TSA mess and the police

[LuvOrlando]

The scanners and pat-downs have been secondary measures since the start of this controversy, though I have to grant that critics have tried very hard to make it sound otherwise.

No, if that was the case there would have never been any controversy. When the TSA rolled this out they were all up in everyone's faces about how there were ONLY 3 choices 'Scanner', 'New and improved pat-down', or 'don't fly'.

You can't go back and re-write history.

 

[skater]

My messages are no less respectful than the messages I reply to. I suspect that the issue is that the more strongly a perspective you don't like is presented, the more you choose to perceive it as disrespectful, but I grant that you'll choose to see it differently. That's your prerogative. And it is useless to discuss the discussion. It serves only to derail and distract, which just leads me back to question why the desire to do that instead of just addressing the issues.

I always try to be respectful. But we can agree to disagree. And I have never perceived an opinion as disrespectful simply because I didn't like it. Now, back to your regularly scheduled discussion topic ... If you don't want to discuss the discussion anymore, you don't have to reply .

 

[skater]

No, if that was the case there would have never been any controversy. When the TSA rolled this out they were all up in everyone's faces about how there were ONLY 3 choices 'Scanner', 'New and improved pat-down', or 'don't fly'.

You can't go back and re-write history.

You're absolutely right.

 

[eliza61]

Sadly, you are right about most people being accepting of these practices. Part of the reason why I have a problem just letting comments liek the quotes go by unchallenged.

BTW - what kind of "help" do TSAers need?

LOL. I guess "help" is probably the wrong word.

1) start with applicants and salary. If we are going to try pat downs and naked screenings (I'm using the phrases people here have been calling them) I think we have to try as much as possible to get rid of the accusations that the agents are fresh out of jail and convicted pedophiles. that should come with great applicant screening. but sorry, I'm a firm believer you get what you pay for. In NYC tsa agents barely make 30K a year, as my bf a retire cop says all the time, she makes more money doing security at Yankee stadium then she would as a tsa agent. I don't care what the economy is like, no one I know is going to do that job for walmart money and yes 30k in philly or ny is barely living.

2) Better security for the TSA agents. sorry I worked to long with John q. public. I've seen it at disneyworld and I see it when I fly for work. call me a cynic but more passengers act like park apes than tsa agents ever will.
Every thing from drunks, to moms who for some reason think because they gave birth should be excempt for the rules, to the person who doesn't want to pay the baggage fees so is now got an attitude because their "jumbo" carryon is not going through the xray machine and has to be hand check.
Personally I wish the government would start handing out some of those fines to Mr. and Mrs. wonderful I see flying.
And yes, if you come to the airport with nothing but the intention of starting a fight like Mr. "don't touch my junk". I think you should spend the night at the county lock up, like they do at the eagles game. start a fight at the stadium, find yourself at eagles court and a holding cell for 12 hours.

3) Better procedures. There should be procedures to deal with the physically or mentally challenged or people who need extra help.


These are just general things I'd like to see.

 

[bicker]

No, if that was the case there would have never been any controversy.

Yes, it is the case, and the reason why there was a controversy is because critics see no honest way of getting their way.

You can't go back and re-write history.

That's correct, so please stop trying.

 

[LuvOrlando]

Yes, it is the case, and the reason why there was a controversy is because critics see no honest way of getting their way.

That's correct, so please stop trying.

Still not true but now you've got me curious over why you are trying so hard to be adversarial.

First the pilots and flight attendants balked at being forced to submit to new measures in order to get to work. Then, people like me were upset we only had 3 choices, scanners, pat-downs or not to fly. There was a tidal wave of upset over the 3 choices people were being given which stirred even higher when we found out people could be fined thousands for walking away if they couldn't finish the security checks. Unions got involved, the ACLU, Civil Rights Advocates, Representatives as well as a myriad of professionals. Some airports even began to consider kicking the TSA out of their airports in favor of private security. An opposing point of view popped up to say we should just defer to the TSA for our own good, for the collective good, we heard you but were at an impasse. There was turmoil for a good long while.

Fast forward - these days the TSA seems to have relented and is no longer forcing those 3 options, instead they appear to have fallen back to what seems to be pre-November methods with the additional scanners and 'enhanced pat-downs' reserved for people who raise a red flag. By most people's standards, this is tolerable, if they had done this in the first place there would have NEVER been an issue. News of the kinder and gentler TSA is slowly reaching people's ears and these reports are slowly re-awakening interest in flying. I, for one, am cautiously optimistic. I hope the reports are genuine indicators of change and not just a few flukes and am waiting to get a better read over Christmas. So it would appear that both sides of this issue are finding common ground which should mean compromise should quiet the stir. If the fundamental issue, being the limited choice of scanner/pat-down/no fly is no longer the default state of things there is nothing to disagree about. Yet, here you are still looking for a fight, I don't get it... what gives?

 

[bicker]

From the very beginning, the new measures were applied to only a percentage of folks. Nothing has changed except rhetoric. Why are you trying to fabricate a difference when there isn't any such difference?

 

[LuvOrlando]

From the very beginning, the new measures were applied to only a percentage of folks. Nothing has changed except rhetoric. Why are you trying to fabricate a difference when there isn't any such difference?

I see, so all this time you never took in the whole 'reasonable search' facet of the debate? What did you think people were talking about? This is what I was talking about, well me and an avalanche of others.

I have never had an issue with whatever measures they wanted to employ once reasonable suspicion tipped the scales.

 

[bicker]

I have never had an issue with whatever measures they wanted to employ once reasonable suspicion tipped the scales.

Again: Nothing has changed in that regard. If someone is claiming that the policy has changed, then that's a fabrication.

 

[LuvOrlando]

If that's how you choose to see things then so be it, live and let live & all that

 

[bicker]

Back at ya.

 

[kaytieeldr]

First the pilots and flight attendants balked at being forced to submit to new measures in order to get to work. Then, people like me were upset we only had 3 choices, scanners, pat-downs or not to fly.

Actually, people like you balked because you believed the media that the first two were your only screening options. They weren't and they aren't. There are - and this is from memory, I refuse to go back and check the numbers - 750 of the backscatter scanners currently in use. They may not be at every airport in the country, and given the number of airports + the number of gates + the number of lines... it's impossible that the backscatter scanners are the only screening machines being used. This has been exemplified by experiences posted here.

Patdowns are used only when (a) machines can't be used for some reason or (b) something suspicious comes up on whatever machine is being used. Again, there are examples of this on this thread. Most passengers are still going through metal detectors.

The TSA never offered "just don't fly" as an option to the general flying public (passengers with agendae - i.e. John Tyner - being exceptions). That came from people like us - me, bicker, DisneyBamaFan, eliza61... the realists who know the new procedures DON'T mean the sky is falling.

 

[bicker]

Actually, people like you balked because you believed the media that the first two were your only screening options. They weren't and they aren't.

Precisely. Again, my objections have, since the beginning of this thread, all about the FUD that critics have engaged in, trying to panic the public into thinking evil things were happening, when that was utter falsehood. And now, seeing that their cynical and manipulative deception perhaps isn't working as they had hoped, they seem to be trying to save face by claiming victory, when the reality is that the policy has not changed.

As with all aspects of the agency's operations, the policy will be reviewed over time. Those of us objecting to the criticisms of the agency have been saying that (again) since the beginning of this thread. So there still may be some changes to the policy. Ideally, though, those changes will be based on reasonable determinations, rather than incited by mob mentality brought about by the cynical and manipulative FUD that the critics have been trafficking in (FUD that some people within this thread regrettably seem to have bought-into).

There are - and this is from memory, I refuse to go back and check the numbers - 750 of the backscatter scanners currently in use. They may not be at every airport in the country, and given the number of airports + the number of gates + the number of lines... it's impossible that the backscatter scanners are the only screening machines being used. This has been exemplified by experiences posted here.

Patdowns are used only when (a) machines can't be used for some reason or (b) something suspicious comes up on whatever machine is being used. Again, there are examples of this on this thread. Most passengers are still going through metal detectors.

Thanks for your efforts in trying to keep this thread grounded in reality.

 

[jodifla]

I agree with a PP....it's clear that after the outrage and the inappropriate pat downs, the TSA has backed down. People speaking out when things are WRONG worked yet again in our democracy.

 

[LuvOrlando]

Don't make the mistake of confusing me walking away from what I consider to be a ridiculous argument to be the same thing as me agreeing that you are right. For the record you guys couldn't be more far off, I'm just not interested in proving it to you because how you go through life is your business. However, if you don't stop with the insults things are not going to end well

thanks jodifla, at least you and I are on the same page

 

[eliza61]

I agree with a PP....it's clear that after the outrage and the inappropriate pat downs, the TSA has backed down. People speaking out when things are WRONG worked yet again in our democracy.

has the TSA changed their policy? I haven't heard that they are pulling the naked scanners? Are the patdowns gone?

 

[bicker]

has the TSA changed their policy?

No.

 

[LuvOrlando]

If you check back through this thread many people are reporting that these methods are not being employed across the board. It could be that these reports are just flukes or it could be that the methods are being pared back. I, for one, am waiting to see what's what over the Christmas rush. However, if this is still going on I would really appreciate those reports too. Eliza61 you seem to travel a great deal, what do you see? Are the scanners and pat-downs being used often or not?

 

[bicker]

If you check back through this thread many people are reporting that these methods are not being employed across the board.

Indeed: People were even reporting that on the first day the policy was in effect. Indeed: That's consistent with the policy itself.

 

[LuvOrlando]

Indeed: People were even reporting that on the first day the policy was in effect. Indeed: That's consistent with the policy itself.

Well my own husband was shoved into the thick of things and got the royal treatment of scanner AND pat down, until resistance FOR ABSOLUTELY NO REASON. Not only that but I seem to recall a few fairly heavy handed news conferences. Not exactly in line with your claim.

You are pulling quite a u-turn