I have noticed a pattern for the TSA at Terminal C at RDU. They actively "order" pax to take shoes off. I was waiting for the backed up security line last Friday and a TSA employee came by and ordered, in the firm command voice, to remove your shoes. The sheep around me complied as I saw everyone in stocking feet. Now some definitely needed to take them off because of heavy steel toe boots but I saw sneakers being taken off.

I kept my Sebagos on and watched the woman in front of me take off her flats to go through the xray. When I got up another TSA says shoes off and I said I do not need to and he looked and said "you'll be OK". The TSA actively asks for shoes off at Terminal C because I have been questioned on other occasions.

After going through the detector and not setting it off, the woman in front of me asks about not taking off my shoes and I said the TSA ask for shoes off because lots of shoes have metal shanks in them and they set off the detector but I ignore them because my shoes have no metal. She said she knows that her shoes do not have metal and said she would keep them on the next time. Another blow struck against the Empire http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/smile.gif!

However, at Terminal A, I have never seen a request to take shoes off like they do at C. I guess I should look at the detectors to see if they are different brands but it seems like procedures are different between the two terminals. I have not witnessed the same command voice performance at other airports lately, only at RDU Terminal C. Anyone else have any observations?

I never remove my shoes, even when the barking is loud. I've also not set off a walk-thru metal detector in a long time. I don't wear shoes containing metal.

Strike another blow against the empire. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/smile.gif

I don't take my shoes off either as I know they do not set off the metal detectors.

If anyone barks at me though, I will bark back ... louder http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/smile.gif

------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin

MORONS!!!!!!

It usually takes a Government operation at least a couple of years to be totally useless.

The TSA must be in the Government Agency Hall of Fame, they have done it in less than 18 Months!

I have found this to be very irritating. I have a pair of Rockports, and I routinely take those off as they do have a metal plate in them, but none of my other shoes do, and I've never set off a metal detector. Two weeks ago at LAX, I wasn't allowed through until I took off my shoes (this was the DL terminal, btw). I found this to be unbelievably annoying, since

(1) I knew my boots had no metal in them (these were girly fashion boots, not work or comfort boots),

(2) even after I told the screener that there's no metal in my boots, she said I had to or she wouldn't let me through, and

(3) if you're going to make everyone take their shoes off, at least provide a place for us to sit!!! There I am, trying to balance my purse, my carry-on and my jacket (can't wear that through the machine anymore), standing on one leg, trying to get my boots on, trying to get out of the way of other people coming through the line. There was a clump of us just stuck at the end of the screening area, all doing the shoe dance. Dumb stuff!

They bark, I ignore.

There is an id-jit at IAD who insists on people taking out their wallets. I ignore.

There is another id-jit insisting on the shoes being off. I ignore.

Most of the time it passes and I go about my business. Sometimes I smile, look straight at the employee and say "oh, it's okay" or "it's fine" and go about my business.

Another example of dip@#$%s acting with no clue nor any probable cause.

Disband this useless agency!

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Buster:
(2) even after I told the screener that there's no metal in my boots, she said I had to or she wouldn't let me through, and </font>

Don't let anyone insist you take off your shoes. It is not a requirement for passing through the detector.

http://129.33.119.130/public/display?theme=52

They only time you might be required to take off your shoes is during a secondary screening.



------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin

You do not have to remove your shoes unless they are wanded and alarm.That's a fact.

You know I flew in and out ouf RDU two Tuesdays ago (2/24) and I must say I did notice a lot of people with their shoes off but since I did not hear any command or even request I did'nt take mine off. Nothing was said to me.
Did find the number of people with shoes off odd but thought nothing more of it at the time.
Mike

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tsadude:
You do not have to remove your shoes unless they are wanded and alarm.That's a fact.</font>

Exactly. That's why I politely tell barking screeners to go to hell. I could dress up like Mr T if I want - If I set off the alarm, then I'm theirs. Until then, BACK OFF.

Of course this doesn't go over too well with the Barney Fifes at some airports. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/wink.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tsadude:
You do not have to remove your shoes unless they are wanded and alarm.That's a fact.</font>

You TSA folks are going to have to stop agreeing with me! You are ruining my reputation! http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/biggrin.gif



------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tazi:
You TSA folks are going to have to stop agreeing with me! You are ruining my reputation! http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/biggrin.gif
</font>

LOL!! http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/smile.gif

I went through CAE today and they have new walk through metal detectors installed. They are very sensitive and anyone with shanks in their shoes will set them off. Noone told anyone they HAD to take their shoes off, but we were advised about the new machines and that our shoes might set them off. Few listened to the screener at the walk through and they did indeed set it off. I also noticed that there was no random screening. Maybe because there were so many people setting the machines off that they could not possibly screen anyone else.

New walk thu metal detectors at FLL last week and they are very sensitive !!,No need for continuous screening these things are alarming like crazy,and lots of people in the corral,yes we are suggesting certain shoes off rockerports,timberland,dress shoes etc but not required,

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ACES II:
I went through CAE today and they have new walk through metal detectors installed. They are very sensitive and anyone with shanks in their shoes will set them off. Noone told anyone they HAD to take their shoes off, but we were advised about the new machines and that our shoes might set them off. Few listened to the screener at the walk through and they did indeed set it off. I also noticed that there was no random screening. Maybe because there were so many people setting the machines off that they could not possibly screen anyone else.</font>

I've got a question for all the TSA folks. ONE person....count them...ONE.....tries to blow up a plane with a shoe bomb. As a result, millions of people worldwide have to go through the indignity and inconvenience of removing their shoes and being treated like common criminals. This process will likely continue for all eternity.
I pose the question as to what TSA's reaction will be when some moronic terrorist wanna be tries to smuggle a bomb through security in his/her underwear? Jackets off, laptops out, pockets emptied, shoes off....what's next??
Realizing that 99.999+% of the people who are subjected to this invasive search are not terrorists, when does this insanity stop and where do we finally draw the line??

Cholula, I asked why they x-ray the shoes that set the alarm off and I got quite a bit of information. It seems that the shoe bomber is only one of the reasons. They have caught a few people (males) who removed the steel shanks from their shoes and replaced them with knife blades, rather long ones. I asked about the belt buckles and why we are required to release them and was told that once again, someone had attempted to hide a blade behind their belt buckle using the buckle to set the alarm off and thus explain the alarm. So I guess that everything they do is in response to things that have been caught. If they didn't, then we would be up in arms if something happened and we find that they knew those methods were being used and did not check for them.

ACES II...I don't doubt that any number of potential weapons have been found in various "hidden" places during airport screening...any more than I doubt that an equal or greater amount of weapons go undetected during this same process. My point is that we are sliding down a very slippery slope here. If TSA's reaction is to ratchet up their invasion of our personal privacy every time they find a new hiding place for so called weapons, where does this ultimately lead? How much indignity do we have to endure to board an airplane??

People in maximum-security prisons are constantly searched AND pass through very sensitive metal detectors. Yet they still manage to hide weapons. At some point, you just realize that endless searching is fruitless against a person determined to smuggle something.

The better question is so what? Let's say I board an airplane with a machine gun. What can I do with it? Can I make the pilot open the door? Can I fly the plane into the Capitol, or whatever? No, no, no. So who cares about itty-bitty knives and all that.

Terrorists aren't idiots -- obviously. They aren't going to go to all the trouble of attacking the United States if all they accomplish is cutting one or two people with a tiny knife -- if they could even succeed at that! Planes aren't terrorist targets any more. Let's move on to something else and leave travelers more or less alone.

Bruce

Bruce: Amen to that. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/smile.gif

Amen, Bruce!!!

Leave the travelers the HELL alone! Knife in shoe? Not a credible threat. Knife in belt? Not a credible threat. Bomb in bag? Credible threat. Stop wasting our time on these "security" jokes and concentrate on real, credible threats. Or, step aside and let someone else do the job properly.

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

[This message has been edited by Spiff (edited 03-07-2003).]

Bruce, wise words!

Only time will make the experts see that it is necessary to the extent to which we are doing things at the checkpoints. Luggage and cargo should be the top priority.

Especially cargo (air and sea)! I suspect terrorists can read the newspapers as well as the rest of us and know that little cargo is checked these days. So the lightbulb in any ambitious, reasonably clever terrorist's head will go on, and he'll think about the cargo possibilities in order to get promoted. As many others here have said, stop the silliness and start in on the hard work.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Cholula:
I've got a question for all the TSA folks. ONE person....count them...ONE.....tries to blow up a plane with a shoe bomb. As a result, millions of people worldwide have to go through the indignity and inconvenience of removing their shoes and being treated like common criminals. This process will likely continue for all eternity.
I pose the question as to what TSA's reaction will be when some moronic terrorist wanna be tries to smuggle a bomb through security in his/her underwear? Jackets off, laptops out, pockets emptied, shoes off....what's next??
Realizing that 99.999+% of the people who are subjected to this invasive search are not terrorists, when does this insanity stop and where do we finally draw the line??</font>

As it's been said over, & over, & over again, screeners are only doing the job that has been placed before them. TSA screeners DO NOT WRITE POLICY !! You got a problem with policy, talk to your rep.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by biggs:
I have noticed a pattern for the TSA at Terminal C at RDU. They actively "order" pax to take shoes off. I was waiting for the backed up security line last Friday and a TSA employee came by and ordered, in the firm command voice, to remove your shoes. The sheep around me complied as I saw everyone in stocking feet. Now some definitely needed to take them off because of heavy steel toe boots but I saw sneakers being taken off.

I kept my Sebagos on and watched the woman in front of me take off her flats to go through the xray. When I got up another TSA says shoes off and I said I do not need to and he looked and said "you'll be OK". The TSA actively asks for shoes off at Terminal C because I have been questioned on other occasions.

After going through the detector and not setting it off, the woman in front of me asks about not taking off my shoes and I said the TSA ask for shoes off because lots of shoes have metal shanks in them and they set off the detector but I ignore them because my shoes have no metal. She said she knows that her shoes do not have metal and said she would keep them on the next time. Another blow struck against the Empire http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/smile.gif!

However, at Terminal A, I have never seen a request to take shoes off like they do at C. I guess I should look at the detectors to see if they are different brands but it seems like procedures are different between the two terminals. I have not witnessed the same command voice performance at other airports lately, only at RDU Terminal C. Anyone else have any observations? </font>

Dear Biggs,
I've worked @ Terminal C RDU since the roll out. I can say from experiance, you can only be encouraged to remove your shoes. If, at any time a screener demands that you remove your shoes, ask to speak to his/her sup. You are NOT required to remove your shoes @ the WTMD, but it is "encouraged". We just installed new "highly" sensitive WTMD's so pax beware.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by CameraGuy:
MORONS!!!!!!
</font>

I know you are, but what am I ?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Spiff:
dip@#$%s
</font>

I know you are, but what am I ?



[This message has been edited by TakeScissorsAway (edited 03-07-2003).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by FWAAA:
Exactly. That's why I politely tell barking screeners to go to hell.</font>

Come on big boy. You feel froggy ? Stop on by, and tell "ME" where to go !!

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by bdschobel:
People in maximum-security prisons are constantly searched AND pass through very sensitive metal detectors. Yet they still manage to hide weapons. At some point, you just realize that endless searching is fruitless against a person determined to smuggle something.

The better question is so what? Let's say I board an airplane with a machine gun. What can I do with it? Can I make the pilot open the door? Can I fly the plane into the Capitol, or whatever? No, no, no. So who cares about itty-bitty knives and all that.

Terrorists aren't idiots -- obviously. They aren't going to go to all the trouble of attacking the United States if all they accomplish is cutting one or two people with a tiny knife -- if they could even succeed at that! Planes aren't terrorist targets any more. Let's move on to something else and leave travelers more or less alone.

Bruce</font>

Everyone bow down to the gran poo-baa of infinate knowledge. The all-seeing, all-knowing.

http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/confused.gif Edward Scissorshands has had way too much to smoke this evening!

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tazi:
http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/confused.gif Edward Scissorshands has had way too much to smoke this evening!</font>

Rough day @ the office http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/frown.gif

TakeScissorsAway, aka TSA.....
When you monitor this forum enough, you'll soon learn that moron and dip#%@# are simply unusual terms of endearment..... http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/biggrin.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by TakeScissorsAway:
Everyone bow down to the gran poo-baa of infinate knowledge. The all-seeing, all-knowing.</font>

Wow, I didn't realize we had met! Be careful, however: The usual spelling of my title is "Grand Pooh-Bah of Infinite Knowledge." You'll get it right eventually. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/smile.gif

Bruce

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by bdschobel:
Wow, I didn't realize we had met! Be careful, however: The usual spelling of my title is "Grand Pooh-Bah of Infinite Knowledge." You'll get it right eventually. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/smile.gif

Bruce</font>

LMAO!



------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by TakeScissorsAway:
I know you are, but what am I ?</font>

This agency and it's employees are a parody of security procedures.

To paraphrase:

I know security, TSA you are not security.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">

I know security, TSA you are not security.

</font>

Or, as I like to say

I'm no Martha Stewart...but I know bad window dressing when I see it!

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by CameraGuy:
This agency and it's employees are a parody of security procedures.

To paraphrase:

I know security, TSA you are not security.

</font>

Dude, just give me your friggin' scissors http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/smile.gif

Eight hours of watching people coming and going, all with something better to do than stand around an airport to collect a paycheck. Come home, tune into FT and hassle the same people for another hour. Sounds like a job for me.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by TakeScissorsAway:
Dude, just give me your friggin' scissors http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/smile.gif

</font>

No http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/biggrin.gif



------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by TakeScissorsAway:
Dude, just give me your friggin' scissors http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/smile.gif

</font>

I just want to know the internet site where TSAers post their feel-up fantasies and groping fetishes.

"I got to sniff Al Gore's briefs today and squeeze his inner thigh while looking for something sharp and pointy...unfortunately, there was only something dull and wimpy."

Maybe I can read about myself!


[This message has been edited by mwp2paris (edited 03-09-2003).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by TakeScissorsAway:
Dude, just give me your friggin' scissors http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/smile.gif

</font>

Where you want 'em?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by FWAAA:
Where you want 'em?</font>

ROFLMAO!!! http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/wink.gif

I have no ill will towards the TSA personnel. Some of them are really nice and helpful.

I, like the other fliers, vent against the randum and tiresome invasions of privacy. Everytime I get radumly searched at the gate, I think to myself "yup, another win for Osama Bin Laden."

The absurd security policies have been changing for the better, but flier hassling seems to continue at many locations...

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by FWAAA:
Where you want 'em?</font>

In this tray, with your freakin' shoes http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/wink.gif

Let's can the name calling - after reading each of these posts, I can't see they added anything of substanance but certainly took away from the kind community I thought FlyerTalk to be. I think it is poosible to make a point with the 'morons' and other terms of endearment. Still don't know what all the chat is about - i continue to travel as much if not more than the average FlyerTalker and I've never had an incident i feel was worth commenting on. All my contact with TSA has been error free and frankly quite satisfactorily. I do get a little concerned when i have to show boarding passes sometimes and then not others, but chalk it up to the element of surprize which i think is necessary for good security.

But enough about my personal TSA experiences, this note is about some of you members personal use of words that don't make for a better enviroment on FT.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by TakeScissorsAway:
As it's been said over, & over, & over again, screeners are only doing the job that has been placed before them. TSA screeners DO NOT WRITE POLICY !! You got a problem with policy, talk to your rep.
</font>

Come on, let's cool out here.


[This message has been edited by Just Passing Thru (edited 03-12-2003).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by TakeScissorsAway:
In this tray, with your freakin' shoes http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/wink.gif

</font>


I already told you, you can't have my shoes! http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/tongue.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tazi:

I already told you, you can't have my shoes! http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/tongue.gif</font>

Alrighty, how 'bout that under-wire bra your wearing http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/wink.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by TakeScissorsAway:
[B] I know you are, but what am I ?
B]</font>

I'm wondering the same. Are you a little defensive? Yes. Are you representing the TSA professionally? No. Are you making a lucid and convincing argument for TSA policies? No. Would the TSA be better off if you were somewhere else? Probably. What does that make you?
;&gt;

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by TakeScissorsAway:
Come on big boy. You feel froggy ? Stop on by, and tell "ME" where to go !!

</font>

Oh great, now we have a TSA guy that wants to show us how tough he is. Give a guy a fabric badge and look what happens. Oh, I'm really scared. Great attitude, just another cop wannabe. Representation like this the TSA doesn't need.

:rolleyes

The ties give us that attitide. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/wink.gif

Bringing this thread back on topic...

This weekend I flew BUR-SFO return. Everyone at BUR was required to take their shoes off. A polite, "there's no metal in these shoes" or "I've never set of the detector" didn't work. I was actually told that if I didn't take my shoes off, I'd "be in big trouble." I didn't want to find out what that was, and since I was traveling for business and absolutely had to get to my destination, I complied.

At SFO, we again got the "everyone take your shoes off." Here, I saw 2 absurdities. First, I was told to take my shoes off. I politely pointed out that my shoes were already off. Keen powers of observation! The woman in the line next to me was told to take her shoes off, as "they look pretty big." Huh? Big shoes set off the magnetometer? The funny thing was, her shoes were rubber platform flip flops. I can pretty much guarantee there was no metal in those!

I'm not trying to stir the pot, just trying to point out inconsistencies. I know the TSA folks here have told us that we're not required to take our shoes off, but at every airport in the last month or so I've basically been bullied into doing so by veiled threats that I might not be able to get through security. I'm not going to argue the point any further, but all I ask is that if this is the de facto policy, can we please get some seats at the end of the checkpoint so that we can put our shoes back on without major difficulty? It's really awfully hard to balance a carry-on, a purse and a jacket while putting on shoes.

I wonder what the "big trouble" in BUR would have been. I don't think you can be forced to take your shoes off...can you?

The hard thing is to be even-tempered and pleasent and say "sorry but I'm keeping my shoes on...they are just fine, thank you."

I am always inclined to get miffed and I try to be nicey nice but it's tough.

I think the reason they are doing that, even though they should not be, is that they are having new walk through metal detectors installed in all the airports and they are very sensitive. I know at my airport, CAE, that they leave it up to us to take them off, then if we do, they will let us know if our shoes have shanks in them or not. Maybe some of the larger airports are not doing that due to time constraints or passenger numbers. I can only surmise that they are trying to limit the numbers of alarms they are getting.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by porkyboy:
I'm wondering the same. Are you a little defensive? Yes. Are you representing the TSA professionally? No. Are you making a lucid and convincing argument for TSA policies? No. Would the TSA be better off if you were somewhere else? Probably. What does that make you?
;&gt;</font>

Do I give a s**t ? NO !!

It makes me, NOT a "porkyboy"

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by porkyboy:
Oh great, now we have a TSA guy that wants to show us how tough he is. Give a guy a fabric badge and look what happens. Oh, I'm really scared. Great attitude, just another cop wannabe. Representation like this the TSA doesn't need.

:rolleyes</font>

Believe me, I have no desire to be a "cop". Noble profession, but grossly underpaid.

My attitude has nothing to do with "a fabric badge". Believe it or not TSA'ers a humans too. Tell me to "Go to Hell" to my face, and you'll need to back up your statement. No brag, just fact.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by TakeScissorsAway:
My attitude has nothing to do with "a fabric badge". Believe it or not TSA'ers a humans too. Tell me to "Go to Hell" to my face, and you'll need to back up your statement. No brag, just fact.</font>

http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/rolleyes.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by TakeScissorsAway:
Do I give a s**t ? NO !!

It makes me, NOT a "porkyboy"

</font>

Perhaps you need some estrogen to tone down all that testosterone. Thanks for proving my point(s).

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by TakeScissorsAway:
Believe me, I have no desire to be a "cop." Noble profession, but grossly underpaid.

My attitude has nothing to do with "a fabric badge." Believe it or not TSA'ers are humans too. Tell me to "Go to Hell" to my face, and you'll need to back up your statement. No brag, just fact.</font>

If cops are "grossly underpaid," what are you? You make a little more than half what they make!

And if you get into an actual physical fight with a passenger who tells you to go to hell, I guarantee -- absolutely, positively guarantee -- that your Federal service will come to an abrupt end. You better keep that in mind.

When I worked for Social Security Administration, employees had to suffer through all kinds of abuse from the public. If employees couldn't stand the heat, they got out of the kitchen. But if an employee assaulted a member of the public, that employee was terminated. This response was non-negotiable.

Bruce

However, the assault will probably come from someone like you Bruce. One who goes out of his way to be confrontational. Any TSA guy who strikes back can knock you out with impunity as everyone has the right to defend themselves. Plus the cameras will be there to prove his case. Thats the more likely scenario.

ACES,

You have truly lost your mind. How can you interpret silence as a prelude to assault?

Bruce

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ACES II:
However, the assault will probably come from someone like you Bruce. One who goes out of his way to be confrontational. Any TSA guy who strikes back can knock you out with impunity as everyone has the right to defend themselves. Plus the cameras will be there to prove his case. Thats the more likely scenario.</font>

http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/rolleyes.gif



------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin

http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/biggrin.gif

What with, a spell? Hell is a pretty long teleport away.

Or, did you mean that if someone tells you to go to Hell, then it's "Go Time" as we say in hockey? Well, if it's worth your job, be my guest! http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/smile.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by TakeScissorsAway:
Tell me to "Go to Hell" to my face, and you'll need to back up your statement. No brag, just fact.



</font>



------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

Dream on!

Everyone does NOT have the right to defend themsleves with impunity. I worked at a bar for many years and we were forbidden from brawling with the customers, even if they struck us first. We were told that we could file charges, but striking a customer, even in self-defense, would cost us our jobs.

Why? Because say 125lb drunken frat boy takes a swing at 225lb large bouncer. 225lb large bouncer pulverizes 125lb drunken frat boy, but 125lb drunken frat boy sues (and quite likely wins) large judgement against 225lb large bouncer and the bar. Bar goes out of business. Just because the metaphorical bar in this case is the federal government/TSA does not protect them from lawsuits.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ACES II:
However, the assault will probably come from someone like you Bruce. One who goes out of his way to be confrontational. Any TSA guy who strikes back can knock you out with impunity as everyone has the right to defend themselves. Plus the cameras will be there to prove his case. Thats the more likely scenario.</font>

Self defense is a given right, and I know for a fact (screener friend) that they are allowed to defend themselves. However, that defense must be tempered of course. So with all the cameras going, if the screener is struck first, he/she can strike back. Of course he/she might not get the chance since they have police back-up who I am sure would jump in and handle the situation.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ACES II:
Self defense is a given right, and I know for a fact (screener friend) that they are allowed to defend themselves. However, that defense must be tempered of course. So with all the cameras going, if the screener is struck first, he/she can strike back. Of course he/she might not get the chance since they have police back-up who I am sure would jump in and handle the situation.</font>

It seems to me that the only people talking about becoming physical in a confrontation are the TSA persons and their good friend ACES II.

------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by bdschobel:
And if you get into an actual physical fight with a passenger who tells you to go to hell, I guarantee -- absolutely, positively guarantee -- that your Federal service will come to an abrupt end. You better keep that in mind. Bruce</font>

Tazi, this is where it first came up. Now, that said, if someone does strike a screener, said screener can and by all means should defend themselves. I, and I suspect you, would not stand for someone assaulting you without defending yourself. Even over something as trivial as being handwanded.

edited for spelling.

[This message has been edited by ACES II (edited 03-17-2003).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by TakeScissorsAway:
Tell me to "Go to Hell" to my face, and you'll need to back up your statement. No brag, just fact.
</font>

There's nothing as impressive as a federal employee who's itching to beat up a non-terrorist American with whom they disagree. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/rolleyes.gif

That'll make the country safer. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/rolleyes.gif

When you start threatening physical violence, you tip your hand - looks like you're all out of persuasive arguments. Maybe time for a career change?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ACES II:
Tazi, this is where it first came up. Now, that said, if someone does strike a screener, said screener can and by all means should defend themselves. I, and I suspect you, would not stand for someone assaulting you without defending yourself. Even over something as trivial as being handwanded.</font>

No, actually it started with this statement:

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">My attitude has nothing to do with "a fabric badge". Believe it or not TSA'ers a humans too. Tell me to "Go to Hell" to my face, and you'll need to back up your statement. No brag, just fact.</font>

This sure implies a physical response to being told to go to hell to me.




------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin

That's certainly how I interpreted the statement. And I responded that a physical response to WORDS would get a Federal employee terminated. I never said a single word about a passenger assaulting a screener.

ACES may make very fine ejection seats, but he needs to improve his reading comprehension! http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/smile.gif

Bruce

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ACES II:
Self defense is a given right, and I know for a fact (screener friend) that they are allowed to defend themselves.</font>

So what you're saying is it's only the TSA folks who are able to exercise their constitutional rights. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/rolleyes.gif

Ya know, I have a friend too, and hhe's a screener. I wonder if hhe tells me something about her job - if that makes her statement into law, too.

Aces, you're losing the battle. Silence on your part is your only hope for victory. Then again, you'll probably get wanded for it http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/wink.gif

GMF

No, I just don't agree. Simple enough, makes me no more right or wrong than anyone else. You guys take your disdain for the TSA out on the individual screeners and you wonder why you get treated the way you do. It is not the screeners on the checkpoint who set the policy they have to follow, so try going above their heads....way above, and get the policies changed. Until then, just try to show some civility to the folks working the checkpoint and I bet you will get it in return.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ACES II:
No, I just don't agree. Simple enough, makes me no more right or wrong than anyone else. You guys take your disdain for the TSA out on the individual screeners and you wonder why you get treated the way you do. It is not the screeners on the checkpoint who set the policy they have to follow, so try going above their heads....way above, and get the policies changed. Until then, just try to show some civility to the folks working the checkpoint and I bet you will get it in return.</font>

I don't take my disdain out on them but I do question them at times.

------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin

What iritates me is when the person in front of me does not remove their shoes and then sets off the security alarm as a result of metal shanks. This causes delays for everyone behind them. On a Monday morning this can be the difference between making the gate or not.

I agree, most dress shoes have shanks in them and most people don't know that. I have seen screeners "suggest" that they might want to take their shoes off, they refuse and set the alarm off, and then get in a huff about it and ***ch the whole time while being wanded. I do get a chuckle out of that.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ACES II:
I agree, most dress shoes have shanks in them and most people don't know that. I have seen screeners "suggest" that they might want to take their shoes off, they refuse and set the alarm off, and then get in a huff about it and ***ch the whole time while being wanded. I do get a chuckle out of that. </font>

ACES, I'd agree with you except, it's not very funny when 95% of the people you "ask" to remove their shoes refuse, only to set the WTMD off, which it turn, slows down the whole process, which in turn, makes everyone else a little more irritable, which in turn, brings on more tension, which in turn............well, you get the point. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/rolleyes.gif

I know, my point is that when asked, most people refuse, then get angry when they have to go through the wanding process. By their own stubborness, they are led.

Perhaps another contributing factor is that many magnetometers have too low a threshold in the hopes of detecting non-credible weapons? I'd be ticked off too if my shoes didn't contain enough metal to make a bullet, let alone a gun, set off the detector because we stupidly continue to try to confiscate All Things Sharp and Pointy But Not Credible Threats to Aircraft.

Thankfully, my shoes that I wear when traveling do not contain metal shanks and I do not set off the detector. Hence, I am *livid* when I am selected for additional screening.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by JLL5100:
What iritates me is when the person in front of me does not remove their shoes and then sets off the security alarm as a result of metal shanks. This causes delays for everyone behind them. On a Monday morning this can be the difference between making the gate or not.</font>

Some of us have gone through this enough to know whether the shoes we are wearing will set off the detector or not. Mine don't and I am not taking them off. It is not a requirement for going through the detector. From what I have seen, this onlly delays the person setting the detector off since they are immediately pulled aside. No one in line has to wait for them before they can go through the detector. Plus, if you are cutting it that close that it might cause you to miss a flight, you need to get to the airport earlier.

------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin

[This message has been edited by tazi (edited 03-18-2003).]

Well, there is a delay if your shoes set off the detector. They must shut down the airport, evacuate everyone, and rescreen everyone. It's for your safety http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/wink.gif

Better Safe Than Sorry.

We're from the Government and We're Here To Help You.

You Can't Be Too Sure.

I realized yesterday when listening to NPR that there's very little room for common sense and rational thought in airport security when many Americans believe what the folks they interviewed believe: that there's no measure too intrusive if it's "for safetey." People were being interviewed about the new passenger profiling system being set up (the one that uses credit checks), and I almost crashed my car when one man interviewed said that he supports any safety measure, no matter what the cost, no matter what the consequences were.

All of this has really taken away my interest in flying. If I'm going to be physically intimidated by a security guard who wants me remove my sneakers, if I'm not allowed to protect my luggage with a simple lock, if my credit is going to be checked and my privacy is invaded, all to fly, why bother?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by bdschobel:
That's certainly how I interpreted the statement. And I responded that a physical response to WORDS would get a Federal employee terminated. I never said a single word about a passenger assaulting a screener.

ACES may make very fine ejection seats, but he needs to improve his reading comprehension! http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/smile.gif

Bruce</font>

Maybe you guys need to spend time in my "time out area" until you get along better http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/smile.gif

I have noticed at some airports such as PHX,they have a lil stool set up with a wand under it that you can place your shoe on before entering the WTMD to see if it will set the MD off. In response to what Buster said about the passengers being interviewed saying they wouldnt mind anything for security. I saw something recently on the news in Phoenix relating to that. One person said "I think this is totally invasive on my privacy,but...if it will make me safer then i am all for it"

If your risk missing a flight because someone in front of you set off the metal detector with their shoes then I would suggest you may need to get to the airport a little earlier. Just a suggestion. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/smile.gif

rawbert

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by JLL5100:
What iritates me is when the person in front of me does not remove their shoes and then sets off the security alarm as a result of metal shanks. This causes delays for everyone behind them. On a Monday morning this can be the difference between making the gate or not.</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by rawbert:
If your risk missing a flight because someone in front of you set off the metal detector with their shoes then I would suggest you may need to get to the airport a little earlier. Just a suggestion. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/smile.gif

rawbert

</font>

That makes two of us http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/smile.gif

As someone who used to be a gate runner, just barely catching flights, I have changed my habits considerably.



------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by richard:
Well, there is a delay if your shoes set off the detector. They must shut down the airport, evacuate everyone, and rescreen everyone. It's for your safety http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/wink.gif

Better Safe Than Sorry.

We're from the Government and We're Here To Help You.

You Can't Be Too Sure.</font>

Get real. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/rolleyes.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">I almost crashed my car when one man interviewed said that he supports any safety measure, no matter what the cost, no matter what the consequences were.</font>

I get a kick out of the people they interview about security. It's usually Joe Six Pack who takes one trip a year to his bowling convention in Buffalo. Or it's Granny with her two grand kids in tow on the way to Orlando.
My work requires me to travel through airports several times a week and be subjected to intrusive and asinine security procedures. If Joe and Granny had to go through similar security checks on a daily basis where they work, I wonder how tolerant they'd be??

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by sunrpc:
I have noticed at some airports such as PHX,they have a lil stool set up with a wand under it that you can place your shoe on before entering the WTMD to see if it will set the MD off.</font>

I just saw this at LAX at Terminal 1. A neat procedure to alert pax about their shoes and prevent delays at the metal detector. Should be SOP at all airports.

I noticed the FA in front of me take her shoes and jacket off and saw a hole in her stockings. Got to have good socks and stockings now http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/smile.gif.

There's one at SDF.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by biggs:
I just saw this at LAX at Terminal 1. A neat procedure to alert pax about their shoes and prevent delays at the metal detector. Should be SOP at all airports.

I noticed the FA in front of me take her shoes and jacket off and saw a hole in her stockings. Got to have good socks and stockings now http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/smile.gif.

</font>

I'd swear I've seen a 'No shoes, no service" sign at the entrance to more than one small regional airport. Too bad this doesn't hold true everywhere, eh?

GMF

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by biggs:
I noticed the FA in front of me take her shoes and jacket off and saw a hole in her stockings. Got to have good socks and stockings now http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/smile.gif.

</font>

One Monday morn, I had a good looking gentleman in an impeccable business suit place his shoes on the xray conveyor. It was only then that he realized that he had two different colored shoes on!
I love my job!! http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/biggrin.gif

Would a plastic explosive hidden in a shoe even set off a walk through metal detector?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by LGA_UAL:
Would a plastic explosive hidden in a shoe even set off a walk through metal detector?</font>

There should be two questions:
1) Would it set off the detector?
2) Would the TSA agent notice?

I think no on both.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Cholula:
I get a kick out of the people they interview about security. It's usually Joe Six Pack who takes one trip a year to his bowling convention in Buffalo. Or it's Granny with her two grand kids in tow on the way to Orlando.
My work requires me to travel through airports several times a week and be subjected to intrusive and asinine security procedures. If Joe and Granny had to go through similar security checks on a daily basis where they work, I wonder how tolerant they'd be?? </font>

Wait 'til Joe 6 finds out he can't take his bowling ball through security. Ha!

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by RS:
Wait 'til Joe 6 finds out he can't take his bowling ball through security. Ha!</font>

Wrong !!!

Bowling Balls are not prohibited.

Imagine that http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/rolleyes.gif

Depends on the chemical composition of the explosive. Unless it contains metal, the answer is no.

Also, despite the idiotic notion that the TSA thinks that shoes are *the only place* for explosives, a terrorist could easily shove up his/her butt or have implanted in his/her stomach something like plastique and it would never be noticed...

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by LGA_UAL:
Would a plastic explosive hidden in a shoe even set off a walk through metal detector?</font>



------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

A couple of comments/questions:
-Many airports I have been through tell pax to remove their shoes unless they are wearing sneakers - even though the shoe bomber Reid was wearing sneakers. What is the sense in this?
-I have worn shoes with buckles (doc martens, no less) through the detectors and never set one off yet. So why the insistence on removing the shoes?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Also, despite the idiotic notion that the TSA thinks that shoes are *the only place* for explosives, a terrorist could easily shove up his/her butt or have implanted in his/her stomach something like plastique and it would never be noticed...</font>

Spiff...good point. In addition to being an effective weapon, it's also the ultimate cure for constipation if all else fails..... http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/biggrin.gif

Ok, here is one reason I think they ask you to remove them, besides setting off the walk through. Since a lot of shoes do have shanks in them, and someone could remove those shanks and replace them with knife blades. Noone would be any the wiser. They ask you to remove them so they can x-ray them and determine that they have not been "tampered" with in such a manner. Now before anyone jumps up and down and says a plane cannot be taken over with a knife/boxcutter again, the whole idea is to prevent anyone from having the ability to try such a thing.

ACES II..... I think by now we all know the rationale for the shoe search. The point has been raised, however, as to why stop at just shoes? We'll only be truly "safe and secure" when full body cavity strip searches/MRI's are done on EVERY passenger. If the true purpose of TSA is to insure our safety and not just hassle us, let's make sure we do this right. The way this is going to work is that you put your suitcase through the Daschle special, your carry-ons through the X-ray and then walk over to another station where you are subjected to a full body cavity search. The final check will be at the gate where, to enhance on Spiff's example above, you are going to have to lay down and pass through an MRI. This will insure you haven't ingested something that could later be coughed up...or worse http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/biggrin.gif...and used to comandeer the plane.
As nonsensical as all this sounds, please tell me why it's not the logical conclusion if we want to be 100% secure?

The only way to be 100% safe is to not fly at all! Why do we alow those dangerous machines to take off, anyway? http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/smile.gif

People should just stay home, locked in their safe rooms! Then all of us can be safe.

Bruce

What if we don't want to stay home?

I am afraid of drowning in the bathtub.

Life is just a long journey toward death. Maybe the only way to be totally safe is never to have been born!

Bruce

Too late to fix that. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/smile.gif

I suppose Dimwit Loy's ploy is almost as good: make us wish we hadn't been born... http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/biggrin.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by bdschobel:
Life is just a long journey toward death. Maybe the only way to be totally safe is never to have been born!

Bruce</font>



------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

If they were to do a cavity search, would it require a co-pay? http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/smile.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Spiff:
Depends on the chemical composition of the explosive. Unless it contains metal, the answer is no.

Also, despite the idiotic notion that the TSA thinks that shoes are *the only place* for explosives, a terrorist could easily shove up his/her butt or have implanted in his/her stomach something like plastique and it would never be noticed...



</font>
Actually the shoes could contain a knife or Darringer.

Thats why the shoes get the x-ray treatment, not explosives, knives. Evidently they did catch some clown who had taken the shanks out of his shoes and replaced them with knife blades. We had an elderly gentleman come through our checkpoint with a walking stick. Nothing special about that, until it went through the x-ray and we found the sword that it contained. Ya just never know what some people have on them. I am still amazed, 18 months later, just how many boxcutters people still try to carry with them. Simply amazing to me.

The umbrella swords are pretty slick also

Actually, it really amazes me that people are still deluded into thinking knives and other sharp, pointy objects are a threat to the aircraft.

Additionally, to carry this illogic a bit further, then if one does not beep at the magnetometer, one should not have to remove one's shoes or any other part of one's clothing. And definitely not at the useless gate harassment where a swipe of the wand will reveal no metal inside...

Welcome to FlyerTalk, The Unknown Screener.

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

[This message has been edited by Spiff (edited 04-09-2003).]

I don't like the secondary screening either, that one is particularly stupid. I don't like the gate screening either, but our FSD requires that we have a presence at the gates, so we have to do it. I suspect that these things will go away eventually. The secondary screening is all but gone at my airport. We have new walk throughs and 99.9% of those who set it off have shanks in their shoes. That keeps us plenty busy.

Your FSD is a moron who is wasting taxpayers' and travelers' time and money.

If a person's shoes (or anything else) sets off the magnetometer, most of us have no problem with the screener taking a closer look at that person. It's the continuous/random harassment and the sometimes forced pre-deshoeing of passengers that is a filthy disgrace and an affront to the principles upon which this nation was founded.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by The Unknown Screener:
I don't like the secondary screening either, that one is particularly stupid. I don't like the gate screening either, but our FSD requires that we have a presence at the gates, so we have to do it. I suspect that these things will go away eventually. The secondary screening is all but gone at my airport. We have new walk throughs and 99.9% of those who set it off have shanks in their shoes. That keeps us plenty busy.</font>



------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

Well, I agree that it is a bit much, but my FSD is not a moron. I disagree with the gate screening, but I do it because it is my job. Secondary screening at the checkpoint has always been a sore subject with me. Shoes with shanks keep that to a bare minimum though. I don't think any of the things we do violate anyones freedoms though. Yes, they may be a pain in the rear but they really only cause a delay in getting to the gate.

Welcome to FlyerTalk, UnknownScreener

I, and several others here who oppose TSA activities, are very much aware that screeners have to do what they are told in order to keep their jobs. As such, please don't take any comments I make personally. They are directed at the organization you work for.

You can take my comments personally, however http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/biggrin.gif

But then again, I am a moron (although not an FSD http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/smile.gif)

Welcome to FlyerTalk

We got new walk-thu metal detectors at FLL about a month ago,and were told do not tell or suggest to flyers to remove their shoes,the lines backed out lobby to the sidewalk,people missed their flights,the lines were really long, that lasted about a week, now we back to "suggesting only" that certain shoes(Rockports,timberland, and most leather dress shoes) be removed before walking thu the metal detector.it is only a suggestion and no one is told you have to remove them it's their choice to alarm or not.after being on the job for 7 months now you can pretty much tell what shoes will set off the walk thu metal detector.

Rockport, Skeechers (sp), Timberland and Tommy Hilfiger shoes all have shanks in them. We always suggest that people remove their shoes. Some do, others don't. Those that don't pretty much ensure that there is no secondary screening possible as we are too busy with them to worry about anything else. I suspect that as more of these new machines are put in place that the secondary screening will be a thing of the past, not by decree, but by overload. I have never been a fan of it anyway.

Why doesn't the TSA put up a sign a list of shoes or explanation of what is going on so that people can decide what to do. I think the new detectors have been set at a very low threshold because a pair of dress shoes that never used to set it off now does. I will wear my Sebagos now if I have to wear a suit and pack the dress shoes like I see all the woman commuters do in DC. If you see someone with a YSL or Armani dressed with very causual shoes, that's me http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/smile.gif.

I can only come up with one reason. There are so many different manufacturers of shoes that it is impossible to know which ones put shanks in their shoes and which ones don't. I have even seen people wearing shoes where only one shoe had a shank. Go figure. Some airports built themselves a "shoe tester" to let people know if their shoes have shanks in them before they get to the walk through. That is a local thing and not something the TSA is likely to adopt though.

Ecco's are LOVELY airport shoes... No metal.

Today at SJC; "Shoes off, laptops out"... repeated over and over and over. I ignored - didn't beep and went right through

Cattle anyone?

Has anyone else printed out the TSA guidelines and corrected the screeners when there's something wrong (like automatically taking off your shoes)?

http://129.33.119.130/public/display?theme=52

Or would we be slapped with the guidelines, a la "Bridge on the River Kwai"?

Most TSAs that I have run into have been very nice. Most do a fairly good job. I think certain airports 'bark' to take off the shoes to speed up the lines and/or reduce the # of secondary screenings. Most of the posters seem to have an 'us vs. them' attitude. While most travelers are nice, some of these nice people get nasty at security. Why not be nice to these people.
I agree that these security measures do little. If these measures were in place on 9/11, the results would have been the same (they would've found another threat to get into the cockpit).
We don't like the ineffective inconveniences we are subjected to. However, giving an attitude to the TSA workers will not do us any good. Does anyone know what we can do to improve things at the airports? Would law suits (in cases where our rights are violated) or complaints work? Where should these complaints be directed?

Why not be nice to the TSA employees? I generally am neutral to them if they leave me alone. I am only truly nasty to them them moment they begin randomly harassing me or my possessions. As soon as they do that, whether they have to because of their job or not, they cease to be Americans in my eyes and become someone who has sold out the principles upon which this nation was founded for a paycheck. By participating in Moron Mineta and Fascist Loy's random "security", a screener becomes as bad as their bosses.

Welcome to FlyerTalk.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by killerbrew:
Most TSAs that I have run into have been very nice. Most do a fairly good job. I think certain airports 'bark' to take off the shoes to speed up the lines and/or reduce the # of secondary screenings. Most of the posters seem to have an 'us vs. them' attitude. While most travelers are nice, some of these nice people get nasty at security. Why not be nice to these people.
I agree that these security measures do little. If these measures were in place on 9/11, the results would have been the same (they would've found another threat to get into the cockpit).
We don't like the ineffective inconveniences we are subjected to. However, giving an attitude to the TSA workers will not do us any good. Does anyone know what we can do to improve things at the airports? Would law suits (in cases where our rights are violated) or complaints work? Where should these complaints be directed? </font>



------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

Just curious Spiff,what makes you the authority on who is American? Out of the 20 people who work for me 9 are retired military including myself,3 are Vietnam veterans(2 have purple hearts)4 were in Desert Storm. Who died and left you in charge of this decision? Better yet,how have you served your country?

Take my previous quiz.

Would searches without warrant or probable cause be a)American and patriotic or b)symptoms of a society slipping into fascism.

Serving one's country in the military does not give one the right to violate people's civil liberties. If anything, one who has actively fought for freedom should be sickened by what is going on at our airports.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tsadude:
Just curious Spiff,what makes you the authority on who is American? Out of the 20 people who work for me 9 are retired military including myself,3 are Vietnam veterans(2 have purple hearts)4 were in Desert Storm. Who died and left you in charge of this decision? Better yet,how have you served your country?</font>



------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Spiff:
Take my previous quiz.

Would searches without warrant or probable cause be a)American and patriotic or b)symptoms of a society slipping into fascism.

Serving one's country in the military does not give one the right to violate people's civil liberties. If anything, one who has actively fought for freedom should be sickened by what is going on at our airports.



</font>
Answer the question Spiff,what have you done to preserve these rights or serve your country? By your avoidance we can assume nothing.What sickens those of us who have served and are still so is people like you who do nothing but ride on our coat tails and cry loadly about these rights being violated.By reviewing many of your posts you speak in the singular sense.Are you only concerned about yourself?

I am just curious of the two of you plan to hijack EVERY SINGLE THREAD ON FT that involves security? THis little childish BS is getting old.

SPIFF - we get it, you hate the TSA - write your Senator

TSADUDE - you have job to do - focus on that and not the attitude.

You are both cogs in a MUCH more elaborate machine and with or without your mutual consent and agreement, we have moved into another era. One that I suspect is here to stay in one form or another.

[This message has been edited by B Watson (edited 04-13-2003).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tsadude:
Answer the question Spiff,what have you done to preserve these rights or serve your country? By your avoidance we can assume nothing.What sickens those of us who have served and are still so is people like you who do nothing but ride on our coat tails and cry loadly about these rights being violated.By reviewing many of your posts you speak in the singular sense.Are you only concerned about yourself?

</font>

So only people who have served in the military deserve rights and the rest are just riding on coat tails?


------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin

I am not going to get into a "my contribution is better than your contribution" debate. I have done a lot for my country and I am going to leave it at that.

I certainly have not been harassing or searching my fellow citizens or their possessions without probable cause or a warrant, however.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tsadude:
Originally posted by Spiff:
Take my previous quiz.

Would searches without warrant or probable cause be a)American and patriotic or b)symptoms of a society slipping into fascism.

Serving one's country in the military does not give one the right to violate people's civil liberties. If anything, one who has actively fought for freedom should be sickened by what is going on at our airports.



</font>
Answer the question Spiff,what have you done to preserve these rights or serve your country? By your avoidance we can assume nothing.What sickens those of us who have served and are still so is people like you who do nothing but ride on our coat tails and cry loadly about these rights being violated.By reviewing many of your posts you speak in the singular sense.Are you only concerned about yourself?





------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tazi:
So only people who have served in the military deserve rights and the rest are just riding on coat tails?

</font>
That is not what I meant. It just pisses me off sometimes to be labeled un-american for serving our nation. Yes, Spiff has the right to b1tch about being searched but don't spit on us and call us names. This organization was authorized by elected officials from both parties and the laws that run it. ELECTED OFFICIALS SPIFF!!!!!!!! ARE THEY UN-AMERICAN? Registered american people have elected them to make these decisions. Sorry if you do not like what's going on but the people have spoken.I will probably be banned for ever from FT for saying this, but you guys can KISS MY RED,WHITE,AND BLUE A$$!!!!!

[This message has been edited by tsadude (edited 04-13-2003).]

I'm certainly not bothered by your comments, tsadude.

Your statement assumes that every decision made by our elected officials over the decades has been correct. I submit that the decision to create the TSA was a disaster. Furthermore, Congress mandated the creation of the TSA. A few appointed officials turned the TSA into a clown academy that violates people's civil liberties and provides perhaps marginally better security than pre-9/11 security did, at tremendous expense and waste.

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

Nobody did a dang thing without voting on it. The common people elected representatives to carry out their wishes. I'll bet you a twelve pack that in the last round of elections those who voted for the TSA are still in office. The majority wants the TSA. That's the American way.

Not only do I keep my shoes on, but I also keep my laptop in my clothes bag. Hauling it out is ridiculous!

I'm glad to read this thread and hear that I'm not the only one.

The majority also wanted slavery and no women's suffrage for quite some time. Was that also the American way?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tsadude:
Nobody did a dang thing without voting on it. The common people elected representatives to carry out their wishes. I'll bet you a twelve pack that in the last round of elections those who voted for the TSA are still in office. The majority wants the TSA. That's the American way.</font>



------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Spiff:
The majority also wanted slavery and no women's suffrage for quite some time. Was that also the American way?




</font>

You could go back to the begining of time if you want to pick and choose,but the people that are alive and registered to vote today have spoken.

The more interesting philosophical question is who should be allowed to vote on this issue: (1) everybody in the country (and why stop there?), or (2) people who actually use the airports and have to put up with this nonsense. I suspect that the results wouold be very different.

Bruce

We talk of our votes and the votes of our elected officials. Immediately after 9/11, the public outcry (with regard to airport security) was 'how did these guys get the box cutters on board?'.
Ironically, the terrorists did not need the boxcutters to gain access to the cock pit (they could've use other threats).
Also ironic, is that today boxcutters would not gain access to the cockpit. However, this is the focus of the security.

I agree with the other poster that we are seeing common arguments within various threads. Some comments (IMHO):

1) A TSA agent is not unfriendly for saying 'Smile'. However, if your failure to smile causes secondary screening, this is harassment. I don't know if there any lawyers here who can point out a course of action. If not, contact ACLU.
The 'Silence of Bruce' - I don't know if this constitutes 'suspicious behavior'. I think this would be an interesting question for the courts to decide (please, let's not re-hash).
2) I believe TSAs bark out 'take out your laptops', 'take off your shoes', etc to speed up the lines. Do 'power trip' TSAs exist? Ofcourse, but from my many travels I believe they are the minority. The ones that do harass, should be singled out. Does anyone know where complaints should be directed regarding complaints of TSA agents?
3) The TSA agents are not the problem. It is people several steps above them who are mis-managing the allocated resources who are the problem. Some travelers have taken their frustrations out on the TSA agents; I commend the people who constructively offer advice (like creating a link to the ACLU website - few agree with all the ACLU stances but they can be quite useful).

I find it shameful that War Veterans are being called unAmerican; I also find it shameful that an American who valiantly served his country arbitrarily questions the patriotism of another American citizen. Last week I called a guy nasty, later to find out he's a nice guy. I fealt terrible.

It may look bad today. With the trends of past years (not just from 9/11) the future can be much worse (if trends do not change). The Feds will bring in the 'face recognition systems', CAPPS, etc. One day you will enter the airport, they will know everything about you within 5 seconds of going through the sliding glass doors. Computers will follow you around the whole time you're in the airport. I don't know how far into the future this is, but this is the future if trends do not change. Then will the Feds look to extend this beyond the airport. 'Big Brother'??

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tsadude:
Nobody did a dang thing without voting on it. The common people elected representatives to carry out their wishes. I'll bet you a twelve pack that in the last round of elections those who voted for the TSA are still in office. The majority wants the TSA. That's the American way.</font>

The TSA was created under a law that was enacted without public discussion and was pushed through quickly because of 9-11. To say that anyone had a say in this because they elected those officials who voted it in is really not exactly true.



------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin

Our elected officials did vote and approve this agency plain and simple. The rules by which the TSA operates also were approved by the same people. I am by no means an expert on how our government works so if I am wrong about this then help me out.

[This message has been edited by tsadude (edited 04-15-2003).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tazi:
The TSA was created under a law that was enacted without public discussion and was pushed through quickly because of 9-11. To say that anyone had a say in this because they elected those officials who voted it in is really not exactly true. </font>

If I am not mistaken, every law is passed without public discussion. I don't remember being asked to vote/comment on a single law that has been passed in my lifetime. Thats why we elect representatives to do that stuff for us. We trust that they will speak for us in these matters so that we don't have a boondoggle like the ancient Greeks did with their "democracy."

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by killerbrew:
Immediately after 9/11, the public outcry (with regard to airport security) was 'how did these guys get the box cutters on board?'.</font>

Box cutters were permitted in carry-ons. There was no security breach in getting them through.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by The Unknown Screener:
If I am not mistaken, every law is passed without public discussion. I don't remember being asked to vote/comment on a single law that has been passed in my lifetime. Thats why we elect representatives to do that stuff for us. We trust that they will speak for us in these matters so that we don't have a boondoggle like the ancient Greeks did with their "democracy."

</font>

You are quite wrong. I said public discussion, not voting and no, they do not write to you asking for your opinion. It is up to you to participate yourself.



------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tazi:
You are quite wrong. I said public discussion, not voting and no, they do not write to you asking for your opinion. It is up to you to participate yourself.</font>

Well, if you want to travel to Washington and sit in on the debate then I guess you are technically correct. However, it is our elected representatives that will do all the discussion and they have the final say. You can write them and offer your opinion, but that is about all you can do once the process is started. Our biggest problem is that we have too many laws on the books that are just not effective because they are 1. Not enforced or 2. Not relevent to current society. Here in South Carolina we still suffer under the remnants of those stupid "blue laws." We actually have a Wal-Mart store here that is built over a county line. One county allows stores to open at 11 am on Sundays, the other not until 1:30 pm. So at 11 am when the store opens, they actually run a rope along that county line preventing anyone from going into that part of the store until 1:30 pm...LOL I am sure there are equally stupid laws on the books in other states.

Once again, you are wrong. You don't have to travel anywhere. This can be done via the internet or snail mail and if you think it doesn't make a difference, you are mistaken again. Just because you are unfamiliar with the process does not mean it is of no consequence.

------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin

Whatever...the bottom line is our representatives make the laws, and the often go against public opinion.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tsadude:
You could go back to the begining of time if you want to pick and choose,but the people that are alive and registered to vote today have spoken.</font>

They didn't get to speak about the TSA, though. No public vote, no public comment. Your claim that the majority "wants" the TSA is completely unfounded.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Just Passing Thru:
They didn't get to speak about the TSA, though. No public vote, no public comment. Your claim that the majority "wants" the TSA is completely unfounded.</font>

How many public votes and or public comments are contducted with each law made? IT would take forever to accompish anything.That is why you have elected officials as your voice.Choose wisely grasshopper