How the TSA beat fliers into submission

[jtowntoflorida]

And, even with the small "bribe" you paid for Global Entry, the next time you allow only a short time, you can bet you'll be "randomly selected" just like Parrot Bill was.

I've had Global Entry for just under a year now, I fly usually 1-2 times/month, and I've never been selected for a random patdown (before or after receiving my Trusted Traveler status). I'm not sure what Global Entry has to do with Parrot Bill's story, as it doesn't appear that his situation occurred in the PreCheck line.

The flip side is that even people like me may get "randomly selected" for PreCheck without paying. Unfortunately, it does me no good as I can't raise my arm and assume the position for MMW and my metal joint alarmed the WTMDS. Had to divest my shoes and get the hands on full body search.

That's too bad for you. Prior to having Global Entry, my family and I were randomly selected for PreCheck twice (once in St. Louis, once in Boston). It was nice to be able to stroll on through without any hassle.

The whole experience was interesting, I tried to turn down the offer because it would have separated me from by spouse . . . The Airport Security Screener then moved us both. Sped us up and slowed down the paying customers.

Hmm, I don't consider myself to be a "paying customer;" it did take time for them to process my application. That $100 has turned out to be invaluable for me, not just at the airport security checkpoints, but also when reentering the country. Thanks to the TSA rules, when I travel with my family, my kids come with me through the line. That alone makes the ROI worth it. Yeah, sometimes I'm slowed down a little bit by inexperienced people who don't know the PreCheck rules, but generally, I'm pretty good at spotting them so just jump to another line.

 

[goofy4tink]

Sooooo, in June, I was able to use the PreCheck line at both Boston's Logan and MCO. My dh and DS didn't have that option. At Logan, the only rime I actually stopped was for the scanner. I eat them by about 8 mins. However, at MCO? Whole different story. I got in the PreCheck line, dd got in the regular line (dh had already left, and she is 20). We got to the end at the exact same time! Seems there were a lot of people in the 'express' line that had no idea what the story was...the one guy that stopped to take off his belt and shoes, then the TSA guy told him, nicely, that those things could stay on! Ok....that man stopped, yet again, to put or all back on prior to goi g through the scanner. He wasn't the only confused person....seemed to be a hold up every 4 people.

 

[LadyBeBop]

This is all such a non-issue for the majority of people....yes, I wish I could keep my shoes on, yes I wish I could carry full sized shampoo. But none of it bothers me all that much.

I don't fly often (to me, it's much more cost-effective to drive). But I guess the new airline regulations does bother me some.

I miss the days that I could be at the airport an hour before the plane take off and be at the gate 45 minutes ahead of time.

Clutching my 32 oz diet soda that I paid 89 cents at the mini-mart on the way to the airport. Now you have to buy your pop at the other end of security. Costing three times as much, and you get 2/3rds less pop.

And that large bottle of suntan lotion you bought for $8 at Wal Mart? That goes in your checked luggage (at $25 per bag...so much for just carrying on). Or you can wait, and buy the suntan lotion at your resort. $10 for a small bottle.

But the thing I miss the most about the new regulations. Meeting my daughter (who lives 900 miles away) at the gate. Or worse, saying my good-byes at the gate right before she walks down the tunnel to her plane. Instead, I say my good-byes two hours earlier as we unload the luggage from the car.

I know I shouldn't be that bothered. But I miss that extra time with my daughter.

While slurping that big pop for 89 cents while waiting for the plane.

 

[CPT Tripss]

I've had Global Entry for just under a year now, I fly usually 1-2 times/month, and I've never been selected for a random patdown (before or after receiving my Trusted Traveler status). I'm not sure what Global Entry has to do with Parrot Bill's story, as it doesn't appear that his situation occurred in the PreCheck line.

My bad, I left out a couple of words . . . Edited and added in italics in my earlier post.

PreCheck pax can be deselected and sent to the regular screening. Hope your luck holds out. I've seen people take that deselection rather poorly.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

I'm all for increased security but, that said. their measures need to be 'measured'. More than a few highly publicized gaffes by their agents have many people thinking the TSA is a joke when security on the planes is nothing to laugh about imo.

Nothing is perfect, and when you figure the millions of people flying every day there is always going to be a gaff now and then. Add in that the anti TSA folks love to point out every gaff as a major issue.


We need the security and that is the bottom line.

AKK

 

[ktate82]

We need the security, but the way it has been gone about has not been the best. After 9/11, the government suddenly realized the great need, and instead of actually looking into what would be effective screenings, they did assumptions and created the mess we have today. When the TSA was first developed, the US received an offer of assistance from the Israelis (who have the some of the best airport security screening processes in the world). The US government being the helper of all, acceptance of help from none, refused (I work with a retired FBI agent who was in the development of this and all for the help).

So now we are taking shoes off, subjected to pat downs due to pocket folds (my DBF has been patted down at least 3 times due to his cargo short pocket flaps per the TSA agents doing the "searching"), and all by people that while some have a decent educational level, I have my doubts about a good chunk of them. In all the flights I have been on, the only things I have ever seen attempted to get through security was stuff that was allowed, but the agents didn't know it or the dreaded bottles of shampoo.

Yes, we need security, but no, it is not effective and is more reactive than proactive I believe.

 

[keishashadow]

Nothing is perfect, and when you figure the millions of people flying every day there is always going to be a gaff now and then. Add in that the anti TSA folks love to point out every gaff as a major issue.


We need the security and that is the bottom line.

AKK

Don't think any reasonable person would argue with that statement.

However, when people observe the TSA wasting it's resources vs being effective, the public perception of them as being our protectors skews badly. My family has military and police background so I do realize that the TSA has been entrusted with a very important job! Unfortunately, it is obvious to the public that their screeners need better training & staffing levels need to be increased to fulfill their objective.

Not sure if it's a question of mismanagement or they need additonal funding to bulk up staffing, salaries and training, but they certainly need to step it up to provide more effective screening procedures.

 

[OrangeCountyCommuter]

We need security.


We get theatre.


The Thousands Standing Around are just window dressing but very ineffective.

 

[LBIJim]

My reaction to the article is the same as my reaction to TSA procedures: a big yawn.

The author seems more outraged by passengers' so-called apathy rather than by the policies themselves.

 

[goofy4tink]

I will admit that my mother told me that she never felt safer than when she was at the airport in Israel. Of course, at the time (not sure it's still the case now) there were many armed soldiers in the airport.
Is the current security the best we can do? Nope. BUT....I just can't understand the angst regarding the way it is. There is little to nothing I, we, can do about it. Yeah, sure, write your congressman..that's not going to amount to a hill of beans. This country is very big on paying people to stand around and do a minimum of work...especially when there is any govt involvement at all...county, state, national.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

Don't think any reasonable person would argue with that statement.

However, when people observe the TSA wasting it's resources vs being effective, the public perception of them as being our protectors skews badly. My family has military and police background so I do realize that the TSA has been entrusted with a very important job! Unfortunately, it is obvious to the public that their screeners need better training & staffing levels need to be increased to fulfill their objective.

Not sure if it's a question of mismanagement or they need additonal funding to bulk up staffing, salaries and training, but they certainly need to step it up to provide more effective screening procedures.

Agreed, as I said, nothing is perfect and we can surely always need/use improvement.

However you have to take into account the folks that just like to sit at there PC's and take cheap shots like calling TSA names like *THEATER* and the employees all worthless and other snarky comments. It sounds funny to some on the post but its not true or fair to the TSA worker who are trying to do a tough job.


AKK

AKK

 

[CPT Tripss]

Seems to me that folks posting here have not demonized or insulted TSA employees.

As for "Theater," what would you call it when items are collected because they "might" be explosives and then stored in mass quantities right there at the checkpoint? That one practice makes it clear that TSA sees no danger, but they do want to make things look good to travelers.

 

[MillauFr]

We need security.


We get theatre.


The Thousands Standing Around are just window dressing but very ineffective.

I would argue that we need both. Window dressing and public perception are just as important as preventing another disaster. If people feel safe they will continue to fly.

Just look at driving in personal vehicles. It is anything but safe as 40,000 people die every year and millions are injured. The public perceives driving as safe and they continue to drive and engage in behaviors that greatly increase their risk.

 

[goofy4tink]

Seems to me that folks posting here have not demonized or insulted TSA employees.

As for "Theater," what would you call it when items are collected because they "might" be explosives and then stored in mass quantities right there at the checkpoint? That one practice makes it clear that TSA sees no danger, but they do want to make things look good to travelers.

Well, I'm pretty sure that the TSA isn't overly concerned about that bottle of Pantene shampoo they took away at security due to it's size. BUT...it's the rule to not have any liquid/gel over 3.4 oz, so what are they supposed to do? The TSA agent standing there didn't make the rule...he/she just gets to enforce it. Do you seriously believe that those TSA agents, working in the security areas, don't truly wish they didn't have to go through the nonsense of taking away all this crap? But, they have to adhere to the 'rules' given to them...the same as the traveler does.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Seems to me that folks posting here have not demonized or insulted TSA employees.

As for "Theater," what would you call it when items are collected because they "might" be explosives and then stored in mass quantities right there at the checkpoint? That one practice makes it clear that TSA sees no danger, but they do want to make things look good to travelers.

Stored? Or just not removed instantaneously?

I call it doing what the job description entails to prevent a flight of 200+ from blowing up in the air.

 

[CPT Tripss]

Well, I'm pretty sure that the TSA isn't overly concerned about that bottle of Pantene shampoo they took away at security due to it's size. BUT...it's the rule to not have any liquid/gel over 3.4 oz, so what are they supposed to do? The TSA agent standing there didn't make the rule...he/she just gets to enforce it. Do you seriously believe that those TSA agents, working in the security areas, don't truly wish they didn't have to go through the nonsense of taking away all this crap? But, they have to adhere to the 'rules' given to them...the same as the traveler does.

But, do the rules make sense? Do they enhance security? I seriously believe the average run of the mill Airport Security Screener doesn't think about the propriety of his/her daily work activities. I also think the liquid ban creators believe they capture explosives . . . Otherwise they would redesign the checkpoint.

 

[CPT Tripss]

Stored? Or just not removed instantaneously?

I call it doing what the job description entails to prevent a flight of 200+ from blowing up in the air.

Stored. It remains indisposed for quite some time and then is treated like normal trash. No effort is made to determine whether it presents any hazard.

 

[maxiesmom]

But, do the rules make sense? Do they enhance security? I seriously believe the average run of the mill Airport Security Screener doesn't think about the propriety of his/her daily work activities. I also think the liquid ban creators believe they capture explosives . . . Otherwise they would redesign the checkpoint.

They have a job to do, and they do it. Just as at my job I don't make the rules, I follow them.

I do wonder what you think good security would be, good security that the majority of passengers would be ok with?

 

[goofy4tink]

But, do the rules make sense? Do they enhance security? I seriously believe the average run of the mill Airport Security Screener doesn't think about the propriety of his/her daily work activities. I also think the liquid ban creators believe they capture explosives . . . Otherwise they would redesign the checkpoint.

Doesn't matter what I think. It is what it is. There is nothing I can so to change it...up to Washington. So, I choose to just do what I have to do...call me a sheep, don't care.

 

[sam_gordon]

But, do the rules make sense? Do they enhance security? I seriously believe the average run of the mill Airport Security Screener doesn't think about the propriety of his/her daily work activities. I also think the liquid ban creators believe they capture explosives . . . Otherwise they would redesign the checkpoint.

Do you agree with everything your workplace has you do?