chollie

No.

If TSA is only concerned with what might be concealed between the pages or in the spine of the book, why do screeners always orient each book in the proper reading position before leafing through it? You can physically clear a book that is upside down.

BTW...why can every other security checkpoint in the world clear books without taking them out and reading them? Are their screeners better trained? Better equipment?

Boggie Dog

I don't think there is much doubt that TSA is always pushing the limits of what they are suppose to do. Searches for money, dried green leafy material, and other such items are proof.

I don't need another post saying that is not how TSA operates to know that real world practices are much different than what is supposedly taught to screeners.

chollie

It's shocking how careful you have to be these days. TSA HQ says there's no problem with comic books in checked bags in San Diego.

Of course, I haven't seen the SAN FSD's side of the story yet.

I suspect behind the scenes the SAN FSD suggested to UA that if people insisted on packing comic books in their checked bags, there would be a lot of overworked, pissed off screeners handling the bags, meaning a lot of damage - opened bottles of shampoo tossed back on top of expensive comic books and collectibles, etc. UA has already had a few bad publicity hits lately, and no matter what they said or who was to blame, many pax would blame UA for trashing their belongings and UA knows TSA would deny any claims for damage or loss.

It's odd. TSA always seems to know when major sports events are happening, just in case they get to play a role. Yet here is ComicCon, an annual event, and yet TSA was blind-sided for some reason. No one decided to schedule extra hours for the event.

It's no accident that TSA HQ's statement is deliberately threatening and designed to discourage pax from checking certain things. I would worry about retaliation if I were not a ComicCon attendee and unwittingly checked a bag with magazines or brochures.

FliesWay2Much

Remember when they did the same thing to hundreds of sorority sisters in Houston???

The WMD book:

chollie

Yeah, that was a real-life example of how well things worked when many people (not even all) decided to carry on a single book.

Boggie Dog

I think TSA likes to play dumb and then tries to blame the public for TSA's incompetence.

Weren't you involved in a book screening issue after a convention or some other event some time back?

chollie

No. I think you're thinking of the episode Flies posted in #105 . In that case, too many attendees carried a souvenir book in their carry-on and it created a mess because every single bag containing the book had to be searched.

I'm not sure why TSA prefers to create the logjam at the checkpoint instead of in baggage check.

jkhuggins

Would you (as a passenger) rather have TSA opening hundreds of suitcases in baggage check without public witnesses?

United is now saying "oops, we misunderstood TSA."

https://consumerist.com/2017/07/24/u...n-comic-books/

chollie

Seriously, I am curious about the thinking. It's 100% clear that the decision was not based on what the pax would prefer. From the security standpoint of minimizing lots of people with lots of luggage crammed into a congested, constrained area, you would want the logjam in baggage claim.

jkhuggins

(I'm assuming you mean "baggage check", right?)

So, I know absolutely nothing about the baggage check / inspection area at the San Diego airport. Consequently, I don't know if having the logjam in baggage claim --- which might just as easily affect all passengers with checked bags, not just those with books that trip the scanners --- would be better or worse than having the logjam at the passenger checkpoints.

Sure, having the logjam at the checkpoints slows down the process of getting people to their designated gates, and creates a vulnerable target (though we've seen TSA not care about that issue in the past). On the other hand, having the logjam in baggage check slows down the process of getting bags to their designated gates, which could result either in flight delays or in luggage being separated from passengers, neither of which is desirable.

I could see either scenario being less desirable than the other, so I'm not ready to jump to the conclusion that a checkpoint logjam is a "better" result.

RadioGirl

It must be 45 years since I last opened a comic book, but as I recall, many of those words were "Bang!!!" and "BOOM!!!" and "WHAM!!!" and other extremely dangerous monosyllabic expressions. (And that was just Archie and Veronica. Who knows what's in Batman or Spiderman?)

So I guess it's really important that TSA check them.
It's not playing.

Boggie Dog

Searching the items at the passenger screening checkpoint potentially slows down people who haven't checked bags and if the backup was severe enough could cause uninvolved people to miss there flights. Giving that TSA is using CT scanners in the checked baggage screening points I fail to see why TSA is having so much difficulty with this. Seems TSA is wanting CT scanners for passenger screening points too.

FliesWay2Much

Simple: Easier for television news crews to film it. There is this huge crisis at the airport; security must come first; interviews with a few "anything for security" passengers; and admonishment from a random TSA Spokeshole reminding people to get to the airport three hours before your flight.

Then, of course, there is the shameless pitch for ExtortionCheck.

chollie

The checkpoint CT scanners are going to speed things up because....?

The baggage CT scanners can't handle LGAs. We know that because LGs in checked bags are routinely opened. The scanners also can't handle books and magazines much better than the xrays because checked bags are routinely flagged and rifled because they contain books.

Loren Pechtel

Yup, they really don't like wires coiled around anything.