Brian

Since we seem to have so much doom and gloom news about the TSA, perhaps we should balance it a bit... from TheStreet.com

"I haven't heard a single complaint, and believe me, I would have heard by now," said Christopher Elliott, editor of the consumer travel Web site Elliott.org, where he receives thousands of comments from travelers each year. "The TSA has surpassed all expectations. Just before the new year, you had this parade of pundits saying there would be terrible delays. But the transition was totally seamless, and there were practically no reports of delays anywhere."

While delays have been few and far between, travelers who aren't accustomed to all the new rules and regulations will feel hassled on some level as their bags are more thoroughly searched."

http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/fund.../10063530.html

anrkitec

Nothing more than a link to a site run by an "expert" with questionable credentials peddling an obvious agenda.

As such his opinions are, IMHO, valueless...




[This message has been edited by anrkitec (edited 01-18-2003).]

Brian

Yes, as valueless as aviation planning, and the many other anti-TSA sites that become "news stories" weekly in this forum. TheStreet.com is well known as a biased site. LOL

Balance.


[This message has been edited by Brian (edited 01-18-2003).]

[This message has been edited by Brian (edited 01-18-2003).]

dctorres

When I saw the title, I thought of the geezer from that old tv show "Get a life" and "There's something about Mary". ;-)

Billiken

I too was hoping for comments from Chris Elliott, the comedian.

essxjay

The hubris is staggering ...

Brian

We agree on that, Samantha. We just disagree on whose.

sdl

OK, as I usually do, I check the source of the article, the publications bias, author's bent or focus or expertise (when I can get to it), and who any quotes are from and their bias....

I am not saying that the first author doesn't know what he's talking about, but this reporter's prior focus is on the FINANCIAL aspects of the airlines and other industries, not on security, government, travel itself, etc...

Also, in reviewing various articles on Chris Elliott's website, I have determined that a very high percentage of his info is mined from other sources and his self-selected readers that send him data- and it is NOT all accurate.

Example:
This quote from the Five Worst Airports article (about SJC):
"Also, there are no restrooms past security, so think twice before ordering that double latte."

UMMMMMM, with the exception of a few tiny gate security checkpoints for Alaska and one other in the old terminal (all with rarely more than a few people in line), this blanket statement is completely false!
Yet, it is the capper to an international viewing audience as to why SJC is a bad airport!

The data presented frequently appears to be entirely anecdotal in nature with no verification by the writer (Elliott).

Oh, and there does not appear to be ANY article on Elliott's website on the subject of TheStreet.com's article either.

I suspect that Elliott is someone the first writer knows, or it is a website the first writer frequents, and the quotes just made the first article look more professional and 'meaty' to the editor....

S

sdl

But....
For those that believe Elliott knows what he speaketh of:

"You can leave your hat on at the airport. But as Phil Doherty discovered, you should also expect a Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agent to pull you aside when you do. ...

...A traveler advisory board would steer the new federal agency away from irrational screening behavior such as frisking passengers who wear straw hats. It would encourage the TSA to go after the real threats to safety rather than insult those of us who are harmless...."

and more at: http://www.elliott.org/vault/oped/2002/help.htm

Strangely, this article from Nov 02 doesn't seem to reflect the same attitude as the comments quoted on TheStreet.com....

I leave it to others to posit the dichotomy (sp?)


S

PineyBob

Hey Brian and sll of the apologists for TSA, Let's take a trip out to the thin end of the Libertarian limb shall we? I am interested in your response.

Suppose that in the interest of increased security we eliminate ALL security screening of any kind except using the detection equipment for explosives in checked bags. And in addition we allow any passenger to carry a gun onboard an aircraft. What happens? to our overall safety?

Doesn't the MAD concept of Atomic weapons come into play here. (Mutual Assured Destruction). If terrorist KNEW they were likely to face a fire fight onboard with armed PAX wouldn't they look elsewhere to commit terorist acts? if the average boeing 737 a with a normal load factor holds 125 total PAX then how many onboard "incidents" would we have to have to equal the number that perished at the WTC Pentagon & rural PA?

Not saying I think this should happen but when we lok at the dismal financials It might not be so off the wall

Brian

Bob, your argument disintegrates in about 1 second.

Terrorists want everyone dead. That is their goal. They believe in giving their own lives for it. They would adore firefights on airplanes.

The terrorists know that it is always easier to evade security than enforce it, that not all possible threats can ever be considered, and that one more large scale event will terminate the U.S airline industry as a free market business for 50 years.

We have the level of security we do to eliminate as many threat axes as possible, to avoid imploding the entire U.S. economy.



[This message has been edited by Brian (edited 01-20-2003).]

PineyBob

First off not all terrorists are suicidal. Actually in your rebuttal you touched on one of my key points regarding security. evasion is much easier than enforcement. I am NOT convinced that TSA is nothing more than a big show so the folks sleeep a little better and feel the government is "doing something".

I just think for every dollar we spend on what I'll call "visable security" we ought to spend between ten to twenty dollars on the non visible efforts to infiltrate these groups and detect and monitor their activities. The predator needs to become the prey. I remain unconvinced that the "Improved" security is delivering on it's promises. Plus we have created yet another Federal Bureaucracy that has essentially carte blanche right now. I think if we used good corporate style analysis we would find that the incremental gain in security is far overshadowed by the cost both in Hard Dollars expensed and revenue lost by the very industry we seek to protect. Not to mention the civil liberties aspect of the process.

Another point while I'm here! The talent pool that TSA draw from. We place the national security of our airports in the hands of people with at least a passing interest in law enforcement that could not get a job in any other type of law enforcement. It seems to me like all we did was give the same minimum wage folks a $10.00 hr raise and health benefits with no real increase in their competency. I see alot of the same folks at the checkpoints in PHL that I did before TSA! All that's changed is they have nicer uniforms. I just don't see the "Bang for the buck"

Radiocycle

This thread has been moved to a new board recently setup in TravelBuzz to address security related topics:

Please use the link below to enter the new board:

http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...e=5&LastLogin=

Radiocycle
In The News Moderator

porkyboy

PineyBob said: I think you are being very unfair and don't have any real evidence to support your contention. It is just your opinion and though it may be right in some individual cases, I do not believe it is accurate in the broader sense.

I have two close friends who are TSA and have followed their progress closely. In addition, I've gotten to know several other TSA screeners and can tell you that these people are not scum, bottom feeders or minimum wage morons as some posters here have tried to portray. Most of them are sincere, motivated and well qualified people who are trying to make a contribution to the safety of Aviation. Take one of my friends. He was retired, 30 years with a major airline. Not an old geezer either (unless you call 55 a geezer, just remember, someday that will be you), an intelligent guy who felt the call to return to the industry. Another friend, a professional councelor and owner of his own business. A college graduate and humanitarian, also driven by a desire to contribute. I know of several other people who also came from other airlines to contribute (lord knows the airlines have made plenty of qualified people available in the job market.) There are ex-military, ex police, salespeople and intelligent people from virtually every discipline in the TSA. I've met a lot of them and have yet to see any of them with a "law enforcement" wannabe attitude. The talent pool was better than you think Bob.

The testing these people went through was tough. Literacy tests that dump 65% of the applicants (there go your minimum wage bottom feeders). Attitude and personality tests, physical tests and background checks. From what they told me, it was more like testing for a 100k a year job rather than a 25k job. Then the training, really quite thorough and then on job testing and training.

I really get annoyed when some of the complainers I've seen already on these forums begin to assume their holier than thou stances and judge these people based on salary level or perceived position. Take your elitist attitudes and reconsider.
Sure, you'll find a few bad apples, I'll bet you find those in your own work environment. Does that mean we should throw out the baby with the bathwater? Maybe everyone in your organization should be trashed and vilified?

These people are here to help us. The American public screamed bloody hell after 9-11. The finger was pointed at airport security and people screamed for improvement. Ok, we got what we asked for. How about we help in constructive ways to make it improve. Ok, so you don't like what you got, then change it. You could always wait three years and hope the Airlines dump the TSA and go back to contract help..then you'll be right where you started.

If all you see is an improved uniform, your powers of perception need some honing.



[This message has been edited by porkyboy (edited 01-25-2003).]

essxjay

... As do your powers of analysis, sir.