FlyerTalk Forums

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)
-   Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/checkpoints-borders-policy-debate-687/)
-   -   TSA Adjusting Prohibitions/Designated "Ask Bart" Thread (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/checkpoints-borders-policy-debate/589864-tsa-adjusting-prohibitions-designated-ask-bart-thread.html)

FliesWay2Much Sep 14, 2006 11:05 am


Originally Posted by Katja
I am not a lawyer, but after a very careful reading of ADA Title III (Public Accomodation), I really have trouble justifying that this sort of stuff is in any way covered. As a person who counts on the protection of the ADA for really big important things (can I get in to buildings, can I use public restrooms and other facilities, can my employer fire me for being disabled and no other reason, etc), I can't get behind nuisance lawsuits.

Also, the ADA is an unfunded mandate. The DOJ has absolutely no motivation, financial or otherwise, to come down on anybody for a nuisance ADA complaint.

In this instance, IMHO, TSA is just not following their own stupid rules that they made up. They're not breaking laws.

What makes the ADA work, other than the situations you cite, is advocacy groups that can put the squeeze on government agencies in a very public manner. (FYI, I have a mentally handicapped sister-in-law and am plugged into some of these advocacy groups.) Even in his best days, the TSA's former Baghdad Bob, Mark Hatfield, couldn't "no comment" and ADA issue. That's the advantage -- public embarassment that causes them to take positive action. All of this can happen well short of a lawsuit. If nothing else, you can force the TSA into conducting remedial training of its problem employees and perhaps prevent this sort of thing happening to someone in a worse situation than either you or my sister-in-law.

And, for the record, I certainly don't consider what happened to you to be a "nuisance complaint," and I'm willing to bet that most folks who post here would agree with me.

SylviaCaras Sep 14, 2006 12:10 pm

Air Carrier Access Act
 
Generally it would be the Air Carrier Access Act not the ADA.

The Air Carrier Access Act prohibits discrimination in air transportation by domestic and foreign air carriers against qualified individuals with physical or mental impairments. It applies only to air carriers that provide regularly scheduled services for hire to the public. Requirements address a wide range of issues including boarding assistance and certain accessibility features in newly built aircraft and new or altered airport facilities. People may enforce rights under the Air Carrier Access Act by filing a complaint with the U.S. Department of Transportation, or by bringing a lawsuit in Federal court. For more information or to file a complaint, contact:

Aviation Consumer Protection Division
U.S. Department of Transportation
400 Seventh Street, S.W.
Room 4107, C-75
Washington, D.C. 20590

airconsumer.ost.dot.gov

(202) 366-2220 (voice)
(202) 366-0511 (TTY)

(800) 778-4838 (voice)
(800) 455-9880 (TTY)

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/cguide.htm lists some other disability related laws and protections

Sylvia

Katja Sep 14, 2006 12:26 pm


Originally Posted by SylviaCaras
Generally it would be the Air Carrier Access Act not the ADA.

Agreed, if it were about something the airline had done. I've always been under the impression that the airlines are subject to the ACAA, but the airport is subject to ADA. Am I mistaken?

SylviaCaras Sep 22, 2006 12:41 pm

Katja's right
 

Originally Posted by Katja
Agreed, if it were about something the airline had done. I've always been under the impression that the airlines are subject to the ACAA, but the airport is subject to ADA. Am I mistaken?

From a disability-rights attorney:

The ADA would apply primarily to the airport as a place of public accommodation, while the ACAA applies to airlines and would apply to the airline screening policies. The DOT has published regulations regarding implementation of the ACAA see links at: http://www.dlrp.org/html/guide_to/acaa.html
Here is a nice summary of the ACAA requirements by the DOT
http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/publi...s.htm#Security
Here is a list of where to file disability-related complaints:
http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/Discr...tsContacts.htm

But what still isn't clear to me is who is doing the screening, under what laws does DHS/TSA fall?

Sylvia

Superguy Sep 22, 2006 12:46 pm


Originally Posted by SylviaCaras
But what still isn't clear to me is who is doing the screening, under what laws does DHS/TSA fall?

Sylvia

None, because they're above the law. :D

Katja Sep 22, 2006 4:09 pm

Thanks, Sylvia
 
That's a good list of links.
I'm baffled, too, on which legislation the DHS personnel screening falls under. Probably exempt, or something, like Congress is exempt from labor laws.

Bart Sep 25, 2006 9:28 am

Deleted

GoingAway Sep 25, 2006 9:37 am

Sorry but this continue to be a load of BS to cover the fact that TSA is unprepared and unable to do the job they were created to handle ... 3 oz bottles, quart plastic baggies??? This is just nonsense. I'm sure there is stock held or favors owed to those in the cosmetics, toiletries and other airside concessionaires. :td:

The sad thing is that people will think this is an improvement and just accept it as status quo in the long term.

FWAAA Sep 25, 2006 9:46 am

Comrade Chertoff and Half-wit Hawley can still go straight to hell.

Illogical risk avoidance rather than sensible risk management rules the roost at the Terrorism Support Agency.

nrgiii Sep 25, 2006 9:58 am


Originally Posted by Bart
Since this is being announced publicly, I can now share a Reader's Digest version:

Bart, thanks for this, it is helpful. I'm sure most FT'ers appreciate you hanging with us, despite the sometimes "tough audience".


Originally Posted by FWAAA
Comrade Chertoff and Half-wit Hawley can still go straight to hell.

Illogical risk avoidance rather than sensible risk management rules the roost at the Terrorism Support Agency.

We have a saying in 12 step recovery: Progress, not perfection. To me, this latest change fits squarely in that category.

Instead of p*ssing and moaning on this forum, where it does no good, why don't you write your Congressmen and the TSA? Oh yeah, right. Complaining in a public forum like this doesn't solve anything, but it sure does make *you* feel better. Post whatever snappy comebacks you like, but you know it's true.

On behalf of many FT'ers, shut up already....

SJCFlyerLG Sep 25, 2006 10:01 am


Originally Posted by Bart
2. The other exceptions to the current liquids, gels and aerosol rule still applies; however, you now have to declare these items and also have these items x-rayed separately. A TSO will record these declared items on the reverse side of the boarding pass.

??????? Oh, this will help to expedite the screening process. Will there be a gate dragon to check your boarding pass declared items against your baggie? You have to be freaking kidding me!

flysurfer Sep 25, 2006 10:05 am

ZIPLOCK CARNIVAL! Gotta love it... :rolleyes:

DallasBill Sep 25, 2006 10:07 am

So, the contact lens solution that I could carry before now has to be packed separately from the one quart bag and declared and written on the back of my boarding pass if I want to kee my one quart bag from not being "stuffed?" And why 1 quart?

Do I now have to allow another 1/2 hour for slow TSO writers? And what of poor penmanship?

Who thinks up this stuff??!!

goalie Sep 25, 2006 10:10 am

Bart thanks for the "rd version" but i have a simple question (actually a couple)....

1-why the zip-lock baggie? is there any difference in placing my open toiletries kit on the belt for inspection? if all items are w/in the size guidelines, then the inspection process is the same, right? just curious.

2-can one substitute a baggie of the same size (or in my case smaller than 1qt) but not a "zip lock"? my reasoning is i have a ton of 12oz/.38qt (marked by the vendor) clear plastic bags and they are stronger than your std zip lock baggie. again, i don't see a difference as a clear baggie is a clear baggie. again, just curious.

3-enjoy your day off :)

Spiff Sep 25, 2006 10:14 am


Originally Posted by nrgiii
Bart, thanks for this, it is helpful. I'm sure most FT'ers appreciate you hanging with us, despite the sometimes "tough audience".



We have a saying in 12 step recovery: Progress, not perfection. To me, this latest change fits squarely in that category.

Instead of p*ssing and moaning on this forum, where it does no good, why don't you write your Congressmen and the TSA? Oh yeah, right. Complaining in a public forum like this doesn't solve anything, but it sure does make *you* feel better. Post whatever snappy comebacks you like, but you know it's true.

On behalf of many FT'ers, shut up already....

Then you should also know that if one is in "recovery" that praising the latest addiction trade is completely illogical. "You've been on and off the smack for 5 years now. Today, you've switched back to heroin after a recent experiment with speed......g (mixing heroin and cocaine, sorry re: FT censor). Good job!!" :rolleyes:

Some of us do write our representatives and the TSA as well as the airlines. And we complain here too where millions can see that the TSA's actions are often extremely foolish.

On behalf of many FTers, you are awesome FWAAA and I hope to continue to read your insightful posts. @:-)


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 1:28 am.


This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.