Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate - 2012 Survey: How Effective is the Transportation Security Administration?

Please click here for the article and poll results (http://www.frequentbusinesstraveler.com/2012/09/tsa-poll/).
_______________________________

Why do some days of passing through an airport security checkpoint needlessly inconvenience you and try your patience to its limits, while other days seem to be effortless? Do you feel safe with the procedures currently in place by the Transportation Security Administration — or TSA — at airport security checkpoints?

FlyerTalk — the largest Internet travel community in the world with a rich base of travel knowledge — has collaborated with Frequent Business Traveler (http://www.frequentbusinesstraveler.com/) magazine on a series of polls and surveys pertaining to air travel, restaurants, hotels, technology, safety and security. Frequent Business Traveler will provide the poll; FlyerTalk members — yes, you in particular — will provide the opinions.

This survey — active through August 31, 2012 — is about How Effective is the TSA? (http://www.frequentbusinesstraveler.com/2012/08/survey-how-effective-is-the-tsa/) Many FlyerTalk members pass through hundreds of airport security checkpoints throughout the United States on a regular basis — and airport security checkpoints in the United States can potentially foster issues and situations which can drive you absolutely insane.

The primary purpose of this particular discussion is for you to opine, elaborate on your thoughts and relate your experiences pertaining to the effectiveness of the Transportation Security Administration as a frequent traveler.

Results of this survey will be announced both on-line in the magazine and here on FlyerTalk.

So — How effective is the TSA? Please complete the survey today (http://www.frequentbusinesstraveler.com/2012/08/survey-how-effective-is-the-tsa/) and let everyone know your thoughts and experiences!
________________________

I will start...

Recently, I had the opportunity to pass through an airport security checkpoint through the TSA Pre✓ line even though I never signed up for it. I did not have to remove my bag of liquids or take off my shoes. The agents were friendly and polite. This was by far the quickest, easiest and most civilized passage through an airport security checkpoint for me since before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The experience at airport security checkpoints in the United States should always be similar to this particular experience for me.

However, I do not believe that frequent travelers should have to pay or register for this privilege. It should automatically be a benefit as part of elite membership status in a frequent flier loyalty program.

In general, I would say that with its inconsistent policies, the Transportation Security Administration has little effectiveness on the implementation of airport and airline security overall. It is a bloated federal agency which needs a significant reduction in agents, and those agents who remain should be qualified to perform proper security measures at airport security checkpoints which mitigate the inconvenience to passengers as much as possible.

I have other opinions and thoughts, but I will leave them for other FlyerTalk members to post in this discussion...

is there an intelligent point to this?

I realize the OP has vastly more experience than I with contributing to this board. But, come on . . . Does anyone really believe that the overall FT community will give rave reviews for the TSA?

And, when you say TSA, what do you mean? Do you mean the personnel at the airports who are required to obey their bosses? [Don't you bosses out there want your employess to obey you?]

Or, when you say TSA, do you mean the executives who set the policies?

Also, the OP writes ... Why do some days of passing through an airport security checkpoint needlessly inconvenience you . . .. Excuse me, but that statement shows a negative bias - hardly what should exist for a theoretically objective survey [my emphasis].

And, what do you mean by effective? The TSA personnel know how to turn their machines on and off? Or, they catch the bad guys?

When I saw the survey, it was also rife with non-objective statments (WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE . . .). Do we judge their effectiveness on my beliefs?

How is the survey to be scored? If I fly once a year, do my survey responses have equal weight with someone who flies 150 times per year?

I also saw no way to input suggestions for improvement - so, what is the purpose of the survey?

Again, you have all my respect personally. But this "survey" seems to me to have a gazillion holes in it.

Incidentally, as a matter of course, I do not complete any survey that fails to inform me - prior to taking the survey - what is the purpose and to what use my responses and information are used.

Hope that you obtain satisfactory results.

First, thanks to travis for the points he makes.

Regarding the survey, which I developed, it it modeled after a recent Gallup poll that surveyed people who don´t really fly that much about the topic.

To ensure we can make an apples-to-apples comparison, we tried to pose the questions in the same vein.

In this type of survey, at least as far as I am concerned, you are really getting someone´s belief, which may or may not translate into fact. Regardless, we want people´s beliefs on this topic but we also want to see what an active flying community says in response to these questions versus the general public.

I hope this addresses at least part of the concerns you expressed.

I read the Gallup findings with a sense of disbelief due to the number of people who simply fly once or twice a year who were surveyed. Naturally their feelings about security checkpoints cannot be the same as those of us who fly weekly.

As a result, I am very interested in seeing the results here.

I apologise for lying but the Poll insisted I flew, as a minimum, 1-4 Business Trips a year. Being a retired person, that caused a problem as I couldn't complete the survey without stating a number. My Frequent Leisure Travel probably compensates statistically ;)

I agree with DCann, though. Responses from those with more frequent exposure to the variabilities of TSA's passenger handling will undoubtedly carry greater credibility than Gallup's "3+" flights [being the 'upper tier' of their sampling].

Not to mention the people who fly frequently but never see the TSA. America is not the world.

Not to mention the people who fly frequently but never see the TSA. America is not the world.
Really? OMG :D

However, it's our 2nd home ;)

I apologise for lying but the Poll insisted I flew, as a minimum, 1-4 Business Trips a year. Being a retired person, that caused a problem as I couldn't complete the survey without stating a number. My Frequent Leisure Travel probably compensates statistically ;)

Maybe you didn't notice, but the survey is part of the Frequent Business Traveler blog, née Executive Road Warrior, "the leading business and travel publication designed to cater to the travel and technology needs of the business traveler."

That said, it also requires you to take a minimum of 1 personal trip a year - even if you only travel on business.

Maybe you didn't notice, but the survey is part of the Frequent Business Traveler blog, née Executive Road Warrior, "the leading business and travel publication designed to cater to the travel and technology needs of the business traveler."

That said, it also requires you to take a minimum of 1 personal trip a year - even if you only travel on business.

Yeah, I'm a really bad person.

Sorry, I'll read the T&C more carefully in future. Everyone with a Chase BA Card did :D

Apologies for having money but not a job. Izza Beeetch.

Its security theater and its annoying and useless.

Its security theater and its annoying and useless.

And the basis of that statement is … what? :rolleyes:

I don't have any problem with the TSA. While occasionally I come across personnel who are lackadaisical in moving folks along or kind of unfriendly (though never downright rude IME), for the most part they've been pretty efficient and courteous. It's a tough job in a lot of ways, in terms of both dealing with the tedium and the sometimes impatient passengers.

I only rated the agency "somewhat effective" at preventing a terrorist attack because I think it does what it can but there are no absolute guarantees. Lots of the most effective work in preventing attacks involves intelligence to block them before anyone even gets to the airport.

Now, maybe some will take my "somewhat effective" responses as an indication that folks feel the TSA is doing a lousy job. And maybe, then, I should have checked another box. But my point here is that even the results leave lots of room for (mis)interpretation.

I'm quite surprised that I could vote more than once. This would seem to undermine whatever value the survey holds.

Now, maybe some will take my "somewhat effective" responses as an indication that folks feel the TSA is doing a lousy job. And maybe, then, I should have checked another box. But my point here is that even the results leave lots of room for (mis)interpretation.
As one of the people who has to interpret the data, I think your response will be interpreted correctly and not that the "TSA is doing a lousy job." Somewhat effective does imply what one would presume.


I'm quite surprised that I could vote more than once. This would seem to undermine whatever value the survey holds.

I have to have someone check this. It is supposed to block based on cookie (blocking by IP ends up blocking entire companies once one person in a company has taken the survey) but we also rescreen by IP to make sure that there are no duplicates within certain parameters that would imply stuffing the ballot box.

First, thanks to travis for the points he makes.

Regarding the survey, which I developed, it it modeled after a recent Gallup poll that surveyed people who don´t really fly that much about the topic.

To ensure we can make an apples-to-apples comparison, we tried to pose the questions in the same vein.

In this type of survey, at least as far as I am concerned, you are really getting someone´s belief, which may or may not translate into fact. Regardless, we want people´s beliefs on this topic but we also want to see what an active flying community says in response to these questions versus the general public.

I hope this addresses at least part of the concerns you expressed.

Modeled after a poll of people that DO NOT FLY? I guess you hamster grooming business and only survey people that have had heart attacks as to why they do not use your service.

What is the first question about - AWFUL question - Do you think the TSA is doing a poor, fair, good, or excellent job in airport security screening. We cant judge that, nor will a non traveler know what their job is except what the news media tells them. I as a traveler cannot tell if they do a good job. I can only tell you that I in no way am trying to harm people or the air transportation system, and until you prove otherwise, you SHOULD NOT do what you do to me.

Even in the 70s people found a way to get a bomb on a plane. The metal detector works well so they know nothing is in your pockets. Then everything goes through the xray. Again after that, unless you know the person wants to do something, then you dont check their water or medications.

Even with the people that have gone nuts - the movie theatre shooter -there will come out there were signs he was a little odd, maybe a drop out and anti social. None of these are enough to investigate the person. If you apply the TSA rules to him, someone would be in his apartment everyday, and yours and mine, without reason to think we are wanting to do something bad. But we breathe and do , therefore we are criminals.

And the basis of that statement is … what? :rolleyes:

Theatre as in there is no reason to do this to EVERYONE. They do it to (in the minds of those in charge and the politician) make it look like they want to catch the 'bad guy'. Have you ever been stopped in a DUI check? There is no reason to believe that just cause it is after closing time EVERY DRIVER is intoxicated. But it is done to LOOK like they are trying to stop the drunk driver on that road. that is not the only road he can possibly be on.

I don't have any problem with the TSA. While occasionally I come across personnel who are lackadaisical in moving folks along or kind of unfriendly (though never downright rude IME), for the most part they've been pretty efficient and courteous. It's a tough job in a lot of ways, in terms of both dealing with the tedium and the sometimes impatient passengers.

I only rated the agency "somewhat effective" at preventing a terrorist attack because I think it does what it can but there are no absolute guarantees. Lots of the most effective work in preventing attacks involves intelligence to block them before anyone even gets to the airport.

Now, maybe some will take my "somewhat effective" responses as an indication that folks feel the TSA is doing a lousy job. And maybe, then, I should have checked another box. But my point here is that even the results leave lots of room for (mis)interpretation.

I'm quite surprised that I could vote more than once. This would seem to undermine whatever value the survey holds.

That is exactly how I feel. There's a huge difference between whether a policy is truly effective or whether people are effective in executing the policy.

While I think a lot of today's security theater is ineffective and always a step behind what we really ought to be doing, I've had very few negative experiences with TSA employees on the front line.

Based on the following threads (and hundreds more on FT and other blogs) and numerous news stories, I would say that the TSA is infested with thieves, criminals, and incompetents:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/search.php?searchid=14111962
http://current.newsweek.com/budgettravel/2010/10/ugh_airport_security_screener.html
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/26/exclusive-the-stunning-jfk-airport-baggage-scandal-200-thefts-per-day/
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/practical-travel-safety-issues/1102919-aa-loses-israeli-security-guns-checked-bags.html
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/bibi_guns_swiped_lI2GkyucBw7NFkRxVF5l0M


The last article I read said that TSA/baggage handlers steal around 5,000 items per day at US airports, including guns, which are then stored in "secure" areas until their shifts end. Knowing that these bozos can get anything in or out of a secure area should give a logical person reason to doubt that any of the Kabuki dance done in view of the public actually contributes to our safety.

I would pay special attention to this thread:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/practical-travel-safety-issues/1082434-if-drug-mules-swallow-drugs-fly-cant-terrorists-swallow-explosive-devices.html

An intelligent and motivated terrorist cannot be stopped.

Yet the risk of dying from a terrorist attack is around a thousand of times lower than your risk of dying in a car accident--Why, pray tell, doesn't our coddling government ban cars to protect us then?

You have an 8 times greater risk of being killed by the police than being killed by a terrorist.

You have 50 times greater risk of being struck by lightning than being killed by a terrorist.

Life is full of risks! Society cannot protect everyone all of the time from every threat, whether natural or man-made.

Surrendering our freedoms to a non-accountable government agency on the false promise of increased safety is a fool's gambit.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
--Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

TSA agents are probably paid at the same level as a Mc donalds employee. They singularly have failed to give me the impression that there is anything between their ears that remotely resemples a brain. but it really isn't their fault - the fault lies predominantly with the government and the other authorities for helping the terrorists -

Terrorists attack a target through indirect means. The 9-11 attack was a terrible incident that cost thousands of lives, but the aftermath is affecting us in a much more severe manner as governments and citizens alike are spending billions of dollars on so called security that is really just a placebo.

Firstly, no terrorist will actually try to attack a plane as it is really very inefectual. it is a relatively small loss of life compared to higher value targets elsewhere, and the chances of success by carrying an explosive on board is less than .001 percent. If you look at all succesful attempts, the explosives were smuggled on board by inside help - such as the case with the Pan Am Lockerbie bomb.

Secondly, if a terrorist were to smuggle new binary liquid explosives, the system allows enough liquids to get on board in a small plastic bag that it would tear a plane apart at 30000 feet. (German explosive experts had already tested this a couple years ago). Since this is common knowledge, why are we imposed to 100ml units (of which in said plastic bags you can put three units of 100ml units - which they tested 300ml of binary liquid explosives that a passed a detector test and be then simulated an explosion at 30,000 feet where the fuselage section was ripped to shreds)
.
Either ban all liquids going into the secure area - or admit it makes no difference and allow passengers to take their own water with them.....OH! wait! I know I forgot the fact that the airport will make a lot less revenue if that happens, and I guess profit is more important. So we will continue to suffer and pay so that others can get rich of our fears.

Security companies are getting very rich off peoples fears, and government is pandering to it, because hey they want to get re elected, and wo betide any politician that actually does something for the right reasons! So the Security companies continue to feed that fear and government conitues to pay it out, and we the people get to pay it in taxes!

In short there are much more effective methods of initiating a terrorist attack in transportation hubs of which the general public is blissfully unaware - but here is the crux - it has nothing to do with passanger screening and the ridiculous security lines one faces in the united states. I doubt that these TSA employees would know what a detonator even looked like.

Let's see...muslims hijack airplanes and murder thousands and we decide that proning out little old ladies from Des Moines is the solution? Last month I joined an Honor Flight taki g 50 WWII vets back to DC to see their memorial. The torment the TSA put them through, treating them like potential terrorist was mindless and disgusting. Every time i go to the airport, its like a time warp. The USSR had the same kind of people checking the papers of travelers. Those with no education had absurd amounts of power to disrupt the lives of normal folks. I'm too old to be PC anymore. It's the muslims stupid!

.When asked about the TSA, emotion often trumps logic.

Trying to take a logical view, there are three questions that I'd ask.

First and probably most important, are they effective at protecting the travelling public. Given that you can never be 100% effective at stopping all bad stuff happening, there has to be a degree of reasonableness in asking the question. However my take on how effective they are is that they are reasonably good at protecting against the wrong things. The world has moved on and although they are good at dealing with yesterday's threat, they aren't anticipating today's threat. It's a bit like putting up a horse feeding station outside a shopping mall in the car park. The world has moved on.

Next comes efficiency and there they are fairly awful. Much of what they do is random and unnecessary. There is little logic in many of the processes such as the check against the no fly list or the multiple BP checks.

The third element is customer service where they range from just OK to absolutely terrible. They're not alone in this. I had the first pleasurable security experience in years a week or so ago, and that was at the Olympics. All air security is staffed by people with absolutely no sense of customer experience.

So, my scores are effectiveness 5/10 efficiency 2/10, customer focus 3/10

3 things I have seen

two ladies in front of me, travelling together. Screener lets first lady through after examining passport. Looks at second passport - for long time - realizes that he let first lady through on second lady's passport. They had obviously "swapped" at some time during their travel. So much for verifying identities.

Saw a person INSIDE security - with collapsable hiking poles. Now the difference between these carbide tipped "weapons" and a ski pole is beyond me. Yet TSA bans ski poles. I contacted TSA about this, and they said that hiking poles are allowed. Really?

Eveyone must take off their shoes, right? Person in front of me went through with shoes on. After I cleared security, I asked to speak to a supervisor, and asked if everyone had to take of shoes. Was told yes. Pointed to the person in front of me. He said, "Well, we do make exceptions". Person in front was wearing military outfit - so obvious way to get explosives in your heels through security is just to visit army surplus first.

What a joke.

Passengers have proven that they can enforce security on board just fine. Think of the shoe and underwear bombers.

My $.02

Only seen it in one China airport, and think it should be the standard everywhere.

We have all seen/experienced the "swab" for explosives, but it is random and arbitrary.

One airport in china - after the initial screening, before the "official" screening - EVERYONE GETS SWABBED, but, with the same swab. After which, you are put in a "holding pen" with about 20-30 people. Then they check the swab, which of course always comes up clean. Then all 30 people are released.

While the swab check is being performed on the group in holding pen A, people are still being swabbed, but put into an holding pen B.

The net is - everyone gets screened, and it adds maybe 30 seconds to the process.

Possibly effective and near zero cost in time or inconvenience to the traveller.

Maybe that explains why TSA doesn't do it.:rolleyes:

TSA in one word: Pitiful!

Only seen it in one China airport, and think it should be the standard everywhere.

We have all seen/experienced the "swab" for explosives, but it is random and arbitrary.

One airport in china - after the initial screening, before the "official" screening - EVERYONE GETS SWABBED, but, with the same swab. After which, you are put in a "holding pen" with about 20-30 people. Then they check the swab, which of course always comes up clean. Then all 30 people are released.

While the swab check is being performed on the group in holding pen A, people are still being swabbed, but put into an holding pen B.

The net is - everyone gets screened, and it adds maybe 30 seconds to the process.

Possibly effective and near zero cost in time or inconvenience to the traveller.

Maybe that explains why TSA doesn't do it.:rolleyes:

If the swab is positive then what, rescreening these 20-30 people?

Theatre as in there is no reason to do this to EVERYONE. They do it to (in the minds of those in charge and the politician) make it look like they want to catch the 'bad guy'. Have you ever been stopped in a DUI check? There is no reason to believe that just cause it is after closing time EVERY DRIVER is intoxicated. But it is done to LOOK like they are trying to stop the drunk driver on that road. that is not the only road he can possibly be on.

That's a bad analogy. The difference is there are many roads that the intoxicated driver can take (although I still think the DUI check is valid in some cases). However, someone wishing to use a commercial airline as a bomb almost HAS to do so by going through an airport security check. Personally I believe there's a reason we haven't seen another commercial airline as a weapon attack -- because the risk of getting caught is higher. That is due in part to the work of the TSA. Are they perfect? No. Are some policies ridiculous? Probably. However, as someone who travels pretty regularly, I am happy to see everyone being screened for my flight. I prefer that to being blown up.

That's a bad analogy. The difference is there are many roads that the intoxicated driver can take (although I still think the DUI check is valid in some cases). However, someone wishing to use a commercial airline as a bomb almost HAS to do so by going through an airport security check. Personally I believe there's a reason we haven't seen another commercial airline as a weapon attack -- because the risk of getting caught is higher. That is due in part to the work of the TSA. Are they perfect? No. Are some policies ridiculous? Probably. However, as someone who travels pretty regularly, I am happy to see everyone being screened for my flight. I prefer that to being blown up.

Do you feel safe knowing that few if any of the people who service and maintain your aircraft are ever screened? Or that little of the cargo loaded on passenger aircraft is screened? Do you believe a terrorist organization is so dumb as to not look at other means of attack?

TSA screening is anything but security.

<snip> However, as someone who travels pretty regularly, I am happy to see everyone being screened for my flight. I prefer that to being blown up.

^

I have just about reached my maximum tolerance for TSA agents touching my body! I fly every week on business and have dressed so carefully as to not trigger the darn scanner, but it seems to always pick up several 'spots' on my body. Being treated like a criminal going thru the booking process is outrageous and should be prohibited. While I also want to LIVE and not be blown up in the air, I believe that I should expect to not be physically assaulted by perfect strangers on a weekly basis. I applied for the pre screening clearance thru UA but apparently we are never told if we have been approved or not.
I personally believe that TSA needs to be dismantled as it exists today and privatized!!
The sheer number of incompetent and abusive agents must be purged and the system restructured to actually be effective.

As a leisure traveler, I only get exposed to TSA 4-6 times a year.

Never been touched, fondled, interfered with, wanded or scoped.

But then I do ensure that everything metallic goes in the trays. At which point, whether in the USA or UK, I never seem to have a problem.

I didn't like the survey. I would have expected more in-depth questions. I'm not sure to what ends this survey is undertaken. To say "business travellers don't enjoy TSA procedures"?

No kidding!

Popehat, a legal blogger, did a nice post on "security theater" in his blog. The link is http://www.popehat.com/?s=%22security+theater%22

I'm middle of the road as far as treatment goes. I've been given the freedom fondle before, but only a couple of times. I wonder if the inconsistencies between airports is by design, to catch a potential terrorist off-guard. I don't really think all of these procedures are effective against a true terrorist threat. In my opinion, the taboo profiling would be a more effective method. I don't think it's foolproof either though; look at all the white guys shooting up theaters and congresswomen and schools.

And the basis of that statement is … what? :rolleyes:

Real life.

I've sat down and worked through the exercise of how I could defeat security, if I were a terrorist: avoiding being noticed throughout the full distance from preflight pax screening all the way through to onboard precautions. Without going into detail, it was depressingly easy, and there was a range of possible threat modes at each level. None of this should be new news to the security services: it's hard to believe they haven't done the same exercise I did, thousands of times.

Admittedly, some of those threat modes would require levels of screening that would be politically impossible to employ, and possibly a political decision has been made to ignore them and hope the terrorists do too. Of course, it's conceivable that they're not being ignored, for at least a couple of possible reasons: to provide "red flags" to bring hidden terrorists investigating them onto the radar, or (cynically) to give them a few avenues to exploit, so as to continue justifying incursions into freedoms and privacy that would otherwise be unconscionable. A scared population is a malleable population.

The types of screening being performed are an admix of genuinely effective, seen-to-be-effective, and a politically-driven theatre of the ineffective, and it's difficult to see how it could be otherwise. Anyone who doesn't understand this hasn't thought through it fully.

As to the terrorists, most are pretty dim. When you completely switch off that part of you that says killing anyone, particularly the innocent, is bad, you're already at a point where you've delegated most of your intellect to someone else. The dangerous ones are the ones who've been through a rigorous Developed World education, are "under the radar" of the watchers, and who are regular enough flyers that they can spot the same loopholes. We have to hope that there are few enough of those that our continued flying remains as safe as it is.

No text boxes. I hate surveys with no text boxes. Yeah, they're a little harder to compile but you'll do it if you really care. There's also some pretty good text-mining software to help.

I really wanted to tell them about our last flight, when I found after arriving at home that a small bottle of shampoo had gotten out of my Freedom Baggie and was in my carry-on, and my husband had a large (over 3 oz.) tube of hydrocortisone ointment in his carry-on that he hadn't put into his Freedom Baggie. The TSA didn't catch either of them.

But we were Nude-O-Scoped so I guess we should feel safe.

@ jonsg ... Interesting post, espcially later on when you mention the "dim terrorists". During the many decades of IRA Terrorism in the UK it was called the "Paddy Factor", but it still didnt prevent them from being rather effective and killing many hundreds of passers by ... Innocent civilians, if you will. Especially clever when you consider that 2 of their main players now hold high office in Northern Ireland. Dim, eh? Perhaps not.

There are many players in this "game" ... Some are clever, some innovative, some careless and some just want their 40 virgins ( or whatever the scale of issue is these days). I never under-rate any of them, nor the risk that they represent. I've survived 2 bombings, and had a good friend murdered on his front doorstep. TSA or whoever is better than having to experience that again, thank you.

I travel 8-12 times per year and though it is a moderate amount, I do feel that the TSA earns a passing grade. Of course it is a pain in the a**. But what really is the alternative?
What gripes me are the people who bait the TSA with their toddlers. Then they post a video how the agents "abused" their child. To be honest, why wouldn't a terrorist use a child to smuggle an explosive or weapon inside a teddy bear?

@ jonsg ... Interesting post, espcially later on when you mention the "dim terrorists". During the many decades of IRA Terrorism in the UK it was called the "Paddy Factor", but it still didnt prevent them from being rather effective and killing many hundreds of passers by ... Innocent civilians, if you will. Especially clever when you consider that 2 of their main players now hold high office in Northern Ireland. Dim, eh? Perhaps not.

There are many players in this "game" ... Some are clever, some innovative, some careless and some just want their 40 virgins ( or whatever the scale of issue is these days). I never under-rate any of them, nor the risk that they represent. I've survived 2 bombings, and had a good friend murdered on his front doorstep. TSA or whoever is better than having to experience that again, thank you.

I am glad that you are comforted by their ineffectual procedures. However, as someone who previously worked in extremely high-level security operations, I can assure you that you are not significantly safer for their actions.

Why, pray tell, don't the Israelis emulate TSA procedures if they are so good?
The reason, as the head of EL AL's security recently said, is that the TSA procedures won't work against well-motivated and/or well-trained murderers/terrorists/assassins.

I will trust the judgement of the head of EL AL security over any kibitzer, any day of the week.

The Israelis have a perfect track record for airport security and they do not employ any of the screening techniques used by the TSA or other western airport security agencies.
They ask simple questions and pre-screen even before you reach the airport to weed out any potential risks. The Israelis think it's too late to start screening when you are already in a crowded airport with hundreds of innocent people just waiting to board a flight. As a previous post states, it's all theatrics at the airport. No standardized rules. Some days you have to put your shoes through the x-ray machines, other days you don't. On my last trip, my 11 year old daughter was pulled over for questioning and had to be test for explosives. What a huge waste of time, money and effort that distracts from the real job of preventing terrorism.

I am glad that you are comforted by their ineffectual procedures. However, as someone who previously worked in extremely high-level security operations, I can assure you that you are not significantly safer for their actions.

Why, pray tell, don't the Israelis emulate TSA procedures if they are so good?
The reason, as the head of EL AL's security recently said, is that the TSA procedures won't work against well-motivated and/or well-trained murderers/terrorists/assassins.

I will trust the judgement of the head of EL AL security over any kibitzer, any day of the week.
.. if the BDO "chat-downs" of a few minutes are an egregious assault on freedom...and one of those headlines now in the news is those BDOs apparently targeting ethnicity. I'd love to see how Israeli security would play out here.

.. if the BDO "chat-downs" of a few minutes are an egregious assault on freedom...and one of those headlines now in the news is those BDOs apparently targeting ethnicity. I'd love to see how Israeli security would play out here.

I don't think profiling itself is the issue in the Boston case. It's the fact that they are profiling certain groups for things like drugs and arrest warrants to meet a quota. They aren't profiling for terrorism.

.. if the BDO "chat-downs" of a few minutes are an egregious assault on freedom...and one of those headlines now in the news is those BDOs apparently targeting ethnicity. I'd love to see how Israeli security would play out here.

The Middle Eastern men in their mid-twenties profiled themselves.

This morning I had an ID screener that didn't know what a Passport card was and had never seen a NEXUS card.

Gee, those are items 2 and 3 in the list of TSA accepted documents (Passport is first).

Who trains these people???


The real core value of the TSA is money (follow the money). Look at how much is spent. Remember those puff blowing machines? They are all in a warehouse - millions wasted, Chertoff is now a consultant for security suppliers, do you think he does that for free???

TSA personnel not allowed to use their judgement and many may be incapable of that.
I could take aboard weapons if i was a terrorist but will not outline how or it will give info to wrong people.
Bottomline, TSA only catches idiots.

If God wanted you to fly, he would never have invented the TSA.

@ jonsg ... Interesting post, espcially later on when you mention the "dim terrorists". During the many decades of IRA Terrorism in the UK it was called the "Paddy Factor", but it still didnt prevent them from being rather effective and killing many hundreds of passers by ... Innocent civilians, if you will. Especially clever when you consider that 2 of their main players now hold high office in Northern Ireland. Dim, eh? Perhaps not.

There are many players in this "game" ... Some are clever, some innovative, some careless and some just want their 40 virgins ( or whatever the scale of issue is these days). I never under-rate any of them, nor the risk that they represent. I've survived 2 bombings, and had a good friend murdered on his front doorstep. TSA or whoever is better than having to experience that again, thank you.

False dichotomy. There are more alternatives than [any randomly proposed action] and being blown up.

I have an anti-terrorist rock that I carry with me; it prevents terrorists attacks on my flight. Giving one passenger on each flight an anti-terrorist rock would do as good a job as the TSA. Staffing an agency with smarter clerks and ending the war on liquids so that the clerks could think about objects that might present a threat might do even better.

I travel 8-12 times per year and though it is a moderate amount, I do feel that the TSA earns a passing grade. Of course it is a pain in the a**. But what really is the alternative?
What gripes me are the people who bait the TSA with their toddlers. Then they post a video how the agents "abused" their child. To be honest, why wouldn't a terrorist use a child to smuggle an explosive or weapon inside a teddy bear?

I can think of lots of alternatives. If you can't, maybe there's something the matter with you.

People who "bait" the TSA with their toddlers? Bait them to do what?

.. if the BDO "chat-downs" of a few minutes are an egregious assault on freedom...and one of those headlines now in the news is those BDOs apparently targeting ethnicity. I'd love to see how Israeli security would play out here.

It didn't play out too well when TSA in Fayetteville allowed two bricks of nasty stuff to remain in a bag that had been pulled and searched - a bag that had a live grenade in it.

TSA 'profiled' the soldier as a 'good' apple. Do you really think the outcome would have been the same if he'd fit the physical criteria used in BOS?

To put it bluntly, I believe the American people have been sold a bill of goods. We have people thumping their chests blattering about our "freedom" and yet see nothing at all wrong or paradoxical with the invasiveness of the TSA. And specifically, in regards to carry on liquids, there were already rules in place before the events of 9/11 allowed additional rules all in the name of safety. The notion that somehow a person can concoct an explosive from the mixture of liquids simply defies scientific fact. Of course, it's easy for me to grouse about this because as a wine representative, I can no longer carry on bottles of wine. I will always remember the sickening experience of having to hand over bottles of some very nice wines to authorities. Benjamin Franklin said it best: "Those who are willing to sacrifice freedom for a little bit of safety deserve neither freedom or safety."

My experience is that it is a place by place thing. I fly into the ATL a lot (from MAN, my home airport) and generally, it isn't as bad as I expect it to be. They yell a lot (which leads me to believe that some of the TSA eggheads believe that yelling English makes non-English speakers better understand English) but overall, it's not terrible. Thats how I would describe it: it tends not to be as bad as I expect it to be, particularly when you are faced with large crowds.

Some places are always terrible, in my opinion: JFK, EWR, PHL but those are not particularly good airports anyway. The TSA is simply maintaining the already low standards.

On the other hand, LAS has always been fine with me, and I inevitably fly through CVG, and they are great...largely because that airport is a ghost town these days. It's kind of sad.

On the international side, CDG is a joke, and so is the security there. the UK, which I love (and where I live) has airports so bad they are a national joke. How a world-class city like London could have such a collection of awful airports is beyond me. BRU is not bad....AMS is a great airport with at times awkward but not impolite security.

The worst in my experience (other than Baku, where I had to pay a bribe) are both Moscow airports, but they are bad at everything. The best is SIN, by far, but Changi is the best airport in the world, in my opinion. And China can be a little weird and very arbitrary.

Anyway...good airports tend to get security right, bad airports don't. That's how I see it. As to the efficacy of the whole thing, I just stopped thinking about that long ago. The TSA has an impossible task that they do for the most part reasonably well. The comparisons to Israel are just not reasonable to mel; Israel has such unfortunate security needs that it's difficult to draw many lessons there.

Good post, Sir. ^

And, when discussing Israeli procedures, I assume they don't have quite the same passenger load to contend with as the USA? And I suspect their employees are rather more committed to the security way of thinking, given their experiences over the last half-century or so?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater

The TSA doesn't actually make us safer, but it makes it feel safer. Also, it wastes money.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater

The TSA doesn't actually make us safer; it just makes us feel safer. Also its a colossal waste of resources.

[QUOTE=dumbinic;19127092 The TSA doesn't actually make us safer; it just makes us feel safer.[/QUOTE]

How so? Sounds like saying that a lot of police on the street makes you feel safe.

Obviously, if a strong police presence is necessary, it must be a very unsafe place/situation.

So good he had to say it twice … ;)

But but but … "This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. No cleanup reason has been specified. Please help improve this article if you can. (January 2009)". Not perhaps the greatest reference for the case.

There is little doubt in my mind that terrorism, in whatever form you choose to define it, has had a fiscal impact across the World. Nor will I deny that some of the dancing around at Airports and Borders that we are ALL subjected to has a questionable impact.

Nevertheless, I have no fear of flying: I know that "things are being done" here, there and everywhere. Whether TSA is a major contributor to that safe feeling, I am not qualified to quantify. Criticising TSA may, indeed, become an Olympic Sport in the future, given the fixation so many US Citizens seem to have with it … perhaps with Baseball, to appease the Media companies?


Personal Note: We flew UK>USA on 24 Sep 01. 9/24, if you must. The BA 744 to IAD was less than half-full, and for the next few weeks around DC people were amazed that we had risked flying to the US at all. How sad.

Suggestion: Grow balls: it's infinitely better than Blogging or writing to your Congressman. Then you just get on with life. It's not that difficult, even for this Senior Citizen. But then the UK doesn't have a written Constitution, giving me 38,284 things to complain about … I just get on with life, or at least what little remains to me.

My experience is that it is a place by place thing. I fly into the ATL a lot (from MAN, my home airport) and generally, it isn't as bad as I expect it to be.

Indeed, I find MAN (t3) a lot worse.


How a world-class city like London could have such a collection of awful airports is beyond me. BRU is not bad


LHR T5 is great, LGW N isn't bad. LHR T3 + T1 could be better. LCY's main problem is a lack of lounge.

Every time I go through BRU I seem to run into a 15 minute queue.


The worst in my experience (other than Baku, where I had to pay a bribe) are both Moscow airports

I don't have any problems with DME. (Or TLV for that matter).

ISB and DEL are the worst international airports I've been to.

So good he had to say it twice … ;)

But but but … "This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. No cleanup reason has been specified. Please help improve this article if you can. (January 2009)". Not perhaps the greatest reference for the case.

There is little doubt in my mind that terrorism, in whatever form you choose to define it, has had a fiscal impact across the World. Nor will I deny that some of the dancing around at Airports and Borders that we are ALL subjected to has a questionable impact.

Nevertheless, I have no fear of flying: I know that "things are being done" here, there and everywhere. Whether TSA is a major contributor to that safe feeling, I am not qualified to quantify. Criticising TSA may, indeed, become an Olympic Sport in the future, given the fixation so many US Citizens seem to have with it … perhaps with Baseball, to appease the Media companies?


Personal Note: We flew UK>USA on 24 Sep 01. 9/24, if you must. The BA 744 to IAD was less than half-full, and for the next few weeks around DC people were amazed that we had risked flying to the US at all. How sad.

Suggestion: Grow balls: it's infinitely better than Blogging or writing to your Congressman. Then you just get on with life. It's not that difficult, even for this Senior Citizen. But then the UK doesn't have a written Constitution, giving me 38,284 things to complain about … I just get on with life, or at least what little remains to me.

I agree with you about growing balls. The risk of dying in a terrorist attack is so remotely low that surrendering freedoms for the infinitesimal increase in security achieved by these measures is incredibly foolish. I personally have been the victim of TSA malfeasance--primarily theft, but also including purposeful destruction of my property. On that occasion, I had gathered photographic evidence of damage, names and contact info of witnesses, details of the event, etc. and was ready to file a complaint when the station chief of US Air at the airport I was at approached me and took me aside to speak off the record. He told me that if I was a very frequent flyer, that my complaint would likely cause me more headache than it was worth because he had personal knowledge of flyers being "blacklisted" for filing legitimate complaints against the TSA. After carefully considering his words, I delayed my filing to sleep on what he had said. The next day, I consulted a friend of mine who was very well placed in ICE (Homeland Security) and asked him if he had heard about this happening. What he told me confirmed the fears of the US Air station chief that I had talked to. Since my livelihood is entirely dependent on my ability to travel freely, I wisely chose not to file my claim. In effect, I was "economically terrorized" by the TSA with no recourse.

Oh, well, we end up in the same position.

From the USA's POV, TSA is an enormous infringement of their freedoms, perpetrated by underpaid morons ith the skill-set of an amoeba.

I really must have an intense chat next month, when I'm "over there", with a friend who actually works for TSA. Oh, or is that DHS? No, that might be the other guy. We'll have some interesting chats ... Neither of them are hyper, just long-serving ex-Military professionals in a new career. I will accept that some TSA employees are further down the gene pool ... We have them in UK too. I suspect the pay-scale deters Masters graduates.

Oh, well, we end up in the same position.

From the USA's POV, TSA is an enormous infringement of their freedoms, perpetrated by underpaid morons ith the skill-set of an amoeba.

I really must have an intense chat next month, when I'm "over there", with a friend who actually works for TSA. Oh, or is that DHS? No, that might be the other guy. We'll have some interesting chats ... Neither of them are hyper, just long-serving ex-Military professionals in a new career. I will accept that some TSA employees are further down the gene pool ... We have them in UK too. I suspect the pay-scale deters Masters graduates.

I am ex-military and most of us go to ICE, not TSA. However, morale in ICE is suffering greatly under this administration, and many of my friends are looking to retire.

I am ex-military and most of us go to ICE, not TSA. However, morale in ICE is suffering greatly under this administration, and many of my friends are looking to retire.

Thanks for meeting me half-way :D

I'm not exactly sure where my bar-buddies work. One is certainly with TSA on the Tech side, the other is a 'man in black' so I don't ask too many questions: that would be inappropriate. ;)

Oh, well, we end up in the same position.

From the USA's POV, TSA is an enormous infringement of their freedoms, perpetrated by underpaid morons ith the skill-set of an amoeba.

I really must have an intense chat next month, when I'm "over there", with a friend who actually works for TSA. Oh, or is that DHS? No, that might be the other guy. We'll have some interesting chats ... Neither of them are hyper, just long-serving ex-Military professionals in a new career. I will accept that some TSA employees are further down the gene pool ... We have them in UK too. I suspect the pay-scale deters Masters graduates.

Do you need a Master's degree and comparable pay to be respectful and polite?

They didn't have courses in those subjects when I was in school. I suppose they assumed we had already mastered them by the time we got to kindergarten, if not sooner.

Do you need a Master's degree and comparable pay to be respectful and polite?

They didn't have courses in those subjects when I was in school. I suppose they assumed we had already mastered them by the time we got to kindergarten, if not sooner.

I thank my parents for that, but then I was lucky. I had two, one of each, and it was a Lonnng time ago ;)

I still did not find out if I was pre-approved yet for the quicker security check. Are elite members supossed to find out in Sept.?

Bin laden helped create more jobs in the US
and the west than any other world leader.
The security industry has exploded as a result
of his efforts. His positive impact on the
economy should not be forgotten may he
rest in peace.

Police officers actually stop criminals. TSA screeners don't stop terrorists. There are so many loopholes in TSA security that any terrorist could penetrate them, first and foremost being that the body scanners don't work (see my video below).

How so? Sounds like saying that a lot of police on the street makes you feel safe.

Obviously, if a strong police presence is necessary, it must be a very unsafe place/situation.

--Jon

Police officers actually stop criminals. TSA screeners don't stop terrorists. There are so many loopholes in TSA security that any terrorist could penetrate them, first and foremost being that the body scanners don't work (see my video below).I tried using that little fact, along with your video proof, with the Australian politicians. They ignored it :(.:mad:

I tried using that little fact, along with your video proof, with the Australian politicians. They ignored it :(.:mad:

Follow the money.
You can be certain that the current coalition (including the Greens) have been richly rewarded by device manufacturers and security companies for their trampling of individual liberties.

Hypocrisy knows no bounds, it seems.

Police officers actually stop criminals. TSA screeners don't stop terrorists. There are so many loopholes in TSA security that any terrorist could penetrate them, first and foremost being that the body scanners don't work (see my video below).



--Jon

I read through your blog.
Outstanding!^

Keep up the good work.

Police officers actually stop criminals. TSA screeners don't stop terrorists. There are so many loopholes in TSA security that any terrorist could penetrate them, first and foremost being that the body scanners don't work (see my video below).



--Jon

How many times have we seen this argument (and others like it)? And yet, no planes have been blown up by terrorists since 9/11. If you think it is because the terrorists are no longer interested in doing so, you are dreaming!! Is it SOLELY because of passenger screening? Of course not. But that is one part of the equation, and one that I am willing to endure when traveling.

Is it SOLELY because of passenger screening? Of course not. But that is one part of the equation, and one that I am willing to endure when traveling.

Causes me no pain … maybe max 5 minutes of my life standing in line a few times a year.

But then the UK doesn't have a written Constitution that gives us Brits "Rights". We just have a succession of [perceived] inept Governments doing the best they can with the resources and budget available.

Hey … here's a concept. Scrap the whole of TSA and CBP … and just let folks get on with whatever happens. Saves billions, avoids endless Internet whining and reduces lines at airports.

Any takers? No cherry-picking, mind ;)

I don't really have a problem with the TSA as a whole. However, I do question some of the things they do. I fly into a relatively small airport on business. The normal staffing that I've seen is about 8 or so agents on any given afternoon for a single scanner. Then, I hand them my boarding pass and identification. They ask me to state my name. I don't get it. What if I pronounce my name differently than they expect? I don't feel any safer at the gate knowing we all could say our name. Then, they come out into the gate area and ask to go through our bags again. Like I said before--I don't get it.

Hey, welcome to FT ^

Look, we all have different perceptions. Some are sensitive about screening, some scream the (whichever) Amendment and some get on with it and avoid a coronary :p

What did amuse me, only yesterday, when looking at the CBP website was their link to Airport Wait Times arriving at International Airports. They cited, for the time we always arrive at IAD, "Average Booths Open = 51".
Hahahahaha ... Usually 5 for US pax, 5 for us Foreign people and 1 for Crew. BTW, that's a figure that stands for the last 6 years or so.

They built 50+ booths, but they don't have staff to look after them. And I do love the broadcast, at around 2pm, that weve heard several times saying "Overtime is now authorised" ... at which point those who don't want to work any more just close down and disappear.

Sadly, when you get that sort of Corporate statistic, published on the CBP Website, it's hard to take anything seriously. I just ride the storm ... It's your country.

How many times have we seen this argument (and others like it)? And yet, no planes have been blown up by terrorists since 9/11. If you think it is because the terrorists are no longer interested in doing so, you are dreaming!! Is it SOLELY because of passenger screening? Of course not. But that is one part of the equation, and one that I am willing to endure when traveling.

Show me one shred of evidence that the TSA is effective in preventing smuggling weapons/explosives on board. They fail test after test that the government conducts. They steal guns and other items and easily conceal their crimes in "secure" areas. I especially like the following post by a 25-year FBI agent and expert in aviation security, who writes that the "TSA has never foiled a terrorist plot or stopped an attack on an airliner" and that "the entire TSA paradigm is flawed."

See here: http://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/backscatter/

I posted links to hundreds of stories about their incompetence in a previous post (#17). You should read through them before you decide if the inconvenience of being irradiated/groped/intimidated/harassed every time you go to the airport is worth it.

I find it comical that the public and media are concerned about radiation from the Fukushima disaster reaching America, which is a very tiny potential amount, yet seem blithely content to be irradiated every time they enter a body scanner.

Also, I am amazed at how concerned the British seem to be about the current phone-hacking scandal in GB yet don't seem to care that the TSA has the right (and the ability with a special device at some locations) to hack the phone of any passenger that passes through screening and retrieve 100% of your private information contained thereon--Big Brother at his best.

See here: http://apple.slashdot.org/story/12/03/27/212254/cops-can-crack-an-iphone-in-under-two-minutes?sdsrc=rel

On 9/11 I was a stock trader on Wall St. I saw people die that day (that's all I will say about my experience).

Notwithstanding my intimate experience that day I think anyone who thinks the TSA is a good use of money is a fool. Now that cockpit doors are locked there is no longer ANY NEED for the TSA.

Sure a terrorist could blow up a plane killing everyone on board (and perhaps many on the ground) but come on, a plane is probably at most 5th on the list of likely targets these days.

Anyone with half a brain realizes that the subways are 100 times more likely to be hit now than an airplane yet we get on subways without any security. A group of 5 terrorists could carry 500lbs of explosives onto the 4 train - wait until it goes under the east river and then blow it up - at the same time another 5 terrorist could blow up a NJ Transit train under the Hudson River.
Or they could blow up a greyhound bus as it headed over the George Washington Bridge.

We drive over bridges; ride buses, subways and trains all without the TSA. Please explain to me why we need the TSA again??? When we live in fear the terrorists win.

The people who believe the TSA is doing a good job also believe in the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and give the US Congress a 99% approval rating.

On 9/11 I was a stock trader on Wall St. I saw people die that day (that's all I will say about my experience).

Notwithstanding my intimate experience that day I think anyone who thinks the TSA is a good use of money is a fool. Now that cockpit doors are locked there is no longer ANY NEED for the TSA.

Sure a terrorist could blow up a plane killing everyone on board (and perhaps many on the ground) but come on, a plane is probably at most 5th on the list of likely targets these days.

Anyone with half a brain realizes that the subways are 100 times more likely to be hit now than an airplane yet we get on subways without any security. A group of 5 terrorists could carry 500lbs of explosives onto the 4 train - wait until it goes under the east river and then blow it up - at the same time another 5 terrorist could blow us a NJ Transit train under the Hudson River.
Or they could blow up a greyhound bus as it headed over the George Washington Bridge.

We drive over bridges; ride buses, subways and trains all without the TSA. Please explain to me why we need the TSA again??? When we live in fear the terrorists win.

Causes me no pain … maybe max 5 minutes of my life standing in line a few times a year.

But then the UK doesn't have a written Constitution that gives us Brits "Rights". We just have a succession of [perceived] inept Governments doing the best they can with the resources and budget available.

Hey … here's a concept. Scrap the whole of TSA and CBP … and just let folks get on with whatever happens. Saves billions, avoids endless Internet whining and reduces lines at airports.

Any takers? No cherry-picking, mind ;)

Our Constitution doesn't give us rights. It is supposed to protect our inalienable rights from an overreaching government.

Our Constitution doesn't give us rights. It is supposed to protect our inalienable rights from an overreaching government.

...and it's here where most of our frustrations reside.

The TSA is the most visible example of an overreaching government in our generation.

As a leisure traveler, I only get exposed to TSA 4-6 times a year.

Never been touched, fondled, interfered with, wanded or scoped.

But then I do ensure that everything metallic goes in the trays. At which point, whether in the USA or UK, I never seem to have a problem.

I'm also a leisure traveler and only fly 1-2 times per year. Likewise, I have always been very careful about emptying my pockets and minimizing any possibility that I might get pulled aside for secondary screening. I don't opt-out, because my home airport has MMW (which they use as primary) and my destination airport has never selected me for BSX.

I have also never been touched, fondled, or interfered with.

But even so, scope and grope, the name game, and enhanced interrogations offend me as an American. People have rights, the most important of which are spelled out simply and unequivocally in the Constitution, and the TSA violates the rights of millions of people per day.

I'm not one of those who dismisses government violation of the Constitution as unimportant just because it's not happening to me.

@ jonsg ... Interesting post, espcially later on when you mention the "dim terrorists". During the many decades of IRA Terrorism in the UK it was called the "Paddy Factor", but it still didnt prevent them from being rather effective and killing many hundreds of passers by ... Innocent civilians, if you will. Especially clever when you consider that 2 of their main players now hold high office in Northern Ireland. Dim, eh? Perhaps not.

There are many players in this "game" ... Some are clever, some innovative, some careless and some just want their 40 virgins ( or whatever the scale of issue is these days). I never under-rate any of them, nor the risk that they represent. I've survived 2 bombings, and had a good friend murdered on his front doorstep. TSA or whoever is better than having to experience that again, thank you.

I'm sorry for your loss. TSA is not doing anything to prevent it from happening again.

But it is doing irreparable damage to our way of life. "Anything is better than nothing" is an absurd premise upon which to establish government procedures that destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms upon which our entire society was built.

So good he had to say it twice … ;)

But but but … "This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. No cleanup reason has been specified. Please help improve this article if you can. (January 2009)". Not perhaps the greatest reference for the case.

There is little doubt in my mind that terrorism, in whatever form you choose to define it, has had a fiscal impact across the World. Nor will I deny that some of the dancing around at Airports and Borders that we are ALL subjected to has a questionable impact.

Nevertheless, I have no fear of flying: I know that "things are being done" here, there and everywhere. Whether TSA is a major contributor to that safe feeling, I am not qualified to quantify. Criticising TSA may, indeed, become an Olympic Sport in the future, given the fixation so many US Citizens seem to have with it … perhaps with Baseball, to appease the Media companies?


Personal Note: We flew UK>USA on 24 Sep 01. 9/24, if you must. The BA 744 to IAD was less than half-full, and for the next few weeks around DC people were amazed that we had risked flying to the US at all. How sad.

Suggestion: Grow balls: it's infinitely better than Blogging or writing to your Congressman. Then you just get on with life. It's not that difficult, even for this Senior Citizen. But then the UK doesn't have a written Constitution, giving me 38,284 things to complain about … I just get on with life, or at least what little remains to me.

Suggestion: Grow balls. Stop being so afraid of terrorism that you're willing to sacrifice the fundamental rights and freedoms of millions of people just to make yourself feel a little less terrified of some big bwown Muswim bogie-man.

Besides, being a Briton, you don't exactly have a lot of dogs in this fight, do ya? It's not YOUR way of life that you're willing to sacrifice, since you don't have a written Constitution that protects your rights and freedoms and the British don't seem to have as firm a belief in such rights and freedoms as Americans.

Bin laden helped create more jobs in the US
and the west than any other world leader.
The security industry has exploded as a result
of his efforts. His positive impact on the
economy should not be forgotten may he
rest in peace.

For every job he created in the TSA, he destroyed 1 or two in the travel industry.

How many times have we seen this argument (and others like it)? And yet, no planes have been blown up by terrorists since 9/11. If you think it is because the terrorists are no longer interested in doing so, you are dreaming!! Is it SOLELY because of passenger screening? Of course not. But that is one part of the equation, and one that I am willing to endure when traveling.

I call BS.

It's been 11 years since 9/11, and no planes have been knocked out of the sky. But how many planes were blown up in America by terrists in the 11 years BEFORE 9/11? Hm? Zero? And that was before TSA, before scope and grope, before the liquids ban, before the shoe carnival... Was it solely because of passenger screening? I think not.

It was because interest in attacking US aviation was minimal. It still is.

Even 9/11 wasn't an attack on US aviation. It was an attack on 3 targets - the World Trade Center (which Bin Laden particularly lusted after), the White House, and the Pentagon. They used the planes as weapons, not as targets.

I'm firmly convinced that Bin Laden only added the White House and Pentagon to the target list of 9/11 as a recruiting tool, to gain him enough suicidal jihadists to make the attack work; if he had been set on attacking only the WTC again, his pool f potential human bombs would have been much smaller.

On 9/11 I was a stock trader on Wall St. I saw people die that day (that's all I will say about my experience).

Notwithstanding my intimate experience that day I think anyone who thinks the TSA is a good use of money is a fool. Now that cockpit doors are locked there is no longer ANY NEED for the TSA.

Sure a terrorist could blow up a plane killing everyone on board (and perhaps many on the ground) but come on, a plane is probably at most 5th on the list of likely targets these days.

Anyone with half a brain realizes that the subways are 100 times more likely to be hit now than an airplane yet we get on subways without any security. A group of 5 terrorists could carry 500lbs of explosives onto the 4 train - wait until it goes under the east river and then blow it up - at the same time another 5 terrorist could blow up a NJ Transit train under the Hudson River.
Or they could blow up a greyhound bus as it headed over the George Washington Bridge.

We drive over bridges; ride buses, subways and trains all without the TSA. Please explain to me why we need the TSA again??? When we live in fear the terrorists win.

Sorry, Harlem, but I have to disagree with you.

Given that there is virtually no screening to board mass transit anywhere in the US, if mass transit actually was such a Prime Target (TM), there would have been attacks on it by now.

In the days following 9/11, the term Prime Target (TM) entered the public lexicon as everyone in the US tried to work out what the twisted fanatical minds of al Qaeda would attack next. Such things as sporting events, shopping malls, tall buildings, national monuments and museums, theme parks, and mass transit - all places where many people gather or places with some cultural, social, or historical significance - were all given the spurious label of Prime Target (TM) by folks who really didn't understand their enemy.

But none of those places had attacks in the last 11 years, did they? The closest anyone came to actually attacking one of those Prime Targets (TM) was when some idiot placed a poorly-constructed car bomb on a busy street in NYC and then ran for the airport to get away.

So, again, I have to call BS, on the entire notion that foreign terrists are all sitting desert caves plotting dastardly new attacks on American soil.

And I also don't agree that we don't need any sort of TSA. I think we do need a set of federal guidelines to make airport screening uniform, and to limit the number and types of searches performed on travelers. But it's the current paradigm of pseudo-law enforcement activities, with paramilitary trappings on poorly trained minimum wage screeners, massive bureaucracy, and secret rules and regulations, that is the problem.

TSA should never have former law enforcement people in its top ranks. They always approach their jobs from the perspective that individual rights of suspects are of no importance, and catching Bad Guys (ANY Bad Guys, not just terrists) is more important that preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution.

My opinion of TSA is based on recent experiences with the pre-check lane at DCA. The first time I arrived for an early flight only to find the lane wasn't open yet because TSA agents didn't show up for work on time. I had a choice of waiting (and missing my flight) or using normal screening. The second time it worked fine. The third time I was told I was randomly selected for full screening. So that's a 33 1/3% success rate so far. Not good at all. :(

Sorry WillCAD, I respectfully disagree with your thoughts when you say "interest in attacking US aviation was minimal. It still is." The terrorists have demonstrated their continued interest in blowing up airplanes. I'm not saying passenger screening is the ONLY reason it hasn't happened again, but I'm saying it is PART of the reason. I also am not saying we should not have checks and balances with regards to what is permitted. However, we yield "rights" every day in the name of safety, and it's not just in the area of air travel. Can the TSA be improved? Sure. Should it be? Of course. Is passenger screening worth-while and something that I am willing to go through as part of a plan for safe air travel? Absolutely.

The people who believe the TSA is doing a good job also believe in the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and give the US Congress a 99% approval rating.

Ad hominem attacks do nothing to further your argument :) (belittling a person or their beliefs in an attempt to invalidate their argument).

Suggestion: Grow balls. Stop being so afraid of terrorism that you're willing to sacrifice the fundamental rights and freedoms of millions of people just to make yourself feel a little less terrified of some big bwown Muswim bogie-man.

Besides, being a Briton, you don't exactly have a lot of dogs in this fight, do ya? It's not YOUR way of life that you're willing to sacrifice, since you don't have a written Constitution that protects your rights and freedoms and the British don't seem to have as firm a belief in such rights and freedoms as Americans.


Whooo … hello! ;)

1. I am not in the least 'afraid of terrorism', so don't try hanging that one me, Sir/Madam. :td:
It's just that millions of us in UK lived with it on the streets for nearly 40 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles). I guess we have a slightly different perspective. You in the US had the "Big One" … we had hundreds of "little ones". OTOH, you in the US have thousands of "little ones", but of course you all have the right to bear arms under the much-misused "Constitutional Right" for an 'armed Militia', so that's OK.

I'll play the hard-ball here as well … as so much IRA activity was US-funded. So please take your "freedoms" and stick them somewhere dark. Feel free to fund terrorism elsewhere. Apologies if that's hard, but read a bit of history.

2. No, we don't have published "rights and freedoms". We have Law, and Lawyers, and a fairly well established Democracy with a long history. Really quite long, actually. Somehow we survive. Amazing, isn't it? Curiously we have the same beliefs as [the average] American … " Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." I have all three: I just don't get all antsy about being checked at an airport - which happens in UK and in most civilised Nations.


Apologies to any Mods who are offended by this response.

2. No, we don't have published "rights and freedoms". We have Law, and Lawyers, and a fairly well established Democracy with a long history. Really quite long, actually. Somehow we survive. Amazing, isn't it? Curiously we have the same beliefs as [the average] American … " Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." I have all three: I just don't get all antsy about being checked at an airport - which happens in UK and in most civilised Nations.

I don't get all antsy about being checked at a UK airport - or at any airport anywhere in the world (first world, third world). I've been patted down at many airports.

I have never encountered the rudeness and disrespect I encounter in the US anywhere else.

I've never had a screener stick hands inside my clothing or touch my genitals anywhere else.

I've never had a screener threaten me for asking a question anywhere else.

I've never felt threatened anywhere else.

The friends I have from the UK talk about the many smaller (than 9-11) attacks that took place over the years. Every single one of them will shrug and say 'well, you just pick yourself up, dust yourself and get on with it, don't you? You can't spend the rest of your life hiding from shadows.'

Same attitude I get from Spanish friends - you can't stop riding the underground, and no one wants to wait in endless queues getting groped and bag-searched either. You just get on with it and hope the intel services do their jobs, because that's the only way to prevent these things, really. And sometimes it's going to get away from you, but that's life. You could get hit by a lorry whose driver ran on the sidewalk because he was drunk, how do you stop that?

Sorry WillCAD, I respectfully disagree with your thoughts when you say "interest in attacking US aviation was minimal. It still is." The terrorists have demonstrated their continued interest in blowing up airplanes. I'm not saying passenger screening is the ONLY reason it hasn't happened again, but I'm saying it is PART of the reason. I also am not saying we should not have checks and balances with regards to what is permitted. However, we yield "rights" every day in the name of safety, and it's not just in the area of air travel. Can the TSA be improved? Sure. Should it be? Of course. Is passenger screening worth-while and something that I am willing to go through as part of a plan for safe air travel? Absolutely.

Which terrorists?

How have they demonstrated their continued interests in blowing up airplanes in the US? Can you cite some examples?

Whooo … hello! ;)

1. I am not in the least 'afraid of terrorism', so don't try hanging that one me, Sir/Madam. :td:
It's just that millions of us in UK lived with it on the streets for nearly 40 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles). I guess we have a slightly different perspective. You in the US had the "Big One" … we had hundreds of "little ones". OTOH, you in the US have thousands of "little ones", but of course you all have the right to bear arms under the much-misused "Constitutional Right" for an 'armed Militia', so that's OK.

I'll play the hard-ball here as well … as so much IRA activity was US-funded. So please take your "freedoms" and stick them somewhere dark. Feel free to fund terrorism elsewhere. Apologies if that's hard, but read a bit of history.

2. No, we don't have published "rights and freedoms". We have Law, and Lawyers, and a fairly well established Democracy with a long history. Really quite long, actually. Somehow we survive. Amazing, isn't it? Curiously we have the same beliefs as [the average] American … " Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." I have all three: I just don't get all antsy about being checked at an airport - which happens in UK and in most civilised Nations.


Apologies to any Mods who are offended by this response.

So, you lived with it for 40 years and we didn't.

Yet, you seem to be arguing that our massive, panicked over-reaction to the one big attack we've suffered is justified because you know what it's like to live in constant fear and we don't?

I would think that, having been through more of it than us, you'd have the opposite opinion, that turning one's country into a repressive police state to fight terrorism is a ridiculous over-reaction which does more harm than good.

IRA funding came from the US? I never heard of that, though of course it's not impossible. How is that relevant in any way to a discussion of how the US government is currently abusing its citizens and visitors with invasive searches that violate not only common decency, but the most important principals upon which our country was founded? Has the IRA somehow joined the TSA? Or is the TSA sending some of its massive budget to fund current IRA activity? I'm having trouble seeing how the two are even remotely related.

To be clear, I'm not "getting antsy" about "being checked at the airport." I'm getting outraged over having my rights violated, my freedoms curtailed, and my body violated by my own government before I can get onto a plane. Most civilised countries (including yours) don't stick their hands in your pants before you can get on a plane without some just cause.

May I recommend the primary solutions, which will achieve a lot more than posting here.

1. Write to your Congressman.

2. Hire a Lawyer.

Or ...

3. Chain yourself to the White House railings.

Excuse me, there's a programme on TV I really want to watch. Honest.

Whooo … hello! ;)

1. I am not in the least 'afraid of terrorism', so don't try hanging that one me, Sir/Madam.
It's just that millions of us in UK lived with it on the streets for nearly 40 years. I guess we have a slightly different perspective. You in the US had the "Big One" … we had hundreds of "little ones". OTOH, you in the US have thousands of "little ones", but of course you all have the right to bear arms under the much-misused "Constitutional Right" for an 'armed Militia', so that's OK.


I'll play the hard-ball here as well … as so much IRA activity was US-funded. So please take your "freedoms" and stick them somewhere dark. Feel free to fund terrorism elsewhere. Apologies if that's hard, but read a bit of history.

1. Why would you live with it for so long?

It's not much-misused so much as under-utilized. One armed law-abiding citizen at that theatre in CO might have been able to thwart all that bloodshed and tragedy.


2.The bit of history I have read showed that the funding flowing to the IRA was coming from organized Irish expats sending money back to Ireland. Certainly not state-sponsored funding.

Also, I'm sure you Brits did nothing at all over the past few centuries to antagonize your island neighbour.

1. Why would you live with it for so long?

Because the cost of preventing it was too high. We could have rounded up all the Irish and locked them away in camps. We could have groped everyone coming into the country looking for old ladies and their knitting needles. We didn't though.

Of course, it did eventually stop, and a lot of the credit has to go to John Major, Tony Blair, and especially Colin Parry.

We took some precautionary measures (removing and replacing litter bins which became shrapnel when U.S. backed Irish terrorists killed 2 kids in 1993), we paid attention to abandoned lorries, but on the whole we just got on with it. it's the British way, has been since before the Blitz (Americans do tend to overreact -- look at Pearl Harbour!)

It's not much-misused so much as under-utilized. One armed law-abiding citizen at that theatre in CO might have been able to thwart all that bloodshed and tragedy.

Really, the average person out on a Friday night cinema expedition is Jack Bauer, has perfect aim in the dark and smoke, and can easily pick off the gunman rather than all the other wanna-be Jack Bauers that are also trying to shoot the gunman?

2.The bit of history I have read showed that the funding flowing to the IRA was coming from organized Irish expats sending money back to Ireland. Certainly not state-sponsored funding.

Noone said it was. They were American citizens that openly funded Irish terrorists that maimed and killed innocent civilians as young as 3 over decades. What would the reaction be if said Americans funded Al-Qaeda?

And while your government was happy to allow it's citizens the freedom to sponsor terrorism, it went further. Your president was happy to meet and shake hands with Gerry Adams.

Also, I'm sure you Brits did nothing at all over the past few centuries to antagonize your island neighbour.

I'm sure we did. It might even have been as bad as what America has done over the years to the middle east, but in the early 20th century the bulk of Ireland got it's independence (When the U.S. had a similar disagreement about part of the country declaring independence 50 years earlier, there was a civil war.)

Later, there was a referendum in the north, but the north is split so it wasn't going to work particularly well, and ended up being boycotted by one side.

The UK and Ireland eventually "solved" the troubles, or at least toned it down, by getting everyone talking, compromising, and forgiving.

Of course the U.S. responded to 9/11 by invading 2 countries, one of which harboured the ring leader, the other of which had nothing to do with it.

Guess which approach works?

Still, I was naive 10 years ago. I (based on Hollywood thinking) believed the CIA and Navy Seals, not to mention the full resources of the U.S.A. - at the time greatest country on Earth, and a fully sympathetic world that would do anything to help, could hunt down and capture (not kill) one man without screwing up half the planet.

Because the cost of preventing it was too high. We could have rounded up all the Irish and locked them away in camps. We could have groped everyone coming into the country looking for old ladies and their knitting needles. We didn't though.

That wouldn't have prevented it, anyway. Fortunately, as you state, your government hasn't over-reacted as badly as our has to 9/11.

Really, the average person out on a Friday night cinema expedition is Jack Bauer, has perfect aim in the dark and smoke, and can easily pick off the gunman rather than all the other wanna-be Jack Bauers that are also trying to shoot the gunman?

No, but here are some average Americans getting the job done:
http://youtu.be/1t5f5AwkkiY
http://youtu.be/dTX7hqeNyQ0
http://youtu.be/GGOmtyTJ2f0
http://youtu.be/9UH6pPrkvn8
http://youtu.be/_But23A9A0k

Our grocery and liquor stores are dull places in comparison. ;)


Anyway, can we get back to TSA?

I understand that a lot of Americans are upset by the entire process, for a range of reasons including, but not exclusively, an assortment of 'rights'. So can I repeat the question I posed up-thread? Hey … here's a concept. Scrap the whole of TSA and CBP … and just let folks get on with whatever happens. Saves billions, avoids endless Internet whining and reduces lines at airports.
Any takers? No cherry-picking, mind

Is that what you want? What you really, really, want?

Hey … here's a concept. Scrap the whole of TSA and CBP … and just let folks get on with whatever happens. Saves billions, avoids endless Internet whining and reduces lines at airports.
Is that what you want? What you really, really, want?
No.
And the false dichotomy (either "TSA as it is today" or "no security whatsoever") has been discussed and dismissed many times before in this forum. So I'm not going to go into all the argument again.

What I want is security that balances risk with response. For many of us on this forum, that means reverting to 9/10/01 security: a WTMD to find the guns and larger knives, x-ray of baggage, and perhaps a random ETD to deter people with explosives. (OT: I got a random ETD on both my flights in Australia today. :rolleyes:) Use a hand-held wand if there's an alarm on the WTMD. Apply a discrete, professional patdown if that doesn't resolve the issue. That's it. That's all.

And for that matter, that's what the other 199 countries in the world, more or less, do for airport security. And you'll notice that there aren't planes falling out of the sky in Australia or Switzerland or Japan.

The ID check adds nothing to the security process: it doesn't matter what someone's name is. The shoe carnival is pointless; anything that could conceivably be hidden in a shoe could equally be hidden in the mouth or a body cavity. The war on liquids is pointless: the possibility of combining two stable liquids post-checkpoint to create a viable explosive is so remote that it's not worth worrying about. The body scanner is (a) invasive, (b) slow, (c) ineffective (it misses things), (d) inefficient (it has a high false-positive rate) and (e) expensive. And people can steal your stuff while you're standing there with your hands in the air getting scanned. So far it's found lots of pleats, sweat stains, hair clips, zippers, and non-existent "anomalies" and not one actual terrorist threat. Stop it already. Finally, strip-searching elderly women, people with prostheses, toddlers, and - for that matter - anyone else is an over-reaction. Stop it already.

No one here is arguing for no security. There have been previous threads that canvassed this opinion. We just want sensible security, where the action is based on risk, not on some Bruce Willis Hollywood movie plot.

No.
And the false dichotomy (either "TSA as it is today" or "no security whatsoever") has been discussed and dismissed many times before in this forum. So I'm not going to go into all the argument again.

What I want is security that balances risk with response. For many of us on this forum, that means reverting to 9/10/01 security: a WTMD to find the guns and larger knives, x-ray of baggage, and perhaps a random ETD to deter people with explosives. (OT: I got a random ETD on both my flights in Australia today. :rolleyes:) Use a hand-held wand if there's an alarm on the WTMD. Apply a discrete, professional patdown if that doesn't resolve the issue. That's it. That's all.

And for that matter, that's what the other 199 countries in the world, more or less, do for airport security. And you'll notice that there aren't planes falling out of the sky in Australia or Switzerland or Japan.

The ID check adds nothing to the security process: it doesn't matter what someone's name is. The shoe carnival is pointless; anything that could conceivably be hidden in a shoe could equally be hidden in the mouth or a body cavity. The war on liquids is pointless: the possibility of combining two stable liquids post-checkpoint to create a viable explosive is so remote that it's not worth worrying about. The body scanner is (a) invasive, (b) slow, (c) ineffective (it misses things), (d) inefficient (it has a high false-positive rate) and (e) expensive. And people can steal your stuff while you're standing there with your hands in the air getting scanned. So far it's found lots of pleats, sweat stains, hair clips, zippers, and non-existent "anomalies" and not one actual terrorist threat. Stop it already. Finally, strip-searching elderly women, people with prostheses, toddlers, and - for that matter - anyone else is an over-reaction. Stop it already.

No one here is arguing for no security. There have been previous threads that canvassed this opinion. We just want sensible security, where the action is based on risk, not on some Bruce Willis Hollywood movie plot.

this! ^^^

...and not a miserable experience for any person with or without any sort of disability to worry about or endure.

No one here is arguing for no security. There have been previous threads that canvassed this opinion. We just want sensible security, where the action is based on risk, not on some Bruce Willis Hollywood movie plot.

It drives me crazy when the anything for safety people (who probably don't fly) think that people who are against the TSA want no security at all. We still want security, just not the security the TSA currently provides. I would be fine with pre-9/11 with random ETD testing. I could even see using the AIT as a secondary method.

It also drives me crazy when people say there haven't been any attacks since the TSA was established, so they must be effective. The TSA would not have stopped 9/11. The box cutters were permitted items at that time and everybody was told to comply with hijackers at that time too.

Thanks to those who have responded. That was my question … if not "TSA Today", what is the solution?

You obviously have determined the answer previously on FT.

So … a "lean and mean" and focussed TSA Security process. OK, that's one way ahead.

That presumably allows a British Senior Citizen free passage, because I pose no pre-determined risk? OK, I'm happy with that: I had no plans on changing my religious affiliation anyway, and with my back 40 virgins are no use anyway.

I've never been strip-searched, so my views might change if that happened. Since I put everything metallic on the belt for screening, I don't have a problem: I was never really into the idea of piercings in odd places anyway.

I have been selected for a secondary wanding a couple of times in UK … Oh! The agony and indignity! As I said to the gentleman who did it, "I assume this is the random double-check?". That cost me 10 seconds of my life, and I still have sleepless nights remembering the indignity.

Can you folks understand I'm being both light-hearted and sarcastic? I do hope so. ;)

The things they put female business travelers through is simply awful. Lets see, lots of potential for explosives in high heel pumps with paper thin soles. And that tiny Hermes silk scarf? Off it comes. Lots of potential for mayhem there. Oh, an underwire bra or metalic earrings? Can't take off the sweater because there is nothing under it? Time for a hand screening. Enough!! Why not randomize screening? The idea that we need to screen everyone is naive. Also, wait times are getting even longer with the new nudo-scan technology. I regularly "opt out" because it simply takes less time to be hand wanded. The next incident will almost certainly involve checked baggage, an airport employee, or more likely another form of transport. The entire screening process needs to be rethought.

Oh, and the survey is also poorly designed. How was the TSA "Experience"? I thought the people who last screened me were polite and professional. The "Experience" with TSA staff was fine. However, the fact that I had to wait on line for 20 minutes and have my carry-on opened and examined (nothing there, other than lingerie and a couple of adapters) and to have to undress and redress was, well, not fine. The questions could have been: "Did you have to wait long?" "Did you find the process intrusive", etc... I think the survey response would be quite different if it had been worded slighty differently...

No.
And the false dichotomy (either "TSA as it is today" or "no security whatsoever") has been discussed and dismissed many times before in this forum. So I'm not going to go into all the argument again.

What I want is security that balances risk with response. For many of us on this forum, that means reverting to 9/10/01 security: a WTMD to find the guns and larger knives, x-ray of baggage, and perhaps a random ETD to deter people with explosives. (OT: I got a random ETD on both my flights in Australia today. :rolleyes:) Use a hand-held wand if there's an alarm on the WTMD. Apply a discrete, professional patdown if that doesn't resolve the issue. That's it. That's all.

And for that matter, that's what the other 199 countries in the world, more or less, do for airport security. And you'll notice that there aren't planes falling out of the sky in Australia or Switzerland or Japan.

The ID check adds nothing to the security process: it doesn't matter what someone's name is. The shoe carnival is pointless; anything that could conceivably be hidden in a shoe could equally be hidden in the mouth or a body cavity. The war on liquids is pointless: the possibility of combining two stable liquids post-checkpoint to create a viable explosive is so remote that it's not worth worrying about. The body scanner is (a) invasive, (b) slow, (c) ineffective (it misses things), (d) inefficient (it has a high false-positive rate) and (e) expensive. And people can steal your stuff while you're standing there with your hands in the air getting scanned. So far it's found lots of pleats, sweat stains, hair clips, zippers, and non-existent "anomalies" and not one actual terrorist threat. Stop it already. Finally, strip-searching elderly women, people with prostheses, toddlers, and - for that matter - anyone else is an over-reaction. Stop it already.

No one here is arguing for no security. There have been previous threads that canvassed this opinion. We just want sensible security, where the action is based on risk, not on some Bruce Willis Hollywood movie plot.

I can't give you enough of ^

All I can say...

There is a reason it is called Thousands Standing Around

Precheck is fine when it works, unfortunately, I'm batting <30% on using it. It doesn't work if there's international segments in the itinerary (for me, it doesn't even work on a final domestic segment returning from international). Even a TSA supe told me that getting it more than 25% is "lucky" (yes, I know some folks have had better luck, but I also know folks that have had worse luck).

At many airports you have to stand in the regular, long line in order to even find out if you are cleared to use it. That defeats any potential time-savings you might get: it just minimizes your chance of a grope.

I won't go so far as to call Precheck a failure as it has good points and COULD be quite successful if one can get cleared more often or save time.

I'll also note that at many airports (and IAD, this includes you) the screeners tend to be obnoxious, authoritarian, and threatening.

I've cut back my travel a LOT. It's been 3 months now and I have noted a great reduction in stress not having to deal with them.

I'll also note that at many airports (and IAD, this includes you) the screeners tend to be obnoxious, authoritarian, and threatening.

IAD?

I've also encountered TSA staff there with a sense of humour. And being helpful to Priority pax.

Funny how we can get completely different views at the same location.

IAD?

I've also encountered TSA staff there with a sense of humour. And being helpful to Priority pax.

Funny how we can get completely different views at the same location.

IAD isn't as bad as ORD.
ORD has bunches of the "I might just ruin your day" types. Classic little people with big power, using and abusing it freely.

What, I can vote but not see the results? Why is there not a typical summary of a poll after I vote, or at least a link to results? I mean you got my input for nothing, so why cant I see how I rate as compared to this very narrow non-representative sample population?

What, I can vote but not see the results? Why is there not a typical summary of a poll after I vote, or at least a link to results? I mean you got my input for nothing, so why cant I see how I rate as compared to this very narrow non-representative sample population?

Quoting from the first post in this thread:

Results of this survey will be announced both on-line in the magazine and here on FlyerTalk.

This will be in early September by the way.

For those entering this thread here, the survey can be taken online here (http://www.frequentbusinesstraveler.com/2012/08/survey-how-effective-is-the-tsa/).

Quoting from the first post in this thread:



This will be in early September by the way.

For those entering this thread here, the survey can be taken online here (http://www.frequentbusinesstraveler.com/2012/08/survey-how-effective-is-the-tsa/).

Thanks homey, I see that. But my point is....why? Why do I have to wait, why cant the original pollster reward my participation with the results immediately?

Thanks

No.
And the false dichotomy (either "TSA as it is today" or "no security whatsoever") has been discussed and dismissed many times before in this forum. So I'm not going to go into all the argument again.

What I want is security that balances risk with response. For many of us on this forum, that means reverting to 9/10/01 security: a WTMD to find the guns and larger knives, x-ray of baggage, and perhaps a random ETD to deter people with explosives. (OT: I got a random ETD on both my flights in Australia today. :rolleyes:) Use a hand-held wand if there's an alarm on the WTMD. Apply a discrete, professional patdown if that doesn't resolve the issue. That's it. That's all.

And for that matter, that's what the other 199 countries in the world, more or less, do for airport security. And you'll notice that there aren't planes falling out of the sky in Australia or Switzerland or Japan.

The ID check adds nothing to the security process: it doesn't matter what someone's name is. The shoe carnival is pointless; anything that could conceivably be hidden in a shoe could equally be hidden in the mouth or a body cavity. The war on liquids is pointless: the possibility of combining two stable liquids post-checkpoint to create a viable explosive is so remote that it's not worth worrying about. The body scanner is (a) invasive, (b) slow, (c) ineffective (it misses things), (d) inefficient (it has a high false-positive rate) and (e) expensive. And people can steal your stuff while you're standing there with your hands in the air getting scanned. So far it's found lots of pleats, sweat stains, hair clips, zippers, and non-existent "anomalies" and not one actual terrorist threat. Stop it already. Finally, strip-searching elderly women, people with prostheses, toddlers, and - for that matter - anyone else is an over-reaction. Stop it already.

No one here is arguing for no security. There have been previous threads that canvassed this opinion. We just want sensible security, where the action is based on risk, not on some Bruce Willis Hollywood movie plot.Amen. Perfectly stated (as usual).

I'll add my personal comment that I'm tired of all the class warfare from the thugs working for the TSA. Yeah, I know that they are low-paid and don't get to travel a lot like most of us do, but that's not a reason to act like petty dictators -- not to mention that their apparent "power" is almost entirely an illusion. When you stand up to them, they back down every time.

Bruce

TSA is just another Government waste ...... put it in the hands of private business .....

TSA is just another Government waste ...... put it in the hands of private business .....

Has anyone said "Welcome to FT"?

I will - it seems the polite thing to do. At least, it is on the BA Board ;)

How many times have we seen this argument (and others like it)? And yet, no planes have been blown up by terrorists since 9/11. If you think it is because the terrorists are no longer interested in doing so, you are dreaming!! Is it SOLELY because of passenger screening? Of course not. But that is one part of the equation, and one that I am willing to endure when traveling.

No, it's because there are no terrorists in the U.S. if you haven't noticed.

TSA is a total waste of money and an major infringement of the 4th amendment. Put a "bat day" size bat in every seat pocket of every plane if you want security. TSA is just the first another step in the conditioning of the masses to more and more government control and socialism. Wake up America!

This is funny but close to the truth (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0jgVAPrmJI).

Unable to locate link to survey, is this browser-specific?

Unable to locate link to survey, is this browser-specific?

Shouldn't be.

Go to http://www.frequentbusinesstraveler.com/fly-me-to-south-africa-contest/

This is funny but close to the truth (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0jgVAPrmJI).

^
Great video!
Thanks for posting it!

[COLOR="Silver"]
I will start...

Recently, I had the opportunity to pass through an airport security checkpoint through the TSA Pre✓ line even though I never signed up for it. I did not have to remove my bag of liquids or take off my shoes. The agents were friendly and polite. This was by far the quickest, easiest and most civilized passage through an airport security checkpoint for me since before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The experience at airport security checkpoints in the United States should always be similar to this particular experience for me.

However, I do not believe that frequent travelers should have to pay or register for this privilege. It should automatically be a benefit as part of elite membership status in a frequent flier loyalty program.

In general, I would say that with its inconsistent policies, the Transportation Security Administration has little effectiveness on the implementation of airport and airline security overall. It is a bloated federal agency which needs a significant reduction in agents, and those agents who remain should be qualified to perform proper security measures at airport security checkpoints which mitigate the inconvenience to passengers as much as possible.

I have other opinions and thoughts, but I will leave them for other FlyerTalk members to post in this discussion...

You DO realize that by posting that link here you have ended any possibility of it being an unbiased (and therefore accurate) survey, right?

You DO realize that by posting that link here you have ended any possibility of it being an unbiased (and therefore accurate) survey, right?I did not create the survey in question.

How would you have handled it differently?

You DO realize that by posting that link here you have ended any possibility of it being an unbiased (and therefore accurate) survey, right?

The number of FlyerTalk members responding to the survey was small enoiugh so that it did not influence the final results (which will be published within the next few days).

The survey takers had to provide significant demographic info on themselves or the survey didn't count and the people who took the survey are definitely among the most frequent of frequent fliers.

This is in contrast to the Gallup poll, where half of the people taking the survey hadn't crossed through a TSA checkpoint in the past 12 months.

Please click here for the article and poll results. <-- This link will not be activated until the results are released....and — as promised — here are the results (http://www.frequentbusinesstraveler.com/2012/09/tsa-poll/) of the 1,852 people who participated in the survey — conducted by Frequent Business Traveler magazine in conjunction with FlyerTalk, the largest Internet travel community in the world.

Approximately 91 percent of the survey participants indicated that they believe the Transportation Security Administration is doing either a fair or poor job of managing security screenings at domestic airports in the United States.

Please read the article (http://www.frequentbusinesstraveler.com/2012/09/tsa-poll/) for additional details.

Interestingly anodyne.

The results might have been different if nationality was factored in.
We Brits invented queues/lines, you know :D
And we regard TSA, CBP and the rest as 'just one of those things the Americans do', without getting over-heated about the subject.

Anyway, I'm heading back there next week on vacation, so I haven't been put off yet.

You DO realize that by posting that link here you have ended any possibility of it being an unbiased (and therefore accurate) survey, right?

The link to the poll in the 1st post of this thread was added AFTER voting had closed so it had no impact on the results.

I have to agree with Travis and also add that it really shouldn't matter what we think of TSA just like it shouldn't matter if we like the police or firefighters. Their popularity is not at issue. And lay people really aren't qualified to make gut judgements on effectiveness. What we might deem to be security theater might very well be something else.

I received a parking ticket the other day from a motorcycle cop. You bet I would rate motorcycle cops ineffective in a survey. But that's not really relevant.

We have to stop treating everything like a popularity contest. Not everything gets to have constant public condemnation just because it's inconvenient. I don't like going trough TSA anymore then anyone else. I've experiences inconsistencies just as much as anyone else. But think of it another way - if you are a criminal and TSA is always doing everything the same way every single time, then it would be very easy to beat the system.

Nothing is perfect. Let's gives these men and women and break and focus on the management.

Nonsense. Let's look at TSA's effectiveness. In over a decade, they have caught exactly zero terrorists. Sure, they've caught people carrying drugs and using fake IDs, but so what? Was TSA created to do that? And to spend $8 billion annually for that? Of course not!

The TSA is a colossal waste of our tax dollars. It's a huge collection of thugs and thieves who abuse the traveling public for no benefit at all. The agency is hopeless and needs to be abolished. Nothing less will do. It cannot be reformed.

Bruce

I have to agree with Travis and also add that it really shouldn't matter what we think of TSA just like it shouldn't matter if we like the police or firefighters. Their popularity is not at issue. And lay people really aren't qualified to make gut judgements on effectiveness. What we might deem to be security theater might very well be something else.

Larry, many, many people on this board cannot be described as "lay people" - there are highly qualified specialists in many fields who post here.

The waste of time and money to test for non-existent substances is theater. Waving test strips over drinks in the "sterile area" is pure theater. The shoe carnival is theater. (I returned from Europe a couple of weeks ago ... three countries, never removed my shoes once. Haven't heard of any aircraft falling from the sky in Europe, have you?) The ID game is theater. To say nothing of the easily beaten body scanners, the dangers of BSXR and the inanity of the BDO program - which is ridiculed by the entire scientific community.


We have to stop treating everything like a popularity contest. Not everything gets to have constant public condemnation just because it's inconvenient. I don't like going trough TSA anymore then anyone else. I've experiences inconsistencies just as much as anyone else. But think of it another way - if you are a criminal and TSA is always doing everything the same way every single time, then it would be very easy to beat the system.

It's already easy to beat the system; the more complex a system is (and heaven knows, the TSA system is needlessly and ludicrously complex), the easier it is to beat it. It isn't a question of popularity or convenience. I don't think anyone here objects to effective security checkpoints. In the case of TSA-run checkpoints, it's a question of ineffectiveness, a monumental waste of taxpayer dollars and the gradual erosion of the rights upon which this country was founded.

Welcome to FlyerTalk. :)

~~ Irish

The TSA is a colossal waste of our tax dollars. It's a huge collection of thugs and thieves who abuse the traveling public for no benefit at all. The agency is hopeless and needs to be abolished. Nothing less will do. It cannot be reformed.

BruceTrue. I recently booked a multi sector trip through the US via a travel agent in part to avoid as much of the 9/11 security fee as possible. Paid only $10. Had I booked it online, I would have been forced to book it as 4 returns and pay $30.

Just flew from ATL in the "Expert Traveler" Lane. When I asked to opt out of the full body scan (per doctor's orders), TSA agent was visibly annoyed and at once proceeded to tell me all the horrors of what this entailed ("pat down", additional screening.. etc.) I told him I was familiar with this and waited for "female assist". Then about 10 people went through metal detector because full body scanner resets itself every 45 minutes. TSA agent informs me that if I had waited a few minutes, I wouldn't have had to go through pat down. After watching all the people go through and my computer, purse, wallet all at the end of the line now, I asked if I could keep my eye on my valuables. TSA agent said "NO! that's the price you pay to OPT OUT". So I suppose we are punished if we are medically unable to go through the body scan....not my best ATL/TSA experience.

From my perspective the TSA is simply performance art (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_art)designed by politicians to convince voters they were doing something after 9/11.

TSA agent said "NO! that's the price you pay to OPT OUT".

TSA agent lied.

As usual.

I have to agree with Travis and also add that it really shouldn't matter what we think of TSA just like it shouldn't matter if we like the police or firefighters. Their popularity is not at issue. And lay people really aren't qualified to make gut judgements on effectiveness. What we might deem to be security theater might very well be something else.

I received a parking ticket the other day from a motorcycle cop. You bet I would rate motorcycle cops ineffective in a survey. But that's not really relevant.

We have to stop treating everything like a popularity contest. Not everything gets to have constant public condemnation just because it's inconvenient. I don't like going trough TSA anymore then anyone else. I've experiences inconsistencies just as much as anyone else. But think of it another way - if you are a criminal and TSA is always doing everything the same way every single time, then it would be very easy to beat the system.

Nothing is perfect. Let's gives these men and women and break and focus on the management.

This is not a popularity contest.

This has nothing to do with our likes or dislikes.

This has nothing to do with hassles or inconvenience.

Some of TSA's procedures are un-Constitutional. They are illegal. And they are morally and ethically repugnant.

"But think of it another way - if you are a criminal and TSA is always doing everything the same way every single time, then it would be very easy to beat the system."

Firstly, criminals are not what TSA is supposed to be looking for, fighting against, protecting us against, or even paying any attention to. Threats to the plane are what TSA is tasked with keeping off the plane. I couldn't care less whether criminals - smugglers, theives, whatever - can get past TSA. They are law enforcement's problem.

Secondly, the argument that consistency is key to security is also BS. Just because a "Bad Guy" knows what security is in place doesn't mean he can automatically defeat it; if security is good enough, it can be exactly the same 24/7/365, all around the country, and the Bad Guys won't get through.

Besides, the "inconsistency is a layer" argument is a load of fertilizer that TSA throws out like a soundbite specifically to cover up the fact that their training programs are so incompetent that no airport in the US does the same thing the same way twice. Their own people don't even know the rules, and when called on their lack of knowledge, they pull the childish trick of saying, "Well, we do it differently here," or, "We do it differently now."

And as far as giving these men and women a break - phooey. These men and woman have as much responsibility as their management does to know their jobs and do their jobs correctly and consitently. Not only that, but if the rules they follow are wrong, or their agency is violating the law, they have the same responsibility as anyone else to report violations up their respective chains of command. And they are failing.

I have to agree with Travis and also add that it really shouldn't matter what we think of TSA just like it shouldn't matter if we like the police or firefighters. Their popularity is not at issue. And lay people really aren't qualified to make gut judgements on effectiveness. What we might deem to be security theater might very well be something else.

I received a parking ticket the other day from a motorcycle cop. You bet I would rate motorcycle cops ineffective in a survey. But that's not really relevant.

We have to stop treating everything like a popularity contest. Not everything gets to have constant public condemnation just because it's inconvenient. I don't like going trough TSA anymore then anyone else. I've experiences inconsistencies just as much as anyone else. But think of it another way - if you are a criminal and TSA is always doing everything the same way every single time, then it would be very easy to beat the system.

Nothing is perfect. Let's gives these men and women and break and focus on the management.

I relate to the tenor of that post, having recently paid a Red Light Violation in the US. It took a while, and I ended up chasing the relevant PD about it, as time was rolling on and I didn't want problems at the Border next week. A very nice Lt responded to my e-mail, the paperwork was hastened … and I paid my $50. At which point he invited us for a tour of their new Police HQ next time we're in Town. :D

Do I object to the fine? No … having seen the photos and videos I was guilty as they come.
Do I object to Policing such activity? No I don't. I was potentially hazarding someone else.
But I was very, very, impressed with the communications from the PD as a Brit trying to pay a violation in the US.

I like American police. ^
And yes, larry, they were presumably effective in your case as well? ;)

(That may bit a bit OT, but larry's post just touched a nice nerve.)

I've been EXP on American for the past 6 years at least (and have over 3 million miles there). I have had [and seen] just about zero problems with the TSA, ever. In fact, because I have status, I usually get the short line treatment. I don't even factor the wait for security lines into my plans. If you're on this forum, you pretty much know the drill and if you're not part of the solution...

No offense intended, but all this other stuff about constitutional rights is just so much hot air. How many people think that smuggling weapons and unsafe materials on board a plane is a constitutionally protected right?

Now U.S. CUSTOMS, there is some serious line waiting...

Pete

Now U.S. CUSTOMS, there is some serious line waiting...
Pete

Curious … perhaps location-related? IAD we find Customs is about 1>2 minutes during the International surge around 1300. And that's when we're declaring several kg. of chocolate candy for friends ;)

My beef, as an International Arrival, is the lines at IAD where the Govt website claims they have 51 Immigration desks open at 1300-1400. Yeah, right :rolleyes:
Try 6 for US citizens and 6 for us furriners - and one for Crew.
They built a new Arrivals Building with 52 desks … they just don't have the staff do operate them.

Anyway … TSA causes me as little grief as the Security people in UK. They're low-paid, doing a staggeringly boring job. I don't get my panties in a twist over 'rights', otherwise I could try waving my UK Passport which says "… to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance …"
Time to re-visit 1776, perhaps? :D

And the basis of that statement is … what? :rolleyes:

Two eyes and a brain.

Two eyes and a brain.

Good for you. I must work on that aspect.

...the argument that consistency is key to security is also BS. Just because a "Bad Guy" knows what security is in place doesn't mean he can automatically defeat it; if security is good enough, it can be exactly the same 24/7/365, all around the country, and the Bad Guys won't get through....I've entered the White House complex quite a few times during my working career. Security was basically the same every time, over 30 or so years. I kept my shoes on every time. And I can assure you that no bad guys got in there. Not one. Not ever.

Bruce

We have to stop treating everything like a popularity contest. <snip>Perhaps it wasn't your intent but this post and your previous one come off as dismissive.

Suggesting that "lay people" -- btw, what exactly do you mean by that? -- aren't competent to judge the TSA's effectiveness raises the serious question about who is. If laypersons are incompetent to understand why the TSA does what they do how are our duly elected laypersons any more competent? The fact that is we do have the right to question our representatives' judgement and by extension the agencies they create and the impact their rules have on us as we go about our daily affairs.

How many people think that smuggling weapons and unsafe materials on board a plane is a constitutionally protected right?No one here that I know of -- pro or contra TSA -- thinks that, and I've been around here since the beginning.

What else ya got? :p

The single most unpleasant thing about travelling to the USA is the TSA. They are surley and unpleasant, cause long delays and every security check performs differently - one requires you to remove your shoes while another doesn't; one reacts to a belt buckle that got through the scanner on your first flight, etc. I can't help but feel they are part of a government scheme to put us in our place, control our freedom and remind us that they are in control.

Has the TSA actually found more than the occasional tube of toothpaste hidden in our luggage? I did hear that the only weapon they found was a 9" penis on Jonah Falcon travelling out of SFO; they mistook an Insulin Pump for a gun on a lady travelling out of LAX; at LAS they confiscated a box of cup cakes because the frosting looked like and a gel so violated TSA liquid restrictions; at JFK they made an 85 year-old lady undergo a body search because she carried a defibrulator, and made the 89 year-old Ruth Sherman pull down her pants to reveal her colostomy bag. On another occsion they even forced a 95 year-old cancer patient to remove her adult diaper so they could investigate its contents. Hardly impressive stuff, or anything to make America feel proud!

I hear a lot of these stories and even though yours "might" be true I find most are exaggerated. I fly two to three times a week and have only had problems with TSA officers when they were new, the senior officers usually set them straight. Now if this officer actually said this to you then it's YOUR fault he/she got away with it. You have the right to request a supervisor when you feel you are being treated unfairly of being harassed. TSA even encourages passengers to speak to someone in charge when things like this happen. My experience with irate passenger has always been with the whiners and cry babies. I was in line a few weeks ago and a man complained about having to remove his liquids, turned out he had several very large bottles which he knew couldn't go through. He complained about having to go through the metal detector and when he did he alarmed. He was given three or four chances to remove any metal but insisted that the machine was "f***ed" in his own words. Well he got a pat down and whined about that but guess what? He had his car keys in his pocket even after he swore he had nothing. Now why wouldn't he just put the keys in a bin instead of acting like a jerk and holding everyone else up? Because he though he was "special", special ed that is. Another passenger complained about having to remove what looked to be 200 hair pins from her monster beehive hair. She was setting off the metal detector and got mad because the TSA wouldn't let her pass through even after she told them she didn't have a weapon (that was words right out of her mouth). I was right behind her and running late because of traffic and this stupid woman along with others like her held the line up almost making me miss my flight. I have no problem with TSA and have always been treated with a lot of respect. They always call me Sir and tell me to have a nice flight. I have had to go through the pat down a few times because the machine picked me but it was no big deal, and I can tell you the officer didn't enjoy giving a pat down anymore than I enjoyed receiving one, we just got through with it and continued our day. I have had TSA officers at a smaller airport I fly out of take my tooth paste (which was too large but I forgot it was in that bag) and take it to my checked bag for me so I could keep it and not through it away.
Here's my take on the stories. The one's who do the most complaining are the ones who feel they shouldn't have to follow any rules. They feel they are above everyone else or to important to listen to anyone. TSA's rules are pretty easy to follow and preparing your bag correctly before leaving home/hotel allows you to pass through with no problem. Dressing properly also allows you to pass through with no problem. What cracks me up, and pisses me off, is when women wear so much jewelry that the walk through just about shorts out when they try to pass through. Then they go back and take one piece off and alarms again. Why wear all that jewelry? Nobody on the plain gives a crap how you look. Wait till you arrive at your destination to get all blinged up. Why wear shoes or boots that take 20 minutes to unlace and then lace back up? Get real people. I wear sneakers I can slip off easy, I wear a watch I know will not alarm, I don't have a ton of metal in my pockets, I don't wear a belt buckle the size of Texas. I want to be comfortable on my flight since it usually takes 2 1/2 to 3 hrs. What I see in the complainers are people who are to dumb to follow rules or just want to be a-holes and not follow the rules. I'm sure I will get flamed for all of this but who cares. Next time you complainers are holding up the screening line watch for the person who goes through with no problem that will be me.

Just flew from ATL in the "Expert Traveler" Lane. When I asked to opt out of the full body scan (per doctor's orders), TSA agent was visibly annoyed and at once proceeded to tell me all the horrors of what this entailed ("pat down", additional screening.. etc.) I told him I was familiar with this and waited for "female assist". Then about 10 people went through metal detector because full body scanner resets itself every 45 minutes. TSA agent informs me that if I had waited a few minutes, I wouldn't have had to go through pat down. After watching all the people go through and my computer, purse, wallet all at the end of the line now, I asked if I could keep my eye on my valuables. TSA agent said "NO! that's the price you pay to OPT OUT". So I suppose we are punished if we are medically unable to go through the body scan....not my best ATL/TSA experience.

Sorry but your video proved nothing. You did not film yourself walking through the machine with the object on your body. Watching your video I get the feeling you removed the item, placed it in a bin and then put it back in your pocket once on the other side before starting your video again. I fly through Love Field in Dallas a few times a week and have seen several people caught with pocket knives, keys, lighters and such. Needless to say most honestly forgot they had them in their pockets but the machine zeroed righ in on them. I hate to admit it but it even caught me a few months ago when I had a small holster in my waistband on my side. I wasn't thinking about the metal clip and that is what it picked up, that tiny metal clip. No I did not have a firearm, it was declared and in my checked bag as always. The TSA officer was friendly and just ran the holster though the x ray, yes i had to recieve a pat down but it was my fault not the officers. I'm the one who forgot the holster was there, hasn't happened again.

Police officers actually stop criminals. TSA screeners don't stop terrorists. There are so many loopholes in TSA security that any terrorist could penetrate them, first and foremost being that the body scanners don't work (see my video below).



--Jon

Sorry but your video proved nothing. You did not film yourself walking through the machine with the object on your body. Watching your video I get the feeling you removed the item, placed it in a bin and then put it back in your pocket once on the other side before starting your video again.o.O Did we watch the same video? What part of the video even makes you think that?

Just flew from ATL in the "Expert Traveler" Lane. When I asked to opt out of the full body scan (per doctor's orders), TSA agent was visibly annoyed and at once proceeded to tell me all the horrors of what this entailed ("pat down", additional screening.. etc.) I told him I was familiar with this and waited for "female assist". Then about 10 people went through metal detector because full body scanner resets itself every 45 minutes. TSA agent informs me that if I had waited a few minutes, I wouldn't have had to go through pat down. After watching all the people go through and my computer, purse, wallet all at the end of the line now, I asked if I could keep my eye on my valuables. TSA agent said "NO! that's the price you pay to OPT OUT". So I suppose we are punished if we are medically unable to go through the body scan....not my best ATL/TSA experience.Last time I was in ATL, they directed me to the scanner when I was in front of the WTMD. I looked over at the scanner, looked back and said "no". They let me through the WTMD, then when I was expecting a screener to come over to give me a pat down, they all left the checkpoint. Shift change.

Shift change.Shift happens, I suppose...

Shift happens, I suppose...

^ :D :D

Like the "Overtime has been approved" announcement in the International Arrivals Building at IAD … at around 13:30 :rolleyes:

It's a hard life for those people manning 12 of the 52 desks in the IAB. :D

Now if this officer actually said this to you then it's YOUR fault he/she got away with it.

By this logic, "Now if you were actually raped, then it was YOUR fault your rapist got away with it."

See the problem with that?

By this logic, "Now if you were actually raped, then it was YOUR fault your rapist got away with it."

See the problem with that?

A piquant first post ;)

Welcome to the FT World ... I can envisage some interesting discussions in the future.