Boggie Dog

Why do you think it is that TSA has such a problem with its employees carrying out policy?

JohnneeO

IME, I have found that some skirts are extremely dangerous, but for reasons entirely unrelated to airport security.

mikemey

See? Info like this is extremely useful. If I alarmed the WTMD, I'd fully expect (hell, I'd probably be ahead of the TSO) to remove the watch, belt, etc to clear the alarm.

If we knew the rules of engagement, we'd likely be less likey to argue. It's the piecemeal/inconsistent enforcement these rules, and the fact the rules are SSI that makes most people nuts.

Good on you. Thank you for being up front about this particular issue.

Global_Hi_Flyer

+1

Exactly. Heard same at LAX last week and RDU yesterday.

flapping arms

Thank you for the reply, SATTSO.

Allow me to clarify my question. What is the precise citation for that statement -- chapter, reg/policy number, page number, paragraph number, or other form of properly citing the TSA SOP?

I ask for nothing different than if I were asking for a cite of CFR Part 14 Part 259 subpart 259.4 paragraph (b)(1)(i).

(For those people less picky than I, 14 CFR governs aeronautics and space; the stated paragraph is the regulation on tarmac delays at airports, specifically an exception to "don't sit on the tarmac for more than 3 hours." Link: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text....0.8.4&idno=14)

RadioGirl

But that's exactly the point. "SOP" as issued by HQ means squat. "SOP" as interpreted by you and explained here means squat. (Although I know you're trying to be helpful.) The only SOP that matters for a passenger is the SOP being implemented by a particular screener at a particular checkpoint at a particular airport at a particular time. And when HQ allows, evens encourages, screeners to be "unpredictable", that could be ANYTHING. And as others have noted, since HQ hides the SOP behind SSI, it really just becomes your word against our experiences.

Do you honestly believe that when the screeners at ORF demanded that the woman had to remove her expensive Rolex, she could have simply said "But SATTSO at FlyerTalk said that the policy says I can keep my watch on" and they would have said "Oh, I guess you're right." ?

Look, it's commendable that you want to help here and explain how things (should) work. But when you claim things that are in contradiction to what many of us have experienced personally, there's little point is insisting that it's SOP but everyone else is doing it wrong.

doober

^^

bdschobel

Absolutely right, especially the bolded part.

Bruce

DAL4550

I already have, thus my refusal.

barbell

I join you in commending SATTSO for his/her participation, but this statement is a salient point that seems to be missed by this poster.

Look, many of us appreciate your willingness to share what SOP is/should be. The problem is, presented with SOP, the vast majority of screeners decide to exert some authoritay over the public. They will not, under any circumstances, be questioned. And they will be backed up by any supervisor or contact center that is contacted.

In my own personal experience, handed a page right out of the SOP handbook I obtained from a colleague with access to it, a supervisor said, and this is a direct quote because I will never forget it, "Well, that's what Washington wants us to do. You don't know what we see back here, so we make up our own rules. And you will follow them or not fly today."

TXagogo

This is an absolute insane and completely unacceptable abuse of power. I am horrified to hear that these words escaped someones lips. If that exchange had EVER been recorded he would be back to the fast food joint he most likely came from. But things brings up another question:

Who is "above" the supervisor? If someone actually dares to speak to you like this, whom does one go to next? The police? Do they have any jurisdiction? Who is the supervisor's supervisor? The buck NEVER stops with the person who tells you it stops with them.

chollie

I passed through SEA this am. There was a new sign at the checkpoint (after TDC, at the start of the belt). It showed line drawings of all the things that MUST be removed. I didn't take a photo, didn't want to risk a confrontation with TSOs. The items that must be removed included belts, cellphones, an old-fashioned ticket jacket with ticket, a necklace, and a watch. There were more items, just don't remember them all.

Is this SEA-specific or something that just hasn't rolled out to SAT yet?

Global_Hi_Flyer

If SOP were followed, we wouldn't have issues using NEXUS cards, passport cards, or other "allowed" forms of ID.

the_happiness_store

Went through security at ORD 6am yesterday morning. I chose to opt out and waited for my pat down TSO to arrive. I lost track of my belongings for a few seconds because I had used the wrong belt (configuration issues). When the TSA arrived I mentioned that I could no longer see my possessions. He waved to me to a spot stating "if you don't mind a public pat down, we can do it here and you keep on your on your possessions." I didn't mind so the pat down was done in public. He explained all the steps to me and proceeded. At no point did I feel abused. He was considerate, courteous, and professional. I do believe TSA has overstepped its reach but this gentleman was a gentleman and provided a positive experience toward the TSA.

We moan about the bad ones. I am happy to report a good one.

jackonferry

According to the local paper (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pitt.../s_707042.html) PIT is now 100% NoS or prison frisk. I am flying out later today and so looking forward to my opt out experience.

How many other airports have gone to this in the aftermath of the new frisk policy?