MSP TSA failing at 95% rate!
Jul 3, 2017, 2:49 pm
#16
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: SFO
Programs: Hilton Diamond, Marriott Gold, IHG Plat
Posts: 756
Then they would have to admit there is noncompliance and ineffectiveness with their policies, which they will never do.
Jul 3, 2017, 2:52 pm
#17
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,107
Jul 3, 2017, 4:10 pm
#18
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Maybe the TSA would do at least marginally better if it stopped obsessing about passenger ID, stopped using the strip search machines, stopped trying to touch so many passengers' sex organs for all sorts of bad reasons, stopped hunting for money, stopped hunting for human trafficking victims, and stopped trying to find drugs. In other words, if stopped its junk and focused on just looking for contraband WEIs in a more common way, then perhaps it wouldn't come across as such a bad failure.
Jul 3, 2017, 5:09 pm
#19
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,668
So much of it is lazy management.
It is statistically quite likely that hours will go by and not a single threat to aviation security will attempt to pass through a security checkpoint.
Unfortunately, you will never convince certain peabrains that if things aren't getting confiscated and people's genitals and breasts aren't getting stroked and chopped, it's OK. It means that - gasp! - every single pax was just an individual who was guilty of nothing more than wanting to fly commercial. It's like a stupid cop quota system - if it's a slow day and no one is breaking the law, you have to go out and attack innocent people to convince your bad management you are earning your check.
Good management doesn't measure success by bins of confiscated items or number of genitals stroked, particularly on underage pax (which seems to really be increasing). Good management works and knows what its people are doing.
It is statistically quite likely that hours will go by and not a single threat to aviation security will attempt to pass through a security checkpoint.
Unfortunately, you will never convince certain peabrains that if things aren't getting confiscated and people's genitals and breasts aren't getting stroked and chopped, it's OK. It means that - gasp! - every single pax was just an individual who was guilty of nothing more than wanting to fly commercial. It's like a stupid cop quota system - if it's a slow day and no one is breaking the law, you have to go out and attack innocent people to convince your bad management you are earning your check.
Good management doesn't measure success by bins of confiscated items or number of genitals stroked, particularly on underage pax (which seems to really be increasing). Good management works and knows what its people are doing.
Jul 3, 2017, 6:11 pm
#20
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
So much of it is lazy management.
It is statistically quite likely that hours will go by and not a single threat to aviation security will attempt to pass through a security checkpoint.
Unfortunately, you will never convince certain peabrains that if things aren't getting confiscated and people's genitals and breasts aren't getting stroked and chopped, it's OK. It means that - gasp! - every single pax was just an individual who was guilty of nothing more than wanting to fly commercial. It's like a stupid cop quota system - if it's a slow day and no one is breaking the law, you have to go out and attack innocent people to convince your bad management you are earning your check.
Good management doesn't measure success by bins of confiscated items or number of genitals stroked, particularly on underage pax (which seems to really be increasing). Good management works and knows what its people are doing.
It is statistically quite likely that hours will go by and not a single threat to aviation security will attempt to pass through a security checkpoint.
Unfortunately, you will never convince certain peabrains that if things aren't getting confiscated and people's genitals and breasts aren't getting stroked and chopped, it's OK. It means that - gasp! - every single pax was just an individual who was guilty of nothing more than wanting to fly commercial. It's like a stupid cop quota system - if it's a slow day and no one is breaking the law, you have to go out and attack innocent people to convince your bad management you are earning your check.
Good management doesn't measure success by bins of confiscated items or number of genitals stroked, particularly on underage pax (which seems to really be increasing). Good management works and knows what its people are doing.
Jul 3, 2017, 6:58 pm
#22
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,875
Actually, we might even be more safe! You would be less likely to have stuff stolen from you bags, smuggling stuff would be harder cause there wouldn't be the easy TSA agent to bribe, there would be less people going psychotic from the treatment they get at the hands of TSA and hurting others ...
Jul 3, 2017, 7:18 pm
#23
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,165
This is the kind of thing that happens when you have un-nameable sources, and no specific verification that you can publish, or a writer that chooses to embellish, or a writer that simply got things wrong. TSA does not go into bags looking for drugs, although we do report them if they are discovered while searching for possible threat items.
I am not saying this story is untrue, but I am still leery over unidentified sources. We have had tons of articles across the board where false stories are pushed out by anonymous/un-named/unidentified/unverified/unverifiable sources. Little things like a posting stating unequivocally that searching for drugs is a part of the testing, does nothing but lessen the credibility of the story, the writer, and the sources - especially when a little bit of research into the area (like checking the TSAs website), would remove the most glaring errors.
I am not saying this story is untrue, but I am still leery over unidentified sources. We have had tons of articles across the board where false stories are pushed out by anonymous/un-named/unidentified/unverified/unverifiable sources. Little things like a posting stating unequivocally that searching for drugs is a part of the testing, does nothing but lessen the credibility of the story, the writer, and the sources - especially when a little bit of research into the area (like checking the TSAs website), would remove the most glaring errors.
We know peer-reviewed science when we see it and are more than willing and able to engage in professional and competent dialogue on any number of subjects. Many of us have decades of experience in intelligence, national security and defense. We are bloody tired of being talked down to and being lectured to. If you have substance, bring it. We can take it. If you have no substance, don't waste your time and ours.
What will you do when they come for you?
Jul 3, 2017, 8:35 pm
#24
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,107
Look, pal... We are bloody tired of your drivel. If you have sources to contradict the media reports about your incompetence, sexual assaults and crimes, produce them. We on FT are educated and professional. We are bloody tired of the excuse that "proper procedures were followed." We, many of whom are in the national security and "threat" arena, disagree with your tactics as having anything to do with civil aviation security.
We know peer-reviewed science when we see it and are more than willing and able to engage in professional and competent dialogue on any number of subjects. Many of us have decades of experience in intelligence, national security and defense. We are bloody tired of being talked down to and being lectured to. If you have substance, bring it. We can take it. If you have no substance, don't waste your time and ours.
What will you do when they come for you?
We know peer-reviewed science when we see it and are more than willing and able to engage in professional and competent dialogue on any number of subjects. Many of us have decades of experience in intelligence, national security and defense. We are bloody tired of being talked down to and being lectured to. If you have substance, bring it. We can take it. If you have no substance, don't waste your time and ours.
What will you do when they come for you?
Just imagine that TSA would be better with a 94% failure rate. Boggles the mind that poor TSA performance reports that make it to the public continue year after year and TSA's solution is to get more invasive with passengers who just want to exercise their freedom of travel rights.
Seems a smart person would study the failure and find a working solution instead of doing the same failed thing time after time.
Jul 3, 2017, 10:19 pm
#25
Join Date: Dec 2007
Programs: DL, WN, US, Avis, AA
Posts: 662
This is the kind of thing that happens when you have un-nameable sources, and no specific verification that you can publish, or a writer that chooses to embellish, or a writer that simply got things wrong. TSA does not go into bags looking for drugs, although we do report them if they are discovered while searching for possible threat items.
I am not saying this story is untrue, but I am still leery over unidentified sources. We have had tons of articles across the board where false stories are pushed out by anonymous/un-named/unidentified/unverified/unverifiable sources. Little things like a posting stating unequivocally that searching for drugs is a part of the testing, does nothing but lessen the credibility of the story, the writer, and the sources - especially when a little bit of research into the area (like checking the TSAs website), would remove the most glaring errors.
I am not saying this story is untrue, but I am still leery over unidentified sources. We have had tons of articles across the board where false stories are pushed out by anonymous/un-named/unidentified/unverified/unverifiable sources. Little things like a posting stating unequivocally that searching for drugs is a part of the testing, does nothing but lessen the credibility of the story, the writer, and the sources - especially when a little bit of research into the area (like checking the TSAs website), would remove the most glaring errors.
Jul 4, 2017, 3:05 am
#26
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
This is the kind of thing that happens when you have un-nameable sources, and no specific verification that you can publish, or a writer that chooses to embellish, or a writer that simply got things wrong. TSA does not go into bags looking for drugs, although we do report them if they are discovered while searching for possible threat items.
Jul 4, 2017, 4:52 am
#27
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: SGN/SIN
Posts: 44
I'd be happy with 20% less safe if they would just disappear and go back to being Wally World greeters or whatever it is they used to do.
Jul 4, 2017, 8:12 am
#28
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Greensboro
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,424
I understand that a security-related agency like TSA will take the 'neither confirm nor deny' stance when it comes to reports of such tests, but the agency could certainly post on their public website unequivocally they DO NOT actively test or search for drugs, and that any reporting of such is false.
Since TSA has, in the past, made posts refuting aspects of media stories, they could certainly do it this time, even without referencing any specific story.
Since TSA has, in the past, made posts refuting aspects of media stories, they could certainly do it this time, even without referencing any specific story.
Jul 4, 2017, 8:24 am
#29
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,107
I am not commenting on the story as far as TSA response, however, the not searching for drugs has been published consistently at the Blog, and other social media sites, it has also been a part of the response for medical marijuana on the "Can I Bring" tool. The agency has not lacked for communicating that particular message.
What TSA says publicly often is not what actually happens.
TSA doesn't even know were the groin is located on a human.
Jul 4, 2017, 9:02 am
#30
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 am not commenting on the story as far as TSA response, however, the not searching for drugs has been published consistently at the Blog, and other social media sites, it has also been a part of the response for medical marijuana on the "Can I Bring" tool. The agency has not lacked for communicating that particular message.
Each screener has the 'final say' on whether or not s/he will search for drugs and call bagchecks on bags that clearly only display suspected weed.
Each FSD and LTSO and STSO are also free to have the 'final say' on whether or not screeners at their airports/checkpoints target drugs.