There's also something else to consider. Remember that our schedules are based around the fight loads so we already have a rough idea of how many people will be coming through, just not exactly when. So I would think that would also affect operations. I mean, they could use anticipation and educated guesswork along with these numbers and not have to hit a "quota" first. At this point, I'm just spittballing along with the rest of you.

Last week's dirty socks? :eek::D

It is all just a game of semantics, but when a traveler walks up and is directed first to the AIT then the AIT is the primary for that traveler.
This is directly contrary to what we were assured.

myrgirl: The tally for the AITs have to be at a certain level before passenger traffic can pass through the WTMD.
FatherAbraham: false
myrgirl: Think what you want, man.

Are you then admitting that you have made public TSA policies/procedures?
And are not those TSA policies/procedures SSI?

I'm not convinced that we were ever assured this.

My recollections were that any statements about AIT during the "trial" period were always phrased in the present tense --- something along the lines of "we have no plans to make AIT primary at this time". Which was, strictly speaking, true; that's the nature of trial studies. Of course, the statement makes no promises about the future ... which we have seen play out making AIT primary.

To paraphrase a famous Liar By Semantics, "It depends on what your definition of IS is..."

Or, in this case, what your definition of "primary screening" is.

I seem to have been foolish enough to take a simple statement at face value - the AIT will not be used as primary screening. Okay.

Not okay - what Pistole actually meant was, "We will not use AIT as primary screening ALL the time, for ALL of the people, at ALL of the airports or ALL of the c/ps. But we will use it as primary screening SOME of the time, for SOME of the people, at SOME airports, at SOME c/ps. And as you know, MOST still qualifies as SOME."

So, they can use AIT for primary screening ALL of the time at SOME airports, and it's not a lie. They can use AIT for primary SOME of the time at ALL airports, and it's still not a lie. So long as there is one c/p in the country where AIT is not used as primary ALL of the time, it's not a lie.

And if they decide to use it as primary ALL of the time for ALL pax at ALL airports? It's still not a lie; the situation changed sufficiently for them to re-evaluate their previous statements and alter the screening protocols, out of an abundance of caution, due to secret intel that they can't share with us or all life in the universe would stop instantaneously and every molecule in your body would explode at the speed of light (also known as Total Protonic Reversal.) And that would be Bad.

I'm thinking back on it real hard... and I can't remember clearly. You may be right. That is exactly the kind of NewSpeak double-talk BS upon which government hacks like Pistole and Napolitano - and certain presidential-type fellows - seem to thrive.

jk beat me to it, but he's right.

This whole issue predates Pistole, who (I'm confident) never said "we won't make them primary"; if anyone had, it would have been Kip Hawley or Gale Rossides or a spokesidiot during their time.

I've searched in the past (so I'm not going to do it again now), but public pronouncements by Kip and Bloggie Bob over at PV said things like "the body scanner will never be mandatory" (meaning that there would always be the option of a patdown instead) but they carefully avoided saying they would never be primary (ie, used in preference to the WTMD). Over the past few years here, it's been repeated that "TSA said they'll never be primary" to the point where it's become an urban legend.

That said, when the NoS was first rolled out, numerous TSA apologists (and a few TSA opponents) said TSA would never be able to make the NoS primary because it was too slow, too expensive to have at every checkpoint, better suited for a secondary search, etc. This (logical) assumption has also morphed into a belief that TSA itself said they'd never be primary.

Well, to be fair, the NoS is too slow, too expensive to have at every checkpoint and better suited for a secondary search but, unfortunately, that hasn't stopped them.

Mike

Yeah, true.

Which shows how effective NewSpeak is and how adept the TSA are at using it.

You have to concentrate and read all TSA pronouncements very carefully to see what they are not saying in the hope you'll be fooled by the language manipulation.

(bolding mine)

And everyone knows that explosive residue is most likely to be found inside the waistband of someone's pants or between his/her legs or under her breasts. :rolleyes:

Not entirely sure quite what you're getting at (or why what I said was eyeroll-worthy... hmm... unless you were referring to the TSA's silly policy) but agreed, if the pat-down is meant to detect explosives, checking those areas seems pretty unnecessary. If it's meant to detect weapons, failing to check the bottom of feet if a huge oversight. Either way it's flawed.

The eyeroll was directed at TSA's actions, not at you.

I agree, the grope has become (allegedly) about exp**sive traces, not finding weapons. However, even that explanation doesn't make sense (does much of what TSA make sense?) After all, they are allegedly crotch- and breast-grabbing and waistband-diving looking for items (allegedly because of the underwear bomber). If they are actually dusting for exp**sive traces, then 1) why the intense focus on crotches and breasts and 2) do karate chops to the crotch increase the likelihood of exp**sive detection?

Just an aside, chollie, but - FlyerTalk isn't an airport. You can say "explosive" here without being tackled, groped, harassed, or threatened with an $11,000 fine, and the word isn't filtered by the board software, either. Explosive. See? It works!:D

Habit. Seems to me I recall seeing news that certain gubmint agencies were trolling websites (and even twitter) for keywords (remember the young UK couple whose tweet about (?) Marilyn Monroe being the 'b**b' got them shipped back to the UK?