TSA mess and the police

[MiniGirl]

Agreed - but this only happens if you are entering the main terminal up here, in other words, if you are staying in the gate area to board another flight. Are you saying that you have to go through the TSA screening even if you are leaving the terminal after customs? That is just silly.

Yes. That is the way it works and yes it is silly, and doesn't it make you feel safer to have all those resources spent searching people once they get off a plane and are heading home?. The guy that challenged this clearly stated that he was not getting on another flight. He lived in that city, and he didn't mind sitting and waiting for them to decide what to do because nobody was at home waiting for him. He had his laptop and was basically able to do the work he would've done at home.

ETA: Sorry. I see others have already answered. Guess I should've kept reading before throwing my 2 cents in there.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Just to be clear - on a minor issue. Some airlines will provide oxygen canisters, for a price. So, folks who need these canisters are able to travel by air.

Just to be clear:

Southwest does not allow compressed or liquid medical oxygen. Southwest does not provide oxygen canisters at any price. Their webpage with this information has contact information for companies that provide portable oxygen concentrators. This and more information at www.southwest.com/travel_center/medications.html

On Delta, onboard medical oxygen may only be provided by portable oxygen concentrators. These can be either owned by the passenger or rented from outside companies. Delta does not provide oxygen canisters at any price. This and more information at delta.com/planning_reservations/medical_concerns/index.jsp#oxygen (may not be entirely accurate, trying to read it off the iTouch)

AirTran will refuse to transport a customer requiring... medical oxygen for use on board the aircraft. Portable oxygen concentrators are allowed, but while there's a list of approved devices, there's no source or contact information, or any indication that the airline might even possibly provide POCs. More information at www.airtran.com/special_needs.information.aspx#poc

Most in-depth information found at JetBlue.com. "JetBlue will not carry persons who require medical oxygen onboard. Due to safety reasons, [they] do not permit any type of oxygen to be brought on the aircraft nor do [they] supply medical oxygen onboard... Specific models of oxygen concentrators are approved for onboard use... An oxygen concentrator is not to be confused with compressed oxygen which is prohibited on any JetBlue aircraft."
Very explicit explanation of procedures readily available by visiting JetBlue.com, then selecting Help, then typing oxygen into the search box. Again, though, nothing indicating they provide the portable oxygen concentrators at any price.

Continental's site was enlightening. "Generally the ... FAA prohibits the use of personal oxygen units during flight because they contain compressed gas or liquid oxygen which are defined as hazardous material. However, the FAA has recently issued guidelines permitting the use of certain portable oxygen concentrators" (all emphasis mine). Also, "Continental does not provice onboard medical oxygen. Customers may carry onboard and use FAA approved personal oxygen concentrators", and then the site provides a link to its Customer Provided Oxygen Concentrators page.

American Airlines assesses a $100 charge per flight segment for oxygen provided by its contracted (I guess) company.

United allows compressed oxygen canisters in the cabin or in cargo provided the cylinder is empty and stored in a cardboard box, but doesn't allow liquid oxygen period. They, too, have an oxygen provider but they're bigger thieves than AA - they charge $125!

US Airways provides information about traveling with portable oxygen concentrators and al link to a company that rents them.

 

[SaraJayne]

Good thing I haven't done anything of the sort. If you want to discuss the issue, then please do so. If you're just here to join in the effort to attempt to distract attention away from the points that I and others are making, by engaging in self-serving mud-slinging, then please reconsider posting. Thanks.

Until a mod decides this is a dead horse and closes the thread, I'll continue posting. The "issue" has been pretty much talked to death. There is nothing new to add.

My husband doesn't get away with being heavy handed, and neither do strangers on an internet message board.

 

[SaraJayne]

Yes. That is the way it works and yes it is silly, and doesn't it make you feel safer to have all those resources spent searching people once they get off a plane and are heading home?. The guy that challenged this clearly stated that he was not getting on another flight. He lived in that city, and he didn't mind sitting and waiting for them to decide what to do because nobody was at home waiting for him. He had his laptop and was basically able to do the work he would've done at home.

ETA: Sorry. I see others have already answered. Guess I should've kept reading before throwing my 2 cents in there.

Yes, it is silly and a waste of people and time to have to be re-screened when you've already been screened once. But that's the government for ya.

 

[LuvOrlando]

Until a mod decides this is a dead horse and closes the thread, I'll continue posting. The "issue" has been pretty much talked to death. There is nothing new to add.

My husband doesn't get away with being heavy handed, and neither do strangers on an internet message board.

Maybe it will get closed maybe not. I agree it seems most people have said what they wanted to say but I think the issue is a long way off from being settled even if the stir here dies down. I'm still not going to buy any tickets and still won't travel more than 5 hours away whether I'm conflicted enough about the situation to speak out here or not. Bottom line is the industry is still going to have to do without my money, and the money of the other people they've lost because I'm still just as irritated at the situation as I was when I started... I'm just on a low constant simmer There is now a new normal and traveling isn't a part of it for many.

 

[SaraJayne]

Maybe it will get closed maybe not. I agree it seems most people have said what they wanted to say but I think the issue is a long way off from being settled even if the stir here dies down. I'm still not going to buy any tickets and still won't travel more than 5 hours away whether I'm conflicted enough about the situation to speak out here or not. Bottom line is the industry is still going to have to do without my money, and the money of the other people they've lost because I'm still just as irritated at the situation as I was when I started... I'm just on a low constant simmer There is now a new normal and traveling isn't a part of it for many.

I agree it may be a while before we see the stir settle down among the general public. It's certainly your right not to choose to fly.

But I think that after 2086 posts, there isn't anything new to add.

 

[LuvOrlando]

Until the next revelation of inappropriate conduct hits the news you are probably right. But I suspect it won't take long for those TSA folks to forget the shaky ground they are on and mess up again, I don't have much confidence in them for many things but for this I do. It's only a matter of time before we get another eyeful on You-Tube

 

[OceanAnnie]

Alternative to TSA pat-downs: More background checks

By JOSH GERSTEIN | 11/24/10 4:32 AM EST

...“The question is, which kind of privacy do you want to have?” said Stewart Baker, a top Department of Homeland Security official during the Bush administration. “This has been a pretty searing experience for DHS. Obviously, we’re not going to do more in this area [of physical checks] and it would be welcome if we could do less….The alternative is to look for terrorists in advance.”...

...“We’re going to gather information about people we’re going to encounter hours before they arrive. We’ll compare names and travel partners to lists of people, not just no-fly lists, but anyone who’s suspect one way or another,” Baker said. “One hundred and ninety-nine people spend 30 seconds in primary [screening] getting an ID check and moved on, but one person in 200 gets an hour of screening, reviewing their personal effects, and an interrogation that’s very free ranging.”...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45559.html

------------------------------

I think it has the potential to heat up again.

 

[LuvOrlando]

And there they go


I know it's an invasion and I would want a GUARANTEE this information is kept IN THE USA not farmed out to some other country that can do it cheaper while making our info vulnerable. However, IF the info would be closely maintained by our government and not shared or outsourced with anyone else ever THEN I would be ok with it as an alternative to having someone touch anyone in my family. But the guidelines would have to be impenetrable, no bending at all.

I guess considering all the evils, this would be tolerable for me. I hope people can choose what works for them since we are all so diverse. Each person's privacy issues are so deeply personal, a cookie cutter approach just doesn't work here.

 

[Tinkermommy]

Alternative to TSA pat-downs: More background checks

By JOSH GERSTEIN | 11/24/10 4:32 AM EST

...“The question is, which kind of privacy do you want to have?” said Stewart Baker, a top Department of Homeland Security official during the Bush administration. “This has been a pretty searing experience for DHS. Obviously, we’re not going to do more in this area [of physical checks] and it would be welcome if we could do less….The alternative is to look for terrorists in advance.”...

...“We’re going to gather information about people we’re going to encounter hours before they arrive. We’ll compare names and travel partners to lists of people, not just no-fly lists, but anyone who’s suspect one way or another,” Baker said. “One hundred and ninety-nine people spend 30 seconds in primary [screening] getting an ID check and moved on, but one person in 200 gets an hour of screening, reviewing their personal effects, and an interrogation that’s very free ranging.”...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45559.html

------------------------------

I think it has the potential to heat up again.

I don't know if this is relevant but I am almost sure I had a background check done on me before a flight. Let me explain.

A few years ago, I was flying out on the last flight of the day from Boston Logan back home to Atlanta. I fly this many times and pretty much every other flight I have taken is full or almost full.

Well, I was running late and got to the gate and boarded. I noticed there were a couple of guys in long black trench coats hanging around in the gate area and thought that was weird.

Well, I got on the plane was almost empty. There were like 20 people in coach. I have flown this trip about 40 times so it was unusual.

Then the flight attendant greets me and says, "Did you get to meet him?" I said, "Meet who?"

She explained that former President Jimmy Carter was in first class (now I know why I didn't get upgraded!) and he was just back there shaking everyone's hand.

So I am pretty sure they did a background check on me and the other few passengers they allowed on or I wouldn't have gotten a seat on the plane.

Thankfully, I have always been an .

 

[C.Ann]

Thankfully, I have always been an .

Sure you have..LOL.. Just kidding..

Interesting story.. Did it make you feel more nervous being on that plane?

 

[Tinkermommy]

Yes, it is silly and a waste of people and time to have to be re-screened when you've already been screened once. But that's the government for ya.

It's not silly. This is for passengers from International flights only and coming from all over the globe.

Atlanta is the busiest airport in the world. In 2009, Atlanta had 88 million passengers travel through the airport.

There is no way to quickly tell who is going on to a flight and who is driving home and honestly the people for whom Atlanta is their final destination is small.

The set up is inefficient and time consuming and a bit of a pain, but I understand why they do it. You would have to have a separate area that would have to check all the airline databases to see if you are going onto another flight. That would take just as long I would think.

Also, if someone wanted, they could have two ids, with connecting flights in another name.

 

[LuvOrlando]

WOW Tinkermommy, that's quite a story. I wouldn't have wanted to get on that plane. I have the same aversion of those Armored Trucks picking up money from stores, when I see one I don't go in. My reason is because anytime someone is anywhere near a target their chances of getting hit are greatly increased... no thank you

 

[Tinkermommy]

Sure you have..LOL.. Just kidding..

Interesting story.. Did it make you feel more nervous being on that plane?

Actually, it made me feel safer. I don't think Jimmy Carter is a big "target" and that if we all had background checks we must be a pretty tame group.

And as for being an angel, it's all about getting caught isn't it!

 

[C.Ann]

And as for being an angel, it's all about getting caught isn't it!

Shhhhhhhhhhh...

 

[LuvOrlando]

I just noticed you didn't offer an opinion on this OceanAnnie, would you do it as an alternative or not?

Alternative to TSA pat-downs: More background checks

By JOSH GERSTEIN | 11/24/10 4:32 AM EST

...“The question is, which kind of privacy do you want to have?” said Stewart Baker, a top Department of Homeland Security official during the Bush administration. “This has been a pretty searing experience for DHS. Obviously, we’re not going to do more in this area [of physical checks] and it would be welcome if we could do less….The alternative is to look for terrorists in advance.”...

...“We’re going to gather information about people we’re going to encounter hours before they arrive. We’ll compare names and travel partners to lists of people, not just no-fly lists, but anyone who’s suspect one way or another,” Baker said. “One hundred and ninety-nine people spend 30 seconds in primary [screening] getting an ID check and moved on, but one person in 200 gets an hour of screening, reviewing their personal effects, and an interrogation that’s very free ranging.”...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45559.html

------------------------------

I think it has the potential to heat up again.

 

[eliza61]

And there they go


I know it's an invasion and I would want a GUARANTEE this information is kept IN THE USA not farmed out to some other country that can do it cheaper while making our info vulnerable. However, IF the info would be closely maintained by our government and not shared or outsourced with anyone else ever THEN I would be ok with it as an alternative to having someone touch anyone in my family. But the guidelines would have to be impenetrable, no bending at all.

I guess considering all the evils, this would be tolerable for me. I hope people can choose what works for them since we are all so diverse. Each person's privacy issues are so deeply personal, a cookie cutter approach just doesn't work here.

Wait, aren't these the same people you were accusing of selling your naked pictures on the internet?
Aren't these the same people you were saying were child pedophiles and now you're ok with giving them your private info?
You're very first post you describe them as "strong arming" "wack jobs" and "abusing their authority"

Why is this invasion more acceptable th an the "naked" pictures.

 

[SaraJayne]

It's not silly. This is for passengers from International flights only and coming from all over the globe.

Atlanta is the busiest airport in the world. In 2009, Atlanta had 88 million passengers travel through the airport.

There is no way to quickly tell who is going on to a flight and who is driving home and honestly the people for whom Atlanta is their final destination is small.

The set up is inefficient and time consuming and a bit of a pain, but I understand why they do it. You would have to have a separate area that would have to check all the airline databases to see if you are going onto another flight. That would take just as long I would think.

Also, if someone wanted, they could have two ids, with connecting flights in another name.

Yes, it is silly. These people have already been screened in their country of origin and almost every country has stricter security measures than the US.

I would be immensely annoyed if I was traveling into the US and was basically told "sorry, the country you came from doesn't take security as seriously as the US does, so you need to be re-screened".

 

[CPT Tripss]

Actually, he approached the TSA agents. It was not about them screening him. You really need to try harder to stick to the facts.

No, actually, the fact is that "everyone" has to clear TSA security in order to depart that airport after clearing customs and immigration.

Don't misstate facts to suit your purpose.

This blog might help you understand. http://www.sitenet.com/travelblog/?p=1586

 

[CPT Tripss]

I can tell you that. My home airport is Atlanta.

Here's the process if you are coming from another country:

-You get off the plane and go through immigration to get your passport reviewed/stamped
- You then go and pick up your checked luggage if you checked any
- Then you go through customs
- Then if you have checked luggage you put that on another conveyer belt and that either goes on to your next flight or to the regular baggage claim where you have to pick it up again
- After you drop off your luggage you do have to go through TSA screening once more before entering the main terminal

Basically, the TSA does not think that all airports around the world have their standards so they screen you again. Atlanta's a major hub so often people are connecting to other flights.It's a pain, but they are building a new international terminal so I hope they streamline this process.

PHL also requires rescreening if you arrive on an international flight and then procede onto another flight. (Other airports may also, I do not know.) But NOT to leave the airport.

I believe it is a design "flaw" at Atlanta, not a TSA policy.