USA Today: Phoenix airport screening draws angry complaints
Oct 19, 2013, 12:02 pm
#46
Join Date: Dec 2007
Programs: DL, WN, US, Avis, AA
Posts: 662
The simple fact is that with armored doors and the certainty that passengers will react vigorously the risk of a terrorist gaining access to the cockpit of an airliner is essentially zero. Given that reality there is absolutely no security justification for ID checks or WBI scans. There is no rational basis for most of the items on the prohibited list. And there is no justification whatsoever for sticking your hands down the pants of passengers.
The inescapable truth is that 95% of what TSA does contributes nothing to enhancing safety and security and could be eliminated tomorrow with no adverse effect. TSA would be viewed in a much more favorable light were it to focus only on things that had an actual benefit. Of course, that would mean that much of TSA would go away which is why that will never happen.
Oct 19, 2013, 12:35 pm
#47
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,705
We're back to disagreeing.
Something has to be done to weed out bad screeners. A bounty or even a reverse bounty as you suggest are two methods. It was reported that TSA rewarded screeners for reporting certain traveler infractions, infractions that had nothing to do with air safety, so I don't see the problem. Whatever means is used I think it is imperative to find and remove abusive or other bad screeners.
Screening practices should be standarized. My experience should be the same at every airport across the nation. If the screening methodology is effective then standardization will not weaken the screening process.
As far as TSA's spokespersons there are a couple of them that deserve nothing less than being fired for cause. Lying for your employer is dishonest and demonsrates a lack of personal ethics. I think the TSA blog has increased the publics distrust of TSA instead of moving that ball forward.
I realize TSA has a lot of work to do fixing its problems. I don't think the right person is in the front office to get the job done. TSA is not a law enforcement agency and that mindset is counter productive to the TSA mission
Something has to be done to weed out bad screeners. A bounty or even a reverse bounty as you suggest are two methods. It was reported that TSA rewarded screeners for reporting certain traveler infractions, infractions that had nothing to do with air safety, so I don't see the problem. Whatever means is used I think it is imperative to find and remove abusive or other bad screeners.
Screening practices should be standarized. My experience should be the same at every airport across the nation. If the screening methodology is effective then standardization will not weaken the screening process.
As far as TSA's spokespersons there are a couple of them that deserve nothing less than being fired for cause. Lying for your employer is dishonest and demonsrates a lack of personal ethics. I think the TSA blog has increased the publics distrust of TSA instead of moving that ball forward.
I realize TSA has a lot of work to do fixing its problems. I don't think the right person is in the front office to get the job done. TSA is not a law enforcement agency and that mindset is counter productive to the TSA mission
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3936805.html
Onuoha had been with TSA for several years. He's the TDC who told a 15-year-old girl to cover herself up. Anyone who tried to suggest that the story was a fabrication/misunderstanding should go read Onuoha's own words and come back and post an apology.
He was not terminated; he was suspended for a week. Now he's in jail without bond (potential flight risk), probably very mentally unstable. He's a 'Christian' version of an Al Qaeda extremist. Interesting that TSA suspended him, but didn't think to perhaps do an updated background check. If they had, they would have found a website and a self-published book that might (should) have prompted them to look more closely at a guy who was becoming increasingly radicalized and potentially dangerous.
Oct 19, 2013, 1:06 pm
#48
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
Unfortunately, the postings on the blog of the person highlighted above were most often full of inaccuracies and mistakes (just as here). Why Bob ever allowed those posts when he knew they were inaccurate and did nothing other than perpetuate the sour taste travelers have for the TSA is beyond my comprehension.
Oct 19, 2013, 1:17 pm
#49
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,705
Unfortunately, the postings on the blog of the person highlighted above were most often full of inaccuracies and mistakes (just as here). Why Bob ever allowed those posts when he knew they were inaccurate and did nothing other than perpetuate the sour taste travelers have for the TSA is beyond my comprehension.
Blog defenders will say he was just posting in the comments section, not official TSA policy, bla-bla.
Hogwash.
He was posting as a TSO, speaking in his official capacity, on a taxpayer-funded, moderated TSA blog. Letting comments that reflected disdain for pax and frequent misinformation stand indicated implicit HQ approval. The comments could have been deleted or Bob (or other TSOs) could have chosen to respond -countering the attitude and the misinformation.
Bob and the TSOs who posted comments and didn't counter what 'bad apple' TSOs posted are equally responsible for the content and attitude displayed in those 'bad apple' posts. Their silence spoke volumes - not just to FTers, but to anyone going to the Blog hoping for information and understanding.
The 'good apple' TSOs paid for Ron's (and others') cheap shots at the checkpoint and in the court of public opinion.
Oct 19, 2013, 2:48 pm
#50
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,121
I couldn't agree more about the blog. It always amazes me when a TSO or someone pro-TSA accuses TS&S of being a hostile environment. Seriously?? How are pax treated on the TSA Blog that they pay for via taxes?
IMHO, there's no place for 'snark', dishonestly, lies and manipulation in any tax-payer funded communication with the public. Zero.
Over a decade, and there's still no place to get a simple, straightforward, universally applicable answer to a simple, straightforward question. For example: are walking sticks allowed? If so, what are the specific criteria used to make the determination (remember when TSOs tried to steal (yes, steal) "Chewbacca's" 'light saber' walking stick at DEN? A reliable TSO who works at DEN posted here that there are certain specific criteria some TSOs use to determine if a walking stick is allowed. These criteria are either unique to DEN or only selectively invoked, because the actor has travelled with the walking stick before and never been challenged.
Why are there SSI criteria for things like walking sticks that aren't published on the webpage? Let me guess - it's a thinly disguised way of saying what many of us have said all along: the 'rules' are whatever the TSO in front of you says they are.
I have had a 2-foot length of surgical tubing confiscated. I have had zip-ties confiscated. Neither are listed on the webpage, both confiscations were confiscated because one TSO made up rules.
What I can take through the checkpoint shouldn't be a guessing game. The entire checkpoint experience shouldn't be a guessing game. The BLOG could have helped explain, inform and warn pax of reasons behind certain events: ie, some soaps and hand lotions will cause the ETD alarm, and yes, the immediate reaction will be to proceed like you're guilty; yes, blocks of cheese and even blocks of papers will be mistaken for something that was allowed to pass even a hand inspection unchallenged in Fayetteville - but you may be challenged because of the way these items look on an xray.
The biggest problem with the Blog, IMHO? The deliberate lack of moderation. Self-identified TSOs (and LTSOs and STSOs) routinely posted insulting, demeaning comments and even information at odds with what was posted on the website - and Bob let those comments stand, unchallenged. By allowing that, the message he sent to the public was loud and clear: this is a taxpayer-funded blog, these are the people who work for TSA, and we've got no problem with their attitude towards pax or even if their information blatantly contradicts everything we tell you (because ultimately, the rules are whatever a TSO says they are).
IMHO, there's no place for 'snark', dishonestly, lies and manipulation in any tax-payer funded communication with the public. Zero.
Over a decade, and there's still no place to get a simple, straightforward, universally applicable answer to a simple, straightforward question. For example: are walking sticks allowed? If so, what are the specific criteria used to make the determination (remember when TSOs tried to steal (yes, steal) "Chewbacca's" 'light saber' walking stick at DEN? A reliable TSO who works at DEN posted here that there are certain specific criteria some TSOs use to determine if a walking stick is allowed. These criteria are either unique to DEN or only selectively invoked, because the actor has travelled with the walking stick before and never been challenged.
Why are there SSI criteria for things like walking sticks that aren't published on the webpage? Let me guess - it's a thinly disguised way of saying what many of us have said all along: the 'rules' are whatever the TSO in front of you says they are.
I have had a 2-foot length of surgical tubing confiscated. I have had zip-ties confiscated. Neither are listed on the webpage, both confiscations were confiscated because one TSO made up rules.
What I can take through the checkpoint shouldn't be a guessing game. The entire checkpoint experience shouldn't be a guessing game. The BLOG could have helped explain, inform and warn pax of reasons behind certain events: ie, some soaps and hand lotions will cause the ETD alarm, and yes, the immediate reaction will be to proceed like you're guilty; yes, blocks of cheese and even blocks of papers will be mistaken for something that was allowed to pass even a hand inspection unchallenged in Fayetteville - but you may be challenged because of the way these items look on an xray.
The biggest problem with the Blog, IMHO? The deliberate lack of moderation. Self-identified TSOs (and LTSOs and STSOs) routinely posted insulting, demeaning comments and even information at odds with what was posted on the website - and Bob let those comments stand, unchallenged. By allowing that, the message he sent to the public was loud and clear: this is a taxpayer-funded blog, these are the people who work for TSA, and we've got no problem with their attitude towards pax or even if their information blatantly contradicts everything we tell you (because ultimately, the rules are whatever a TSO says they are).
Oct 19, 2013, 6:36 pm
#51
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: SEA
Programs: Delta TDK(or care)WIA, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 1,869
Onuoha had been with TSA for several years. He's the TDC who told a 15-year-old girl to cover herself up. Anyone who tried to suggest that the story was a fabrication/misunderstanding should go read Onuoha's own words and come back and post an apology.
He was not terminated; he was suspended for a week. Now he's in jail without bond (potential flight risk), probably very mentally unstable. He's a 'Christian' version of an Al Qaeda extremist. Interesting that TSA suspended him, but didn't think to perhaps do an updated background check. If they had, they would have found a website and a self-published book that might (should) have prompted them to look more closely at a guy who was becoming increasingly radicalized and potentially dangerous.
He was not terminated; he was suspended for a week. Now he's in jail without bond (potential flight risk), probably very mentally unstable. He's a 'Christian' version of an Al Qaeda extremist. Interesting that TSA suspended him, but didn't think to perhaps do an updated background check. If they had, they would have found a website and a self-published book that might (should) have prompted them to look more closely at a guy who was becoming increasingly radicalized and potentially dangerous.
Oct 19, 2013, 7:10 pm
#53
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,705
Oct 19, 2013, 7:46 pm
#54
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
As I've said multiple times, and been soundly beat upon for it ... the BDO program was designed to look at passengers, not TSOs. There are plenty of reasons to criticize the BDO program, but this ain't one of them.
Oct 19, 2013, 9:44 pm
#56
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: SEA
Programs: Delta TDK(or care)WIA, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 1,869
You're kidding, right? Well, actually, what you say makes sense. A neurologist is trained to diagnose patients. If another doctor starts exhibiting signs of a stroke, for example, the neurologist is just going to ignore that, so a BDC would also be expected to ignore signs than another clerk has gone as far off the rails as this one had.
Oct 19, 2013, 10:07 pm
#57
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,705
OTOH, with all the time they spend standing around (and they do - compare the staffing/activity levels at any US checkpoint with their counterparts around the world), you'd think that even an 'off-duty' BDO would notice something.
Oct 20, 2013, 2:49 am
#58
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Greensboro
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,424
With respect ... it's not about the tools. It's about how the tools are being used.
When I first started reading the TSA Blog, it was interactive. Folks like Bob and you (and even Ron(!)) would post inside the articles on a regular basis, responding and reacting to passenger questions and remarks, posing questions in return. It was a dialogue. Heck, I remember when Bob asked the readership for their Top Ten questions --- and then devoted an entire post to answering them (Answers To Your Top 10 Questions). The answers to those questions were pretty direct --- not as much as some would've liked, but the questions weren't totally filled with PR bull****, either.
Around 2009-ish, the blog changed remarkably in tone. Bob rarely --- if ever --- responded to remarks inside posts, like he used to do in the past. The blog simply became a place for official responses to current events (carefully sanitized by the lawyers), press releases, or the latest weekly statistics. There's no dialog anymore: no opportunity for TSA to learn from the public, or vice versa. The blog is no different than the public comments page on a CNN article.
There's nothing about that change that had anything to do with the technology being used. I can only surmise that the change in presidential administrations (and, eventually, in TSA administrators) led to this change in how the blog is viewed inside TSA and how Bob is being directed to run the blog.
I check on the TSA Blog from time to time ... but, frankly, I learn more about the TSA from my discussion here on TS&S than I do at the blog. And that's sad.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but ... I miss snarky Bob.
When I first started reading the TSA Blog, it was interactive. Folks like Bob and you (and even Ron(!)) would post inside the articles on a regular basis, responding and reacting to passenger questions and remarks, posing questions in return. It was a dialogue. Heck, I remember when Bob asked the readership for their Top Ten questions --- and then devoted an entire post to answering them (Answers To Your Top 10 Questions). The answers to those questions were pretty direct --- not as much as some would've liked, but the questions weren't totally filled with PR bull****, either.
Around 2009-ish, the blog changed remarkably in tone. Bob rarely --- if ever --- responded to remarks inside posts, like he used to do in the past. The blog simply became a place for official responses to current events (carefully sanitized by the lawyers), press releases, or the latest weekly statistics. There's no dialog anymore: no opportunity for TSA to learn from the public, or vice versa. The blog is no different than the public comments page on a CNN article.
There's nothing about that change that had anything to do with the technology being used. I can only surmise that the change in presidential administrations (and, eventually, in TSA administrators) led to this change in how the blog is viewed inside TSA and how Bob is being directed to run the blog.
I check on the TSA Blog from time to time ... but, frankly, I learn more about the TSA from my discussion here on TS&S than I do at the blog. And that's sad.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but ... I miss snarky Bob.
I miss snarky and a bit more fun myself. We were much more engaging before, and hopefully we will be in the future. Hopefully we will also expand the tools we use, and use them effectively.
I couldn't agree more about the blog. It always amazes me when a TSO or someone pro-TSA accuses TS&S of being a hostile environment. Seriously?? How are pax treated on the TSA Blog that they pay for via taxes?
IMHO, there's no place for 'snark', dishonestly, lies and manipulation in any tax-payer funded communication with the public. Zero.
Over a decade, and there's still no place to get a simple, straightforward, universally applicable answer to a simple, straightforward question. For example: are walking sticks allowed? If so, what are the specific criteria used to make the determination (remember when TSOs tried to steal (yes, steal) "Chewbacca's" 'light saber' walking stick at DEN? A reliable TSO who works at DEN posted here that there are certain specific criteria some TSOs use to determine if a walking stick is allowed. These criteria are either unique to DEN or only selectively invoked, because the actor has travelled with the walking stick before and never been challenged.
Why are there SSI criteria for things like walking sticks that aren't published on the webpage? Let me guess - it's a thinly disguised way of saying what many of us have said all along: the 'rules' are whatever the TSO in front of you says they are.
I have had a 2-foot length of surgical tubing confiscated. I have had zip-ties confiscated. Neither are listed on the webpage, both confiscations were confiscated because one TSO made up rules.
What I can take through the checkpoint shouldn't be a guessing game. The entire checkpoint experience shouldn't be a guessing game. The BLOG could have helped explain, inform and warn pax of reasons behind certain events: ie, some soaps and hand lotions will cause the ETD alarm, and yes, the immediate reaction will be to proceed like you're guilty; yes, blocks of cheese and even blocks of papers will be mistaken for something that was allowed to pass even a hand inspection unchallenged in Fayetteville - but you may be challenged because of the way these items look on an xray.
The biggest problem with the Blog, IMHO? The deliberate lack of moderation. Self-identified TSOs (and LTSOs and STSOs) routinely posted insulting, demeaning comments and even information at odds with what was posted on the website - and Bob let those comments stand, unchallenged. By allowing that, the message he sent to the public was loud and clear: this is a taxpayer-funded blog, these are the people who work for TSA, and we've got no problem with their attitude towards pax or even if their information blatantly contradicts everything we tell you (because ultimately, the rules are whatever a TSO says they are).
IMHO, there's no place for 'snark', dishonestly, lies and manipulation in any tax-payer funded communication with the public. Zero.
Over a decade, and there's still no place to get a simple, straightforward, universally applicable answer to a simple, straightforward question. For example: are walking sticks allowed? If so, what are the specific criteria used to make the determination (remember when TSOs tried to steal (yes, steal) "Chewbacca's" 'light saber' walking stick at DEN? A reliable TSO who works at DEN posted here that there are certain specific criteria some TSOs use to determine if a walking stick is allowed. These criteria are either unique to DEN or only selectively invoked, because the actor has travelled with the walking stick before and never been challenged.
Why are there SSI criteria for things like walking sticks that aren't published on the webpage? Let me guess - it's a thinly disguised way of saying what many of us have said all along: the 'rules' are whatever the TSO in front of you says they are.
I have had a 2-foot length of surgical tubing confiscated. I have had zip-ties confiscated. Neither are listed on the webpage, both confiscations were confiscated because one TSO made up rules.
What I can take through the checkpoint shouldn't be a guessing game. The entire checkpoint experience shouldn't be a guessing game. The BLOG could have helped explain, inform and warn pax of reasons behind certain events: ie, some soaps and hand lotions will cause the ETD alarm, and yes, the immediate reaction will be to proceed like you're guilty; yes, blocks of cheese and even blocks of papers will be mistaken for something that was allowed to pass even a hand inspection unchallenged in Fayetteville - but you may be challenged because of the way these items look on an xray.
The biggest problem with the Blog, IMHO? The deliberate lack of moderation. Self-identified TSOs (and LTSOs and STSOs) routinely posted insulting, demeaning comments and even information at odds with what was posted on the website - and Bob let those comments stand, unchallenged. By allowing that, the message he sent to the public was loud and clear: this is a taxpayer-funded blog, these are the people who work for TSA, and we've got no problem with their attitude towards pax or even if their information blatantly contradicts everything we tell you (because ultimately, the rules are whatever a TSO says they are).
I have no problem with snark or humor in governmental communications, even when I disagree with the message being given. It makes the "face" more human, easier to relate to and easier to disagree with on a basic note. As long as the snark is only part of the messaging mind you.
Walking sticks/canes are allowed without limitation - as long as it is a walking stick/cane (and not a sword concealed in the handle, or a 3 piece m,artial arts tool connected by chains when you pull it at the ends - both of which I have seen come through). I am uncertain what was going on with Chewbacca, but I would not have been the one trying to make the wookie mad, it just doesn't make sense.
One thing to keep in mind, just because someone says they are a TSO, does not mean they are actually a TSO. I can post on an engineering site saying I am an engineer, but it does not make it so - which happens much more often than you think. I will try to make more commentary on statements that are not correct, but I will miss them from time to time.
Oct 20, 2013, 7:14 am
#59
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,121
The blog puts out good information, but it is much more dry than it used to be (remember the alien detector on April Fools Day?). The participation is down due to other concerns or duties on the part of the team members. I do some limited answering, and I will try to do some more as we move forward, but I am still not going to be able to comment on ongoing investigations, SSI, personnel issues and some of the other types of questions asked.
I miss snarky and a bit more fun myself. We were much more engaging before, and hopefully we will be in the future. Hopefully we will also expand the tools we use, and use them effectively.
TS&S used to be much more hostile than it is currently. The current trend is pretty much disagree with factual information and/or commentary and opinion without the vitriolic content - which lends itself to better discourse. I do not feel that this is a hostile eviron per se, but it used to be much more personal in how folks convey their messages (name calling, insults, etc).
I have no problem with snark or humor in governmental communications, even when I disagree with the message being given. It makes the "face" more human, easier to relate to and easier to disagree with on a basic note. As long as the snark is only part of the messaging mind you.
Walking sticks/canes are allowed without limitation - as long as it is a walking stick/cane (and not a sword concealed in the handle, or a 3 piece m,artial arts tool connected by chains when you pull it at the ends - both of which I have seen come through). I am uncertain what was going on with Chewbacca, but I would not have been the one trying to make the wookie mad, it just doesn't make sense.
One thing to keep in mind, just because someone says they are a TSO, does not mean they are actually a TSO. I can post on an engineering site saying I am an engineer, but it does not make it so - which happens much more often than you think. I will try to make more commentary on statements that are not correct, but I will miss them from time to time.
I miss snarky and a bit more fun myself. We were much more engaging before, and hopefully we will be in the future. Hopefully we will also expand the tools we use, and use them effectively.
TS&S used to be much more hostile than it is currently. The current trend is pretty much disagree with factual information and/or commentary and opinion without the vitriolic content - which lends itself to better discourse. I do not feel that this is a hostile eviron per se, but it used to be much more personal in how folks convey their messages (name calling, insults, etc).
I have no problem with snark or humor in governmental communications, even when I disagree with the message being given. It makes the "face" more human, easier to relate to and easier to disagree with on a basic note. As long as the snark is only part of the messaging mind you.
Walking sticks/canes are allowed without limitation - as long as it is a walking stick/cane (and not a sword concealed in the handle, or a 3 piece m,artial arts tool connected by chains when you pull it at the ends - both of which I have seen come through). I am uncertain what was going on with Chewbacca, but I would not have been the one trying to make the wookie mad, it just doesn't make sense.
One thing to keep in mind, just because someone says they are a TSO, does not mean they are actually a TSO. I can post on an engineering site saying I am an engineer, but it does not make it so - which happens much more often than you think. I will try to make more commentary on statements that are not correct, but I will miss them from time to time.
The blog put out a thread on taking medicines but the most important question asked by readers goes unanswered. Numerous readers asked what qualifications a screener has to determine how much LGA medicine a traveler needs. Valid question but TSA seems to not want to engage real issues.
The TSA blog is useless as an information portal for travelers.
Oct 20, 2013, 7:44 am
#60
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,332
Walking sticks/canes are allowed without limitation - as long as it is a walking stick/cane (and not a sword concealed in the handle, or a 3 piece m,artial arts tool connected by chains when you pull it at the ends - both of which I have seen come through). I am uncertain what was going on with Chewbacca, but I would not have been the one trying to make the wookie mad, it just doesn't make sense.
If something is permitted, it's permitted. If it's prohibited, it's prohibited. If something is permitted under some circumstances and prohibited under others, there are guidelines for determining that. It's simple - yet TSOs across the country simply have no clue when something is or is not prohibited, and they make up rules on the spot and enforce them as though they were laws. That's abysmal training. Management backs them up, consistently; that's abysmal training of the management, and also abysmal management of the rank-and-file.
Photography/videography. It's allowed. Period. There are no circumstances under which image recording is prohibited in the public areas of the checkpoint; there are only times when someone who is recording imagesis standing in a spot that interferes with screening, in which case they need to be moved along - but their recording may not be prohibited. Yet there are still TSOs who insist that imaging the c/p or imaging TSA employees is illegal, illicit, SSI, against the Patriot Act, or some other nonsense. When they do so, either they don't know, or they are [/i]deliberately lying.[/i] And their supervisors back them up, consistently. This is an example issue that illustrates both the abysmal standards of training and the abysmal standards of management.
The blog is another. Lies and falsehoods have been posted on the blog time and again. When Bob, or one of the other TSA spokespeople, posts a falsehood, either they don't know, or they are [/i]deliberately lying.[/i] And this is on a web site that is read by tens of thousands of people, or perhaps millions. Again, abysmal training, and abysmal management.
Peter Mayhew's cane was another. Canes are permitted. THere is no gray area; there are no instances where a cane is not permitted - there are no length or weight restrictions, the only restriction is that they must not have actual weapons like blades or firearms integrated into them. Peter's cane, obviously, did not fit those criteria. Now, there were two potential justifications offered for that debacle: 1) The cane resembled a weapon (and replica weapons are prohibited); 2) The cane was so heavy that it could be used as a bludgeon weapon. But neither reason holds even the slightest amount of water: 1) A lightsaber is NOT a weapon; lightsabers DO NOT EXIST. 2) Canes are permitted no matter how heavy or long. There are no length or weight restrictions. Again, the TSOs involved, either don't know, or they are [/i]deliberately lying.[/i] Once again, abysmal training, and abysmal management.
Back to the original topic of this thread - PHX, apparently, has these two insitutional-level problems in larger quantities than most airports, and that's why "Phoenix airport screening draws angry complaints". But, in truth, although PHX has a greater problem than other airports, they are merely a hotspot of problems that pervade the entire agency from top to bottom.