Another story of abuse of a disabled passenger
#106
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,668
I'm in a similar situation. I get selected for the NoS more often than not. I'm physically incapable of assuming and holding the position. I get really tired of moat dragons either trying to tell how safe the NoS is (um, it doesn't matter how safe it is, I can't raise my arm) or threatening me with an indefinite wait and a 'very thorough' grope and bag search and swab - like if it's inconvenient and threatening enough, my shoulder will magically heal itself on the spot.
If only it were that easy. I would cheerfully go through the NoS ten times a day if it meant it would magically heal my shoulder and enable me to fly without hands probing my genitals and stroking my buttocks and inserting themselves into my clothing.
If only it were that easy. I would cheerfully go through the NoS ten times a day if it meant it would magically heal my shoulder and enable me to fly without hands probing my genitals and stroking my buttocks and inserting themselves into my clothing.
#107
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,099
I'm in a similar situation. I get selected for the NoS more often than not. I'm physically incapable of assuming and holding the position. I get really tired of moat dragons either trying to tell how safe the NoS is (um, it doesn't matter how safe it is, I can't raise my arm) or threatening me with an indefinite wait and a 'very thorough' grope and bag search and swab - like if it's inconvenient and threatening enough, my shoulder will magically heal itself on the spot.
If only it were that easy. I would cheerfully go through the NoS ten times a day if it meant it would magically heal my shoulder and enable me to fly without hands probing my genitals and stroking my buttocks and inserting themselves into my clothing.
If only it were that easy. I would cheerfully go through the NoS ten times a day if it meant it would magically heal my shoulder and enable me to fly without hands probing my genitals and stroking my buttocks and inserting themselves into my clothing.
#108
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,668
Nearly half my flying is out of PHX and Pre is rarely available when I'm flying.
My home airport is nearly as bad.
I don't buy lottery tickets or play poker. Spending $85 on the off-chance that I MAY get Pre isn't worth it.
My home airport is nearly as bad.
I don't buy lottery tickets or play poker. Spending $85 on the off-chance that I MAY get Pre isn't worth it.
#109
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 962
The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) requires alleging a state tort claim according to the laws of the state in which the injury occurred. 42 USC 1983 and Bivens require alleging either a state tort (in certain respects) or a constitutional tort.
And there are airport police involved in at least one instance. Those come under both state and federal law (in different aspects).
State torts, including all common law torts, include things like personal injury, false light, false imprisonment, assault, etc. Constitutional torts include things like violation of due process, unlawful search or seizure, prior restraint on freedom of speech, etc.
So, in short, it's complicated.
The closest I have in my existing FOIA records about trans issues are about having a screener of the same gender as you present, and not having to remove prosthetics. Nothing specifically about trans.
- a new course? How complicated is it to teach people to respect the bodies they are groping?
- how will the new program (cost details?) differ from all the previous consultation TSA claims to have been doing with LGBT individuals and organizations?
#110
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,099
They are federal filings. The liquids lawsuit is filed in N.D. CA.
The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) requires alleging a state tort claim according to the laws of the state in which the injury occurred. 42 USC 1983 and Bivens require alleging either a state tort (in certain respects) or a constitutional tort.
And there are airport police involved in at least one instance. Those come under both state and federal law (in different aspects).
State torts, including all common law torts, include things like personal injury, false light, false imprisonment, assault, etc. Constitutional torts include things like violation of due process, unlawful search or seizure, prior restraint on freedom of speech, etc.
So, in short, it's complicated. .
The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) requires alleging a state tort claim according to the laws of the state in which the injury occurred. 42 USC 1983 and Bivens require alleging either a state tort (in certain respects) or a constitutional tort.
And there are airport police involved in at least one instance. Those come under both state and federal law (in different aspects).
State torts, including all common law torts, include things like personal injury, false light, false imprisonment, assault, etc. Constitutional torts include things like violation of due process, unlawful search or seizure, prior restraint on freedom of speech, etc.
So, in short, it's complicated. .
#112
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
The $85 doesn't bother me - I'd pay that. My issue is I don't want TSA having more personal info on me than they already do, and they don't need what they're asking for.
#113
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 962
Case law. See e.g. McSurely v. Hutchison, 823 F. 2d 1002, 1005 (6th Cir. 1987).
#114
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,668
I had Pre-check the "easy" way working for a federal agency. Unfortunately, moving to a different agency that doesn't have the deal means I lost that perk. It was nice as I didn't have to give TSA any info as it was provided by my employer.
The $85 doesn't bother me - I'd pay that. My issue is I don't want TSA having more personal info on me than they already do, and they don't need what they're asking for.
The $85 doesn't bother me - I'd pay that. My issue is I don't want TSA having more personal info on me than they already do, and they don't need what they're asking for.
+1000
TSA regularly grants one-time Pre to pax based on nothing more than the information collected on every single pax when a ticket is purchased.
If they're already collecting/reviewing available information and consider it a trustworthy way of determining Pre eligibility, then there is absolutely no need for the background check. It's a money-grab and an information over-reach that has nothing to do with aviation security.
It's as stupid as the notion that an $85 background check means the xray operator is now magically capable of clearing LGAs and single laptops without needing to see them unpacked.
Really?
I would really like to see Congress grill Neffy on this one particular point. Neffy's going to say that every single pax is thoroughly screened. If that's the case, why is it possible to 'thoroughly screen' a laptop or LGAs inside a bag if the pax is Pre but it is not possible to screen that same unpacked bag if the pax is not Pre.
Somebody's blowing smoke.
#115
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,099
(bolding mine)
+1000
TSA regularly grants one-time Pre to pax based on nothing more than the information collected on every single pax when a ticket is purchased.
If they're already collecting/reviewing available information and consider it a trustworthy way of determining Pre eligibility, then there is absolutely no need for the background check. It's a money-grab and an information over-reach that has nothing to do with aviation security.
It's as stupid as the notion that an $85 background check means the xray operator is now magically capable of clearing LGAs and single laptops without needing to see them unpacked.
Really?
I would really like to see Congress grill Neffy on this one particular point. Neffy's going to say that every single pax is thoroughly screened. If that's the case, why is it possible to 'thoroughly screen' a laptop or LGAs inside a bag if the pax is Pre but it is not possible to screen that same unpacked bag if the pax is not Pre.
Somebody's blowing smoke.
+1000
TSA regularly grants one-time Pre to pax based on nothing more than the information collected on every single pax when a ticket is purchased.
If they're already collecting/reviewing available information and consider it a trustworthy way of determining Pre eligibility, then there is absolutely no need for the background check. It's a money-grab and an information over-reach that has nothing to do with aviation security.
It's as stupid as the notion that an $85 background check means the xray operator is now magically capable of clearing LGAs and single laptops without needing to see them unpacked.
Really?
I would really like to see Congress grill Neffy on this one particular point. Neffy's going to say that every single pax is thoroughly screened. If that's the case, why is it possible to 'thoroughly screen' a laptop or LGAs inside a bag if the pax is Pre but it is not possible to screen that same unpacked bag if the pax is not Pre.
Somebody's blowing smoke.
Information is already collected and available to vett 99% of all passengers.
#116
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,668
Each passengers history is reviewed by TSA before a ticket is issued, they don't collect that information at that point, it has already been collected, and resides on computers all across government.
Information is already collected and available to vett 99% of all passengers.
Information is already collected and available to vett 99% of all passengers.
My point, of course, is that TSA, by its own actions, admits that they currently have enough information on every pax who books a ticket to clear the vast majority for Pre without a money grab and a pointless 'background check'.
#117
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,099
Thanks for an important clarification. I was careless and over-simplified.
My point, of course, is that TSA, by its own actions, admits that they currently have enough information on every pax who books a ticket to clear the vast majority for Pre without a money grab and a pointless 'background check'.
My point, of course, is that TSA, by its own actions, admits that they currently have enough information on every pax who books a ticket to clear the vast majority for Pre without a money grab and a pointless 'background check'.
I fully agree that TSA has enough information to make the Pre Check call on most passengers without further action. For the unknowns offer them the chance for a background check and so forth.