How many TSO's, LTSO'S, STSO'S, Leo's, BDO's etc. are on this forum?
#61
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: RDU
Programs: OnePass
Posts: 772
Clearly the TSO sees no reason to discuss things like rational adults. OUR WAY OR YOU DON'T FLY!!!! isn't acting like rational adults. Telling us that they will not discuss procedures because it would be "handing the playbook to the terrorists" is just plain stupid.
Do it our way and there will be no problems isn't how you open discussion about anything.
Yet the TSA does this all the time, from the top down to their TSOs.
Unless we meet the hostility of the TSA with hostility of our own (not FT by itself, but collectively), they will continue to walk all over us.
Its been proven that those TSOs who have been civil here (and 99% of the time that civility has been recriprocated) get spoken to by their superiors. That's even more messed up.
I'm skeptical that a civil TSO here is the exception, not the rule. Certain interactions with them here by me have made that even more clear to me.
I'm angry, and I don't have to put up with the TSA any longer. I will, loudly, proclaim to anyone who will listen just what the TSA isn't doing and that the only way to effect change will be to make sure that our elected dimwits get the point, and if that means storming the castle with pitchforks and torches, so be it. If that means that we're less than polite with a TSO, well, they should grow a thicker skin or find new employment.
Its not personal. None of these individuals have done anything to me personally. Hell, I'd probably enjoy a beer with them if they weren't TSOs.
But that's the point. They are the public face of a goverment farce. And I cannot any longer be polite to that government farce, especially when it's clearly wasted MY money.
If that makes me a pariah, then so be it. I can take it.
#63
In Memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Southern California
Programs: DL: 3.8 MM, Marriott: Lifetime Titanium
Posts: 24,575
We're not asking anybody to love and embrace the TSA. Far from it.
We're simply trying to make this forum a more hospitable place for all to discuss travel safety and security issues. And that includes treating your fellow FT'ers with dignity and respect....the same way you'd like to be treated.
This has nothing to do about your opinion of the TSA, your experiences at the airport, your politics, religion or sex. It's all about how we act and interact in this little corner of FlyerTalk
#64
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,195
I have asked several times here for viable ideas that would provide better security than we have now, yet have received none. Please, please, be the first.
#65
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Marriott or Hilton hot tub with a big drink <glub> Beverage: To-Go Bag DYKWIA: SSSS /rolleyes ☈ Date Night: Costco
Programs: Sea Shell Lounge Platinum, TSA Pre✓ Refusnik Diamond, PWP Gold, FT subset of the subset
Posts: 12,509
1. Full accountability of TSA employees, with levels of discipline up to and including termination.
2. Initiate a focus on customer service training for screening clerks, instead of barking and asking Do you want to fly today? The fact that the TSA has publicly stated that customer service is not a priority in its Engage! training is appalling.
3. End the War on Liquids. The exemptions make it pointless, and even if there was such a Magic Liquid that could be used to create a bomb airside without laboratory conditions if you just had enough of it, just send ten guys through the checkpoint with their Kippie Bags and combine it airside.
4. End the Shoe Carnival. The X-Ray machine cannot detect explosives, period.
5. Eliminate the gate screenings. The fact that this is being done in MCI, where each gate area pretty much has its own checkpoint to start with, is proof that this is nothing more than security theatre and workfare.
6. Get rid of the No Fly List. Theres no effective means of redress or oversight how the list is managed. If the people on these lists are so dangerous, arrest them.
7. Stop the ID checks. The TSA has no need to know who I am or where Im flying. This is nothing more than revenue protection on behalf of the airlines. The thought that I must present my papers to travel within the border of my own country is disgusting.
8. Stop using the checkpoint as a dragnet. College kids with a fake IDs, illegal aliens, or some common criminal wanted on a drug charge somewhere are not a threat to commercial aviation. We have other government agencies tasked for this.
9. Kill LASP dead in its tracks. There is no reason whatsoever the TSA should encroach on General Aviation. This is nothing more than a back channel way for the airlines and the Air Transport Association to make GA less of a viable alternative.
10. End the mission creep. What on earth was the mayor of TPA thinking when he asked the TSA to provide junk science screening clerks at the Super Bowl? What do sporting events have to do with transportation? The junk science SPOT program also gets the boot.
11. Stop the use and deployment of Nude-O-Scopes. They don't see into body cavities or detect explosives, are an intrusion into privacy and needlessly add to cumulative lifetime radiation doses. All that is needed is WTMD, x-ray, and ETD/ETP.
12. The wearing of metal LEO style badges is stopped immediately, and replaced with the screening clerks name and identification number that is plainly visible.
13. Eliminate theatrics like the TSA Honor Guard. There is no need for screening clerks to dress up in silly costumes and parade around.
14. Stop any consideration of having screening clerks armed with firearms, or having any LEO powers.
What to do with the TSA long term-
The TSA should become a part of the DOT. Actual screening should be done by private contractors with oversight by the DOT or FAA. Funny how we never heard the constant stories of mistreatment and harassment of PAX, organized rings of theft and general thuggery when this was being done by private sector firms.
#66
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,195
3. End the War on Liquids. The exemptions make it pointless, and even if there was such a Magic Liquid that could be used to create a bomb airside without laboratory conditions if you just had enough of it, just send ten guys through the checkpoint with their Kippie Bags and combine it airside.
10. End the mission creep. What on earth was the mayor of TPA thinking when he asked the TSA to provide junk science screening clerks at the Super Bowl? What do sporting events have to do with transportation? The junk science SPOT program also gets the boot.
What to do with the TSA long term-
The TSA should become a part of the DOT. Actual screening should be done by private contractors with oversight by the DOT or FAA. Funny how we never heard the constant stories of mistreatment and harassment of PAX, organized rings of theft and general thuggery when this was being done by private sector firms.
The TSA should become a part of the DOT. Actual screening should be done by private contractors with oversight by the DOT or FAA. Funny how we never heard the constant stories of mistreatment and harassment of PAX, organized rings of theft and general thuggery when this was being done by private sector firms.
Please add my name to the list.
I try, lord knows I try, but I am not perfect.
But as another poster said, I will not toss softballs. If someone makes a dumb statement, I will try harder to explain why its dumb rather than just calling it dumb and leaving it at that.
Last edited by Kiwi Flyer; Oct 22, 2010 at 10:13 pm Reason: merge consecutive posts
#67
Join Date: May 2010
Programs: Amtrak S+, HH GLD, AA 1MM, SPG, UA, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 371
That said, I must disagree with the premise of your question. Security shouldn't be a be-all, end-all goal that outweighs all other factors. Security should be balanced against other equally compelling factors: financial cost and civil liberties come to mind. A holistic approach to security analyzes all of these factors and sets limits on TSA's authorities with the big picture in mind.
It appears that the majority on this board feel that TSA is currently skewed too far toward absolute security, or the perception thereof. Many here are willing to accept less security in exchange for greater personal rights, convenience, and thrift...especially those who understand that airport screening is only a small part of the larger, counter-terrorism picture.
In short, I'm all in favor of ideas that increase convenience and personal dignity with minimal increases to risk.
#68
Join Date: May 2010
Location: FLL - Nice and Warm
Programs: TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 1,025
Security shouldn't be a be-all, end-all goal that outweighs all other factors. Security should be balanced against other equally compelling factors: financial cost and civil liberties come to mind. A holistic approach to security analyzes all of these factors and sets limits on TSA's authorities with the big picture in mind.
2. Cost is no object.
3. **** Civil Liberties - We're out to catch Tewwowists!
(of course, we've never actually caught one yet, we just need to spend more money and get more people)
4. It's for your own good - quit whining!
Last edited by essxjay; Oct 21, 2010 at 4:02 pm Reason: bypassing profanity filters
#69
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: OOL/DOH
Programs: QF LTS WP, Avis Pres Club, HH Diam.
Posts: 3,192
for some, obviously the only way to 'enhance' security is just to add more to the existing theatre.
For others, it requires a critical look at, and risk analysis of what is currently being done - keeping the elements proven to reduce risk for a reasonable cost, abandoning the rest and perhaps implementing other strategies not currently in use - like screening at the same level for all persons entering the 'sterile' area (an oxymoron if ever there was one) as one example.
But as posted dismissively above, in regard to a response to enhancing security - handing out tin badges to clerks, employing clerks with attitude, checking someone has a drivers licence etc, etc does nothing to enhance security either, yet the TSA introduced it and trumpets it as somehow useful.
None of these things happen at our airports.
Yes Australia and Australian's have been the target of terrorist activity.
Yes it probably will happen again.
We prefer to take a risk/benefit approach to security - not a theatrical one.
For others, it requires a critical look at, and risk analysis of what is currently being done - keeping the elements proven to reduce risk for a reasonable cost, abandoning the rest and perhaps implementing other strategies not currently in use - like screening at the same level for all persons entering the 'sterile' area (an oxymoron if ever there was one) as one example.
But as posted dismissively above, in regard to a response to enhancing security - handing out tin badges to clerks, employing clerks with attitude, checking someone has a drivers licence etc, etc does nothing to enhance security either, yet the TSA introduced it and trumpets it as somehow useful.
None of these things happen at our airports.
Yes Australia and Australian's have been the target of terrorist activity.
Yes it probably will happen again.
We prefer to take a risk/benefit approach to security - not a theatrical one.
#70
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Programs: DL, US Air, AA, HH Diamond
Posts: 79
What to do with the TSA short term-
1. Full accountability of TSA employees, with levels of discipline up to and including termination.
2. Initiate a focus on customer service training for screening clerks, instead of barking and asking Do you want to fly today? The fact that the TSA has publicly stated that customer service is not a priority in its Engage! training is appalling.
1. Full accountability of TSA employees, with levels of discipline up to and including termination.
2. Initiate a focus on customer service training for screening clerks, instead of barking and asking Do you want to fly today? The fact that the TSA has publicly stated that customer service is not a priority in its Engage! training is appalling.
Sorry, this has nothing to do with enhancing the security of the flying public.
While this also has nothing to do with enhancing the security of the flying public, its a position that I can agree with and support. TSA has made several forays into this area in my tenure with them, but more is needed.
While this also has nothing to do with enhancing the security of the flying public, its a position that I can agree with and support. TSA has made several forays into this area in my tenure with them, but more is needed.
Since you seem to agree on point #2 about making TSA a more customer focused organization, how could you not agree that his first point goes hand in hand with the second? Please tell me how you can expect to effectively manage an organization without applying discipline, up to and including termination, when appropriate. When those agents that make life miserable for the average passenger (and I'm not talking about the folks that automatically bristle and puff up at the mere mention of TSA) are properly dealt with, in will be a start in making TSA a better agency.
It has always amazed me how many federal, state, and local government employees manage to keep their jobs for doing things that would get a private sector employee fired in a heart beat. N965VJ is spot on that stating TSO should be held responsible for their actions. If administrative discipline and re-training doesn't fix the issue, then termination is the only option. As with any government agency, we all know that everything is done in baby steps, and that is one that needs to be put at the top of the priority list.
#71
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: SW Rapid Rewards, Hilton Honors, Marriott, Avis First
Posts: 4,831
2. Take the money that would be saved by returning to those protocols (no more NoS, no more TDCs, no more gate checkers, etc.) and funnel that money directly into intelligence gathering to discover dangers to the system well before they erupt into fruition.
#72
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,195
That said, I must disagree with the premise of your question. Security shouldn't be a be-all, end-all goal that outweighs all other factors. Security should be balanced against other equally compelling factors: financial cost and civil liberties come to mind. A holistic approach to security analyzes all of these factors and sets limits on TSA's authorities with the big picture in mind.
It appears that the majority on this board feel that TSA is currently skewed too far toward absolute security, or the perception thereof. Many here are willing to accept less security in exchange for greater personal rights, convenience, and thrift...especially those who understand that airport screening is only a small part of the larger, counter-terrorism picture.
In short, I'm all in favor of ideas that increase convenience and personal dignity with minimal increases to risk.
In short, I'm all in favor of ideas that increase convenience and personal dignity with minimal increases to risk.
We vote for our leaders. Hopefully we vote for the one’s who’s views equal our own or at the very least seem reasonable to us. By voting for them we trust them to make appropriate decisions about a vast number of things that directly affect our lives. And these are the folks who bear the responsibility for the decisions concerning how government interacts with its citizens and how government serves its citizens. These are the folks that set policy, including TSA policy, for all levels of government. We trust them to make rational and appropriate decisions, yet it always seems that one group or another disagrees with their decisions. OK, if so then it’s the responsibility of that group to have someone else elected to those offices who will change policy to something more to their liking. That’s our responsibility, to hold our leaders accountable for their decisions on our behalf. Yet more than 75% of our fellow citizens refuse to do so by not voting. Just who’s fault is that?
#73
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: SW Rapid Rewards, Hilton Honors, Marriott, Avis First
Posts: 4,831
Many of the folks here are willing to place their fellow citizens at significant risk in exchange for their own personal versions of rights, convenience and personal dignity. But they don’t bear any responsibility for that decision, they don’t have the background or experience to make the decision, and they really don’t give a dam that they don't have any of it.
2. Your statement deriding those that would "place fellow citizens at significant risk in exchange for their own personal versions of rights, convenience and personal dignity" is directly at odds with the founding mechanics of this country. Fifty-six men in Philadelphia placed fellow citizens at significant risk in exchange for their own personal versions of rights, conveniences and personal dignity yet I never hear a word from those who are more than willing to give up their rights to feel safe talk about how terrible those 56 men were for doing such a thing.
#74
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,004
Ok..
The needle= viable: terrorist / terrorist plot / USA bomb threat
The haystack= 4 billion+ passenger screenings by TSA
the bulldozer= TSA Modus operandi; now with improved, enhanced, turbo screening....
Found anything, yet?
The needle= viable: terrorist / terrorist plot / USA bomb threat
The haystack= 4 billion+ passenger screenings by TSA
the bulldozer= TSA Modus operandi; now with improved, enhanced, turbo screening....
Found anything, yet?
Last edited by IslandBased; Oct 16, 2010 at 6:09 pm
#75
Join Date: May 2010
Programs: Amtrak S+, HH GLD, AA 1MM, SPG, UA, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 371
Many of the folks here are willing to place their fellow citizens at significant risk in exchange for their own personal versions of rights, convenience and personal dignity. But they don’t bear any responsibility for that decision, they don’t have the background or experience to make the decision, and they really don’t give a dam that they don't have any of it. (emphasis added)
I challenge the assertion that folks on this board are willing to accept measures that add significant risk to security. Many have families. Enough said. A more accurate statement is that most of us believe that our ideas will result in zero to minimal/insignificant/acceptable additional risk.
I also challenge the assertion that folks on this board do not have the background or experience to make such decisions. I feel that anyone with a background in actuary, chemistry, psychology, medicine, computer security, military science, finance, or any of a number of analytic disciplines--combined with common sense, keen observation, and an awareness of current events--can make sound judgments on this issue. I suspect that includes most of us.
Security is just a variant on risk management, which shows up in most every professional field.