Boggie Dog

We all pay a security fee. Why should anyone pay more when TSA already knows if a person is or is not a threat?

petaluma1

How many in the line actually paid for Pre, however?

chollie

Remember that nonsense TSA tried to sell us about the NoS's being as fast or faster than the WTMDs? I wonder how many more years before all TSOs have been trained and retrained enough for that to be true?

nachtnebel

Personally, I don't care if nobody but me paid. I know how often I got /didn't get Pre on a free basis, and now, having paid for it, I receive it more regularly. It's worth the small fee. Wrt whether we should have to pay for this, what good does it do....etc, that's not a debate I spend time on anymore. I have a lot of other things to worry about.

Gig103

We shouldn't. I've been agreeing with you that it's a scam although I get what I pay for so that's why I call it extortion instead. You don't need to pay more. I'm saying that I will pay it because I hate general screening lanes.

A fair point that it isn't always available and that is, in a manner of speaking, a bait and switch. I have noticed that PHX has an entire thread dedicated to its lackluster availability but for my flights it's always been there unless I fly BA which doesn't participate as a foreign carrier.

megalab

I'm the only one who has Global Entry and thus PreCheck. My wife and daughter never signed up yet both have PreCheck marked on their boarding passes for their flight tomorrow.

My Global Entry/PreCheck expires later this year and I'm debating whether to re-enroll. Since I don't fly as much anymore sounds like I shouldn't bother.

justhere

I think the TSA is a big waste of time and money as much as the next guy however I think you're misinterpreting what he was saying.

I believe he's just saying that by purchasing a ticket on line and printing the BP, the TSA knows who you are. That doesn't mean you will automatically get PreCheck. Security screening is a different layer than determining who you are.

Having said that, I don't really see how the vetting statement is correct anyway.

Why? The handler was rewarding the dog for retrieving its toy. It wasn't lunging at anyone. I think the passenger was just startled by the dog and moved out the way. Not sure why the handler threw it but I assume to make sure the dog was paying attention.

chollie

Unprofessional handler who doesn't know what she's doing if that's what happened.

The dog and handler are working. Pax are not allowed to pet the dog because the dog is working, not playing. The handler should never be playing with the dog when it is on the job.

It is just as inappropriate if two TSOs were clowning around and one of them suddenly lunged at the crowd.

And no well-trained working dog should ever be lunging at innocent people. Period. That handler has no way of knowing who is terrified of dogs. If one of the pax had reacted the way I probably would have, it would upset other people and the dog as well.

TWA884

Exactly. He says that before boarding passes can be printed at home, passengers names are checked against all terrorist data bases in the world. These are not full background checks where identities are verified by fingerprints, etc.

petaluma1

Then why is TSA allowing non-fingerprinted passengers in the PreCheck line if having prints is such a game changer?

chollie

Exactly. If the fingerprints and background check are critical components of security, then TSA is putting all of us at risk every time a pax is granted Precheck solely because his/her name is not on any terrorist databases. If this is a genuine security loophole, as TSA has been assuring us for years, then it should be closed immediately. 100%.

If you ask TSA about the horrific risk they are subjecting us to daily, they will assure us that the other 20 layers of security are sufficient to ensure that there's no threat to aviation security.

If those 20 layers of security plus a name-check against terrorist databases are sufficient, then I fail to see what fingerprints and background checks add to the process. They do add to the TSA's bottom line.

I think TSA wants that enrollment money really badly. Does it go towards executive bonuses?

TWA884

That's been extensively discussed in the Managed Inclusion threads.

jetsfan92588

I don't think the handler did anything wrong by "letting" the dog lunge in and of itself, but she was not handling the dog correctly. She has very poor posture and generally seems like she wasn't paying attention to the dog and the dog doesn't appear well trained enough for her to be able to do that. It is possible that the dog was actually in training which would make the whole situation more understandable.

worldwidedreamer

Without casting a judgement pro/con TSA, what was fascinating is that he said, "We have over 20 layers of security...we now have federal flight deck officers who are armed onboard that airplane, as well as air marshals." Not a security geek, but this is the first time I've heard about flight crew being equipped with government approved weapons.

On one hand, everyone on a plan puts their faith in the pilots to ensure a safe flight at the same time not so sure that more weapons make for less violent skies. Just an FYI.

Boggie Dog

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federa...t_Deck_Officer


More info on the FFDO program. Not a new program.