TSA mess and the police

[DisneyBamaFan]

However, I will not subject myself to being randomly selected for a pat down.. Maybe if they make some changes, I "might" reconsider at a later date..[/B]

I understand. I have only been through this about 6 times since the new policy was put in place. So far I have not seen one of these "enhanced" patdowns. I have seen patdowns, but they were quick and easy, in full view (as they always were). No breast squeezing, no junk touching - none of that stuff. I read about them on the internet, but the ones that I have seen do not come close to the stuff that I read about.

 

[skater]

Nobody is "forced" to do anything. If you do not like the full body scanners, and that is in use at the airport, you will receive the new pat down. If you do not want either - you do not fly.

I was thinking about if you set off the metal detector. I might be wrong, but I though in that case you were required to do the pat down.

Also, I'm thinking of forced in a releative way . If I want to fly, I might be "forced" to have the extra screening.

 

[skater]

I understand. I have only been through this about 6 times since the new policy was put in place. So far I have not seen one of these "enhanced" patdowns. I have seen patdowns, but they were quick and easy, in full view (as they always were). No breast squeezing, no junk touching - none of that stuff. I read about them on the internet, but the ones that I have seen do not come close to the stuff that I read about.

I hope I have the same experience as you did when I fly in Feb. It would make me sad to see people going through even a fraction of what has been described in the "horror" stories.

 

[JLTraveling]

I can only assume from your assertions that you don't know what you're talking about, but what is the point in posting such statements in the thread? This is what I was talking about before. Speak to the topic: Stop trying to distract attention away from points you don't like with such self-serving and meaningless slights. They add nothing to the discussion. Nothing.

I was a regulatory auditor for many years. What I wrote is indeed the case. Your rebuttal relayed anecdotal examples, which we cannot even verify. My personal experience involved taking representative samples and ensuring both that there were documented standards and that they were employed, and my audits included both the public and private sector.

So I was right, about 100 pages ago. Personal experiences mean nothing to you. Now, if I had photographs of the supervisor's degree and resume, and placed them side by side with the stated job requirements, would that suffice? Or would you then claim that they were photoshopped? It is entirely inflammatory to directly accuse another poster of lying, and the only reason I'm not reporting it is because I'd rather the thread not get closed due to your behavior.

You want to disagree and share your personal experiences? No problem. But to dismiss my direct experiences with "anecdotal examples, which we cannot even verify" demonstrates your unwillingness to even entertain the possibility that your narrow view of the world might not be entirely accurate. Besides, how exactly are we to verify YOUR alleged experiences? Why should anyone take you at face value when you are unwilling to do the same with anyone else?

 

[LuvOrlando]

Nobody is "forced" to do anything. If you do not like the full body scanners, and that is in use at the airport, you will receive the new pat down. If you do not want either - you do not fly.

When my husband flew the week after the roll out he was not given any sort of choice at all. He was scanned then he was searched 'until they met resistance' and since flying is part of his job he really doesn't have much of a choice. In a nutshell it's fly or get fired which then transfers to submit or be fired... what kind of choice is that? At the very least he is under duress to submit because any alternatives have far reaching and intolerable consequences.

 

[kaytieeldr]

So I was right, about 100 pages ago. Personal experiences mean nothing to you. Now, if I had photographs of the supervisor's degree and resume, and placed them side by side with the stated job requirements, would that suffice? Or would you then claim that they were photoshopped? It is entirely inflammatory to directly accuse another poster of lying, and the only reason I'm not reporting it is because I'd rather the thread not get closed due to your behavior.

You want to disagree and share your personal experiences? No problem. But to dismiss my direct experiences with "anecdotal examples, which we cannot even verify" demonstrates your unwillingness to even entertain the possibility that your narrow view of the world might not be entirely accurate. Besides, how exactly are we to verify YOUR alleged experiences? Why should anyone take you at face value when you are unwilling to do the same with anyone else?

I think bicker's point is that your experience is a single, really secondhand - hence 'anecdotal' - report.

 

[JLTraveling]

I think bicker's point is that your experience is a single, really secondhand - hence 'anecdotal' - report.

Well, if anyone's really THAT curious to verify, there was a related lawsuit that should now be a matter of public record. Shall I pull it up and post a link? But if I post a link to the lawsuit, then I want documentary proof of bicker's records and reports in his alleged position as an auditor.

Sigh. Has this thread really gotten to that point? Or can we all trust that we are all adults and have no reason to lie to each other?

 

[LuvOrlando]

I think bicker's point is that your experience is a single, really secondhand - hence 'anecdotal' - report.

I think that JL's point is that for some people, the only experiences acknowledged as relevant just so happen to align with their own whether the experiences are individual or in a collection (such as listed on ACLU's website)

aclu.org/passengers-stories-recent-travel/

Surely you can accept the ACLU isn't fabricating the stories

 

[ccgirl]

I understand. I have only been through this about 6 times since the new policy was put in place. So far I have not seen one of these "enhanced" patdowns. I have seen patdowns, but they were quick and easy, in full view (as they always were). No breast squeezing, no junk touching - none of that stuff. I read about them on the internet, but the ones that I have seen do not come close to the stuff that I read about.

And this is what my DH experienced when he needed the pat down after moving in the scanner...no big deal.

When my husband flew the week after the roll out he was not given any sort of choice at all. He was scanned then he was searched 'until they met resistance' and since flying is part of his job he really doesn't have much of a choice. In a nutshell it's fly or get fired which then transfers to submit or be fired... what kind of choice is that? At the very least he is under duress to submit because any alternatives have far reaching and intolerable consequences.

At BOS, there were signs before the security line that the full body scanners were in use and you could opt out. You had to be looking for it as there was only one sign. You mentioned your DH was patted down until they met resitance. Did he feel anything was fondled? Genuinely asking as I mentioned, my DH did not see much difference from the "old" way.

We are flying in 24 hours so I will post back.

 

[Jennasis]

When my husband flew the week after the roll out he was not given any sort of choice at all. He was scanned then he was searched 'until they met resistance' and since flying is part of his job he really doesn't have much of a choice. In a nutshell it's fly or get fired which then transfers to submit or be fired... what kind of choice is that? At the very least he is under duress to submit because any alternatives have far reaching and intolerable consequences.

When I worked in television news as a cameraman, one of my jobs was to operate the camera in our news helicopter. Flying in the helicopter made me violently nauseous...like projectile-vomiting during the flight. Plus, I am afraid of flying. I certainly didn't fly everyday, but had to do it usually once a week, sometimes more. My bosses didn't care if I got pukey (as long as I got the job done). I couldn't refuse. It would mean losing my job. AND it wasn't even part of my job when I was hired!

It sucks, but sometimes, our jobs require us to do things we'd rather not.

My sisters fly 2-3 times a month in their jobs as pharma reps. So far neither they or any of their colleagues has experienced any issues with the new procedures. A few people refused the scanners so they get pat-downs. My sister's manager got randomly picked for a pat-down (he's dark skinned). No fondling, no squeezing, no hows-your-father if you know what I'm saying. But it's all just that pesky anecdotal stuff, so don't put any stock in it.

 

[kaytieeldr]

I think that JL's point is that for some people, the only experiences acknowledged as relevant just so happen to align with their own whether the experiences are individual or in a collection (such as listed on ACLU's website)

aclu.org/passengers-stories-recent-travel/

Surely you can accept the ACLU isn't fabricating the stories

Anecdotal experience in NO way equates to fabrication. Don't know how you ever inferred that. It simply means one single instance doesn't prove anything.

 

[LuvOrlando]

At BOS, there were signs before the security line that the full body scanners were in use and you could opt out. You had to be looking for it as there was only one sign. You mentioned your DH was patted down until they met resitance. Did he feel anything was fondled? Genuinely asking as I mentioned, my DH did not see much difference from the "old" way.

We are flying in 24 hours so I will post back.

Ummm, it was a whole lot like what Joey described in the "Very Bad Man" Friends skit on You Tube cited a while back... very funny skit, not so funny when it's my DH. He didn't get touched in Newark, this was St. Louis.

Since his flight some have come on to say they didn't get the same treatment so I don't know what to make about how arbitrary the arrangement seems to be Could be they backed off and will stay backed off or it could be they are just waiting for the dust to settle

 

[LuvOrlando]

Anecdotal experience in NO way equates to fabrication. Don't know how you ever inferred that. It simply means one single instance doesn't prove anything.

But a number of single experiences does, ok so I gave you a number by providing the ACLU reference Where does that leave us?

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

But a number of single experiences does, ok so I gave you a number by providing the ACLU reference Where does that leave us?

It leaves us using our own judgement. Why? Because for every reported problem there have been untold thousands of people who saw no such problem. We all view the world through a "colored" lens. Our world view is colored by our lives' experiences. Call it a built in bias that we don't even know exists, but changes the way that we see everything - including this stuff.

So, two people could get the same exact patdown. One feels "violated" while the other doesn't notice anything unusual. The fact that some people feel violated doesn't mean that the procedure is too anything. It just means that some people interpreted it that way.

Such is life. Some people will always find a way to be happy, some people will always find a way to be miserable.

 

[LuvOrlando]

When I worked in television news as a cameraman, one of my jobs was to operate the camera in our news helicopter. Flying in the helicopter made me violently nauseous...like projectile-vomiting during the flight. Plus, I am afraid of flying. I certainly didn't fly everyday, but had to do it usually once a week, sometimes more. My bosses didn't care if I got pukey (as long as I got the job done). I couldn't refuse. It would mean losing my job. AND it wasn't even part of my job when I was hired!

It sucks, but sometimes, our jobs require us to do things we'd rather not.

My sisters fly 2-3 times a month in their jobs as pharma reps. So far neither they or any of their colleagues has experienced any issues with the new procedures. A few people refused the scanners so they get pat-downs. My sister's manager got randomly picked for a pat-down (he's dark skinned). No fondling, no squeezing, no hows-your-father if you know what I'm saying. But it's all just that pesky anecdotal stuff, so don't put any stock in it.

I understand what you are saying, and you are right. My point is more that some people keep saying that submission is purely a choice and it's not. You didn't have a reasonable choice about getting on that helicopter and my DH doesn't have a reasonable choice about this especially not now in this economy I don't think anyone feels safe yelping at work about anything.

 

[LuvOrlando]

It leaves us using our own judgement. Why? Because for every reported problem there have been untold thousands of people who saw no such problem. We all view the world through a "colored" lens. Our world view is colored by our lives' experiences. Call it a built in bias that we don't even know exists, but changes the way that we see everything - including this stuff.

So, two people could get the same exact patdown. One feels "violated" while the other doesn't notice anything unusual. The fact that some people feel violated doesn't mean that the procedure is too anything. It just means that some people interpreted it that way.

Such is life. Some people will always find a way to be happy, some people will always find a way to be miserable.

I am in 100% agreement.

We're all different so one person's no big deal is another's nightmare, that's really all there is to it All we have to do is respect each other and the dilemma is resolved, but that's a really lofty order isn't it

 

[DMRick]

When my husband flew the week after the roll out he was not given any sort of choice at all. He was scanned then he was searched 'until they met resistance' .

Did they not tell him why he also had to have the pat down? Did he have something in his pocket or did something cause the alarm to go off? Or did they just make him have both?

Right now for my son, this is way faster, since he has always been pulled out to be searched..him and his carry on, since we guess he looks like what they think terrorists look like (unshaven, dark complexion, etc). Now he just walks through..and he picks the new scanner, since the lines have been shorter. He'll be flying 3 times in 3 days CA and then home, after flying out yesterday.

 

[Jennasis]

I understand what you are saying, and you are right. My point is more that some people keep saying that submission is purely a choice and it's not. You didn't have a reasonable choice about getting on that helicopter and my DH doesn't have a reasonable choice about this.

It's still a choice. I could have chosen a new profession. I made the choice to man up (or woman up) and do what they asked.

It is always a choice. If flying is part of his gig, and your DH can't stomach the idea of a pat down or a scan, then he will need to consider a change in employment. It's an extreme, but still the choice is his.

Or he could choose to suck it up, which it sounds like he did. He made a choice.

 

[LuvOrlando]

Did they not tell him why he also had to have the pat down? Did he have something in his pocket or did something cause the alarm to go off? Or did they just make him have both?

Right now for my son, this is way faster, since he has always been pulled out to be searched..him and his carry on, since we guess he looks like what they think terrorists look like (unshaven, dark complexion, etc). Now he just walks through..and he picks the new scanner, since the lines have been shorter. He'll be flying 3 times in 3 days CA and then home, after flying out yesterday.

They just made him do both.

He did the scanner, they asked about his pocket and his leg, he turned out his pocket and lifted his pants, nothing there. They did the pat down and found nothing. He was wearing dress pants and a dress shirt so nothing overly baggy and no mistakes made on his part.

 

[LuvOrlando]

It's still a choice. I could have chosen a new profession. I made the choice to man up (or woman up) and do what they asked.

It is always a choice. If flying is part of his gig, and your DH can't stomach the idea of a pat down or a scan, then he will need to consider a change in employment. It's an extreme, but still the choice is his.

Or he could choose to suck it up, which it sounds like he did. He made a choice.

That choice sure sounds a lot like a choice under duress to me, and that doesn't quite make it the same thing. Duress nullifies many contracts and is the grounds for many a lawsuit