TSA going to stop allowing NOS opt-out?
Jan 6, 2016, 10:13 am
#227
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,170
Jan 6, 2016, 10:36 am
#228
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
Regardless of our personal feelings toward the clerks, it could end up being a big financial liability to the taxpayer down the road.
Jan 6, 2016, 1:15 pm
#229
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 962
Jan 6, 2016, 1:50 pm
#230
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: From ORK, live LCY
Programs: BA Silver, EI Silver, HH Gold, BW Gold, ABP, Seigneur des Horaires des Mucci
Posts: 14,244
I don't think its a question of replacing all machines but would create an opportunity to source scanners from more than one vendor. However, the current crop of machines will reach EOL at some point and will need replacing by something, either current scanners or new generation scanners. Have no doubt there is money to be made.
Notably, the Rohde & Schwarz model scans passengers standing with their arms slightly held up from their sides, and no need to assume the surrender position.
Jan 6, 2016, 2:01 pm
#231
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: MSP
Programs: Delta SkyMiles, AmEx, NorthWest WorldPerks, Jelly of the Month. S&H Green Stamps, Subway sub club
Posts: 1,754
Well, many servicemen ended up getting mesothelioma for working around asbestos on ships and other military installations. Sure, it's fine - just do your job.
Regardless of our personal feelings toward the clerks, it could end up being a big financial liability to the taxpayer down the road.
Regardless of our personal feelings toward the clerks, it could end up being a big financial liability to the taxpayer down the road.
Don't forget about the cancers cause from that.
Jan 6, 2016, 2:25 pm
#232
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
Jan 6, 2016, 7:41 pm
#233
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: STL , HNL
Programs: SouthwestRR, HawaiianMiles, AAdvantage
Posts: 27
A comment on a travel blog (http://viewfromthewing.boardingarea....omment-4394804) from someone named Lynn states that she was told that one can no longer opt out if one is selected from Precheck.
Has anyone else found this to be the case? Based upon this, if one with precheck absolutely wants to avoid going through a body scanner, it seems that it is safer to go go through the regular lanes and opt-out there. Does anyone see any flaws with this idea? Is one with Precheck allowed to go through the regular security lanes?
Is there any way to check to see if this is the policy regarding precheck? This seems inconsistent with the idea of the no opt-out policy only being for people on watchlists or for people generally being able to opt out with the exclusion being when warranted by security situations.
Has anyone else found this to be the case? Based upon this, if one with precheck absolutely wants to avoid going through a body scanner, it seems that it is safer to go go through the regular lanes and opt-out there. Does anyone see any flaws with this idea? Is one with Precheck allowed to go through the regular security lanes?
Is there any way to check to see if this is the policy regarding precheck? This seems inconsistent with the idea of the no opt-out policy only being for people on watchlists or for people generally being able to opt out with the exclusion being when warranted by security situations.
Jan 6, 2016, 9:21 pm
#234
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northeast Kansas | Colorado Native
Programs: Amex Gold/Plat, UA *G, Hyatt Globalist, Marriott LT Gold, NEXUS, TSA Disparager Unobtanium
Posts: 21,653
I asked yesterday at MCI if people would still be permitted to opt-out and the two-stripe clerk said yes, with some exceptions. I probed some more, specifically asking if that meant SSSS, etc, or whether people with GE/NEXUS/SENTRI, etc. She wouldn't come out and say it wouldn't happen to those with a TT #, but her expressions made it seem like it wouldn't be a problem for people unless they had SSSS or were on some list...
We'll see what happens going forward..
We'll see what happens going forward..
Jan 7, 2016, 5:08 am
#236
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
It will be interesting to see what happens to TSA haraSSSSment targets traveling alone with very young children without a stroller/car seat/carrier at the screening checkpoint.
Based on carrying young kids, such people aren't supposed to be subjected to the strip search machine; but based on TSA orders for haraSSSSment targets, such people are to be subjected to the strip-search machines.
And what happens if the type of adult, child-accompanying passenger described in the first paragraph above also happens to be a user of a wheelchair/mobility-assisting-device?
The TSA doesn't seem to consider how its own guidance to employees can run counter to its own guidance to employees. A bigger clown show being the result really shouldn't be a surprise given how the TSA "thinks".
Based on carrying young kids, such people aren't supposed to be subjected to the strip search machine; but based on TSA orders for haraSSSSment targets, such people are to be subjected to the strip-search machines.
And what happens if the type of adult, child-accompanying passenger described in the first paragraph above also happens to be a user of a wheelchair/mobility-assisting-device?
The TSA doesn't seem to consider how its own guidance to employees can run counter to its own guidance to employees. A bigger clown show being the result really shouldn't be a surprise given how the TSA "thinks".
Jan 7, 2016, 6:43 am
#239
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
It will be interesting to see what happens to TSA haraSSSSment targets traveling alone with very young children without a stroller/car seat/carrier at the screening checkpoint.
Based on carrying young kids, such people aren't supposed to be subjected to the strip search machine; but based on TSA orders for haraSSSSment targets, such people are to be subjected to the strip-search machines.
And what happens if the type of adult, child-accompanying passenger described in the first paragraph above also happens to be a user of a wheelchair/mobility-assisting-device?
The TSA doesn't seem to consider how its own guidance to employees can run counter to its own guidance to employees. A bigger clown show being the result really shouldn't be a surprise given how the TSA "thinks".
Based on carrying young kids, such people aren't supposed to be subjected to the strip search machine; but based on TSA orders for haraSSSSment targets, such people are to be subjected to the strip-search machines.
And what happens if the type of adult, child-accompanying passenger described in the first paragraph above also happens to be a user of a wheelchair/mobility-assisting-device?
The TSA doesn't seem to consider how its own guidance to employees can run counter to its own guidance to employees. A bigger clown show being the result really shouldn't be a surprise given how the TSA "thinks".
Jan 7, 2016, 7:40 am
#240
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,993
"Screener discretion" is the only rule that matters. The same screener discretion that forced a 4-year-old handicapped child through a WTMD without his braces. The screener discretion that decided a vet amputee should remove his prosthesis and attempt to hop into and out of an NoS (in PHX, where else). The same discretion that forced a woman to use pliers to remove a breast piercing - at the checkpoint, while other male screeners stood around cracking jokes. Definitely some of TSA's finer moments.
Kind of like the cr*p about keeping your bags in your sight at all times - EXCEPT when "screener discretion" decides that you can't.
And no matter how stupid or ill-advised the measures taken are, HQ will defend "screener discretion".
Imagine, for a moment, the reaction people would have had if video footage showed a 10-year-old boy with a screener's open palm and thumb clearly pressed against his genitals, the way the screener put her hand on this little girl. I wonder if that would have gotten a bit more reaction.