It's hard to come with non-anecdotal evidence for this. You can have increasing passenger numbers, but they still may be increasing at a rate below the rate they might have if the TSA didn't exist. Obviously, it's almost impossible to know what that hypothetical number might have been -- even if you survey travellers, many of those who hate the TSA endure it anyway because they have no choice, and many of those who choose to take the train instead might have done so anyway for other reasons.

I do know that for myself, I have been willing to put up with a fair of amount of hassle and expense to avoid coming into contact with the TSA. Most of my recent visits to the USA have been done by flying into Montreal, Toronto, Tijuana or Cuidad Juarez and travelling overland to US destinations such as Boston, Los Angeles, New York and Albuquerque. I tolerate the other problems you mention -- poor customer service, lost baggage, etc. to the same extent as I would flying directly into the USA, but I don't have to deal with ignorant, power tripping TSA security screeners, because amongst all the air security agencies whose agents I come into contact with around the world, only the TSA's have these problems. That is the first and foremost question that the TSA has failed to answer, and indeed, the GAO and other studies failed to ask -- how is it that every other country in the world can keep their air passengers safe without harassment, intimidation, power tripping, threats of arrest, silly arbitrary rules, etc. etc., but the TSA cannot? To me it's such an obvious question, but yet the TSA doesn't even make an attempt at posing it, let alone answering it.

Thank you for answering what you could. I assumed that it was not necessary for me to say that even one person who specifically avoids US air travel because of TSA is too many. I guess that was a poor assumption on my part, so I'm sorry. I'm also sorry that you and other international visitors have found the country that I love so unwelcoming over that last 7 years.

As to the difference between airport security in the US vs. other countries, I have to admit little knowledge and no personal experience. I was under the impression that other countries generally expect their security people to be professionals, then recruit, train, and compensate these employees in the a way that supports those expectations. In the US, until TSA airport security was just another contract security job. It didn't, in some jurisdictions, have decent pay or benefits. Some jurisdictions didn't require much in the way of education. Even those jurisdictions that had higher standards were harmed by the lower standards of other jurisdictions. In the US, I don't think we've really gotten away from the mentality that TSOs are the same as the $6/hour "mall cop." I see this every time I argue for better education standards, better training, and better recruiting tactics.

I have also wondered about the way TSA, the GAO, the media, and other sources that might force some accountability on TSA seem to keep missing some apparently obvious questions. It will be interesting to see the results if anyone actually puts resources into asking these questions.

There was some discussion passed around about four years or so ago about making minimum hiring standards to include, at the very least, a Bachelor's degree from an accredited college. Didn't have to be in anything specifically at all, just had to have the degree in something.

Obviously, this was never implemented.

Oddly enough, I understand that a few jurisdictions had this requirement in place before TSA. As I recall the news stories, the "we must federalize to professionalize" argument was quite a sore spot in those jurisdictions. I'll see if I can find some old news coverage of the issue.

I don't think a Bachelor's degree is really necessary for TSOs. Of course, the higher your aspirations, the more you actually need some educational accomplishments to make yourself a viable candidate. TSA isn't doing their employees any favors by saying implying with their policies that education doesn't matter.

The education debate also pops up on Idea Factory from time to time. I usually try to argue for better education support and standards when it comes up. Of course, I am getting sick of the "You're not better than me" responses.

You raise some good points -- I've been through aviation checkpoints around the world and with the exception of a one-off event at Heathrow, I've found it is a night and day difference between the TSA and security abroad.

I've seen other TSO's post on here (in the past) that "customer service" is not part of the job as a TSO, but at many points overseas while security is priority, you're treated as a customer, not as sheeple or just another face.

It's possible to provide "Security with a Smile" and I understand screeners in some nations overseas are required to go through customer service classes in addition to their security classes.

I believe such classes could go a long ways here, but I believe the problems go much deeper and work their way up to top management.

Yeah, some of the people on the Idea Factory can be kind of... uh... vituperative at times, I'll say. Really though, I hadn't had much to do with the Idea Factory since the 2087hrs vs. 2080hrs discussion last year, and my Area 51 comment. I still occasionally get on and scope it out, but nowhere near as much as I used to, or probably even should to keep up on current events with it.

I was always in amazement how not even a high school diploma or GED is required to be a TSA screener. It really expands the pool of very limited talent and learning potential that TSA can hire from.

But then again this is the same agency that had convicted felons working in the secure area because they had not gotten around to doing a simple criminal history check on their new hires.

Allow me then spotnik. Last Tuesday I needed to be in North Florida which meant traveling from Fort Lauderdale (FLL and getting there 2 hours ahead of flight) to Orlando McCoy (MCO and then renting a car to drive for an hour. All said and done my travel time to FLL, wait 2 hours, fly 1 hour, rent a car and then drive was going to be 6 hours.

It suddenly occurred to me I did not have put up with any of my favorite TSA screeners at FLL. I went to Pompano Air Park (PMP) at 0645, got into the aircraft I reserved at 0700, and by 0710 I was airborne. Less than 2 hours later I was on the ground at Ocala (OCF), Florida. Two hours of my travel rather than 6 hours (including the infamous cohorts at FLL), and the client was only too happy pay for my travel at 2 hours rather than 6 hours.

My only regret was I did not see any TSA security inspectors that could trip and fall off the airplane they were "inspecting" and break their noses, nor any TSA screeners "screening" pilots/passengers and get run over while walking around the ramp looking their next "big catch".

But since the TSA has announced that general aviation aircraft is their next "heightened concern", I actually look forward to seeing a TSA screener (or a Behavior Detection Officer detect my behavior) trying to enforce their new found rules at the 22,000 public/private airports in this country.

The TSA is a total screw-up at the 490 airports where part 121 air carriers have scheduled service. It will be amusing to see how they plan expanding the security illusion 21,510 additional airports.

Oh and I almost forgot, the first time a TSA screener says to me "Do you want to fly today?" when I'm at at non-part 121 airport, my reply will be quite memorable for that screener.

TSA screeners have conducted "screening" operations at Annapolis (ANP) and Tipton (FME) airports in Maryland. Please don't be so hesitant to say they never would.

The Checkpoint Evolution stuff is supposed to change all this. Of course, I think the effectiveness of this initiative will depend on local management. We'll see....

It is worth skimming from time to time. I'm part of the NAC POC network, so I have to keep up with what's going on in the workforce. Some of the conversations are ridiculous, but I keep trying to advocate for the few useful ideas.

^ to the Area 51 comment.

TSO job description: Required qualifications include:

"� Have a high school diploma, GED or equivalent; OR

� Have at least one year of full-time work experience in security work, aviation screener work, or X-ray technician work."

http://jobsearch.usajobs.gov/getjob....&TabNum=3&rc=2

So, if you don't have a high school diploma or GED, you must be have "experience." Sure makes me feel better.

Clearly, you must federalize to professionalize.

I am truly sorry for you and those others who are so bothered by TSA that you feel it necessary to specifically avoid commercial air travel just to avoid TSA security screening. This is not okay.

Frankly, although I understand your concern, I don't see how TSA could attempt to implement large scale screening operations at general aviation or private airports. As it is, they have trouble justifying funding for all their current operations, and trouble keeping the large number of part time employees necessary to adhere to their "optimum staffing" models. I also don't see how the average private plane is any more of a security risk than the average private passenger vehicle. I certainly don't see TSA expanding to set up checkpoints at every driveway. (Although, maybe I shouldn't be giving them ideas.)

Unfortunately, little of what I see reported about TSA surprises me any more. I wish I could have more faith in my agency, and I am trying to use the few options available to me to better things.

Just over a year ago, I resolved to avoid flying to LGA from DCA. I can't tell you how much more relaxing it is to take Acela. When you consider the fact that I don't have to worry about the security theater at DCA, nor a cab ride from LGA to midtown, Acela can't be beat.

Congratulations, TSA, on promoting travel by rail!

It's well-known that the TSA is responsible for Amtrak setting ridership records year after year for several years now.

With all due respect, I think this is the wrong approach, and not just because it would cost me my job! (Nope, I never managed to finish college, although I managed to edit four newspapers over the course of my career.)

TSA, at least at the screener level, simply isn't an intellectually stimulating job. I suspect intelligent people are going to be less content doing repetitive work, compared to duller sorts. In my experience, well-educated TSOs generally move on quickly, or they're miserable in the job.

Simply paying screeners more, or hiring ones with more education, isn't going to produce the desired result. Even highly-paid and highly-trained people are capable of behaving boorishly unless they're given, ummm, INCENTIVE to do otherwise!

For optimal performance, I'd think you'd want to hire people for whom the TSA is the best-paying job they've ever had. Skim the cream of the folks from the fast-food or retail sectors -- they'll be thrilled to double their pay overnight and have decent benefits! Then (and this is crucial) MANAGE THEM APPROPRIATELY! The standard needs to be set by the people at the top, and they need to make it clear that rudeness and retaliatory behavior are NOT acceptable! And they need to enforce the standard by ruthlessly weeding out the bad apples as necessary. People who like their jobs and want to keep them generally will do what it takes, even if it means being nicer than they would otherwise.

The first airport at which I worked actually was this way. The culture of courtesy was such that, given peer pressure and management oversight, even the more uncouth screeners were motivated to toe the line, at least where the passengers were concerned.

Sad to say, this is not true at the airport at which I work now, where a "home court advantage" mentality prevails and the leads often are the first to behave in a retaliatory manner toward passengers.

And as today's leads move up to become tomorrow's supervisors, I foresee things getting worse, not better, unless the American taxpayer and his/her representatives in Washington, D.C., step up and yank the TSA's chain a little!

Actually, I agree with you at the TSO level. I do think a HS Diploma/GED should be required, but even in that area, I would be willing to listen to opposing arguments. In my experience, TSA has benefited from providing better opportunity than most agencies/businesses to people who have little in the way of paper credentials.

As to intellectual stimulation, your argument has also been used to suggest that cops shouldn't be too highly educated. Those programs turned out to be very problematic. The reality of day to day work is certainly mundane and tedious, and does not require high levels of education or intelligence. The problem is, who do you want working on the day that a real attempt is made to take down an airplane? In the safety/security field, we need to balance the ordinary daily requirements of the job with the unusual/extreme requirements of the job.

I am more interested in seeing TSA reform internal recruitment and promotion policies than initial hiring. TSA still benefits from a large number of overqualified people in the screening workforce, although less so than in 2002. They have little in the way of objective requirements for the lower levels of promotions. (It's all on www.usajobs.gov if anyone wants to check for themselves.) I would like to see more serious requirements for promotion, and recruitment/incentive programs that identify and develop employees with high potential for future leadership or higher level positions in the TSA. If done appropriately, this sort of program would also help ensure a minimum quality level for those employees who move into supervisory or managerial positions.

http://www.aaae.org/fs03/Security_Re...s/fartotsa.pdf

Came across this today. I know it's CFR stuff, but it seems to contain most of the rules and guidelines I know of that pertain to the checkpoint and commercial air travel.

It is a rather large pdf file.

It's dated February 22, 2002. It does not contain any of the words shoe, footwear, laptop, luggage, tool, liquid, gel, or boarding pass. The word identity is only used to refer to identities of aircraft, aircraft operators, government agents, job applicants, law enforcement officers, and prisoners.

I don't think this comes close to describing all the rules and regulations with which we are required to abide in order to avoid having our freedom of movement restricted by a TSA agent at one of TSA's airport checkpoints.