You are a liar.

Being opposed to stupid/poor screening does not imply that one wants to eliminate all screening.

Pull your head out and try thinking for a change.

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

actually, i'm not....

because the truth is, you like to complain about ANYTHING so much that, as i stated before, even if we implemented all the changes you feel the TSA should make to accomadate you, you would STILL find something that would make you unhappy about the process-i've known people like you all my life-you and greg are nothing new under the sun-

I’m not interested in any debate on this issue but I need to defend the TSA critics a bit.

To use an analogy, let’s look at widget manufacturing. If you want 100% quality on widgets, the “TSA” approach would be to hire quality control inspectors to examine every single widget that comes off the assembly line. Then there would also be a level of quality control monitors to examine the widget inspector’s to make sure they are doing their job. And, the process expands with each level. This was the typical approach to quality in manufacturing that most people got used to but in progressive manufacturing circles this method is no longer employed. There are much better approaches.

I think the TSA critics are simply saying there is a more effective way to approach quality in security too. In the case of Air Travel Security, TSA doesn’t need to screen every single passenger that gets on an aircraft; we just need to find the few that might want to do something bad. If the higher ups at TSA can’t figure out how to accomplish this, then maybe TSA has the wrong people at the top. Maybe it’s time for the taxpayers to demand they get their money’s worth.

Maybe? Enough said.

Most of the TSA posters here attempt to bait by saying that those of us against the shoe policy and all the other stupid, redundent, "in the name of safety", "cause I'm retired and love my country" TSA processes, don't want security. Seems at least you get it, LAXScreener. Because we gripe amongst ourselves about TSA inconsistencies (actual processes vs. theoretical ((posted on TSA website))) doesn't mean we don't want any screening. That just shows the ignorance of that poster.

Don't feed us BS (save it for Grandma and retired-military Grandpa) and don't wrap what your trying to feed us in the flag. We all know the truth of TSA security. I know TSA WANTS to be there for us but the facts are that actual security is equal to what is was before TSA. TSA tells us how safe we are yet ground crew only has back ground done. No daily screening only a background. Cargo on passenger planes is only randomly screened while every single check luggage MUST be screened. The same "individual" that has to remove his shoes can also ship cargo.
The only difference between the two: Private and TSA are accountability. TSA has none.

I feel kind of cool to be considered "ilk." http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...orum/smile.gif

I probably have the most radical of perspectives, with regard to secruity, and even I am willing to submit to some level of screening, so long as it is privatized and the responsibility of the airline. I want the level and type of secrurity to be a factor in deciding which airline with which I choose to fly.

If we allow airlines to take the heat when something happens to their plane, the passengers on it or the community under it, there is no better incentive to make sure that a plane is secure. A single misstep could bankrupt the airline, just like it could a surgeon, or anyone else who holds a life or lives in their hands.

The issue has absolutely nothing to do with inconvenience; you are talking about people who fly an insane number of connections to get to a destination just for a few extra frequent flyer miles. I think everyone here is willing to go out of their way, wait in line a little while, perhaps even disrobe to a certain point, if there's an acceptable justification for the inconvenience.

Most of the folks I've encountered on Flyertalk also happen to be very hard workers, with good jobs and lots of responsibility within their companies. Thus, they have little tolerance for make-work, spinning wheels, superficiality without substance, inefficiency, futility or broken promises. Their observations of TSA's execution and organization all too often correspond with these characteristics, which are so intolerable for someone who works hard for well-earned success.

Yes, inconvenience without purpose is frustrating. There is no purpose in most of the inane policies and practices imposed by the TSA. A healthy proportion of those active here are frustrated. But that's an issue separate from the fundamental one, which is that federalized security will always leave us behind the ball. The airlines are off the hook if something goes wrong, and it is impossible to hold the government liable if something it manages goes wrong. There is no direct incentive to be efficient, productive, and successful. There are no direct consequences if we see another tragic catastrophe. Therefore, TSA has no direct motivation. We all end up parading barefoot through a magnetometer while the terrorist cuts a hole in the fence surrounding the airport grounds, walks onto the tarmac and places something on or in a plane.

sincerely,

-ilk

Where is this guy from. "I'd rather not remove my shoes" is a sure and certain way to make sure one receives the involuntary athlete's foot treatment. And I never wear anything except sneakers.

actually, the TSA "critics" aren't saying much of anything-just whining and complaining because they really don't want to have to submit to any kind of screening process at all-Greg is esp virulant in that he has made it clear in some of his posts that ANY kind of civil authority, including the police is his area, are an affront to his interpretation of what his civil liberties should be...However, all the main critics here(greg, mike, spiff, cameraguy for example) have surrendered any ability on their part to engage in intelligent debate, relying instead on making derogatory remarks behind the anonymity of this message board(i can already tell you the responses these will make to this post-greg will call me a goosestepping goon; mike will quote my post and then type "ignore the idiot mode"; spiff will call me a communist, and cameraguy will just prattle on in an incessant manner)and showing themselves for the cowards and complainers that they are, not offering anything constructive...

AAAANNNTTTT.....wrong answer. You are "not" required to remove your shoes, @ RDU, unless you alarm on your 2nd pass.

New York. Not sure which airport. And if you knew what he knew, you'd never leave home, avoid 15 year olds and if you did fly from his airport you'd be reading plasma screens at his check point....

Wish I flew thru RDU more often then - LEX has this stupid fetish going. It's probably just to make work for the dozen or so people at the check point. And this is a small airport and I was flying through at a peak time. Pretty sad Workfare location I must say.

Did you guys finally stop doing gates at RDU?

Yes, it is a wonderful idea to give screening back to the private airlines, because we know for a fact that they will choose safety and security over profit and lowest bid contract. Bull!!! The airlines know, and you know that the general public will purchase the lowest fare ticket to where they are going, d..mn the possibility of terrorism. That is the American way. And so why spend any more than absolutely necessary for screening if the public doesn't demand it. That is the phylosophy that got Argenbright in trouble to start with. They were only providing to the airlines what the airlines were willing to pay for.

Yes, we did !! And the pax & airlines are very happy. Probably one of the last airports to do so.

Sorry, but this IS the home of "Mayberry". And before you ask, yes, we have "Goobers" & "Gomers" everywhere !! http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...um/biggrin.gif

They would implement whatever level of security the market demands and that would ensure a safe flight. Why? Because not only would the security be transitioned to the airlines but also the risk and liability. If their security failed, the airlines would be liable and would not get bailed out by the tax payers. Sure, they'd have insurance for catastrophes, but no insurance would cover them enough to keep them flying after a major catastrophe. Their very existence and prosperity would depend upon their security and screening processes.

Similarly, if a surgeon makes a catastrophic mistake, malpractice insurance will defray some of the resulting expense, but the odds of the surgeon remaining solvent or continuing to practice in the same capacity are not great. As a result, medical mistakes are extremely rare. There is no "almost" in neurosurgery, for example.

We had shoddy security, because the airlines have friends in Washington who will bail them out if they encounter a little trouble. They could put up a bare bones veneer of security to humor everyone and then passed along all the risk and expense to us. Shift that back to them and I think they might put in a bit more effort into quality security.

Yes, sometimes I might choose minimal to no security on a flight for a lower fare. If the flight is, say, a CO Express flight between College Station and Midland, I would be willing to accept less security for less cost. A flight like that would have less risk to begin with. If I was flying LAX-LGA direct, however, I'd probably be willing to pay a bit more for extra screening. Peace of mind.

The difference here is that I am able to choose from a number of options, depending on what I determine to be best for my own risk assesment and my own needs. Right now, that decision and that choice is not mine. The government makes it for me.

I encountered a new term that is appropriate for this subject: Learned Helplessness. I don't accept that for myself or for my fellow citizens. If we want to reverse this trend, then we need to chip away at the layers of government handholding and put the decision making and, along with it, the risk, back on the shoulders of each individual.

[This message has been edited by swise (edited Dec 10, 2003).]

I agree with you on this, I would wager that if the airlines were to take over security again things would be very different. If they were to bear the liability if another incident happened with no chance of another gov't bailout, security would be far more intrusive than it is now. For if another incident happened, said airline would be finished, period. The lawsuits would kill them, not to mention the bad press. Of course each airline might be tempted to hire their own screening team rather than rely on a combined team. That way, if something did happen, there would be no doubt as to who was at fault. Either way, we Americans need to be held accountable for our own actions and stop this "victim" mentality.



------------------
Don't take life too seriously, afterall, you won't get out alive.

Starting with the TSA!! To be unaccountable for theft and damaged/stolen luggage because of their "or else" policy is unacceptable.