Originally Posted by
chollie
Just to make sure that we aren't comparing apples to oranges, how many checkpoints are there at GSO, FAY and RDU? How many of those indivudual checkpoints have you actually worked at while observing or processing disabled or handicapped pax? What is the average number of 'special handling' pax through the airport daily?
I don't fly GSO, FAY or RDU. I fly DEN - and I think Amy Van Dyken would attest to the fact that wheelchair pax are poorly treated at that airport. I also suspect that there's a lot more pax traffic through DEN than through GSO, FAY or RDU, meaning a lot more pax who aren't enjoying the stellar and respectful treatment that they could expect at GSO, FAY, RDU or anywhere in the world outside the US.
I understand that it may even be possible to fly through GSO, FAY or RDU (at least at checkpoints where you are working) with medical nitroglycerine. That didn't do me any good on the day my pills were confiscated, because I wasn't flying out of GSO, FAY or RDU. I still fly out of the airport that confiscated my medical nitro pills and I still can't travel with them.
GSO has 2 checkpoints, each checkpoint with 3 lanes, and processes around 1 million passengers a year, maybe a bit more than that this year, we are currently up about 10% across the board.
FAY has one checkpoint, one lane, and probably do around 200-250k passengers a year.
RDU has 2 terminals, with one main checkpoint in each terminal. Approximately 20 lanes in one terminal, and 6 lanes in the other terminal. They process approximately 11 million + passengers a year.
I have also worked stints at MIA, PHX, LAX and CLT of at least a couple of weeks, on the line. I have never seen or heard of anyone even questioning medical nitro - the rules are clear, and any TSO that says/does otherwise is wrong.
Originally Posted by
WillCAD
The "vague" excuse doesn't fly. Congress writes plenty of laws for every other federal agency that don't result in the level of abuse and incompetence we see in TSA.
Also, just for the sake of clarity: Bills are what Congress writes and votes on, but once they are passed and signed by the President, they become LAWS.
What TSA is required to follow are not bills, not suggestions, and not guidelines - they are LAWS, voted on and passed by Congress and signed into the full force of federal law by the President.
When TSA fails to follow one, they are not misinterpreting guidelines, they are breaking laws. When TSA claims that the laws are vague, they are passing off a BS excuse, because 1) ignorance of the law does not exempt one from following it - or from punishment when one breaks it; 2) TSA employs a veritable army of lawyers who can easily interpret the laws; and 3) if TSA is somewhat hazy on what Congress actually intended when they composed a law, there is a little thing called a telephone that the aforementioned army of lawyers might consider picking up once in a blue moon and actually asking a dadgum question of the Congress to clarify the intent of the people who actually wrote the law.
The fact that TSA ignores laws so often doesn't mean the laws are written too vaguely, it means that TSA doesn't care about the law and doesn't fear any consequences when they break the law.
*The following is my opinion, not statements from TSA* Except what you are writing is merely your opinion. When Congress passes a bill, and it is signed into law with something as vague as "treat passengers with more respect" and no identifiers or guidelines to follow, it is left to the individuals in the policy making sections to provide a determination and adjust as they understand the law. This is the problem with vagaries in law, when you dont say what you want, you get what you get. I am 100% certain that the senior leadership of TSA do not sit down and bat about ideas on how to circumvent laws. I am equally 100% certain that the head shed do not want to sit in front of Congress and he batted about like a cat toy. I think that TSA policy makers have made decisions based upon what the laws tell them, combined with intel int direction from the Administration - and I believe they have done so to the best of their abilities given the vagaries ofnthe law, and the info from intel. TSA *tries* to strike a balanced security posture, protecting the travelling public as well as possible, while being as minimally invasive as possible. Sometimes those two goals are at odds with each other, and adjustments are required.
One problem with picking up a phone and calling Congress, is that there are over 600 members, and thousands of staff - each with their own idea of what to do. I would love it being that simple, but in application, it is never that way. If Congress would quantify what they mean by "Respect" it would be exponentially more easy, but without a specific quantification or explanation of what they mean, this will continue to happen. What you think would be more respectful, would be different than what others think would be respectful.
I disagree, I think TSA does not ignore as many things as you seem to think. In many cases, I think tuat TSA does what it can, with what it has, and then winds up getting the short end of the stick when something high profile happens (whether it is TSAs fault or not).