Originally Posted by
BigDogBart
Howdy to all fellow travellers, both frequent and occasional. . . .
Welcome to FT, BigDogBart!
Hope you don't mind, but I'll selectively quote:
Why are we screening you, the passengers, in the first place? The name of this forum says it best - safety and security.
Sorry, but I don't think that's the reason for security or, at least, not in its current implementation. I think the reason for the kind of security we have is simply to reassure Ma and Pa Kettle -- you know them, the bargain fare hunters who fly once a year and who the airlines have decided they can't survive without -- that it's safe to fly. If this were not the case, then could you explain to me why uninspected air cargo and mail are loaded aboard every single commercial aircraft in the US? I feel far more at risk from exploding cargo than from another 9/11-like hijacking. However, I'm not the one that needs to be reassured -- I'll fly regardless, because I know that flying is fundamentally safe (and, statistically, was even on 9/11, a day I was scheduled to fly). When the Kettles and Gomers (you know the Gomers -- well, golly, if they want us to do this there must be a good reason!) see confiscation of a bottle of scope because its 3.1 ounces, see legions of travelers forced to take off their shoes (though only on Tuesdays and Wednesdays and only in certain airports), see lighters confiscated (but multiple books of matches let through), etc., they assume that the government and the airlines have everything under control and its safe to fly. It is safe to fly but, sorry, not because of the dog-and-pony show that constitutes security at airports.
I will grant you, not all TSOs are equally effective in achieving these goals. Like any other organization one will find both good and bad workers in TSA.
I'll say this: 99.9% of the TSOs that I encounter are pleasant, professional and efficient. I have no argument with virtually all of you guys. It's your boss, Kip Hawley, and the administration that hired him that bothers me.
Yes, believe it or not, one of our primary goals is also getting passengers through the checkpoint as quickly as possible to ensure they board their planes on time.
Then lobby your organization to support a "trusted traveler" pass that means something. I'll submit to the pre-screening and security check and pay a hundred bucks or so if it means I get a nice little card with biometric ID that lets me skip the line AND the screening.
It isn't because the TSO is "pawing through" a passenger's bag, it is because the passenger had gels, liquids, or aerosols in their bag that needed to be removed.
That's why I'd like the trusted traveler card -- to avoid the Kettles and the Gomers.
While I am on this point, allow me to address another issue - the dreaded zip-top bag. This bag was DHS's way of allowing the travelling public to once again bring liquids through the checkpoint. I find it ironic that we seem to get more complaints about this little sandwich bag than any other issue. By putting your travel-size liquids in the bag and setting them out for the X-ray operator to see speeds up the process for YOU, because the operator sees liquids on the X-ray, looks down and sees the bag, and is able to quickly assess that bag and determine at a glance that the items are all of the proper size. Assuming that your bag doesn't have any other liquids, gels or aerosols inside, you will be quickly on your way with no delays. To be honest folks, if it were up to us, there would be NO liquids, gels or aerosols allowed through the checkpoint. This concession was made to make your travelling experience easier, not harder. Keep in mind too the whole reason that this restriction arose in the first place . . .terrorists in London who were planning to carry liquid explosives onto aircraft.
Then why are liquids allowed at all? Sorry, but you've got it wrong. TSA doesn't allow liquids through to accommodate passengers. It allows liquids through because the airlines pressured TSA to permit it. Business travel becomes impossible if everyone must check bags, and no one can travel for business without such minimal necessities as toothpaste and deoderant. When TSA imposed the total ban after the London bombing, business travel fell off precipitously and the airlines squawked long and loud -- they were losing their bread-and-butter, the high-fare passengers who keep them in the air (no airline can subsist on the low-fare seeking, any-airline-in-a-storm). The airlines pressured TSA into making the change.
TSA didn't allow liquids to accommodate passengers. It allowed liquids to accommodate the airlines who would have gone out of business if the total ban was enforced.
I mentioned pulling IDs out of the wallet. While this may seem like yet another annoying procedure, it is necessary for several reasons. First and foremost is to examine the ID for possible tampering or counterfeiting. I am not an expert in detecting forgeries, but I am able to see if a driver's license has been tampered with, or if it looks like it was printed on a home computer.
Do you really think terrorists are going to use obviously-tampered-with ID or ID that was printed on a home computer? This doesn't stop the real threats, only the loony amateurs who don't pose a threat to anyone but themselves.
I saw a post mentioning missing locks on bags, and another one concerning checked baggage in general. I handle (and open) a large number of bags on a daily basis, and have only had a few examples where the lock needed to be cut. The proper procedure for dealing with locked bags is as follows:
With all due respect, most FT regulars know the procedure. The problem is the exceptions -- how many of us have had TSA-approved locks cut-off or missing? (You can't see me, but I'm raising my hand 5 times -- that's 5 TSA-approved locks at $20 per). How many of us have had things go missing? (Yes, I know, it must be the baggage handlers. Right.)
BigDogBart, it's nice to have you here on FT. I hope you continue posting.