planes. That's common sense. Last I checked, water isn't a weapon. I'm even OK with them banning box cutters. But not with them deciding that we're all guilty until proven innocent and that every liquid is a potential threat. Ever see Minority Report? The TSA is trying its best to engage in pre-crime, which is in fundamental opposition to everything this country was founded on.

 

[sam_gordon]

Why? What makes you think that the Dept of Transportation has AT ALL the same mindset as the Dept of Homeland Security? Pretty sure they don't care what you're reading on the flight either, but the Patriot Act sure took away our right to privacy regarding our choice of reading material...

Please explain the bolded.

As far as your question, you don't think DHS will talk to DoT and say "this needs to be mandated for security"?

 

[sam_gordon]

Not at all. ACTUAL weapons shouldn't be allowed on planes. That's common sense. Last I checked, water isn't a weapon. I'm even OK with them banning box cutters. But not with them deciding that we're all guilty until proven innocent and that every liquid is a potential threat. Ever see Minority Report? The TSA is trying its best to engage in pre-crime, which is in fundamental opposition to everything this country was founded on.

I don't think they believe water is weapon. I'm guessing they're concerned about what can be disguised as water (or coke, tea, Gatorade, etc). By saying "no liquids", you don't have to worry about whether that liquid is water or something nefarious.

 

[NotUrsula]

I find that the degree of being "treated like a criminal" depends entirely on which airport you are in. My personal observation is that the greater the military presence in the area, the more likely it is for TSOs to have delusions of outsize power, because so many of them are former military. To that end, some of the worst airports for power-junkie TSOs, IME, are Denver, Colorado Springs, San Diego, Long Beach, NW Florida Regional, Tampa, and Charleston, SC. (Denver, in particular, has some seriously nut-job TSOs.)

If the process bothers you, it is more than worth it to enroll in TSA Pre-check (or if you travel internationally, Global Entry). It's much easier to just pay to skip the more ridiculous aspects of security theatre.

BTW, for those who are questioning the origin of the 100 ml liquids rule, it comes from a 2006 situation where UK authorities uncovered a plot to attempt to take down a plane by means of a liquid bomb (TATP) to be assembled on board, with the ingredients concealed in energy drink bottles. It was a big plot, large quantities of explosives and weapons were seized by UK police, several plotters were convicted, and it scared the bejeezus out of the DHS. They decided that quantities of less than 100ml would be insufficient to cause serious damage, thus, the limit. The thing was, while the plotters were able to cook up the explosive in the house they were using as a hideout, managing the process aboard an airliner was a very different prospect, and one that was pretty much sure to never work at all. This article explains why: https://www.theregister.com/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/

The big irony of the whole "liquid bomb" threat idea is that one of the few liquid substances that US passengers are allowed to bring aboard in quantity is contact lens solution, one type of which is ... wait for it ... hydrogen peroxide.

The most farcical situation I ever experienced with TSA (before PreCheck was available) happened not long after the "shoe-bomber" incident caused us to have to remove shoes. I'm a barefooter from childhood, and I'm not squeamish at all about airport floors, so to save time, I decided to just put my shoes in my carryon before I got in line, and go through barefoot. When I reached the scanner and put my bag on the belt, the officious TSO asked me, "Where are your shoes?" "In my carryon," I replied. He tells me that that won't do, that they need to have them put out in a bin so that they can be checked for explosive residue. "Oh", I reply, "there are two other pairs in the carryon; do you need to have those out in the bin as well?" His reply: "No, only the ones you wore to the airport." (Honestly, it was all I could do not to burst out laughing.)