Community
Wiki Posts
Search

Editorials on Secure Flight

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Nov 25, 2009 | 9:45 am
  #1  
Original Poster
FlyerTalk Evangelist
10 Countries Visited
Community Builder
All eyes on you!
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Grand Cayman
Posts: 18,694
Editorials on Secure Flight

See USA Today for 2 editorials regarding secure flight and an article regarding screening of cargo

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...ir-cargo_N.htm
Tom M. is offline  
Old Nov 25, 2009 | 10:51 am
  #2  
Suspended
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,953
All of which makes us skeptical about Secure Flight. There's always been the question of whether any watch-listed terrorist would be dumb enough to fly under his own name. The new obsession with matching the boarding pass and ID names raises a similar question: Wouldn't any semi-intelligent terrorist make a reservation under an alias and use an ID that matched it exactly?
doober is offline  
Old Nov 25, 2009 | 11:29 am
  #3  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 252
Originally Posted by Tom M.
See USA Today for 2 editorials regarding secure flight and an article regarding screening of cargo

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...ir-cargo_N.htm
Paul Leyh, director of the Transportation Security Administration's Secure Flight program, wrote a passive-voice mumbling op-op-ed defending his program:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/...safe.html#more:

By matching all of this data against watch lists, Secure Flight keeps known or suspected terrorists from flying while reducing the hassle for people who had previously been inconvenienced because their name was similar to someone who is actually on a watch list. By supplying this information, more than 99% of passengers will be cleared. Aside from providing this additional reservation information, passengers' experience under Secure Flight will be unchanged.
Which still leaves up to 20,000 passengers per day uncleared by this tiger-repellent-rock of a program. The "unchanged passengers' experience" is true since there are less than 1-in-5.6 billion passenger-terrorists flying.
Mr. Gel-pack is offline  
Old Nov 25, 2009 | 11:40 am
  #4  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
10 Countries Visited500k30 Nights20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
Originally Posted by Mr. Gel-pack
Paul Leyh, director of the Transportation Security Administration's Secure Flight program, wrote a passive-voice mumbling op-op-ed defending his program:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/...safe.html#more:
I missed who he worked for. Knowing he works for TSA explains a lot about why it was unintelligible drivel that really didn't say much.

Last edited by Superguy; Nov 25, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Superguy is offline  
Old Nov 25, 2009 | 12:09 pm
  #5  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
10 Countries Visited15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The Sunshine State
Programs: Deltaworst Peon Level, TSA "Layer 21 Club", NW WP RIP
Posts: 11,372
Did you fly with your six pounds today?

Originally Posted by Tom M.
and an article regarding screening of cargo
The report raises "legitimate concerns," as the TSA is under congressional mandate to tighten scrutiny of the 12 million pounds of cargo carried each day alongside luggage in passenger planes, said House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss.
Well there is an interesting number. Two million pax fly domestic per day, sitting on 12 million pounds of cargo. Six pounds of cargo per pax. Assuming TSA is up to about 85% cargo screening, that is about one pound of unscreened cargo per pax on every flight today. One pound is the weight of the pint bottle of Poland Springs High Explosive Spring Water the TSO stole from the pax and threw in the Rubbermaid Grey Plastic Hazardous Waste and Bomb Disposal Trash Can Unit at the checkpoint.

Which presents a greater risk to the pax, a bottle of "water" carried by a fellow pax, or the one pound of unscreened cargo 12 inches under his feet?

TSA, PV, Rong, and Blogdad Bob cannot aswer that question, as it would cause them to actually discuss Risk Management instead of Knee Jerk Reaction to Pseudo Chemistry by British High School Dropout Jihad Wannabees.
Flaflyer is offline  
Old Nov 25, 2009 | 1:03 pm
  #6  
Ari
FlyerTalk Evangelist
10 Countries Visited
20 Countries Visited
30 Countries Visited
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,664
Just about all comments are anti-TSA. People are getting it. ^
Ari is offline  
Old Nov 25, 2009 | 1:30 pm
  #7  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
20 Countries Visited
500k
All eyes on you!
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 30,954
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...ir-cargo_N.htm

"The report shows the TSA does not have enough personnel to handle new rules for screening cargo, he said. Passenger planes carry everything from produce and medical supplies to computers and auto parts."

TSA wants to inspect repair shops but doesn't have staff enough to ensure cargo is inspected.

Seems some TSA Gate Gropers could be redeployed and actually accomplish something.

Last edited by Boggie Dog; Nov 25, 2009 at 1:37 pm Reason: sent before being composed
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Nov 25, 2009 | 1:37 pm
  #8  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
10 Countries Visited500k30 Nights20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
The report shows the TSA does not have enough personnel to handle new rules for screening cargo, he said. Passenger planes carry everything from produce and medical supplies to computers and auto parts.
Of course, if TSA focused its resources on things that mattered instead of gate gropes, ID checks, FAA maintenance site inspections, BDOs, and nude-o-scopes, it would have the resources and personnel needed to accomplish cargo screening. Can't claim lack of resources to do a task when the existing resources are wasted and/or poorly used. TSA should reallocate the resources to accomplish what's needed and trim the waste, and THEN we can discuss needing more personnel to secure cargo if it's still found to be lacking.
Superguy is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

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.