DFW Shoe Harassment
 

I was passing through DF-Dubya Monday and, approaching the magnometer, got the usual "your shoes, sir." I politely declined, and the guy said that they met a "certain profile" and sent me right through to holding for secondary. He actually said it had to do with sole thickness (they are tennis shoes). I almost blurted out, "but you can't tell me that - that's SSI!" :rolleyes:

When will this stupidity stop?

Why didn't you ?

Why come in here and cry & whine ? Does it make you feel any better ?

Stand up and be counted !! :p

I got the same exact line "It was because my shoe sole thickness" when I was de-shoed at SDF last time, which fortunately has been well over a month ago.

Many more trips out of SDF and through many other airports, no de-shoeing at all.. other than my buddy that got SSSS'd on a last minute purchase as a re-route for a cancelled flight. At LAX I was asked "Have you been through a metal detector with those shoes before", I said yes, and no problems.

What the screener did at LAX was excellent; if in doubt, ask, and then proceed. Thankfully we do have screeners who use common sense out there!

SDF_Traveler

P.S. Next week will be doing SDF & EWR domestically -- will see what that brings... plus I'll be doing some European airports, but there I know I won't be de-shoed or encounter any sillyness other than perhaps the ICTS interviewer for my return trans-Atlantic.

And not a moronic, sicko, drunk, idiotic FSD running the place.

The only thing that would make me feel better is the immediate disbanding of this massive waste of taxpayer money agency.

I do not post here to "cry and whine", but rather to keep those who read FT up to date with the most recent "on the ground" information from the various airports that I transit.

Need a tissue ?

Sounds just like crying & whining to me ! :rolleyes:

I find the information about the various policies, rules, and secondary search triggers that ender83 and others post here invaluable in dealing with the Totalitarian Subjugation Acclimators. If I know the inside scoop on what the TSA's rules are, I even feel a bit calmer approaching the checkpoint. I want to know, exactly, what will happen if I refuse to take off my shoes, or if I put a coat down to pad my laptop, or if I wear a light cardigan with nothing underneath, or get secondaried in a skirt, or carry three bags at SFO, or wear a button that says, "Suspected Terrorist".

I'm sure others also find the up-to-date info on conditions on the ground at checkpoints useful.

I, and am sure many others, do appreciate the information provided on which airports are better than others when it comes to security from the harassment standpoint.

Some happen to be better than others while others change on an on-going basis.

As far as the TSA, it was intended to be a "quick fix" to improve our security after 9/11, but instead of becoming an effective fix, it's become an expensive waste of taxpayer money which provides little more than window dressing.

We'd be much better off if we followed some models used overseas such as the procedures used at the London Airports (LHR / LGW), or even AMS Schiphol. All baggage is screened (and passengers are able to lock it), no silly SSSS business, and ID is only asked for when necessary.

As an example, I recently flew LHR-AMS on KLM. They use T4 at Heathrow; I check-in (with an e-ticket) & get boarding pass; passport is required to be swiped as I will continue my travel outside of the EU. I then proceed to security; they want to see my ID (passport) and boarding pass once to enter the area where the checkpoint is. I get screened, shoes are not removed, and screening is professional. I go to my gate, my flight is called, I hand my boarding pass to the agent, and down the jetway I go onto a Boeing 767-300 for this 45 minute intra-European flight.

While this particular flight was within the EU (UK to The Netherlands), I showed my ID twice; once to the airline, once to enter the checkpoint. At no other time did I get hit with ID checks, boarding pass checks, etc. My checked baggage was locked and screened behind the scenes; all baggage is matched with passengers on the flight (PPBM); something we should do on all flights here in the US.

Best,

SDF_Traveler

1. Shoe removal is not required (for the 10,000 time). If you don't want to take your shoes off, then don't. However, with that being said, if you alarm your shoes will have to be tested, one way or another. (HHMD & ETD and/or Xray).

2. Your laptop will be ETD'd and opened. Of course this entails more handling, which raises the chances of mis-handling. The choice is yours.......again.

3. What does the wearing of a "light cardigan" have to do with screening @ the CP ? :confused:

4. You will be screened according to SOP (hopefully), which entails the little "hokey-pokey" dance you ladies must go thru when wearing skirts. If you are at all uncomfortable with this done in plain sight, you have the option of a private screening.

5. Can't speak for SFO, but TSA (as it stands now) does not have the authority to enforce the "2 bag" rule. That is up to the airlines, who BTW can be fined by the FAA for non-compliance.

6. The button is your call. If you feel compelled, by all means, wear it. However, don't be surprised if your stopped, questioned, maybe even arrested.

These are just general statements. None of them can be taken as gospel. I'm just trying to relay info to you, as if you were coming thru RDU. Hope it helps. :)

And for the 10,000th time, some sorry, punk-assed, sack-of-crap FSDs are harassing passengers whose shoes do NOT alarm.

As stated....RDU !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!

And IAD, too.

Let me say this loud and clear so you don't misunderstand it: WRONG.

I don't care what your silly little policies say. The facts on the ground are that people get automatic secondary harassment when they refuse to take off their shoes (at every US airport I've been through in the last six months.) Last time (DFW) the screener literally sent me through the magnometer with the comment to his co-worker on the other side that I was to go straight to secondary because I didn't take off my shoes.

So, it's not required, eh? Get a clue!!

Ender83,

Read the end of TakeScissorsAway post, these comments are about his airport.

But let me change it. Shoe removal isn't required at the WTMD. You do not have to take them off, which is true (at most airports, but I've read here that some screeners seem to block the WTMD till you do remove them which is wrong). But every airport seems to have taken the shoe policy and defined it differently and thus applied it differently at every airport.

If the shoe meets a certian profile, you are to be screened if you don't remove them at the WTMD. For some reason some airports require all shoes off. Other airports require certian shoes off and some just don't seem to enforce it, if I get what I'm reading here right. Maybe the FSD at that airport just doesn't care to or doesn't really have control of his airport like he thought. Or maybe that airport is like mine, where they want us to enforce it but screeners have chosen not to because we all know the Leads and Supervisors don't pay attention to crap most the time, and we get away with it.

Spiff,

If other airports are anything like mine, management beyond the SM doesn't know jack about what seems to go on at the checkpoint until something bad happens. So unless a FSD has come out and said "Hell with the Shoe Policy" I wouldn't honestly believe that the FSD has something to do with that airports lack of shoe harrasment.

Screenerx -

I typically wear the same pair of shoes when I fly; they're light weight and do not have metal shanks. When it comes to the checkpoint at a specific airport, they're pefectly fine for a few trips, then one day I'm told to remove them because the soles are too thick (BS). The next several times I'm not required to remove them at the same airport, same checkpoint. My shoes, let alone the soles, don't get larger or smaller each day. It seems to be of my opinion (and experience), a good number of screeners don't even know what this profile is and they just make everyone remove shoes.

At other airports including BOS, LAX, MSP, and MEM, the shoes are fine, but at JFK or EWR they're not (ok, depends upon terminal at JFK). At LGA sometimes they are, other times they aren't.

The shoe issue alone, let alone many other processes, are so inconsistent around the nation it's not even funny.

As far as screeners blocking checkpoints until shoes are off, it happens. It might be wrong, but it happens; this isn't airport specific either, as I've experienced it myself as well as witnessed it at various airports. As someone who has flown 75,000+ actual miles already this year, I get around and I see a lot of different things at the various airports I use.

If you did the amount of travel I do, I'd be willing to bet, especially with your knowledge of SOP, you would be outright appalled at the actions your fellow screeners take at airports around the United States. Additionally, there is a handful of airports which have serious problems with long TSA screening lines (LAS, SEA, DEN, ATL, as a few examples). Traveling by air, especially during peak hours, is a bloody joke at these airports.

Even at a medium sized airport, where lines are usually decent, I've seen them turn into a disaster after a few flights cancel, pax get rebooked, and 3/4th's of the passengers are selectees which causes havoc for everyone.

Best,

SDF_Traveler

SDF_Travler,

Always a pleasure to talk to you.

I agree with your above post, it is apalling with how bad the inconsistence among airports is. The fact that nothing seems to be done about it is pretty pathetic also. I would feel really bad for all those screeners there trying to pull from different airports to screen at another because they have to change everything they might have known, which isn't right.

We've had screeners transfer into my airport and the basics at each airport are the same, thankfully. But the shoe policy different, the film policy is different (There were airports that only took certian speeds of film around the xray), and just general routine. I've read the newer SOP's and feel there should be no problem at all on how to interpt it, it's a no brainer. But airports still seem to have issues.

I'm honestly appalled with TSA as a whole as far as procedures and treatment from management. I'm leaving, thankfully. But I'll admit I hate the posts about screeners and direct flames against them. Some seem anal I understand that. But like the post from Gladgirl about ABQ screeners, I agree with it the screener should have known better but we've had a Lead and Supervisor jump on screeners on xray because they felt that bag should have been rerun on it's side. Can you believe we have a Supervisor who proably never really runs a xray telling a screener how to do their xray? Some screeners are anal but some have had a Lead and Supervisor who jumps on them for nothing and finally you just have enough and you do exaclty what they say every time.

TSA = Soviet Politburo
 

Face it, folks, the TSA is completely ineffective. As I asserted in another thread, I compared the TSA (leadership down to individual screeners) to the old Soviet Politburo.

As we learned in War College, the primary purpose of the Politburo was to perpetuate the Politburo. By direct analogy, the primary purpose of the TSA is to perpetuate the TSA. If the TSA ever had a real mission (certainly debatable) they lost sight of it long ago.

Have no fear -- On January 20, 2005, at 1200 hours EST, there will be a peaceful transfer of power in the United States of America from an appointed government to an elected one.

Oh please
 

I agree with 99% of what I've seen you post, but this last comment is just too much for me. If you really think that Kerry and co. will do anything to downsize/dismantle the TSA, or even reign them in, you are dreaming. Democrats in power will only lead to a larger TSA with more funding to hire more screeners to harass more travellers.

Not that I'm a Bush supporter either, for the record, because he allowed all this BS to happen on his watch. I do, however, believe in smaller government. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of Mr. Kerry and the Democrats (and perhaps of Mr. Bush either).

Get a brain. :rolleyes:

My statements only pertain to RDU. As stated, I can't speak for other airports and what they do or don't do. At RDU we go by SOP when it comes to the shoe issue.

Next time you step up to the walk thru, and a screener says your shoes are required to be removed, ask them what SOP they are going by.

Blah, blah, blah :rolleyes:

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

The TSA was forced upon us by Comrades Daschle and Gephardt. In the post 9/11 hysteria, they saw a golden opportunity to add 100,000 more hacks to workfare. The Republicans wanted stronger oversight of the private screeners. Daschle and Gephardt threatened to paint the Republicans as being soft on terrorism if they did not go along with the TSA workfare program. This is fact.

Remind me again, what party do Comrades Daschle and Gephardt belong to?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Oh boy.........here we go

oh please
 

Please......you want us to believe that a Repub controled Congress and White House were "threatened" by the Dems and forced to create the TSA???
Facts are things everyone agrees are true. I would assume that you would have trouble even finding people on the right who agree with your statement. You should back up such a definitive statement with some proof. Perhaps an article or two (and the American Spectator does not count) would help.
The Repubs have put forward any and every piece of legislation they have wanted these past four years including partial birth abortion with little opposition. While your premise may be correct in terms of the Dems wanting to have more gov't programs in general, you have no one to blame for this one except W. As they say, there is plenty of blame to go around on this one.
On a good note, I have heard some grublings lately from certain Repubs that they do not like the TSA and want it changed. They seem to be in the minority of their party though.

A: It's not good manners to ADD to an quote. What I stated is FACT. You added an OPINION to a quote of my words.

b: Comrade Daschle uttered the now famous "You cannot professionalize until you federalize" statement when he threatened to block any legislation that did not include a new workfare agency. This is FACT. The Republicans did not, nor do they currently have a fillibuster proof margin in the Senate. Thus, they are forced to deal with Comrade Daschle and his phony games.

I didnt add anything to your quote.
 

That was a meta tag that didn't copy well. Nothing added to your quote by me.

The quote may be fact, but your statement still is opinion. They are not forced to deal with anyone. They can pass whatever bill they feel like and W will sign it into law. If they didn't like the bill they didn't have to vote for it, simple as that.

Again, FACT not opinion.

Also, if my memory serves me correctly, Comrade Daschel was Senate Majority leader at the time, due to Jim Jeffords doing a Kerryesque flip-flop.

Daschle threatened to hold up any legislation that did not include this useless agency. That is again, FACT. The Republicans were powerless to pass the legislation they wanted, which was more powerful government oversight of private screeners. In the post-9/11 hysteria, failure to pass a "Security" related bill would have been suicide come November of 2002.

If the Republicans had all of this "Power" that you claim they have, then how has Comrade Daschle held up many of President Bush's judical appointments? It's called a fillibuster.

Maybe we need to stay a little more on the topic.

I frequently fly out of PBI and I refuse to take off my sneakers, due to medical reasons. They then automatically secondarily screen me since PBI has the "all shoes off" policy. I don't set off the metal detector and thus sometimes I am only have my shoes swabbed and other times they wand and pat me down. When I see the latter is coming, I automatically send the screener back to change gloves and point out that I need to protect myself the same way as they need to protect themselves. Since the individual screener does not like losing their authority, I am sometimes told to "change seats" inthe screening area. I then refuse to do so for medical reasons and breeze through the remainder of the process. It is a ridiculous situation and many innocent people are harassed unnecessarily. Since I am somewhat "well known and recognized" by a number of the TSA at PBI, I laugh to myself how some TSA screeners are hard working and try to do what is correct and others find it enjoyable work since they need to feel powerful and in charge. TRULY pathetic!

That, IMO, would be a poor assumption.

Careful.........90% of the FF's on this board resemble that remark ;)

Just shut up and take your shoes off. Guess what you actually get through the checkpoint faster and the people behind you do too.

After twenty-some posts, I can see you are going to be very popular here. I suggest you learn some manners.

Manners? Appearently no one else here has any so why should I.

:D

what is the big deal
 

OK here we go with the shoes thing again, why are you all crying so much about the shoes. Just take them off if the screener says to. Don't throw a fit. It takes less time to take them off and put them back on than it does to argue. Obviously those that do not want to take their shoes off and cause a scene at the airport have some sort of self esteem problem and have to draw attention to themselves. For these people, the button idea mentioned in a previous posting sounds pretty good.

I have traveled on 16 different flights in the last two months and at every checkpoint most people take their shoes off, those that do not and are asked to then make some sort of snide comment and do not take them off go through secondary screening, it is SOP and should be. OK I guess you want to know what airports these were ok here you go, SDF, LGA, JFK, ORD, SMF, DFW, SAT, IND... and just in case you want the rest of the airport I have traveled to in the past that this was the case here you go. TPA, EYW, MIA, FLL, PBI, MCO, AUS, SEA, SFO, PHF, OWB, EVV, MTH, BNA, LIT, MDW, MSP, ICT, PNC, LAS, RNO, SJC, ATL, CVG.

Screw that.

It's wrong to strip search people who want to fly. Maybe you like it but many of us are unwilling to participate in these sicko shoecapades that add ZERO to security.

All FSDs who play the Shoe Carnival are most cordially welcome to go straight to hell. Maybe they and Mineta, Loy, and Stone get together once a month to review the security tapes at these sicko FSDs' airports and have themselves a little circle jerk?

Wait 'til you go thru with a camcorder. New SOP out 2day gang.

Uhh, lest you end up banned.

Oops. :eek:

Taking off your shoes is a long way off from a strip search. I previously was employed where we required strip searches, TSA does not come close.

As far as going to hell, some FSDs might. Why dont you go there and wait for them?

I don't give a rat's ... where you used to work, Sweetie. Wherever it was, it certainly didn't involve working with the free public. If you're not up for dealing with the free traveling public, why not go back to that happy place where you may have felt more at home.

Anytime a member of the free public is forced to doff an article of clothing, it's a strip search whether you want to hear it or not.

I have a funny feeling that we were highlighted on another one of those TSAhole web sites.

I got a message for all of you whining crybaby screeners:

You don't like our opinion of you and your joke of an agency, then get off of workfare and get a REAL job.