Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Safety/Security > Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate
Reload this Page >

USA Today: Phoenix airport screening draws angry complaints

USA Today: Phoenix airport screening draws angry complaints

Old Oct 23, 2013, 11:42 am
  #136  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: SEA
Programs: Delta TDK(or care)WIA, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 1,869
Originally Posted by chollie
That said, I have seen no evidence that <deleted> falls in that category. He may - it's an IBB, after all, short of going through his checkpoint repeatedly and seeing for myself, I don't know. But I'm taking him at his word, even though I have made it clear that I think he bends over backwards to give his own organization a greater benefit of doubt than he does pax. That's understandable - he's never transited a checkpoint as a handicapped pax. Perhaps if he did a few hundred times in a few dozen airports as a 'secret shopper', he'd understand a bit more of where we're coming from.

Just MHO.
Oh, my experiences are great and have been for over a year; I use the bermenschen lanes at the checkpoint in both directions and when there's no bermenschen lanes, I use the skills I learned from Flyertalk to avoid the NOSs. My opinion of <deleted> comes from his behavior. Look again at some of what he wrote in the comment I quoted:

Anon began with – “Everyone is harping on the "Not Guilty" verdict. A jury of his peers found OJ Simpson not guilty as well while most thinking Americans disagreed.” And continued with many other comments.

Thanks! Nice to see someone else making a point about what happens when the process is held up for personal reasons instead of sheer volume of traffic. It causes delays and takes away time from other people. Thanks for making these points.

Earl Pitts sez – “There's a big difference between leaking actual classified information and an overused SSI.”

From a end user point of view, there is no difference. The TSO at the checkpoint has to operate under the rules they are given. You may make the case that some of the items rated as SSI should not be SSI, but to the TSO at the TDC, it makes no difference – they still have to follow those rules until the classifying authority rates the information non-SSI. The TSOs all the way up to FSDs and beyond have a duty to follow those rules, to do otherwise could open them up to charges/punitive actions on behalf of the organization.

Anon sez – “So you're more important than me?”

No passenger is more important than any other, so your argument makes the case for both sides of this argument. A passenger making a social statement is no more important than the one wanting to get through screening and go get a coffee. The problem is the one making a stand causes delays for others, and the others have a valid right to make complaint about it – just like you have the right to complain about the procedures in place in the checkpoints.

Anon sez – “How in the world could all of the TSA employees involved in checking this man's identity not know that it is permissible to record at the checkpoint?”

The question was not about filming in the checkpoint area, but about what was being filmed – namely SSI material, which the TSOs have a duty to try and prevent.
So, he uses a comment from a clerk pretending to be a passenger to blame Mocek for "holding up the process,", responds to another comment by blaming Moceck for "causing delays", and responds to another comment by lying about what happened. Moceck's video makes clear that it wasn't about "SSI," it was about filming in the checkpoint.

<deleted> blamed the victim of TSA misconduct for the results of that misconduct, and also lied. He could have simply refrained from posting, rather than attacking and lying about Mocek.

What do you call someone who tells lies? I know what I call them. What do you call a government employee who gratuitously attacks and lies about a victim of government misconduct?

Last edited by TWA884; Jun 26, 2017 at 3:29 pm Reason: Privacy / Conform to moderator's edit of quoted post
Carl Johnson is offline  
Old Oct 23, 2013, 12:02 pm
  #137  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,229
Originally Posted by Carl Johnson
Oh, my experiences are great and have been for over a year; I use the bermenschen lanes at the checkpoint in both directions and when there's no bermenschen lanes, I use the skills I learned from Flyertalk to avoid the NOSs. My opinion of <deleted> comes from his behavior. Look again at some of what he wrote in the comment I quoted:

So, he uses a comment from a clerk pretending to be a passenger to blame Mocek for "holding up the process,", responds to another comment by blaming Moceck for "causing delays", and responds to another comment by lying about what happened. Moceck's video makes clear that it wasn't about "SSI," it was about filming in the checkpoint.

<deleted> blamed the victim of TSA misconduct for the results of that misconduct, and also lied. He could have simply refrained from posting, rather than attacking and lying about Mocek.

What do you call someone who tells lies? I know what I call them. What do you call a government employee who gratuitously attacks and lies about a victim of government misconduct?
I'm on record disagreeing with him and pointing out his general inclination to take the side of TSA instead of the pax, possibly because he's never transited checkpoints multiple times at multiple airports as a handicapped pax. Or, possibly, because he plays a role here as a voice of moderation when in fact he is anything but moderate.

My point is, believe the worst you want about him - or any other poster. You may be right. It's the tone I object to - don't lower yourself.

There have been TSO posters (and I think they were genuine TSA employees) who have posted here in the past that flat out lied. No way to call it a misunderstanding, they lied. One of them lied to me in a PM. I tried her advice: don't use the words 'opt out', explain your physical limitations when directed to the NoS, a medical limitation is NOT an opt-out (according to her), you should be directed to the WTMD. Ask for a supervisor if that doesn't happen.

You know what happened? The first two times, I was told (as I am regularly now) that physical limitations mean I am an 'opt out', given the usual spiel and sent for my grope. The third time, I asked for a supervisor. It ended up with the supervisor taking the copy of the PM, my BP/ID, calling a suit, lecturing me that on an IBB, no one knows who anyone is, that SATTSO might be a ter*orist trolling FT and using me to test the system, and that it would all be put in a report (including my copy of the PM).

Yes, I'm aware that some lie. I'm also aware that some tell the truth. I believe eyecue when he talked about why TSA at DEN tried to confiscate an actor's light-saber walking stick because it exceeded SSI criteria for deciding if it could be allowed. I do not know why GSO (supposedly) doesn't have a copy of the same procedures that DEN does; I do know that I believe eyecue when he says he actually talked to a supervisor in the pictures of the incident to get an accurate understanding of what went down and why.

I just don't see the point in lowering the tone of the discussion. You're better than that. All of us are (or should be). If they lie in a respectful tone of voice, then we can counter their lies with the truth, in a respectful tone of voice. If their tone is rude (a couple prolific TSO posters in the past were famous for this), then don't respond in kind, ignore them. Don't get down on all fours and roll in the mud with them.

Last edited by TWA884; Jun 26, 2017 at 3:30 pm Reason: Privacy / Conform to moderator's edit of quoted post
chollie is offline  
Old Oct 23, 2013, 9:37 pm
  #138  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Programs: DL, WN, US, Avis, AA
Posts: 662
Originally Posted by WillCAD
Take it easy on <deleted>, guys. I understand the difficult position he's in - employees of his agency violated their terms of employment and multiple laws, not to mention engaging in despicable, inhuman behavior, but the agency failed to take proper action and fire them all, and denied any wrongdoing.

But <deleted> is an employee. If he deviates from the corporate line without authorization, he will be disciplined. The supreme irony here is that he would be disciplined for deviating from the corporate line in the manner in which we all beleive the TSOs in the incident in question should have been disciplined - termination. In other words... TSA will fire <deleted> for admitting that TSA should have fired the TSOs in the Armato case.

Break policy for which you should be fired... and you won't be. But break policy by admitting that... and you will be.

So lay off <deleted>. He's agreeing with us as much as he can without finding a pink slip in his next pay check.

Could we pile on the local LEOs in Phoenix who illegally supported the TSOs in their abuse of Stacy Armato by telling her that if she failed to go along with "TSA's horse and pony show" they'd have to arrest her at TSA's request? I mean, since when does TSA get to dictate who local LEOs will or will not arrest? They can file complaints, but ultimately it's the LEOs who decide whether to arrest and charge someone. We've seen what can happen when an abusive TSA suit runs into a LEO who refuses to violate the law for him; why are the LEOs at PHX continuing to back up TSOs who are deviating from policy and even violating the law? I think without that LEO support, some of the complaints at PHX might dry up. What LE agency provides policing in the terminal at PHX?
I hear what you are saying. It was not my intent to put gsoltso aka <deleted> in an untenable position. I just wanted clarity on what he meant when he said, "I have not forgotten about Stacy Armato, and I have indicated before that things should have been handled much better, and proper redress should have been applied." My idea of proper redress would probably differ from his. I was truly interested in what he would think proper redress would be.

If he thinks it would mean "retraining" for the TSOs involved that would be one thing. If he thinks it would mean their immediate dismissal and referral to police for criminal charges that would mean something else. Between those two extremes are any number of other possible actions that could constitute redress. Hearing gsoltso's ideas of what would be "proper redress" would indicate whether his words represented a sincere desire to see TSA actually do the right thing in an egregious case or were just empty platitudes.

Unfortunately, his response to my sincere question tends to support the latter interpretation.

Last edited by TWA884; Jun 26, 2017 at 3:31 pm Reason: Privacy / Conform to moderator's edit of quoted post
T-the-B is offline  
Old Oct 23, 2013, 10:10 pm
  #139  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,229
Originally Posted by T-the-B
I hear what you are saying. It was not my intent to put gsoltso aka <deleted> in an untenable position. I just wanted clarity on what he meant when he said, "I have not forgotten about Stacy Armato, and I have indicated before that things should have been handled much better, and proper redress should have been applied." My idea of proper redress would probably differ from his. I was truly interested in what he would think proper redress would be.

If he thinks it would mean "retraining" for the TSOs involved that would be one thing. If he thinks it would mean their immediate dismissal and referral to police for criminal charges that would mean something else. Between those two extremes are any number of other possible actions that could constitute redress. Hearing gsoltso's ideas of what would be "proper redress" would indicate whether his words represented a sincere desire to see TSA actually do the right thing in an egregious case or were just empty platitudes.

Unfortunately, his response to my sincere question tends to support the latter interpretation.
I took it to mean that 1) it never should have happened and 2) 'redress' B]should[/B] have been 'applied' - it clearly wasn't, because PHX TSA continued to harass and retaliate against Amato.

Last edited by TWA884; Jun 26, 2017 at 3:32 pm Reason: Privacy / Conform to moderator's edit of quoted post
chollie is offline  
Old Oct 24, 2013, 10:10 am
  #140  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Programs: DL, WN, US, Avis, AA
Posts: 662
Originally Posted by chollie
I took it to mean that 1) it never should have happened and 2) 'redress' B]should[/B] have been 'applied' - it clearly wasn't, because PHX TSA continued to harass and retaliate against Amato.
I don't disagree. My point was to take the discussion further and address what form the redress should take. What is redress?

redress
[n. ree-dres, ri-dres; v. ri-dres]
noun
1. the setting right of what is wrong: redress of abuses.
2. relief from wrong or injury.
3. compensation or satisfaction for a wrong or injury.

verb (used with object)
4. to set right; remedy or repair (wrongs, injuries, etc.).
5. to correct or reform (abuses, evils, etc.).
6. to remedy or relieve (suffering, want, etc.).
7. to adjust evenly again, as a balance.
In other words, how should TSA have gone about setting right what was wrong or giving Ms. Armato compensation or satisfaction for the wrong done to her? How should TSA set right, remedy or repair the the wrong she suffered? How should TSA correct or reform the abuses that were inflicted on her?

GSOLTSO aka <deleted> clearly stated that he felt redress should have been given but when asked what form that redress should be he refused to offer any meaningful example. The only thing that would satisfy some commentators here would be to have the erring screeners arrested. My opinion is that is harsher than is appropriate. TSA's idea of redress is a pseudo apology where they express regret that the passenger had an unpleasant experience while admitting no wrongdoing. My opinion is that is grossly inadequate.

I was wanting to explore GSOLTSO/<deleted>'s thoughts about what form he thought would constitute proper redress. What should it be: a public apology by the manager? an apology by each screener involved? financial compensation? a free Nexis card? half off her next order at the airport McDonalds?

My point is that calling for "proper redress" without being willing to offer any example of what that entails is meaningless. I'm sure <deleted> would claim that he treats passengers with proper respect while screening them but I'll bet he would never agree to let me define what would constitute "proper respect" and constrain his actions to that definition. Such terms are meaningless without specificity. I was truly not trying to cause problems for <deleted>. I actually wanted to know what someone who seems to be an intelligent, conscientious screener would think the appropriate response the Armato incident would be. I am sincerely saddened that he is either unable or unwilling to formulate any meaningful response.

Last edited by TWA884; Jun 26, 2017 at 3:32 pm Reason: Privacy / Conform to moderator's edit of quoted post
T-the-B is offline  
Old Oct 26, 2013, 8:33 am
  #141  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Greensboro
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,424
Originally Posted by chollie
Yes, I'm aware that some lie. I'm also aware that some tell the truth. I believe eyecue when he talked about why TSA at DEN tried to confiscate an actor's light-saber walking stick because it exceeded SSI criteria for deciding if it could be allowed. I do not know why GSO (supposedly) doesn't have a copy of the same procedures that DEN does; I do know that I believe eyecue when he says he actually talked to a supervisor in the pictures of the incident to get an accurate understanding of what went down and why.
First of all, thanks for the kind words and for being respectful, I truly appreciate it. Second, I have checked with my SOP gurus here and at other locations nationwide through my network, and I have found no indication of specific measurement requirements as to length or size on the walking sticks/canes. Third, I tend to stay away from suggesting specific forms of redress without having all the information from both sides - which I do not in the Armato case. Based entirely on what I have read in the articles, I think that the situation could have been handled much better, and some form of redress should have taken place (and for all we know, it may have and we just don't know about it) - barring some information that would justify what happened (which would be a pretty high bar to hit IMHO).

Originally Posted by chollie
I took it to mean that 1) it never should have happened and 2) 'redress' B]should[/B] have been 'applied' - it clearly wasn't, because PHX TSA continued to harass and retaliate against Amato.
+1 in your interpretation of my other post.

Last edited by gsoltso; Oct 26, 2013 at 8:34 am Reason: Remove redundant commentary
gsoltso is offline  
Old Oct 26, 2013, 8:43 am
  #142  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Greensboro
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,424
Originally Posted by T-the-B
I don't disagree. My point was to take the discussion further and address what form the redress should take. What is redress?



In other words, how should TSA have gone about setting right what was wrong or giving Ms. Armato compensation or satisfaction for the wrong done to her? How should TSA set right, remedy or repair the the wrong she suffered? How should TSA correct or reform the abuses that were inflicted on her?

GSOLTSO aka <deleted> clearly stated that he felt redress should have been given but when asked what form that redress should be he refused to offer any meaningful example. The only thing that would satisfy some commentators here would be to have the erring screeners arrested. My opinion is that is harsher than is appropriate. TSA's idea of redress is a pseudo apology where they express regret that the passenger had an unpleasant experience while admitting no wrongdoing. My opinion is that is grossly inadequate.

I was wanting to explore GSOLTSO/<deleted>'s thoughts about what form he thought would constitute proper redress. What should it be: a public apology by the manager? an apology by each screener involved? financial compensation? a free Nexis card? half off her next order at the airport McDonalds?

My point is that calling for "proper redress" without being willing to offer any example of what that entails is meaningless. I'm sure <deleted> would claim that he treats passengers with proper respect while screening them but I'll bet he would never agree to let me define what would constitute "proper respect" and constrain his actions to that definition. Such terms are meaningless without specificity. I was truly not trying to cause problems for <deleted>. I actually wanted to know what someone who seems to be an intelligent, conscientious screener would think the appropriate response the Armato incident would be. I am sincerely saddened that he is either unable or unwilling to formulate any meaningful response.
As I said in my previous comment, I tend to refrain from making any specific redress suggestions without all of the information. Many here say that is a cop out, while I look at it as having enough wisdom to know that every story has 3 sides, and to pass judgement without out getting as much of all 3 sides as possible, is simply irresponsible. Taken at face value, the story could call for a termination, but that does not have the other side of the story taken into account. Like I also said previously, it would be a pretty high bar of reasoning to pass in order to make this an acceptable situation, hence the reason I said it could have been handled better and some form of redress should have been applied. As for what that redress would be, I would have to know the other side of the story in order to make a valid recommendation. Even then, I probably would not make that recommendation in public, as I am merely a frontline employee with some ancillary duties with the Blog team (as was so astutely observed earlier by some in this thread), due to that work, anything I would say publicly would be considered speaking for the organization.

Last edited by TWA884; Jun 26, 2017 at 3:33 pm Reason: Privacy / Conform to moderator's edit of quoted post
gsoltso is offline  
Old Oct 26, 2013, 8:46 am
  #143  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,229
Originally Posted by gsoltso
First of all, thanks for the kind words and for being respectful, I truly appreciate it. Second, I have checked with my SOP gurus here and at other locations nationwide through my network, and I have found no indication of specific measurement requirements as to length or size on the walking sticks/canes. Third, I tend to stay away from suggesting specific forms of redress without having all the information from both sides - which I do not in the Armato case. Based entirely on what I have read in the articles, I think that the situation could have been handled much better, and some form of redress should have taken place (and for all we know, it may have and we just don't know about it) - barring some information that would justify what happened (which would be a pretty high bar to hit IMHO).

+1 in your interpretation of my other post.

Your response exemplifies some of the problems pax face, doesn't it?

On this forum, we have two posters who self-identify as TSOs, two posters that I think most on this forum would agree really are who they say they are.

One says (read the thread yourself) that there are rules in place governing the length and weight of walking sticks/canes, aka 'assistive devices'. Specific rules that are not available to the public but that are in force. This TSO confirmed with one of the supervisors involved in the incident (pictured in a photo) what took place and why.

The other says that there are no such rules in place at his airport or others that he has checked with (did that include DEN?).

In other words, the actor in question still has no way of knowing in advance if his cane will be allowed, disallowed, or conditionally ('just this once') allowed (assuming he questions the ruling, as he did) when he approaches the airport.

I know how he feels, because, contrary to what you suggest should have happened, my nitro pills were confiscated at a checkpoint. There is no published exemption for nitro pills or patches on the website. If there is SSI SOP information (like the rules about 'assistive devices' at DEN), it is not available to me, the pax. Nor have any TSOs come forward to indicate that there is SSI SOP information (like that governing cane/walking stick dimensions) making an allowance for nitro pills or patches.

Unlike the actor, I'm not going to question or argue the decision at the checkpoint. I'm not going to risk LE's being summoned or getting arrested or being detained like Stacy Amato for interfering with the screening process.

Last edited by chollie; Oct 26, 2013 at 8:51 am
chollie is offline  
Old Oct 26, 2013, 9:09 am
  #144  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Greensboro
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,424
Originally Posted by chollie
Your response exemplifies some of the problems pax face, doesn't it?

On this forum, we have two posters who self-identify as TSOs, two posters that I think most on this forum would agree really are who they say they are.

One says (read the thread yourself) that there are rules in place governing the length and weight of walking sticks/canes, aka 'assistive devices'. Specific rules that are not available to the public but that are in force. This TSO confirmed with one of the supervisors involved in the incident (pictured in a photo) what took place and why.

The other says that there are no such rules in place at his airport or others that he has checked with (did that include DEN?).

In other words, the actor in question still has no way of knowing in advance if his cane will be allowed, disallowed, or conditionally ('just this once') allowed (assuming he questions the ruling, as he did) when he approaches the airport.

I know how he feels, because, contrary to what you suggest should have happened, my nitro pills were confiscated at a checkpoint. There is no published exemption for nitro pills or patches on the website. If there is SSI SOP information (like the rules about 'assistive devices' at DEN), it is not available to me, the pax. Nor have any TSOs come forward to indicate that there is SSI SOP information (like that governing cane/walking stick dimensions) making an allowance for nitro pills or patches.

Unlike the actor, I'm not going to question or argue the decision at the checkpoint. I'm not going to risk LE's being summoned or getting arrested or being detained like Stacy Amato for interfering with the screening process.
I hear what you are saying, and I understand the frustration, probably not as well or intensely as you do, but I have a grasp on it. I have long said that from a personal POV, there is much more information that we should publish with respect to transiting the checkpoints - essentially, if you can sit in front of a checkpoint and watch for 15 minutes (or pass through 2-3 times) and learn what is going on in the basic process, I feel it should be published so passengers have a better understanding of what to expect. Which leads to the second part of this, your experience should be roughly the same regardless of what checkpoint you are going through. Minor variations here and there are to be expected, but the basic process should be pretty close to the same thing whether coming through our checkpoints here, or LAX or LGA or wherever else TSA operates the screening procedures. The way we approach the job should be essentially identical - professional and courteous (I do not expect everyone to be outgoing and friendly like I am, but professional and courtious should be the minimum you should expect to run into).
gsoltso is offline  
Old Oct 26, 2013, 10:56 am
  #145  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,229
When it comes to medical devices, medications, baby formula 'minor' variations can have serious consequences.

I hardly think SSI documented standards about walking sticks/canes should vary as widely as they apparently do from airport to airport.

Of course, I don't think medical nitro should be prohibited either, but what do I know?

Last edited by chollie; Oct 26, 2013 at 11:12 am
chollie is offline  
Old Oct 26, 2013, 11:10 am
  #146  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,010
Originally Posted by chollie
When it comes to medical devices, medications, baby formula 'minor variations can have serious consequences.

I hardly think SSI documented standards about walking sticks/canes should vary as widely as they apparently do from airport to airport.

Of course, I don't think medical nitro should be prohibited either, but what do I know?
And why should a TSA screener have any say over how much LGA type medicine anyone should be allowed to carry? TSA is only permitted to interdict WEI so anything else does not fall under the TSA scope of inspection. Besides TSA doesn't even have the backbone to say what qualifications a screener has to not allow such items. I can tell TSA what those qualifications are, NONE!
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Oct 26, 2013, 11:20 am
  #147  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,229
I actually find gsoltso's post about no specific rules on 'assistive device' weight/length at his airport or some unnamed others he reached out to very unsettling. This is the first time I have been skeptical of his information.

1) I believe what eyecue posted about DEN is true.

2) I'm surprised that gsoltso didn't/couldn't turn to HQ for a definitive answer, particularly because we're talking about SSI SOP. I didn't think that was supposed to vary so much from airport to airport - I thought it was the actual practice, the famous "screener's discretion" that was allowed to vary from screener to screener.

At this point, all that is certain is that there are, in fact, SSI SOP rules on this matter - but apparently only at some airports.

It also appears that although pax with medical/disability concerns are referred to "TSA Cares" (presumably an HQ program), there is no similar HQ resource available for screeners looking for 'best practices' guidance or clarification of rules. I wonder if "TSA Cares" even has such a resource - it would be strange to offer that information to pax but not make it available to screeners.

No wonder it's so confusing. Screener discretion regarding unpublished and widely varying rules, with few if any fixed standards regarding disability and medical issues - that's completely crazy.

Last edited by chollie; Oct 26, 2013 at 11:28 am
chollie is offline  
Old Oct 26, 2013, 9:25 pm
  #148  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,330
Originally Posted by chollie
When it comes to medical devices, medications, baby formula 'minor' variations can have serious consequences.

I hardly think SSI documented standards about walking sticks/canes should vary as widely as they apparently do from airport to airport.

Of course, I don't think medical nitro should be prohibited either, but what do I know?
Medical nitro is NOT prohibited. Explosives are prohibited. Medical nitro is NOT explosive, even in large quantities.

Only the blatant stupidity of individual TSOs who believe a BS urban legend causes a problem with medical nitro at the checkpoint.

Last edited by WillCAD; Oct 27, 2013 at 7:43 am Reason: Because "prohoboted" and "urbam" are not real words in the English language.
WillCAD is offline  
Old Oct 26, 2013, 9:52 pm
  #149  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,728
Originally Posted by chollie
I'm surprised that gsoltso didn't/couldn't turn to HQ for a definitive answer, particularly because we're talking about SSI SOP.
The rational conclusion is that (as has happened many times in the past) his opinion and/or facts will not be forthcoming because they're expository for just how much his fellow screeners fabricate from whole cloth.
Caradoc is offline  
Old Oct 28, 2013, 6:23 am
  #150  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
Originally Posted by chollie View Post
+1

It is not just the amount of medication. TSA confiscated my nitro pills at the checkpoint because the ban on exp**osive material is absolute.
Originally Posted by gsoltso
Missed this earlier, I have never even heard of that happening until now. Please tell me you filed a complaint and contacted the local TSA office as well. Nitro pills come through almost every checkpoint everyday, there is no prohibition on them, nor is there limitation on them that I am aware of. The TSOs that took the nitro pills were wrong.
Here's something else from the blog you missed:

Also, did TSA confiscate a wad of bills along with someone's ammo? Are the bills dangerous?
Anon asked - "Also, did TSA confiscate a wad of bills along with someone's ammo?"

I am uncertain to what you are referring. Do you have a particular story about this? Perhaps a link to the story you are mentioning?

<deleted>
TSA Blog Team

October 26, 2013 at 10:19 AM
http://blog.tsa.gov/2013/10/tsa-week...-09-27-13.html

There's a photo in the thread that shows several bills next to ammunition confiscated from a passenger.

You really need to thoroughly read all threads and peruse any photographs, <deleted>. You end up looking bad and further exacerbating the public's perception of the TSA and the blog when you have obviously missed something.

Last edited by TWA884; Jun 26, 2017 at 3:34 pm Reason: Privacy / Conform to moderator's edit of quoted post
petaluma1 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.