I guess what I don't understand is this: If there are bad guys/gals who know that if they do not remove their shoes they will get more thorough inspection -- they will remove their shoes. Then they can walk thru with something on or in their bodies. Perhaps stuff between or under their tits or balls. So -- what's up with this? And does anyone understand what I am trying to ask? Doesn't anyone think the bad folks will do whatever it takes to not get secondary??

The TSA will tell you not to worry because they could be a random selectee.

The groping is just more of a punitive measure for people who refuse to sumbit to the TSA's un-American strip search at the WTMD. It does nothing for security.

I forgot to mention in my most recent SSSSession, I was wearing a skin-tight short-sleeved tee-shirt (like a dressier version of the normal kind). Not only did every inch get a good rubdown, the man also rubbed down my bare arms from mid-bicep to the wrist.
Truly bizarre.

You've been told many times but apparently choose to believe that it's possible to go through security with "traveling shoes." This simply is not the case at the airports that the frequent flyers here have categorized as "shoe carnival" airports. In my travels this year DEN, MCI, and CMH have been my shoe carnival airports. I live in Denver and have gone through security here more than 50 times this year. I asssure you, if you don't take your shoes off, you'll go through secondary and receive the full pat down treatment even though you don't alarm. At CMH the recorded voice explicitly says you should remove your shoes to avoid secondary screening.

I've politely complained at all three airports...it does no good. I've even had managers at these airports admit that they receive a lot of complaints about shoe removal. Their answer is that every other airport is doing it wrong. I try to point out that ORD, the world's busiest airport, does not require shoe removal...why is Columbus, Ohio different? The standard answer..."we're doing it right...the other airports aren't."

I'm a reporter with The Dallas Morning News and am looking to talk to DFW area travelers who have experienced the new pat-down procedures. I would also like to hear from screeners about their experiences.

Please contact me off the list at 214-977-8489 or [email protected].

Hey, this is how we can all use our excess miles.

I can just see it now in Coupon Connection -- will trade ticket to jurisdiction where I was cited for extra lounge club passes.

Actually, just as a point of order... it is not necessary to look at millions of passengers to determine "the facts." Statistically:

If you have a representative sample and use a sample size of approximately 1000 randomly selected respondents, you will have a sampling error of +/- 3 percentage points at the 95 percent confidence level. ("Sampling error" is the variability that occurs because only a small portion of the population is studied, rather than the entire population. ie. looking at some people at airports instead of every single person at every airport).

What does this mean? It means that if, say, 37% of travelers experience something, then you can be certain that if you kept doing the survey over and over and over again indefinitely, the results would be that between 34% and 40% of travelers would have that experience in 95% of your surveys.

By the way, just in case you are wondering where I got this information... it is a general principle of statistics. You could look at the Editor's Note page of American Demographics magazine if you want to see a reprint of my explanation. (although they don't mention shoes or airports... )

So, if you're really curious, assume that the first 1000 people who walk through security are "representative." ie. don't count crew, TSA, FAMs, etc in the 1000 -- just use "regular" passengers. See what happens.

I doubt many law enforcement officers would be enraged. What she described is very similar to the kind of search that LEOs conduct. <shrug>


No argument here.


Unfortunately, screeners are nigh powerless to effect the kind of change that you are referring to. A lot of folks may not know that TSA screeners literally have fewer rights as federal employees than all other federal employees and employees of civilian employers.

A flight attendant can blow the whistle on a security issue and federal law protects them from any disciplinary action. If a screener does anything that management disapproves of, the screener can be terminated, and the only appeal process afforded them is to the agency itself.

Screeners jobs are so tenuous that it has created an overwhelming culture of fear and paranoia. I kid you not. The Aviation Transportation Security Act of 2001 has given the TSA the power to do almost anything it wants in terms of enacting security policies and especially for dealing with its personnel, "without regard to any other federal law."

(I would post a link to an editorial I wrote on this topic but the forum owner has prohibited me from posting any links to my web site. Sorry.)


I would posit that a letter-writing campaign to congressional representative and senators would have a greater impact than media exposure alone.

I can't tell you if we are exempt because I never alarmed. But I'll pay more attention from now on and I'll get back to all of you with the rule...


Ok Shoes= If the shoes alarmed, Screeners must go back and take them off.
the 1 inch rule does not apply to screeners.

Pat Down=with or without uniforms (fitted shirts) if a screener alarms after removing his/her shoes or whatever was that make him alarmed, they will go to the corral and they'll get handwanded and the Pat down is performed exactly the same way it's done to passengers.

Today I was paying attention to airport employees (crew, stores, vendors, screeners,etc) and Yes once they're in the corral everybody in it must get the Pat Down/complimentary massage.

Now here's a head-scratcher...

Just back from Toronto. Flew in to ORD on UA. Toronto, like most major Canadian airports, offers "preclearance" on flights to the US (which most of you know). For all intents and purposes, once you clear Immigration and Customs, you're back in the US. But the security screening is clearly Canadian. Now they do a decent enough job, but they aren't nearly as strict as TSA. No shoe carnival, no cranked up WTMDs (I forgot to remove a belt that always alarms in the US, and didn't in Toronto). Laptops out, but go right ahead and place your coat on top of your laptop. I suppose the thinking is that all the Immigration and Customs rigamarole will tend to scare off the bad guys, but if you get through that, you're free to roam your destination airport and grab a plane anywhere.

Which again leads me back to my usual complaint: consistent inconsistency. In another post in this thread, TSAMGR made the usual point that inconsistency is designed into the process to keep the bad guys off balance. I'm thinking he said that tongue in cheek because, as we have documented here in numerous posts, the same airports do things the same way every time. They are clearly inconsistent with other airports, but never inconsistent from trip to trip through that airport.

And it seems to me that if we're going to have "preclearance" in other countries, then their screening has to be to the same basic level as TSA in the US. Consistent inconsistency is what I call a security breach waiting to happen.

Oh, goodie... I am so impressed

GradGirl-

It wasn't flamebait... Just the straight facts! If flyers don't like it, oh well...

It is Washington that makes the policies, not us. Either comply or don't fly, it is the only choice...

I got a nice massage when I last flew out of MAN a few weeks, ago i was wearing some jeans and a tshirt no coat no hand luggage, my partner had the hand luggage, I didnt set the metal detector off, and I was asked as soon as I passed through it for a pat down.

Did a pretty good search bless him, Did it bother me no, was I offended no, did I complain no, Why? because the guy was doing it for EVERYONES safety.

The guy who did it was really nice attitude asked me where i was going and so on, to be expected I guess, and at the end he said have a really nice weekend away.

I then walked across to the mrs who was having her bag tested for explosives and drugs

I really dont get why some people object to the searches.

Dino

Actually, we live in a pretty great country that was founded on the fact that there are always constructive alternatives to that kind of "you will obey" thinking.

If that wasn't true, then we'd still be British, slavery would still be legal, and women wouldn't have the vote.

SCREENER: I suggest that you take your shoes off, sir.
PAX: That's okay. I like them on.
SCREENER: If you leave them on you will need further screening.
PAX: That's okay, I'm here for the complimentary massage.