PTravel

Seconded. ^

Caradoc

Three years ago, I would have agreed with you.

As of two years ago, PHX went into a steep dive.

IrishDoesntFlyNow

I agree; it should be a completely different system. However, the key phrase in your response is "doing what you are supposed to". From anecdotal reports, the two verge on similarity. Regardless the extremely ethical treatment and outstanding customer service purportedly practiced at your airport, experiences generally reported seem to indicate your airport is a shining exception. I have no reason to believe, for example, that the multiple women reporting bruising on their breasts after an "enhanced patdown" are lying.

If, as reported by one of your co-workers, women may be asked to "lift or move/seperate the breasts in order to facilitate the pat down", then there are essentially only two alternatives: (a) The SOP for patdowns is far more intrusive than any TSA official is willing to admit or, (b) Your coworker is simply lying. If (a) is true, then I find the post more than a little bizarre. If (b) is true .... well, what can I say? I expect we'll see more of that for as long as TSA is recruiting from pizza boxes and gas station signs.

~~ Irish

greentips

Lying is a serious offense. It is an offense which warrants termination for cause in nearly every situation. If someone will lie about following/not following a required procedure, they will lie about other things. I have fired and will fire doctoral level employees for lying and making things up.

As for lazy employees: there's very little difference. If I am paying you to do a job and you won't do it, you will be gone. Taking wages for a specific job, then not doing that job is stealing, and that is not tolerated either.

I think you might be wrong here. We have the "no-fly" list created and maintained under secret conditions by the government. Since not being on that list is a prerequisite to flying in this country, I submit we do need government permission. We do not know how someone gets on (or off) that list. For the moment, the government's list is a banishment list, but it could create a "trusted traveler" list and disallow everyone not on that list access to airports. Then you might have to go through a vetting process to get your travel card.

For international flights, this has been codified. It comes with your international ticket. Your carrier must file a manifest with the DHS and wait for an email message giving permission to depart. Absent that permission email, you are not allowed to depart. That is, at least to me, a requisite specific positive government permission. The reason given by the government: to vet private parties against the no-fly list. As long as that list exists, we do, in fact, need positive government permission to fly.

Hopefully, Congressman Chaffetz will pick up where Congressman Oberstar leaves off: a bill (HR 2200) to require TSA to enter the rule-making process or void any policy/protocol/procedure based on SSI within six months of its issuance. This bill passed the house and is held up in the Senate. I suspect he will and when it passes, at least then we can end that part of the charade.

Not so. I am a medical professional and a teacher of medical students and young physicians, and was an executive at a DoE/DoD prime contractor at a facility doing classified research. For precisely the same reasons screening a family member and doing a pelvic on a family member is verboten. You cannot be objective. And with security, a key element is independence and duplication of observation. But that isn't what TSA does. It is supposed to find, and prohibit WEI, nothing more. It is not running a nuclear weapons facility, it is not running a medical facility. The reason this subject came up is TSA was uncomfortable doing patdowns, as an exercise on each other.

How much or by what means and for what purpose I carry cash is none of the government's business. It is not illegal, and that has been made clear. Cash is not contraband in any way, shape or form, and unless it will make the airplane overweight or out of balance it is not a threat to flight safety. GSOLTSO, this is not intended to be a knock on you. It is your agency that directs you; from what I see you are most reasonable in your assessments and perspective.

If the government deems that the way I carry cash appears to be related to criminal activity, it had better be prepared articulate probable cause to obtain a search warrant, arrest me and be prepared to face a civil lawsuit if they make stuff up. Win or lose such a lawsuit, they cost a lot of money to defend, are a major pain and consume vast amounts of time. I will instruct my attorney to make it as expensive as possible for the defendant(s). This path was paved by Steve Beirfeldt and TSA changed its rules:

Quote:

screening may not be conducted to detect evidence of crimes unrelated to transportation security" and that large amounts of cash don't qualify as suspicious for purposes of safety.

As for international travel, if it appears I have more than $10k, a simple call to the Port Customs officer would be adequate to determine if the FinCen 105 has been filed, if there was indeed more than $10k departing the US.

billycorgan

GSOL

You have been good about answering questions, and I know that you have said you would have no problem with your children going through the process.

I would like to ask you if you do actually have children. Based on your responses I am led to believe that you don't. Just want to confirm.

mikemey

I've read this thread with some curiousity, amusement, and, honestly, disgust as well.

First, I'll give kudos where they're deserved. gsoltso has been nothing but polite, courteous, and has actually gone out of his way to be as helpful as his employer allows him to be in answering questions and concerns. Note what I said there - as his employer allows him. Yet some of you attack him because he won't tell you something that is "SSI". You really want him to lose his job, as abhorrent as we find what he does, because of an internet forum?

Come on guys, it's Christmas (Festivus, whatever you like).

I see a *LOT* of shooting of the messenger, and not a lot of being angry at the message. It's OK, I do it too. However, it HAS to stop. If we're to be taken seriously, the message has to be the target, not the individual stating it.

So I'll thank gsoltso for what he has contributed to this thread. If I flew out of Greensboro, I'd absolutely offer to meet him for a cup of coffee and discuss life, the universe, and everything. I dare say he's given more information than some of our other resident TSOs, and has done so in a matter that is neither condenscending or confrontational, which is more than I can say for some of you.

Don't let that mean I like who he works for. Far from it.

I think I can go out on a limb here and say we're all sick and tired of what the TSA and the DHS has foisted on us.

Here's my laundry list:
1. SOP. For the life of me, I cannot understand why this is SSI. I honestly think that the part regarding pax screening could absolutely be released to the public. I understand why the TSA thinks keeping it secret is good. But, if the TSA wanted to make the security process as smooth as possible, they'd tell us exactly how to prepare for screening, and more importantly, how that screening *should* proceed. I dare say this will not give terrorists a playbook, it will give the pax what to prepare for, how they should be treated, and might actually give a BDO better opportunity actually do what BDOs do. This leads me to my 2nd point...
2. Consistency between locations. Oh...My...GOD, this is horrible. I know how I'm treated at RDU, and it certainly doesn't square with how I'm treated at EWR, which doesn't square with what happens at MCO, etc etc etc. I blame training and the fact that the SOP isn't public knowledge, the local TSOs take liberty. If each and EVERY airport did everything the same, to the lines of an SOP that is public, I honestly think complaints about what the TSA does would go away.
3. WBI - The complaint du jure. I wouldn't have a problem with WBI if it were used to clear an alarm from the WTMD. But its use as a primary screening method is a violation of the 4th amendment. Also, I really want to see some peer reviewed data about both methods of WBI before I'm ready to say maybe. There is none. Show me the data.
4. "Enhanced" patdowns. There is no reason on earth that a person wishing to travel via air should have to be subjected to a pat down that would exceed what some maximum security prisons subject prisoners to. If the secondary shows a problem in a specific location, then concentrate on that. There is no need to check my wife's breasts if an alarm is for something around her ankles. WBI combined with a local patdown for an alarm as a secondary to a WTMD alarm (patdown only necessary if the WBI shows further alarm) would be a better option than the grope.
5. Mission creep. OMG. It's not the TSA's job to look for drugs in a bag, or check for >$10k cash, or check the metro, or sit at a bus terminal, or sit outside my driveway. Show you can do one thing well first before you branch out. You haven't done that yet.
6. Retaliation. Yes, human nature is to lash out or "get even" with someone who disrupts your routine. We all do it. However, to bark at a pax who has the audacity to bring their kids to the airport during Thanksgiving then take your anger with them out on the next pax (me) isn't acceptable. To mark a BP with SSSS because someone realizes you're trying to SPOT them and doesn't want to play isn't acceptable. Or to grab breasts or genitals because someone decides to opt out of WBI isn't acceptable. So take a breath.
7. Training. Or, more accurately, lack of. That a TDC doesn't know what a NEXUS card is is unacceptable. Even worse, that he doesn't know how to look the darned thing up in the manual. I've seen that manual (most local PD's have one) and it's not all that hard to use. That 2 TSO's do a pat down differently is not acceptable. Train your people, 80 hours, 100 hours, 200 hours, whatever it takes to get it into their heads. Enforce proper techniques through escalating disciplinary action. Tell the people that you do care for what they think, rather than blow off a complaint.

Yeah, my novel is done. I don't blame individual TSOs for this list. I blame the TSA and the DHS. However, I can stop and say it's not always the TSOs fault that something has gone amiss - it could be his training, it could be ignorance, it could be a breakdown in communication, it could be (likely) bad policy making.

Yes the TSO is a target. Because he's the face of the TSA, the one we all interact with, it makes it easy. It shouldn't necessarily be this way exclusively.

However, the commentary I see on here doesn't help our cause, which is true TSA reform. It only makes us look like immature brats crying because we can't get our way. Lets get together and work for the common goal, rise above the name calling, and make progress.

Otherwise, we get nowhere.

<steps off soapbox>

littlesheep

Their current job includes forced irradiation, viewing nude bodies and groping breasts and genitals.

Right or wrong?

For the nth time.

This is COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY unacceptable. There is NOTHING to talk about. I don't care what their SOP is or how they co-ordinate their assaults or if they smile or not. I care not one whit what their little psyches feel.

They are conducting sexual assault on the public.

Period, end of story.

jkhuggins

We're splitting hairs between the two of us here ... but, what the heck, I'll go ahead and dispute with you for just a little bit.

Right now, the "no-fly" list is a list of people who are not permitted to fly. Presumably, there has to be a reason to be placed on that list (as arbitrary as it might be in practice). Consequently, one doesn't specifically need positive permission to fly; one needs to verify (to the satisfaction of the government) that one has not been banned from flying.

There would be a significant difference if one had to obtain specific, positive permission to fly. Officials would have to have a specific reason to grant permission to a passenger. They could deny permission solely on the basis of not having enough information on which to act ... or other, less savory reasons. (Images of Casablanca are coming to mind ...)

Anyways ... I agree that the distinction between the two scenarios is subtle. But there's a difference between asking "Am I on the no-fly list?" and "May I fly today?". Gratefully, we're not at the latter stage. (Yet.)

greentips

I agree it is a subtle difference, and I think the difference is subtle enough to be nil. What concerns me is an item published in the Federal Register, August 23, 2007 modifying the APIS system (Advanced Passenger Information System). This system was created by the airlines and Customs in the aftermath of Lockerbee. It took some time and it was supposed to allow the feds to do exactly what you said: make sure no one is on the no fly list. Once the airplane was enroute, the manifest was checked and in some instances, the airplane was denied entry into US airspace, causing the airlines significant expense.

But, in 2007, that changed. The rule making was to change the former procedure to require the advanced transmission of the pax/crew manifest and the aircraft could not depart until CBP/TSC vetted the manifest and authorized the airplane to depart.

This manifest is used for This rule-making includes commercial vessels such as RMS Queen Mary II.

Next, CBP/DHS/TSA moves on to private aircraft and vessels in 2009 with the extension of eAPIS to private flyers using the same rationalization. Prior to departing or arriving in the US, a pilot must file a pax/crew manifest, even for a 2 seat airplane, via the internet, and must receive affirmative permission from the government to depart the United States.

When I was a young man, traveling in Austria near the Yugoslav border, I asked an Austrian about going into the eastern Bloc near Villach. He said going was not a problem, the border gate was a 4 inch pine board. Coming back was another matter. The Yugoslav border gate was reinforced steel with armed guards in towers. He confided in me that it wasn't to keep Austrians from trying to sneak into Yugoslavia.

You may be correct, but I fear you won't be soon enough.

Ayn R Key

As long as the SOP is SSI, I cannot make an informed decision as to whether or not I am willing to submit to the full screening.

As long as I cannot make an informed decision, I may find myself wanting to terminate the screening process after it has begun due to the greater information I will have once the screening begins.

But the TSA threatens to fine people $10,000 if they try to terminate the screening process after it has begun.

That means that any contact made is under duress, threat of punishment, if the person discovers what the screening entails and decides they do not wish to comply and would prefer to not fly rather than endure the screening.

That means that any contact made is made under threat.

That makes it molestation / rape.

All because the SOP is SSI.

You're doing your best, trying hard to answer questions here, but the situation is similar to two people playing one-on-one basketball and one of them has their hands tied behind their back. The declaration of "SOP is SSI" is preventing you from actually helping anybody. You'll never make a basket unless you can use your hands. You need to go to Blogger Bob, and between the two of you confront his boss and tell them that.

srilm

Some direct quotes from the interview (capitals mine)...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...928049266.html

1. Cavity searches or other more expansive body checks are out AT LEAST AS LONG AS terrorist body bombs require, as today, an external initiator or trigger.

2. "I'm sorry for the INCONVENIENCE to THOSE PEOPLE who feel like their PRIVACY OR CIVIL LIBERTIES HAVE BEEN ABRIDGED or negatively impacted, but for me it really comes down to trying to save lives."

I am not THOSE PEOPLE, dude. I am WE THE PEOPLE. Your boss. And you are not doing your job.



Hitler would have been ecstatic to have called this guy his own brother.

He's a traitor --a direct violator of not only the constitution, but the bill of rights itself, and I hope he will be tried and convicted as such, by the law of the United States of America, MY country.

As a government employee, I remember being required to take an oath upholding the constitution. Obviously, that does not apply to the head of the TSA.

Hey, as long as it keeps me safe

SR

Caradoc

I believe that we're going to have to agree to disagree on that one.

The "superior orders" plea, also called the "Nuremberg Defense," does not necessarily relieve the acting criminal of responsibility or culpability.

srilm

That's true enough. However, it is more complex than that. I don't necessarily want TSA officers to quit. If they quit then they have no power. I would rather see them stay and fight for what is right.

SR

MikeMpls

Well, not really. Pistole's counterpart in the Nazi hierarchy was Ernst Röhm, Stabschef der Sturmabteiling:


Although Hitler initially intended for Ernst Röhm to survive the Night of the Long Knives, in the end Röhm was purged along with the rest of the SA leadership.

Pistole's demise will be much less violent, but Pistole, too, will be put out to dry.

gsoltso

Anyone that says we do not have some folks that do not need to be here, or at the least need bettertraining is trying to look through rose colored glasses. We should acknowledge that problems exist when we find them, the reason I ask passengers that have bad experiences to file complaints is so someone other than the front line folks get the information. If I am a manager and I have 5 complaints about a specific team it may indicate a lack of training or supervision by the STSO - if I have 5 complaints on a specific TSO, I have a serious problem that needs to be addressed now. If I have no complaints, and as some folks here would indicate a systemic problem with supervisory and or training and I am not on the floor all the time able to see, how am I supposed to correct what I don't know is going on? We all know that when management shows up, most employees are on their best behavior (that is normal it happens everywhere), if I can't see the things the passenger experiences that are wrong, how am I supposed to correct them? I do not wish to place the onus on the passenger, bad TSOs should be removed as a matter of course, not as an exception. However, I do not feel bad in asking for input from passengers. In a perfect world, we would recognize bad behavior immediately and fix it first, then remove it if it becomes habitual (or remove it immediately if it is egregious enough), but that is not how it works all too often based on the public complaints I here.

It can be lucrative, when I worked undercover drug suppression, taking a car filled with drugs was an easy way to get another functioning car for the departments uses. I am not certain about Atlanta, I have never worked there - but our VIPR ops are not about drugs or cash at all, and Greensboro is right on I-85 which is the second largest N-S drug route on the east coast.

I have seen some of the ambivilance, but that is where good management comes in. The speaking to a passenger is a way to break the monotony for some, a way to be nice for others and trying to put the passenger more at ease for some. Handing out baggies instead of yelling is a good start! You are always welcome to come through GSO, we will leave the light on for you... really we leave them on all night.

We going fishing?

Thank you.