Loren Pechtel

Passengers stealing our stuff? Zero.

TSA agents stealing our stuff? One.

RadioGirl

If the primary focus is to prevent bad things on planes, and the primary focus is also "passengers and their items" then you are focusing on bags ONLY in the context of whether they have "bad things" or not. Fine. Good for you. Have a cookie.

But the passenger - who knows that there is not a bomb or gun or dangerous 3.6 oz water bottle in their bag - is focused on the security of their possessions: cash, credit cards, keys, electronics, medicine, etc. Losing such things, by accident or theft, is problematic - from inconvenient to life-threatening - to the passenger. If they open their wallet at the airside Starbucks and their credit card is missing, the passenger now has to deal with cancelling the card and finding some other way to pay for their expenses while traveling. (Had my entire wallet stolen once while traveling; not good times.) If they get to their destination and their essential liquid medication has been spilled all over the bag, their life could be in danger. But hey, your job was done - no bad things on the plane - and the passenger's inconvenience, illness or death is not your problem. Have another cookie.

When I go through a checkpoint, your requirement with keeping the (nonexistent) dangerous things in my bag off a plane does not outweigh my interest in keeping you from dropping, damaging, contaminating, stealing or - through inattention - allowing someone else to damage or steal my things.
I have never had another passenger insist that I put my purse, laptop or backpack on a conveyor belt and into a machine where they are out of my sight and control. Never.

I have never had another passenger insist on handling my purse, laptop or backpack. Never.

I have never had another passenger insist on putting my purse, laptop and backpack over there and then stand over here where I can't see them. Never.

I have never had another passenger pick up my purse from the exit of the x-ray machine, unzip it, and then carry it away out of my sight to run it through again because they weren't paying attention to the x-ray the first time. Never.

I have never had another passenger insist - with threat of DYW2FT - on opening my purse or backpack and rubbing a swab inside it. Never.

The odds say airport security - which does all of the above - poses a far greater threat to steal, damage or contaminate my belongings.
Cameras are not the answer to everything.

Cameras - if they're actually in use (and many times they're just for show), if they're functioning (and many times they're "broken"), if they're covering the right area and angle to see the event (and many times they're not) - will at best give you a photograph of what happened. Here's how that works:

30 minutes after going through security I want to call home and my phone is gone; I had it before security because my boss called. I go back to the checkpoint and ask for help. It takes 5 minutes for a supervisor to arrive and another 15 minutes while she talks to the checkpoint staff and looks around in the lost-and-found. Then she decides to check the CCTV footage. It takes 5 minutes to walk to the security office, 5 minutes to find the right person and get the files, and 30 minutes to scroll through the video looking for the right location and time. The camera shows that a medium build man with brown hair in a dark shirt took something out of my purse while I was getting groped as punishment for having a metal hip.

Of course, that was 90 minutes ago now. In that 90 minutes, flights have been leaving to destinations all over the globe. Probably some of those flights have male passengers of medium build, dark hair and (if he's still wearing it) a dark shirt. We could spend a few more hours here (heck, I've missed the only flight today to my destination, so I've got nothing else to do until tomorrow ) looking at CCTV footage from the rest of the airport to figure out where the thief went. 3 hours later it's been determined that he boarded a flight to LAX. If the flight is still in the air, we can just arrange for LAX police to detain every medium build brown-haired man on the plane and do a strip search looking for my phone. Right. Unless of course he handed it off to a tall blonde woman who may by now be on a different flight. Of course if the plane has landed we're going to need the CCTV footage for LAX and ...

Call me idealistic, but somehow preventing the theft in the first place - by allowing passengers to retain control of their possessions - seems a lot easier than relying on CCTV after the fact.

gsoltso

You have the same recourse in all experiences - if you feel something outside of the law has taken place, you have the right to contact Law Enforcement and file complaints. Your experience may vary based upon location and what you are attempting to file a complaint about - but the recourse available to you is exactly the same in all situations.

Personal attacks serve no purpose in a discussion like this.

I can not argue with that. However, I have traveled nationwide, and have some experience base to draw from, so I am not completely illiterate on the subject.

I can not argue that there is always room for more intelligence in all things we do. I would also say that we have come light years in the last decade as far as over all engagement of the passenger. There are some TSOs that simply do not fit the mold that should be a "prototype" TSO. We have worked with tons of groups to address special needs for individuals traveling - and while that process is not even close to perfect, it is much better than it used to be and shows signs of continuing to improve. I would have to agree with you, it is always time for meaningful improvements in all that we do.

gsoltso

What kind of a cookie? And do I have milk to go with it? If it is Oreo Doublestuff, I will love you forever!

There is a great deal of over simplification of how things are addressed - just because the primary focus is one thing, it does not mean that I ignore all other aspects (I actually pointed out the opposite). I was simply pointing out that one comment indicated that it would best serve passengers if I would simply stop doing my assigned duties and focus solely on whether co-workers were stealing from their bags - I rather disagree.

I was not downplaying the challenges that exist for someone that has something stolen or lost while traveling, as a matter of fact, I purposely avoided that aspect of the conversation in order to address specific comments and present a second opinion.

Much of what you list here should never happen, and every single TSO out there should be professional and courteous in all dealing with the public - they should also make certain that they communicate effectively with passengers, keep them where they can see their items, make certain that the passenger is there with them when they do the bag checks if required, and under no circumstances should a TSO ever utter the dreaded DY...T - it is counter-productive, inflammatory, and unprofessional. Of course, we both know that this does not happen 100% of the time, so again, YMMV.

I have never stated that CCTV is the end all/be all of security, but it is an effective tool that can help resolve many situations at a much earlier stage and much quicker for the passenger. Agreed with your scenario at a large airport (and even at smaller ones), agreed that the monitoring and angle and many myriad other factors can have an impact on the effectiveness of CCTV. However, given the option, I would install more cameras in all areas where passengers, their items (checked or carry-on) and TSA employees would intersect - I would also install more of them in the baggage areas where folks interact with them out of sight of the public. It is not a magic bullet, but it is another bullet to be used.

I like the idea of the passengers retaining control of their items, but there has to be some form of middle ground for clearing for threat items (that is not idealistic, it is simply wanting to remove a step that creates more opportunity for something untoward to happen). I love some of the technological advances being made in the areas of detection - the days of a hallway where a passenger can simply walk down pulling their baggage behind them and have all screening done completely unobtrusively are still many years away. We (most likely) have conflicting points of view on the viable threat angle - that is not likely to change any time soon, so we will probably disagree on many points about screening in general. That being said, I truly wish there were more engagement with the passengers, more communication and more personalized service integrated into the process - but I wouldn't look for a wholesale shift in that direction at this point ()

I still say statistically, you are more likely to have something of ill intent happen to you by another passenger than by a TSO - let me preface this by saying I am not a statistician, but it appears that the numbers fall better for the TSOs than the passengers... If only there were some numbers guru that could do that math for us?

FredAnderssen

I don't mind you taking away my things for scanning as long as you don't bark at me through the entire screening process.

As the saying goes: I like to get kissed before I get f****d.

WillCAD

Your hypothetical scenario illustrates the folly of CCTV when dealing with theft by other travelers.

Ironically, however, it doesn't deal with the topic at hand, theft by TSOs. In a theft by TSO scenario, the TSO does not board a plane, but stays in the airport, usually fairly close to their work area, for as long as eight hours at a time, so unless they are on break or a shift change occurs in the thirty minutes it takes to review the CCTV footage, you'd have a pretty strong chance that the offender is still in the immediate vicinity, and still in possession of your stolen items.

Herein lies the disconnect between your position and ours, <deleted>.

You're basing your assertion that "statistically" we face a greater threat from fellow travelers than from TSOs solely on the overall numbers. There are more travelers than TSOs, and each of us encounters (i.e. stands in line with, passes, or sits next to) more travelers than TSOs, so in your mind, that makes travelers a greater threat.

But you fail to acknowledge the difference in the types of interactions we have with TSOs vs fellow travelers.

When interacting with fellow travelers, we have myriad protections in place to prevent theft or abuse. Few, if any, of these protections are in place when dealing with TSOs. TSOs have access to our valuables - often unmonitored, unsupervised access - while fellow travelers do not. TSOs have the power to retaliate against those who buck their authority - fellow travelers have extremely limited options for retaliation. TSOs have unfettered access to non-public areas of the airport, where they can easily cache their stolen goods - travelers do not. And most significantly, TSOs can pass through security without being searched, scanned, or screened in any way - travelers cannot.

Because of their access, authority, and type of interaction with travelers, TSOs pose the most significant theft threat of anyone the traveler encounters on the journey. Second to TSOs are baggage handlers (second because they're not required to open and rifle through luggage), and third would be airport vendors (who have unscreened access to the terminal but no close association with travelers or their belongings). Fellow travelers come dead last in any comprehensive theft threat assessment, not first.

gsoltso

The only time I bark is when it is a safety issue - such as "WATCH OUT FOR THE FALLING GIRDERS!!!!!!!"

Otherwise, I am friendly, even in the face of withering criticism or commentary. It is the least required of me as a professional, and regardless of the opinions or commentary of others here, I will always be that way... now if I could simply bottle that and pass it on to all of my co-workers, things would be a bit more polite at the least.

gsoltso

I am not failing to take that into account, I simply think the statistics will still fall out on the TSO side in the long run. Even with unfettered access, the numbers game will (IMHO which is worth about nothing I am told) still calculate more favorably for the TSOs in the end.

Of course, I could be completely wrong, it would not be the first or the last time that happened.

chollie

If you have co-workers whose attitude needs improvement, then I would suggest that there are LTSOs, STSOs and other managers at your airport who are AWOL or incompetent. Behind every employee who is not performing up to par, there is a chain of silent co-workers, LTSOs, STSOs, managers, suits who are equally responsible for supporting and enabling the poor or dishonest behavior.

I am unfailingly polite and respectful to the point of obsequiousness to every TSO I encounter. I'd like to address one small example, mentioned by another poster. You have said in the past that you, personally, don't believe TSOs should be spouting the 'DY...T' line (although you have never said if your own management or fellow employees would call out a TSO at your checkpoint if they were overheard threatening a pax using these words).

Is there a point or is it part of the training? Is it another example of a TSO setting the tone, letting the pax know who's got the authority, that some TSOs initiate a grope session with the magic words "Spread your legs wider"? Particularly when the pax's feet are already completely within the yellow outlines? Or do some TSOs just get their jollies off on telling people that - 'spread your legs wider for me'? Do they get a bigger charge out of saying it that way than if they 1) looked to see if the pax's feet are already on the outlines and 2) if not, asked the pax to place their feet within the outlines?

Seems trivial to you? Ask your great-grandma how she feels if a stranger at the airport loudly orders her to 'spread her legs'.

(Note: if I were more limber and a smart arse with $11K to spare and I didn't care if I made my flight, I might be tempted to keep my feet close together and do a sloppy half-plie (squat, feet together). Technically, spreading my legs and allowing the TSO ready access to my resistance without spreading my feet wider than my hips).

chollie

Disagree. It is not just numbers, it is an apples-to-oranges comparison, as WillCAD has pointed out.

TSA has unfettered unmonitored access to my bags at any time at the checkpoint, no questions asked, no need to hurry. TSA has xrays to know which bags to choose for rifling and where in the bags the desired objects are.

A pax has to seize an opportunity, has to be quick, has to try not to be noticed, and IMHO is far less likely to be randomly groping in a pax's bag, hoping for something worth stealing.

Loren Pechtel

She lost her phone because your system didn't allow her to do what you require of people--to keep an eye on their belongings. Your procedures stole her phone.

T-the-B

GSOLTSO - I would never advocate for any screener to focus on potential theft by co-workers to the exclusion of assigned duties. However; I do hope you you, and all screeners, recognize that it is far more likely that a fellow employee is stealing from a passenger than a passenger is likely to do harm with a "threat item". I know that you think otherwise and we can each bandy statistics about number of passengers, number of screeners, number of encounters, etc. till the cows come home.

Rather than debate theoretical odds let's ask, "How many news accounts have we seen of passengers attempting to harm someone with a contraband object?" Next, let's ask, "How many news accounts have we see where a TSO employee stole something from a passenger?" I think any objective observer would say the latter is much more common than the former. The inescapable conclusion is that passengers are at a much higher risk of theft by TSA than they are of harm by other passengers with evil intent. That may well be an uncomfortable reality for conscientious TSA employees but it is a reality none-the-less. Refusing to accept it does not make it go away. Refusing to be a vigilant observer of one's fellow TSA employees makes one effectively complicit in the bad behavior of thieves wearing blue shirts.

RadioGirl

Since 2008 I have only travelled through non-US airports - Australia/NZ, Asia, Europe - airports where security is (based on my observations pre-2008) a lot more polite, where lines are short or non-existent, where security people do not, for the most part, scream or bark or shout, and where, in most cases, I do not feel rushed or pushed or threatened.

Nevertheless, in nearly every case it is clear that the checkpoint staff are focused ONLY on checking bags and bodies, and spare not a single thought on whether items could be stolen or damaged during the process.

Every time I set off the WTMD and am sent to "stand over here" I have to remind them that I am going to keep an eye on my things. Every time they say "Joe over there will keep an eye on them" I have to point out that Joe doesn't know which computer is mine if someone else picks it up and walks off. (Recently in an Australian airport, they moved my purse, backpack and tablet out of the way but left my main work laptop on the rollers where anyone could have grabbed it.) Every time they say "we have cameras" I have to point out that I'd rather catch a plane than spend the day looking at security footage.

They focus on finding something "bad" in my bag. I don't need to focus on that because I know there's nothing bad in my bag. I need to focus on keeping my things safe. I'm not saying you should stop doing your job just to watch your colleagues, but you need to be aware as you're doing your job that our focus - as passengers - is to keep you from stealing or breaking our stuff.
And I'm just saying that it doesn't matter to security staff whether someone's possessions are stolen or broken, as long as they've done their job of keeping large water bottles and small pointy things off the plane. You will, in fact, probably never know whether someone's stuff was stolen or broken.
What I listed was:
(1) ... insist that I put my purse, laptop or backpack on a conveyor belt and into a machine where they are out of my sight and control.
- That happens at every airport checkpoint in the world. They are out of my sight either before I go through the WTMD (they're already out of the x-ray on the other side) or after (they haven't come out yet.) And without exception there is a glass wall on my side at the exit where I can't touch my things but security staff can (and often do).

(2) ... insist on handling my purse, laptop or backpack.
- Again, most airports the staff rearrange my bags as they go into the x-ray. They put things into bins or take them out of bins.

(3) ...insist on putting my purse, laptop and backpack over there and then stand over here where I can't see them.
- This happens every time I alarm the WTMD. However, in most non-US airports, when I insist that I'm moving to where I can see them they don't argue with me. DXB insists on doing the patdown in a changing room; sometimes the screener carries my things into the room, sometimes I'm allowed to bring them myself, sometimes another screener watches them for me. Every time they insist that "this is the rule."

(4) ...pick up my purse from the exit of the x-ray machine, unzip it, and then carry it away out of my sight to run it through again because they weren't paying attention to the x-ray the first time.
- Sorry, this is one of yours. LAX T4, 2005. TSA dude grabs my purse as it comes out, mumbles "gotta check", unzips it and starts pawing through it as he walks away on the other side of the x-ray machine. I'm on the airside of the WTMD and the checkpoint is mobbed so I can't go back or even see where he's going.

(5) ... insist - with threat of DYW2FT - on opening my purse or backpack and rubbing a swab inside it.
- Last month, Australian airport, got a DYW2FT when I rolled my eyes at being "randomly" selected for the ETD.

You say these "shouldn't" happen. Not only do these "happen" they happen often.
That's a lot of "should"s. Even outside the US, it's a LOT less than 100%.
Not nearly as quick as a setup which eliminates the opportunity for theft in the first place.

Here's a challenge - your next shift, take your own wallet, a few loose credit cards, your car and house keys, and your phone, and put them in a bin at the end of the x-ray run. Better yet, split them between 3 or 4 bins and put each one at different checkpoint aisle. Heck, it looks like GSO has two different checkpoints, so let's say you take 2 of the bins to the checkpoint you're not working at. Leave them there for the whole working day, regardless of whether you are at the checkpoint or not. Are you happy to leave YOUR valuables sitting unattended at the exit of a checkpoint as long as there are security cameras covering the area?

How about leaving your wallet, credit cards, key, phone on a table in the TSA breakroom all day? Do you trust your fellow screeners enough that they won't take anything? Even if you would do this at GSO, would you do it LAX or ORD or JFK?
Actually in my hypothetical, it was 90 minutes by the time the passenger knew the item was gone, the checkpoint was searched and the video was examined. (It could be much longer, depending on when the passenger notices the loss.)

Fellow travelers have to wait until my bag/bin is more accessible; screeners could pocket something as they push the bin into the x-ray or just as it comes out (or, as happened at LAX, while taking it out of the x-ray and walking off with it).

A screener may work an 8-hour shift but they don't go 8 hours - or probably even 90 minutes - without leaving the checkpoint (bathroom break, meals, etc). If a screener pocketed my phone, they could easily go to the bathroom or a breakroom or somewhere else without camera coverage and put it in their own bag or hand it off. I don't think there's any guarantee they would still have the item on their person after 90 minutes.

And that's assuming that (a) the camera showed the theft, (b) the screener was identifiable and (c) the supervisor is willing to accuse the screener there and then while they may still have the item.

^^^

gsoltso

I have indicated on here in the past that I go out of my way to correct fellow employees that I see doing something incorrect. I still do this every single day at work. It is very rare that I hear someone here out of line, and 99% of the time, one of the other employees has taken care of it before I can even get there to say something. We are not perfect, but I read stories here and can not imagine anyone I work with here doing something of that nature. When I was speaking of bottling the way I do things, it was meant more for national consumption, as opposed to local - as we pretty much have things locked down here.

If someone here utters the DY...T phrase within my sphere of influence, I would correct it immediately, as would the STSOs and LTSOs I work with - even down to many of the TSOs. I have never seen it in training except as a way to not deal with passengers properly.

As for the "spread your legs wider" there are also alternative phrases that can be used to convey the same request - "Could you please widen your stance a little bit more", etc. Sometimes a persons physiology can make a wider stance a necessity. The interaction should still always be professional and courteous, regardless - in the context of working as a TSO, I would never say "spread your legs wider".

It is possible that you guys are correct (as I indicated before), there may be a modifier that changes the rate enough to counter the larger numbers. I just don't think so - which is why I would be interested in what kind of science-y calculations would have to be compiled and taken into account to make it verifiable, or if there are simply too many variables to state either way with great certainty.

The way the original comment was structured, it kind of indicated that it should be my focus. Everyone watches everyone at this job - we watch our team members, co-workers, airline/airport employees, passengers, even kids groups coming around on tour. The primary focus is to prevent bad things from getting on the planes, which means the primary focus is screening the passengers and their belongings - by definition, that means all other aspects are secondary at best. I never said I did not watch co-workers, I simply made the point it is not my primary focus, and probably never will be. There is a far cry of difference in "being a vigilant observer" and focusing solely on one segment of the equation (such as co-workers).

Again, we could debate all day on the correctness of both points of view, but without the statistical breakdown to support it, neither of us can state proof in a conclusive fashion.

petaluma1

<deleted> needs to find a way out of his dream world of should and into the real world of what actually goes on at far too many checkpoints and with far too many screeners.