Thanks, I was wondering if the screener who testified that they were looking for sheet explosives had a first hand understanding of the appearance of these things.

I'm still missing the distinction between "look a little closer" and "there's a higher chance of there being an explosive". Why "look closer" unless you think that particular bag has a higher probability of there being an explosive (the only thing you care about in checked bags) than another bag that you don't "look closer" at?

As long as the TSA is a political CYA instrument, automated targeting software-using searches will be supplemented with TSA clerks reviewing images generated by the equipment used by the TSA. Only one part of the reason for the continued employment of a large government employment workforce will be because automated targeting will continue to be readily defeated by those well-informed individuals with an intent and ability to test the limits of automated targeting protocols.

Incorrect; the argument being made within TSA is ATR - and other procedures/technologies not yet out - is that it will reduce the workforce.

As another example, one technology being developed is x-ray technology at the checkpoint. Various companies are developing software that will work much like the baggage screening equipment, in that the x-ray will "decide" which bags to be checked, looking for things such as possible explosives, knives, guns, etc. A TSO will be stationed at a centralized area, with multiple computer screens, effectively observing multiple x-rays at one time, to direct the TSO's on the floor which x-ray lane has a bag to be checked. This will reduce the number of TSO's you need a checkpoints.

And as current example that actually is available and is being deployed, in-line systems. Some airports have them, many do not. Slowly, more airports are receiving in-line systems, and despite arguments similar to yours - that TSA will do anything to justify its large staff - in-line systems have REDUCED staff. At SAT, when the in-line system went in last year, the FTE dropped by over 50 employees; almost a 20% drop in the required staff at the airport. As more automated technologies are deployed, staff with further decrease.

Right now, there is only the claims like yours of TSA protecting its staff at the current level, yet TSA is fielding technologies that are already reducing staff at airports around the country. So I would say, "actions speak louder than words".

Actually that post is correct. What you note is one of the arguments being made, but it is not the only one nor does it cover the other aspects of the situation.

Actions speak louder than words indeed -- and so far the TSA is a beast in size per passenger compared to what was the case before 9/11/2001. And institution of new technologies by TSA has not resulted in massive TSA lay-offs. Perhaps history won't repeat itself with the TSA's acquisition and implementation of new hardware and/or software, but so far I'm siding with the power of history to repeat itself. The TSA is not getting better anytime soon.

Even with the national debt/deficit/budget situation, DHS/TSA seems more of a sacred cow than even the military. If it weren't for the likes of Panetta being able to work the game better than Napolitano, the military would end up far more of a sacrificial lamb (including relative to DHS/TSA which does nothing to further strategic national interests and is just a governmental CYA instrument, as I noted above and as you dispute above.

Gee, I thought the ramping up of TSA into non flying arenas was to increase
their staffing. But your commentary about new technology causing reduction
in staffing would indicate that the management might just be
freeing up bodies for those non airport jobs, no?

Where does one look to see if the TSA actually has less employees
year to year? (Which would be true if technology were making a real
difference in staffing, as hard as that is to imagine).

I never said "lay-offs" will take place. Again, read what I say carefull, even if you hate me repeating this ;) If you note, I never said anything about lay-offs or RIFs. All I said wa FTE was being reduced.

So... what HAS happened - regardless of how you may attempt to argue otherwise - is where such technologies have been introduced the FTE has dropped, sometimes drastically. At these airports the staff suddenly is over its FTE. Such airports can not hire any more employees, and what you might call natural attrition is taking place. It has certainly happened at SAT. As there are no promotions, no one moving from part-time to full-time positions, and so on, people leave TSA and find other work. You can be happy to know the in-line system HAS reduce the actual number of employees at SAT - much as it has at other airports. First the FTE lowered, and when employees leave, a few here a few there, no new employees are hired to replace those who departed. This is not my opinion. It is hard numbers. To argue otherwise is to show ones stupidity.

Previously, TSA did conduct a reduction in work-force, and eventually they may do so again. But this situation is different than before. The previous RIF was immediate accross the board. But now in-line systems, ATR and other advances are being installed at various airports, it lowers the FTE an airport at a time. And at those airports when employees leave to find different jobs or retire, no one will be hired on to replace them. This is simple fact.

So everything I have said is true. Sorry.

Congress appropriates the staffing at each individual airport each year it funds TSA. You can find it in there, if you really choose to spend you time looking.

Everything you have said in this thread is not true, going back at least to your saying "Incorrect" here. I don't feign apologies, or I would say sorry too.

What's simple fact is that the TSA does what it can to maintain its budget or grow it as much as it can, and that includes not engaging in mass lay-offs despite implementation of new technologies.

The TSA really is not in the business of maximizing elimination of its own headcount. This is simple fact. Sorry if that is too complicated to understand.

Um, I didnt' say one thing about the "budget". Do you ever read? I was talking about FTE. Only FTE. Do you have any idea what that is?

And again, I said nothing about lay-offs. Again, you don't or refuse to read or understand anything. Silly.

And act as stupid as you wish. These technologies have already reduced the FTE at various airports, regardless of how you wish to see TSA. Or are you now going to claim that at SAT, since the introduction of the in-line system, the FTE didn't drop from around 250 to under 200? How can you argue that it has not?

Congress appropriates money such that some airports have far more TSA staff than even those in charge of appropriations in Congress thought was going to be the case. A sign of the TSA being out of control as it's a sacred cow of sorts that acts as a governmental CYA instrument.

Did I say you did? No.

Yes, to factually answer that which may be characterized fairly as a question lacking any reasonable basis. With all due respect, I won't even ask if you attempt to ask the same questions of yourself that you ask of others, even as I just find it to be good practice to ask of one's self before asking of others.

Everyone is free to continue to try to whip a horse of their own imagination, as that is indeed what much of the rest of the above post -- particularly sections from which I am not quoting -- does.

What question was that?

A question lacking any reasonable basis (as when the questioner already knows the answer yet asks it in a way that is anything but merely for rhetorical effect); example of which is supplied by your post which I quoted earlier.

You seem to be trying to call TSA out for what is standard and common practice in government: it would be rare to find any government agency that cuts its own budget. Agencies that do so historically have their budgets cut even further. Which is why at ALL government agencies, at the end of the fiscal year, there is a mad spending spree to spend all the money allocated to them. It is the exact opposite of business, where managers are rewarded for cutting cost. In government, agencies are punished, in a sense, for saving money.

However, I seriously doubt that any congressman is unaware of how much airports will be staffed. Oh, a politician may claim so - but thats just a politican being a politician. That you seem to buy into such political rhetoric makes me wonder just how gullible you are.

Not only that, this conversation makes me wonder just how extensive your knowledge is on how budgets are formed - no matter your background. Stop being silly and letting your anger control you; use a little bit of rational thought for a bit.

The simple fact is these technologies and procedures WILL and currently ARE reducing the FTE for TSA. This says NOTHING about TSAs budget.