Gate searches -- still?!? AAARRRHHHGGG!! (merged)
Feb 2, 2014, 9:09 am
#1501
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: FSD
Programs: AA CK, DL SM, UA PS, HH Diamond, Bonvoy Titanium , Hyatt Globalist, Global Entry, CLEAR
Posts: 457
They did ID check the passengers who required assistance and all the FC passengers.
I was the 2nd in line (FC) and I did the wait until they had 2 folks getting their bags ripped apart and then walked right past ten, so that trick does work.
Feb 2, 2014, 3:39 pm
#1502
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,079
I agree that one shouldn't go out their way to be rude to a low level TSA screener who is merely doing what someone higher up tells them to do but expecting anything out of Congress that addresses this is just not reality. We have such a dysfunctional polarized bunch of idiots in Washington and with over half with a personal net worth over 1 million $ and gerrymandered districts that set up virtual kingdoms that make it nearly impossible to just vote anyone but the most corrupt out of office.
And I dare say Congressman Issa who chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is more interested in other things that have little to do with actual reform other than increasing his party's power and decreasing the opposition. Just saying...
And I dare say Congressman Issa who chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is more interested in other things that have little to do with actual reform other than increasing his party's power and decreasing the opposition. Just saying...
Feb 2, 2014, 3:42 pm
#1503
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,638
While I share your opinion of Issa and of Congress in general, I have found that writing directly to my Congressman (at least before moving to SLC) did often get some action on specific matters. I still believe that our country has a functioning democracy and free speech. While it is currently quite dysfunctional, I am not willing to give up and move. The grass is usually not greener elsewhere. To quote Winston Churchill: It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.
'Free' has never been quite accurate; all speech potentially has consequences.
I would suggest that the consequences for speaking freely are increasingly oppressive - whether in the press, to anyone in authority or uniform. Retaliation and abuse of power as responses to free speech are increasingly becoming the order of the day. It should not be this way; we are not better off as a nation for this trend. It's dangerous to become complacent and take the attitude "we might not be perfect, but we're still the best show around".
Feb 2, 2014, 6:15 pm
#1504
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,079
I have to slightly disagree with you about free speech.
'Free' has never been quite accurate; all speech potentially has consequences.
I would suggest that the consequences for speaking freely are increasingly oppressive - whether in the press, to anyone in authority or uniform. Retaliation and abuse of power as responses to free speech are increasingly becoming the order of the day. It should not be this way; we are not better off as a nation for this trend. It's dangerous to become complacent and take the attitude "we might not be perfect, but we're still the best show around".
'Free' has never been quite accurate; all speech potentially has consequences.
I would suggest that the consequences for speaking freely are increasingly oppressive - whether in the press, to anyone in authority or uniform. Retaliation and abuse of power as responses to free speech are increasingly becoming the order of the day. It should not be this way; we are not better off as a nation for this trend. It's dangerous to become complacent and take the attitude "we might not be perfect, but we're still the best show around".
I also suspect some of those vehemently complaining about the "gubmint" today are those who demanded crackdowns on "ayrabs" and terrorists 12 years ago regardless of the consequences to our civil liberties.
Feb 2, 2014, 9:03 pm
#1505
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2012
Programs: A3, AA. Plasticy things! That give me, y'know, Stuff!
Posts: 6,293
As you no doubt know from your studies at that fine and demanding school, that method works in all countries, including other English speaking ones. And Yorkshire.
Feb 3, 2014, 12:13 am
#1506
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SYD (perenially), GVA (not in a long time)
Programs: QF PS, EK-Gold, Security Theatre Critic
Posts: 6,766
As you no doubt know from your studies at that fine and demanding school, that method works in all countries, including other English speaking ones. And Yorkshire.
Not that all inexperienced American tourists do this. Just the idiot ones.
Reminds me of a conversation I overheard at a SYD int'l duty-free:
Idiot Inexperienced American Tourist: "DO... YOU... TAKE... DOLLARS. ?"
Duty-free shop clerk (sweetly): "Why yes, sir, of course."
IIAT: "OKAY!" *hands over wad of US currency
DFSC (sweetly): "Oh, sorry, sir, no. We take AUSTRALIAN dollars."
I think the IIAT tried to argue that DOLLARS! are AMERICAN! not like that foreign monopoly money, but I had to leave.
Feb 3, 2014, 2:36 am
#1507
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: DFW
Programs: AS, BA, AA
Posts: 3,670
Depends on what you mean by "have to".
1) Sure, you don't "have to" show your ID to them or let them search you. They also don't "have to" give you permission to board the plane. At that point, you're trespassing, and now real LEOs can intervene to remove you.
2) TSA claims that they have authority to conduct their screening operations anywhere within the sterile area, not just the checkpoint. To the best of my knowledge, no-one has challenged that authority in court.
1) Sure, you don't "have to" show your ID to them or let them search you. They also don't "have to" give you permission to board the plane. At that point, you're trespassing, and now real LEOs can intervene to remove you.
2) TSA claims that they have authority to conduct their screening operations anywhere within the sterile area, not just the checkpoint. To the best of my knowledge, no-one has challenged that authority in court.
If you decline their request in the air bridge, they will tell you that you are not allowed to continue and board the plane. If they have positioned someone father down the walk way, they will move into your path. This I have seen.
I suspect they would not physically try to restrain you if you continued, but instead rely on local LEOs and probably the cooperation of the crew to have you removed from the plane.
Whether by their say so, or the pilot who doesn't want you on his/her flight, someone's "jurisdiction" is going to make you miss that flight.
I suspect they would not physically try to restrain you if you continued, but instead rely on local LEOs and probably the cooperation of the crew to have you removed from the plane.
Whether by their say so, or the pilot who doesn't want you on his/her flight, someone's "jurisdiction" is going to make you miss that flight.
I might actually be interested in doing this as a test case. The legal citation ("or board an aircraft") is an interesting twist... but if I recall, the only decision on the topic was the 9th Circuit in Aukai, and they were pretty focused on the 'implied consent' of approaching the checkpoint and seeking admission to the sterile area. They were also strictly speaking of administrative searches.
This document http://www.afge.org/?documentID=1867 (pdf warning) seems to suggest that TSA doesn't define a gate search as an administrative search, but rather a 'special needs search'.
Last edited by janetdoe; Feb 3, 2014 at 2:41 am
Feb 3, 2014, 5:36 am
#1508
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Programs: WN Nothing and spending the half million points from too many flights, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,043
Furthermore, if we apply the term "ignorant" in the place of "idiot" we suggest that the idiotness is one of non-knowing, not one of simply being "cognitively challenged," a more polite term for idiot that avoids the common usage "mentally challenged" used for those who are not at all idiots.
Your expansion of the class to "Idiot Inexperienced American Tourist," IIAT, further implies that the sub-class is also one of geographical origin that includes only those that are touring. This is not been proved. I suspect that the IIAT class behavioral definitive extends beyond geographical boundaries and that it includes those traveling on business as well. However, I must concede that the empirical evidence suggests that your IIAT designation does disproportionately include the suggested geographical and purpose-of-travel limitations.
So we still have no agreeable descriptive that fully encompasses the totality of the class that does not use demeaning terminology. My commentary suggests a relatively innocuous "cognitive challenged travel naive" and while it does include a comfortable introductory alliteration and nice meter, it excludes the probable additional descriptive of the subclass "tourist, American," likely a necessary inclusion for accuracy. (Apologies are extended to those geographically residing in "The Americas" for the use of the substitute term "American" when one really means a resident or citizen of The United States of America.)
Let's agree that "cognitive challenged, travel naive, American tourist" is a clumsy construct that does not easily roll off the tongue even with the appropriate comma insertions. The acronym, CCTNAT, is almost as difficult to say as the original phrase.
While I continue to implore my fellow travelers to replace the pejorative "Kettles" with "Travel Naive," I must agree that it does not work in this international context and is confined to use for domestic travel within the United States. In the situation of the discussion of this thread, "inexperienced idiot American tourists" works well, perfectly defines the class under discussion and occurs in localities in which the total inanity of "politically correct" use of language has not destroyed the language as it has in the United States.
So, carry on. IIAT works fine for me, at least internationally.
Feb 3, 2014, 5:56 am
#1509
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: SJC
Programs: AA, AS, Marriott
Posts: 6,056
Reminds me of a conversation I overheard at a SYD int'l duty-free:
Idiot Inexperienced American Tourist: "DO... YOU... TAKE... DOLLARS. ?"
Duty-free shop clerk (sweetly): "Why yes, sir, of course."
IIAT: "OKAY!" *hands over wad of US currency
DFSC (sweetly): "Oh, sorry, sir, no. We take AUSTRALIAN dollars."
I think the IIAT tried to argue that DOLLARS! are AMERICAN! not like that foreign monopoly money, but I had to leave.
Idiot Inexperienced American Tourist: "DO... YOU... TAKE... DOLLARS. ?"
Duty-free shop clerk (sweetly): "Why yes, sir, of course."
IIAT: "OKAY!" *hands over wad of US currency
DFSC (sweetly): "Oh, sorry, sir, no. We take AUSTRALIAN dollars."
I think the IIAT tried to argue that DOLLARS! are AMERICAN! not like that foreign monopoly money, but I had to leave.
Feb 3, 2014, 1:01 pm
#1510
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2012
Programs: A3, AA. Plasticy things! That give me, y'know, Stuff!
Posts: 6,293
While I generally prefer the non-demeaning term "travel naive," there is indeed a sub-classification to this to which you refer. "Unknowing travel naive" is almost redundant and does not communicate the full complexity and depth of the indicated sub-class. If we were to say "idiot travel naive" there is the implication that they are naive because they are idiots. This is not true. They can be both "idiots and "naive" for different reasons. They can be either one but not the other.
Furthermore, if we apply the term "ignorant" in the place of "idiot" we suggest that the idiotness is one of non-knowing, not one of simply being "cognitively challenged," a more polite term for idiot that avoids the common usage "mentally challenged" used for those who are not at all idiots.
Your expansion of the class to "Idiot Inexperienced American Tourist," IIAT, further implies that the sub-class is also one of geographical origin that includes only those that are touring. This is not been proved. I suspect that the IIAT class behavioral definitive extends beyond geographical boundaries and that it includes those traveling on business as well. However, I must concede that the empirical evidence suggests that your IIAT designation does disproportionately include the suggested geographical and purpose-of-travel limitations.
So we still have no agreeable descriptive that fully encompasses the totality of the class that does not use demeaning terminology. My commentary suggests a relatively innocuous "cognitive challenged travel naive" and while it does include a comfortable introductory alliteration and nice meter, it excludes the probable additional descriptive of the subclass "tourist, American," likely a necessary inclusion for accuracy. (Apologies are extended to those geographically residing in "The Americas" for the use of the substitute term "American" when one really means a resident or citizen of The United States of America.)
Let's agree that "cognitive challenged, travel naive, American tourist" is a clumsy construct that does not easily roll off the tongue even with the appropriate comma insertions. The acronym, CCTNAT, is almost as difficult to say as the original phrase.
While I continue to implore my fellow travelers to replace the pejorative "Kettles" with "Travel Naive," I must agree that it does not work in this international context and is confined to use for domestic travel within the United States. In the situation of the discussion of this thread, "inexperienced idiot American tourists" works well, perfectly defines the class under discussion and occurs in localities in which the total inanity of "politically correct" use of language has not destroyed the language as it has in the United States.
So, carry on. IIAT works fine for me, at least internationally.
Furthermore, if we apply the term "ignorant" in the place of "idiot" we suggest that the idiotness is one of non-knowing, not one of simply being "cognitively challenged," a more polite term for idiot that avoids the common usage "mentally challenged" used for those who are not at all idiots.
Your expansion of the class to "Idiot Inexperienced American Tourist," IIAT, further implies that the sub-class is also one of geographical origin that includes only those that are touring. This is not been proved. I suspect that the IIAT class behavioral definitive extends beyond geographical boundaries and that it includes those traveling on business as well. However, I must concede that the empirical evidence suggests that your IIAT designation does disproportionately include the suggested geographical and purpose-of-travel limitations.
So we still have no agreeable descriptive that fully encompasses the totality of the class that does not use demeaning terminology. My commentary suggests a relatively innocuous "cognitive challenged travel naive" and while it does include a comfortable introductory alliteration and nice meter, it excludes the probable additional descriptive of the subclass "tourist, American," likely a necessary inclusion for accuracy. (Apologies are extended to those geographically residing in "The Americas" for the use of the substitute term "American" when one really means a resident or citizen of The United States of America.)
Let's agree that "cognitive challenged, travel naive, American tourist" is a clumsy construct that does not easily roll off the tongue even with the appropriate comma insertions. The acronym, CCTNAT, is almost as difficult to say as the original phrase.
While I continue to implore my fellow travelers to replace the pejorative "Kettles" with "Travel Naive," I must agree that it does not work in this international context and is confined to use for domestic travel within the United States. In the situation of the discussion of this thread, "inexperienced idiot American tourists" works well, perfectly defines the class under discussion and occurs in localities in which the total inanity of "politically correct" use of language has not destroyed the language as it has in the United States.
So, carry on. IIAT works fine for me, at least internationally.
Feb 3, 2014, 1:03 pm
#1511
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2012
Programs: A3, AA. Plasticy things! That give me, y'know, Stuff!
Posts: 6,293
Not that all inexperienced American tourists do this. Just the idiot ones.
Reminds me of a conversation I overheard at a SYD int'l duty-free:
Idiot Inexperienced American Tourist: "DO... YOU... TAKE... DOLLARS. ?"
Duty-free shop clerk (sweetly): "Why yes, sir, of course."
IIAT: "OKAY!" *hands over wad of US currency
DFSC (sweetly): "Oh, sorry, sir, no. We take AUSTRALIAN dollars."
I think the IIAT tried to argue that DOLLARS! are AMERICAN! not like that foreign monopoly money, but I had to leave.
Reminds me of a conversation I overheard at a SYD int'l duty-free:
Idiot Inexperienced American Tourist: "DO... YOU... TAKE... DOLLARS. ?"
Duty-free shop clerk (sweetly): "Why yes, sir, of course."
IIAT: "OKAY!" *hands over wad of US currency
DFSC (sweetly): "Oh, sorry, sir, no. We take AUSTRALIAN dollars."
I think the IIAT tried to argue that DOLLARS! are AMERICAN! not like that foreign monopoly money, but I had to leave.
Feb 3, 2014, 1:13 pm
#1512
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Finally back in Boston after escaping from New York
Posts: 13,644
Mike
Feb 3, 2014, 1:15 pm
#1513
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,331
While I generally prefer the non-demeaning term "travel naive," there is indeed a sub-classification to this to which you refer. "Unknowing travel naive" is almost redundant and does not communicate the full complexity and depth of the indicated sub-class. If we were to say "idiot travel naive" there is the implication that they are naive because they are idiots. This is not true. They can be both "idiots and "naive" for different reasons. They can be either one but not the other.
Furthermore, if we apply the term "ignorant" in the place of "idiot" we suggest that the idiotness is one of non-knowing, not one of simply being "cognitively challenged," a more polite term for idiot that avoids the common usage "mentally challenged" used for those who are not at all idiots.
Your expansion of the class to "Idiot Inexperienced American Tourist," IIAT, further implies that the sub-class is also one of geographical origin that includes only those that are touring. This is not been proved. I suspect that the IIAT class behavioral definitive extends beyond geographical boundaries and that it includes those traveling on business as well. However, I must concede that the empirical evidence suggests that your IIAT designation does disproportionately include the suggested geographical and purpose-of-travel limitations.
So we still have no agreeable descriptive that fully encompasses the totality of the class that does not use demeaning terminology. My commentary suggests a relatively innocuous "cognitive challenged travel naive" and while it does include a comfortable introductory alliteration and nice meter, it excludes the probable additional descriptive of the subclass "tourist, American," likely a necessary inclusion for accuracy. (Apologies are extended to those geographically residing in "The Americas" for the use of the substitute term "American" when one really means a resident or citizen of The United States of America.)
Let's agree that "cognitive challenged, travel naive, American tourist" is a clumsy construct that does not easily roll off the tongue even with the appropriate comma insertions. The acronym, CCTNAT, is almost as difficult to say as the original phrase.
While I continue to implore my fellow travelers to replace the pejorative "Kettles" with "Travel Naive," I must agree that it does not work in this international context and is confined to use for domestic travel within the United States. In the situation of the discussion of this thread, "inexperienced idiot American tourists" works well, perfectly defines the class under discussion and occurs in localities in which the total inanity of "politically correct" use of language has not destroyed the language as it has in the United States.
So, carry on. IIAT works fine for me, at least internationally.
Furthermore, if we apply the term "ignorant" in the place of "idiot" we suggest that the idiotness is one of non-knowing, not one of simply being "cognitively challenged," a more polite term for idiot that avoids the common usage "mentally challenged" used for those who are not at all idiots.
Your expansion of the class to "Idiot Inexperienced American Tourist," IIAT, further implies that the sub-class is also one of geographical origin that includes only those that are touring. This is not been proved. I suspect that the IIAT class behavioral definitive extends beyond geographical boundaries and that it includes those traveling on business as well. However, I must concede that the empirical evidence suggests that your IIAT designation does disproportionately include the suggested geographical and purpose-of-travel limitations.
So we still have no agreeable descriptive that fully encompasses the totality of the class that does not use demeaning terminology. My commentary suggests a relatively innocuous "cognitive challenged travel naive" and while it does include a comfortable introductory alliteration and nice meter, it excludes the probable additional descriptive of the subclass "tourist, American," likely a necessary inclusion for accuracy. (Apologies are extended to those geographically residing in "The Americas" for the use of the substitute term "American" when one really means a resident or citizen of The United States of America.)
Let's agree that "cognitive challenged, travel naive, American tourist" is a clumsy construct that does not easily roll off the tongue even with the appropriate comma insertions. The acronym, CCTNAT, is almost as difficult to say as the original phrase.
While I continue to implore my fellow travelers to replace the pejorative "Kettles" with "Travel Naive," I must agree that it does not work in this international context and is confined to use for domestic travel within the United States. In the situation of the discussion of this thread, "inexperienced idiot American tourists" works well, perfectly defines the class under discussion and occurs in localities in which the total inanity of "politically correct" use of language has not destroyed the language as it has in the United States.
So, carry on. IIAT works fine for me, at least internationally.
Ugly Smart
Ugly Stupid
Attractive Smart
Attractive Stupid
In the context of travel, I would define the categories as:
Experienced Smart
Experienced Stupid
Inexperienced Smart
Inexperienced Stupid
And looking back on RadioGirl's experience, I'd have to place those who think that DOLLARS! are AMERICAN! in the Inexperienced Stupid category.
See, isn't that much easier?
Feb 7, 2014, 8:26 am
#1514
Join Date: May 2011
Programs: Delta Diamond Medallion 1MM, Hilton Diamond, Marriott Gold, National Car Executive Elite
Posts: 550
I get stopped every. freaking. time.
At LAX Monday night, GA announced "random" TSA checks and asked all pax to have their IDs out and ready. I refused.
Of course, the TSA person, despite seeing my hands completely full, yelled for me to stop and come back and show ID. At the freaking gate.
I told her how useless and worthless the ID checks were. Her response? "But they're not worthless to me."
At LAX Monday night, GA announced "random" TSA checks and asked all pax to have their IDs out and ready. I refused.
Of course, the TSA person, despite seeing my hands completely full, yelled for me to stop and come back and show ID. At the freaking gate.
I told her how useless and worthless the ID checks were. Her response? "But they're not worthless to me."
I expressed my opinion of this stupidity to the TSO. His reply: "It's just an extra security precaution." I replied with my opinion of the stupidity of this process again.
Do these TSA people really think they've just prevented World War III by wanting to be sure I have not been replaced by an alien somewhere between the security checkpoint and the gate? I despise my government.