mahohmei

The evil side of me has a different idea in store: take the flight, do my best to avoid the pornoscanners (get in the correct lines/terminals, etc), and if selected for the pornoscanner, insist on an opt-out, same sex, carry-on in my control, watch them take a fresh pair of gloves out of the box, and a police report if it becomes sexual.

Then, I will have a _first-hand_ experience under my belt, so I have an _actual_ reason when people ask me why I won't fly, since the pro-TSAers don't believe anything unless it's first-hand.

On the other hand, when you _do_ tell a pro-TSAer about your "touching" TSA experience, they'll respond with "Get over it; it happens to everyone".

I'd also have to consider the time/money/emotional costs of potentially requiring counseling and having my vacation ruined by being unable to sleep as I think about the TSOs who took advantage of me by grabbing my crotch or stealing from my carry-on.

I am not a rape or sexual assault survivor, so I wouldn't have a flashback problem; I just don't want it to happen in the first place, and the only way to avoid that is to not fly.

MDtR-Chicago

The issue is that most opt-outs are uneventful.

But when they are eventful, they can escalate very quickly.

It's a risk. Maybe it's worth it. Maybe it's not.

Every time I go to the airport, I am prepared to miss my flight and be arrested, if that's what it takes to exercise legally guaranteed rights. Unfortunately for the airlines, it means less discretionary trips. But I still fly. If only sheeple fly, there's no chance of anyone standing up to the TSA's bullying.

mahohmei

Unfortunately, polls seem to continue to show majority support for the TSA's shenanigans, since the majority either don't fly, or are convinced that the TSA's shenanigans are actually preventing planes from being blown out of the sky on a regular basis.

Despite this majority population support, it seems to be an "I support it, but I don't want to deal with it" type of thing. My home TLH's August 2011 count was 53,688, down from August 2006's 76,916. That's a 30.2% drop.

This has me thinking. When will the Congressional delegations from heavily tourist-dependent states (Hawaii and Florida come to mind) start testifying before Congress about the income flow their states are losing due to the drastic drop in vacation travel--and start pressing to put the thumbscrews on the TSA?

Or would this get them labeled weak on terror?

piper28

My guess is that they'd have a hard time proving that it's a TSA related drop and not due to other factors. Yeah, there's a handful of people here who have said they've stopped flying, but I'm not overly convinced that it represents a significant percentage of the average population. Let's face it, if you have to fly somewhere, generally there's not really a lot of great alternatives.

As for why I suspect it would be hard to prove that it's the TSA's fault? Airfare prices are up, especially with the addition of luggage fees that seem to keep getting higher and higher. And the economy still sucks, and personally I'm not convinced it's not going to get worse before it gets better, so there's probably a fair number of people that are more worried about keeping their jobs (or have already lost them) than about where they're going to for their next vacation. I'd say all of that plus the TSA are factors in the decrease, but good luck proving which one is causing the highest problem (but my guess is it's probably not the TSA).

mahohmei

I have met a lot of people (myself included) who, due to the TSA, have all but eliminated discretionary flying, which I would loosely define as flying for personal vacations that do not involve a wedding, funeral, family reunion, job interview, or work-related travel. In other words, "Hey, Mrs. Mahohmei, let's go to Hawaii this spring!"

On the other hand, I'm probably a lousy sample, since I've never liked flying to begin with, and I had a tendency to avoid it even before 9/11.

And yes...I'll admit that airlines' behavior hasn't exactly helped their cause.

mahohmei

Back to the original subject of pornoscanners coming to my home TLH, once I hear they're in place, I'll probably make a recon trip to TLH to see how they were put in place and if there's a definite way to avoid them.

Sadly, I don't think that'll be the case. TLH's TSA checkpoint is a solid wall with, if my memory serves me right, three doors at the WTMDs and three roll-up gates at the baggage X-rays. A single serpentine line goes to the front, and once there, you can choose your own WTMD. Even though there are three WTMDs, I've never seen any more than two in operation, and there's almost never a line, thanks to TLH's extremely low passenger counts.

In fact, last time I went through it in August 2011, I think the only TSO on the land-side of the wall was the TDC. So once you got to the front of the line, you could quite literally pick your favorite WTMD, and the TSO on the other side hand-motioned you through.

When the NoS arrives, if a WTMD is replaced with the NoS and nothing else is done, it'll be very easy to bypass: just choose the WTMD line. Of course, the TSOs can close whatever doors they want and force all pax through the NoS--even an opt-out passenger would be forced to walk through the NoS.

Question: If a passenger is selected for the NoS and exercised the right to opt out, do they also have the right to refuse to even walk through the NoS? Of course, given that this is the TSA, it's probably about as closely guarded as the right to have your carry-on bags under your control, or the right to not have your colostomy bag broken.

VelvetJones

How, with a straight face, can the TSA justify the cost of these machines at such low usage airport? Youngstown/Warren had NO commercial service for years and only recently picked up Alligent Air for a hand full of flights a week. So 99% of the day this machine will sit there doing nothing, just like the TSA staff that works there.

mahohmei

This is the same TSA that charters flights to send teams of TSOs to remote airports (the kind smaller than the 1-bedroom apartment I had in grad school) so they can "bless" the 19 passengers boarding the one flight per day leaving from the airport.

spd476

It's ridiculous. PIA has at most 10 departures a day depending on if Allegiant has flights that day. There is the initial rush of 3 or so flights between 6 am and 7 am. Then the rest of the day, there's a good chance that the checkpoint will be closed and locked with a sign saying when the TSA will return for the flights through out the day. That was how it was at the old terminal and they just opened a new terminal. I haven't been through the new one yet so that may have changed.

Ineverthoughtthiswouldhappen

Hi all. I finally made a flyertalk account!! So you'll all be hearing from me now! =).
OK..TIME FOR MY FIRST POST AND IT IS ON THIS ISSUE...

Everyone! Here's the deal. IT IS NOT GOOD THAT THEY ARE PUTTING MORE SCANNERS IN NEW AIRPORTS. WE NEED TO STAND TOGETHER. BE RESPECTFUL TO THE TSA EMPLOYEES BUT FIRMLY STATE THAT THE TERAHERTZ RADIATION IS NOT SAFE, CAUSES DNA TO UNWIND, AND HAS UNKNOWN LONG-TERM HEALTH RISKS. STATE THAT THEY ARE INCONSISTENT IN THEIR SCREENING METHODS AND THIS RAISES THE ISSUE OF DISCRIMINATORY, ILLEGAL, AND UN-AMERICAN CONDUCT. ASK THEM TO GO TO THEIR SUPERVISORS AND REJECT SCANNING PEOPLE AS PRIMARY SCREENING.

**NOTE: I HAVE NOT BEEN THROUGH ANY SCANNERS DURING THIS ENTIRE YEAR! HOWEVER, LAST YEAR I DIDN'T OPT OUT AND OF ALL THE HUNDREDS OF TIMES I FLEW, I ENDED UP GOING THROUGH THE MMW AT RDU ABOUT 5 TIMES I THINK.....I GOT HURT. THE MMW IS NOT SAFE. NOT ONLY DID MY BROTHER WHO IS AN M.D. MEDICAL RESEARCH PROFESSIONAL TELL ME NOT TO GO THROUGH THE SCANNERS, BUT I GOT A SEBORRHEIC KERATOSIS ON MY SCALP!!! (I'M ONLY 24). YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO GET SK'S UNTIL YOU ARE 50 OR OLDER!! HOW ELSE DID THAT HAPPEN? I DIDN'T GO OUT INTO THE SUN VERY OFTEN SO THE ONLY THING THAT EXPLAINS IT IS TERAHERTZ RADIATION...........THERE YOU GO. I'M NOT AN ACTIVIST BUT I REALLY FEEL LIKE WORKING WITH MY BROTHER TO PUBLISH A STUDY THAT WILL PUT L-3 COMMUNICATIONS AND RAP"E"SCAN OUT OF BUSINESS BECAUSE OF HOW THESE SCANNERS TRULY HARM THE BODIES. THEY ARE NOT CALIBRATED WELL AND YOU DON'T GET DENTAL X-RAYS VERY OFTEN. FREQUENT FLYERS CANNOT TOLERATE THIS. THE SCANNERS WILL PUT OUT MORE (AND MORE FOCUSED) RADIATION THAN A CELL PHONE AT TIMES.

**NOTE: IT APPEARS THAT THE OBAMA ADMIN. IS PUTTING THE SCANNERS IN SMALL AIRPORTS DUE TO THE FACT HE IS DELUSIONAL AND BELIEVES GIVING L-3 COMMUNICATIONS MONEY CREATES JOBS...HOW MANY JOBS DOES THIS CREATE EXACTLY?! I NEVER THOUGHT THE SCANNERS WOULD BECOME SO RAMPANT...BUT WE ALL MUST STAND TOGETHER AND SEE TO IT THAT WE CAN STILL FLY WITHOUT THE NEED FOR UNREASONABLE STRIP SEARCHES FROM DEVICES THAT ARE NOT SAFE FOR OUR BODIES. IF THEY MUST USE THE SCANNERS, THEY CERTAINLY DO NOT NEED TO BE PRIMARY SCREENING. THAT IS A COMPROMISE WE CAN POSSIBLY MAKE WITH THE TSA IF WE ALL STAND UP FOR OURSELVES AT THE CHECKPOINTS IN A PROFESSIONAL MANNER. THE AUSTIN AIRPORT TSA ARE NICE, HOWEVER, THEY ARE STATING THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS FORCING THEM TO HAVE THE SCANNERS OR NO PLANES CAN TAKE OFF. SEE TSASTATUS.NET FOR MORE UPDATES.

Ineverthoughtthiswouldhappen

Have you all noticed that most people who support the use of scanners..

#1) know little to nothing about aviation and
#2) rarely fly.

I think we would be way better off having aviation experts & pilots making all the decisions as to what goes on in the terminals.

I am a VFR pilot and am the first pilot in my family. I am also a Delta Diamond medallion. If someone doesn't know about aviation, I really feel like they need to keep their mouth shut on the full body scanner issue. I have flown hundreds of flights all over the world. I can already tell you that the scanners are not efficient and will probably make it easier for terrorists to carry out damage to people or aircraft due to the fact it's tempting for the TSA agents to clear someone who passes the full body scanner (even if they fail the metal detector!). A truly crazed terrorist will find a way. Airport security today requires more air marshals, better tarmac security, and other methods besides radiation full-body scanners. I am absolutely sick of seeing these body scanners and can't believe it ever happened, and can't wait till they are gone from the terminals. Hopefully after the TSA, L-3, and Rap-E-scan are all sued for lying to us all about the long-term safety.

FriendlySkies

Sorry for the bad news

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/check...mming-sna.html

littlesheep

deleted

bigmac3011

I don't think there's room at the existing 2 security checkpoints at SNA to put any scanners in, it's kind of a unique design, so just pick one of those to go through.

Actually, if they're going to put these things in somewhere I think it's better they "waste" them at these little airports rather than put them at airports where lots of people go. I was worried that places like the checkpoints at MSP that don't have them, the Delta terminals at PHX and ORD, the UA terminal at SFO, and the checkpoints at PHL that don't have them right now would get them.

I think it's the death blow for these little airports. Why drive to FNT when DTW is closer, especially since FNT is so little that everyone will likely get sent through them while you can still SDOO at DTW, at least during busy times?

spd476

Here's an article from my local newspaper on the new scanners.

http://www.pjstar.com/news/x10691544...ouch-pat-downs

Here's a good part from the article:

"Don Brennan of Peoria said he experienced the full body imaging scanners recently while traveling back from Africa.

"It even picks up on paper or Kleenex," said Brennan while waiting to fly out of Peoria to Denver on Thursday. "It seemed inefficient because they were still doing a pat-down on most everyone."

He recalled that his cargo-pocketed pants were identified as needing additional screening despite having nothing in the pockets"