According to official statistics (www.tsa.gov and other official documents) TSA employs 48,000 screeners (down from the 56,000 requested).

As of last year the screeners where responsible for 1,000 security related arrests since the establishment of the TSA mandate. (I found this statistic in a senate hearing document).

It seems to me that the average screener doesn't see too many serious threats, just a bunch of prohibited items but nothing serious enough to warrant an arrest.

That's all we need... an agency with zero accountablity or functional oversight to start being able to arrest/detain/shoot/mace someone.

Deleted

I agree with you completely.

Federal law prohibits age discrimination but only when the victim is between the ages of 40 and 70. Outside that band, employers are free to reject candidates lacking in maturity (like your 18 or 19 year old examples).

It's an old, tired, cliche, but kinda appropriate here: If government doesn't an individual to drink alcohol, government shouldn't trust that individual with safeguarding our nation's skies.

Most of the jerks I have encountered at checkpoints since mid-2002 (when the first TSA-trained screeners were deployed) appear to be younger than 30. Typically, IMO, older screeners view the job as a necessary evil, and a decent paying gig at that. They tend to restrain any "Im in charge and you're powerless" attitudes. They just screen my stuff and send me on my way.

Others will disagree. Call 'em as I see 'em.

Good for you. Glad you found them. But that has nothing to do with the discussion taking place here.

Whether a shoe is profile or not has nothing to do with the presence of metallic weapons/ammo (bullets, knives, etc). Those would alarm the WTMD.

The profle shoe policy has everything to do with your agency's assumptions about the likelihood that the shoes contain a shoe bomb. Thin soled-shoes are not profile, and those with soles and/or heels of one inch or greater are profile; that means your employer is afraid that a shoe bomb is more likely to be present.

And thus far, almost four years after the French and AA teamed up to allow allowed the shoeicide bomber to board with a shoe bomb, no further shoe bombs have been discovered by your agency. In fact, the TSA hasn't yet found a single shoe bomb.

Bart,

you bring up some really good suggestions. Looking back on my travels i realize that in the stations where security screening has been a breeze, i now see that most of those stations where manned by older more mature and experienced staff. Specifically the checkpoint at Orlando last year was very pleasant, i've always enjoyed Las Vegas and the one in Reno, NV has also been a breeze. The guy who runs the line at SFO on the international terminal is a hoot. I just like to watch him work, he nudges, tells jokes and is generally a very extrovert personality -it's actually quite enjoyable to banter a bit with him and he always gets people to do what he needs them to do when they hit the checkpoint.

That is a very astute observation on your part.

I am in 100% agreement that the people manning each checkpoint is what makes the search an enjoyable one or a miserable one.

TSASCRNR:

You do your job with dignity and respect? Good for you!

Now, please tell me, without giving up any SSI intelligence, even ONE thing that is dignified or respectful about a CP. C'mon! It's TSA Pledge Explanation Time here on Flyertalk...

BTW: I am NOT nor will EVER be a TSA "Customer". If there was ever a more amusing malaprop, I'd love to see it! A CUSTOMER is one who willingly pays for a product or service. Try 'victim' instead.

Try getting ME to be one of your damned public examples again, genius.

All of us would sure like to know exactly what is being found and where. Why shouldn't this information be divulged??? :rolleyes:

If they told you they'd have to kill you. :D :D :D

Why should it be divulged? What good will it do?

While giving a fake address sounds hardly serious, it does fall under the broad umbrella of "Making a false statement to a federal official", in essence an element of one of the offenses for which the VP's Chief of Staff was indicted yesterday. I sure wouldn't risk it.

Even if you're lied to about the reason for needing information? From OP: 'The TSA supervisor insisted on seeing my license and proceeded to write down my name, address, and driver's licence number so that "he could file a report about my behavior and refusal to remove my shoes." '

I'd like to see a show of hands from everyone whose personal information has been recorded because they refused to remove their shoes?

It would appear that most, if not all, of the OP who are critical of being scanned etc do not have a medical inplant. I am one of the many thousands who have a metal hip and go through the whole TSA procedure every time I go airport security. We get the scan, pat down etc each time, not just every now and again, and given the present situation insofar as terrorism is concerned I would not want to have it any other way.

I travel mainly between Sydney, LAX, SEA and Vancouver on a regular basis, and not once during my many trips over the past 5 years have I encountered a TSA Agent who has "not" been polite and completely professional. I also think it has a lot to do with your approach to the process, as you only get back what you give.

Security is a very sensative area and the TSA Agents have a difficult job to do especially if the passenger feels the TSA Agent is questioning the persons good character. However, this is not the case and the role they play is very important and from a personal view makes my flying safer. If "something" was to get past security simply because the TSA Agent did not carry out his duties completely, the result could be horrendous.

Although I respect the role of the TSA Agents I appreciate that some young ones could get "power mad" and this cruels it for the genuine TSA guys. With added power comes added responsibility and some people just can't handle it.

par...

...an ENJOYABLE search?

OMG. Are you running a fever?

Because in the USA, we expect disclosure from, and accountability from, our civil servants - who are employees of the people. Burying information under a blanket of secrecy when there is no quantifiable evidence that the information really needs to be secret, is a violation of the public trust.