I'm not sure, but I think that what GUW meant was that American carriers seem to be letting people carry more items and/or larger items aboard, thus increasing the awkwardness of trying to wrestle a 50-pound rolling kitchen sink onto the belt whilst still wrestling with shoes, belts, outerwear, 311 bag, and BP/ID.

Regardless of the other things one has to take care of at the belt, more carry-on items means more time situating your belongings on the belt; heavier items means more time and more difficulty for some people to lift their belongings onto the belt; larger items means more time arranging the belongings so they'll go into the tunnel without getting hung up.

Yes. Thanks for that.

...and all while some dolt with a megaphone is bellowing.

I'd have to look through the archives here to find them, but the most recent is indeed the case you're referencing. I agree that her testimony would have made it difficult to appeal even if she wanted to, but from what I remember of the opinion, it could have been interpreted as saying the same ruling would have been issued even were that not the testimony. So I suspect DOJ's decision not to appeal was part of a larger strategy, not just because of that.

Indeed no way to prove it, but even the TSA isn't that stupid to put such a thing in writing, so I think we can be quite confident that it isn't there.

I don't follow. A "risk based" approach, by definition, allows "security holes" because it operates on a probabilistic basis by prioritizing potential threats. Part of such a scene is an acknowlegement that you can't catch everything.

This is something I have not observed, here or abroad - large numbers of pax struggling to lift bags or position them to go through the tunnel. I can't remember the last time I went through a checkpoint when there wasn't a dedicated belt monitor realigning bins, putting shoes that are on the belt in a bin or removing shoes that are in a bin and putting them onto a belt, etc. In fact, IIRC, there was an incident (in Florida?) where a pilot got into it with a belt monitor who rearranged his things while they were going into the xray.

I still don't see the correlation between 'more carry-on items', some heavy carry-on items, and the US slow pace. As I pointed out earlier, even if carrying a single small item, one has to remove BP/ID, replace BP/ID, remove/replace LGAs, remove/replace shoes - possibly also belts, laptops, outer clothing, empty pockets. I never do anything with my rollaboard except load it on the belt and take it off at the end. It's all the fussing around with the personal bag and shoes, the stowing and unstowing that slows things down.

I have witnessed numbers of pax (elderly, other physical issues) struggling to pick shoes up and put them on the belt (even if they slip off, the pax still has to be able to easily bend down, pick them up and place them on the belt). Even the smallest single carry-on may have to be unzipped to remove LGAs (and restow BP/ID before going through the NoS).

Perhaps folks outside the US who are allowed to lock their bags are more willing to check them. I was when I could lock mine. Now I always carry as much as I can in an sizer-friendly carry-on, even when I have to check a bag anyway - but only because I never had problems with damage (caused by entry) or loss before 9/2001.

So you don't believe that the public has a right to know the degree of corruption in government agencies? Really?

I don't believe the public can rely on the integrity of TSA employees to properly investigate TSA employee corruption. Attempts to downplay the degree of corruption are not uncommon. Investigators will have pressure from their seniors to limit the damage and in the case of executive level employees a desire to protect those individuals.

I'm not saying the public needs to know the names of employees who are found to be involved in corruption, unless legal charges are filed, but we do have a right and a need to know the issues and corrective actions taken.

My opinion is that there should be an arm of federal government that does nothing but investigate other areas of government and TSA would be a full time job.

I suspect I was unclear in my original post. My point was that if TSA is truly going to use a risk-based approach to security the agency should put a lot of scrutiny on its own employees and less on passengers. Based on new accounts TSA employees are arguably the largest risk factor in the air transportation syste - more than passengers as a whole and much more than frequent business travelers.

There is no reason you can't/don't have number one, treating people professionally should be the norm, not the exception.

Number 2 is more of a policy argument (and as such, not something that I will be able to have much impact on), and is something that will have to be changed from on high. I understand what you are saying, but according to SOP, technically some of what you indicate is still going to happen.

There is no reason you can't/don't have number 3, although many will make the case that at larger airports it is simply not feasible with the number of employees available - I am not convinced of that though.

Teaching new hires is an art form, you have to teach them to speak up, but not too loud (ambient noise), you have to teach them to be nice and professional at all times, regardless of what you want to say/do - you have to do the right thing in a professional manner every time, no exceptions. I would be more inclined to have more hands on training with new hires, with more of the right people doing the training, not all of the people training new hires, are the right people for the job.

I am quite glad you think I am sane, there are some here that will disagree with you... rather vehemently some times.

I personally have stated (many times) that I am up for being screened every time I enter a sterile area. Insider threat is always going to be a part of the threat paradigms, it is simply impossible to get away from. Everyone has a price, whether it is money or family or friends or a Ferrari, to ignore that is to turn a blind eye to an ongoing threat. I do not think that TSA ignores this aspect, but I disagree with some of the things they leave open for possibilities. As always, RBS will be something that changes as we move along, some changes will be good, some will not - from many different POVs. Hopefully RBS will help to create better procedures for the passengers, while keeping much of the security element. I am truly interested to see where we go with RBS, and the new programs/procedures that are going to roll out over the next couple of years. Of course, things are always subject to change because of many things (politics, attacks, new threats, economic events, etc).

That is possible, but with a testimony clearly stating that the TSO was outside their purview, an appeal was a non-starter just for that reason. There may be a larger legal angle at play here, but in this case the only thing to be gained by appealing was egg on their face and a summary dismissal for base stupidity.

I was actually indicating that I have more faith in the TSA investigations than you do. I am all for weeding out the corruption and wrongdoing of any kind. Public knowledge of that corruption and/or wrongdoing is a good thing, it increases the pressure to do away with it.

I have no problem with an outside investigation either, it could solve a lot of things in a satisfactory manner, it will also create a whole new segment of the federal government at a time when it is politically unfashionable to do so.

In my earlier response I included your remarks indicating you had a different opinion than mine indicating that the public had a right to know the degree of corruption in federal agencies. I didn't twist what you stated, just reposted your own words.

I agree that public knowledge of federal agency corruption is a good thing. Yet we have good evidence that with TSA doing investigations the public will never gain that knowledge. Corruption at TSA seems more the norm than the exception which is why some outside group should be called upon to investigate complaints against TSA.

I suspect if a request for funding an agency to investigate TSA was put forward the request would be well supported.

Things like protrayed in this video of TSA a screener taking illegal action against a traveler that will likely not be investigated by TSA have reached a boil. The public is tired of TSA and its unaccoutable people and policies.

http://youtu.be/gEii7dQUpy8

I never said you twisted my words, I merely clarified the point I was making.

As far as the video, his answer could have been taken differently based on the questions before. The vid is only 22 seconds and cuts off as soon as he says "yes", he could have been responding to the questioning of (paraphrasing here) "does this make us safer", as opposed to the "this is retaliatory for the water". The problem with little sound bites like this is you have no context, no preamble to set the scene, and no follow up after this little snippet. I could talk to someone for 5 minutes and run a recorder and stop it any time I wanted to where it makes my point or makes it look like you answered a question about one thing, when you were actually answering something else entirely. Without the full recording, I am willing to say this is a wash, and not the watershed point you are trying to make. At first, I thought the exact same thing you (evidently) do. Then I listened to it a couple more times and I am pretty confident the rest of what he was saying was "yes, it does make you safer". I could also be completely wrong, it would not be the first time, nor the last time. Without the full video to give context to the comment, it is not something I am willing to give the credence to it that you are - that is simply my opinion based on what is there.

Now that I have said that, if the TSO on the video is actually saying that they are doing this simply as a retaliation for previous interactions (as a punitive measure or just to harrass), then they need to be disciplined according to the regs, with little in the way of mercy.

It's pretty clear why so many TSA thugs don't like cameras, though.