Community
Wiki Posts
Search

Can a TSO make me use the family line?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Dec 27, 2009, 1:22 am
  #31  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 381
Originally Posted by jkhuggins
"And that's why it's more important that the TSO doesn't provoke the passenger into that level of anger in the first place.

And if the passenger happens to draw a bad LEO ... then what? Passenger is SOL again. Again, if the TSO hadn't provoked the situation, the LEO doesn't have to become involved at all. The LEO is a wild card.

Too little, too late. The passenger has already lost time, money, and dignity in the process of being arrested, all over something trivial.

In the meantime, he certainly was massively inconvenienced ... he almost certainly missed his flight, and had an uncomfortable experience while under pseudo-arrest in a private room. Meanwhile, it's unclear what, if anything, happened to the TSO in question. Hardly a "victory", in my opinion."
Regarding your 1st paragraph-unfortunately, you don't have control over the actions of another so that is why the pax remains calm. Basic psychology.

Regarding your 2nd paragraph-No, the pax is not SOL. You didn't quote the entire text of what I stated. The judge decides whether the "evidence" is sufficient to try, not the LEO. The judge or a jury decides guilt or innocence if it goes to trial.

Regarding your 3rd paragraph-yes, it could happen the way you stated, especially trying to prove your innocence. However, if that's the way you feel, then just say "anything for security" to the TSO and you won't have to deal with the situation. Myself, I pick my battles to get worked up about. If I fought them all, I would have died of a heart attack long ago.

Regarding your 4th paragraph-No to all 3 points you made. I told you this guy had his own agenda. He knew exactly what he was getting into and he rode it out. Listen to the recording. He prevailed and he talked about it afterwards. I think he sued the TSA as well. The supervisor, I read, was subject to disciplinary action.
QUERY is offline  
Old Dec 28, 2009, 12:07 am
  #32  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ORD/MDW
Programs: MR Gold, DCL Silver, RSSC Silver
Posts: 775
The family lines make a lot of sense to me, because a large % of folks traveling with children haul a lot of crap and/or are inexperienced fliers. OTOH, my 3-year-old is a frequent flier, and the 2 of us can make it through security faster than 2 adults. No strollers etc. No laptop. Just 1 carry-on (and 1 ID check) for the 2 of us.

Big Mo is offline  
Old Dec 28, 2009, 1:16 am
  #33  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Programs: UAL 1K MM, HHonors Diamond, Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 871
Originally Posted by PTravel
That said, and regardless of how fast you think you can get through the line with two infants compared to other pax, you're not going to be faster than the average frequent-flying business person with a rollaboard and a computer bag. The polite thing to do would have been to use the family line.

Just my opinion.
Although I am in no way slow and do as much pre-work before getting to the table, my kids can get through security faster than I can. Most of the time, they do not carry a laptop computer and I do. For that and other reasons, they wait on me, not visa versa and I go through first. I realize that the OP was traveling with infants, but if he planned well, he might be able to get through faster than a frequent flyer with a computer and other gizmos.

At what age and what number of offspring would you draw the line?
SMF Rider is offline  
Old Dec 28, 2009, 6:06 am
  #34  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: AA Gold/Million Miler,DL dirt,UA1K/Million Miler;Honors Silver,Marriott Gold;Avis Preferred,Hertz Prez Circle, Nat'l Exec Elite
Posts: 1,428
Irregardless of how we feel about this experience, we should all do the following at the end of our conversation w/the TSA agent(s): present him/her with 4-5 drink chits in appreciation and tell them to use them 1 1/2 hrs before landing on their return of their US bound int'l flight.
rustyr is offline  
Old Dec 28, 2009, 7:05 am
  #35  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
Originally Posted by QUERY
Regarding your 2nd paragraph-No, the pax is not SOL. You didn't quote the entire text of what I stated. The judge decides whether the "evidence" is sufficient to try, not the LEO. The judge or a jury decides guilt or innocence if it goes to trial.
With respect, you're missing my point. Yes, the passenger might prevail by the time it gets to court. In the meantime, however, the passenger is arrested, involuntarily confined (or forced to post bail), and then forced to return to that jurisdiction several times in the future in order to deal with proceedings in that court case. Ultimately, the charges might be dropped ... after the passenger spends money on lawyers, money on traveling back to that jurisdiction, loses money by having to take time away from work in order to deal with the case, and so on. None of that money is refunded to the defendant if they win. They're SOL.

Originally Posted by QUERY
Regarding your 4th paragraph-No to all 3 points you made. I told you this guy had his own agenda. He knew exactly what he was getting into and he rode it out. Listen to the recording. He prevailed and he talked about it afterwards. I think he sued the TSA as well. The supervisor, I read, was subject to disciplinary action.
If being informed about one's constitutional rights and insisting that they be preserved is an "agenda", then heaven help us.

And "subject to disciplinary action" could mean anything ... it could easily mean a verbal reprimand along the lines of "don't get us in trouble like this again". Without further information, I'm not about to conclude that the TSOs involved in this case were meaningfully disciplined.
jkhuggins is offline  
Old Dec 28, 2009, 7:14 am
  #36  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SYD (perenially), GVA (not in a long time)
Programs: QF PS, EK-Gold, Security Theatre Critic
Posts: 6,766
Originally Posted by rustyr
Irregardless of how we feel about this experience, we should all do the following at the end of our conversation w/the TSA agent(s): present him/her with 4-5 drink chits in appreciation and tell them to use them 1 1/2 hrs before landing on their return of their US bound int'l flight.
I like your sense of humor, but on the serious side, a major problem at the checkpoint is that many screeners obviously never (or rarely) travel by air. Witness the number of suggestions here and on Propaganda Village about completely banning all carry-ons, or the refrain of "why do you need [food/water/baby food/medicine/toothpaste/toiletries] on a flight anyway?" These are clearly people who have never gone more than an hour or two from home, who know nothing of irrops or cancelled flights, much less 10 or 14 hour international legs.
RadioGirl is offline  
Old Dec 28, 2009, 8:54 am
  #37  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
Originally Posted by SMF Rider
Although I am in no way slow and do as much pre-work before getting to the table, my kids can get through security faster than I can. Most of the time, they do not carry a laptop computer and I do. For that and other reasons, they wait on me, not visa versa and I go through first. I realize that the OP was traveling with infants, but if he planned well, he might be able to get through faster than a frequent flyer with a computer and other gizmos.

At what age and what number of offspring would you draw the line?
Oh, I don't know. 35? Number of offspring doesn't matter.
PTravel is offline  
Old Dec 28, 2009, 8:58 am
  #38  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Programs: Marriott Lifetime Titanium
Posts: 15,347
Originally Posted by PTravel
Oh, I don't know. 35? Number of offspring doesn't matter.
Why? Are you seriously saying that anyone with a minor child in his/her care should be forced to use a longer line?
RichMSN is offline  
Old Dec 28, 2009, 9:19 am
  #39  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
Originally Posted by RichMSN
Why? Are you seriously saying that anyone with a minor child in his/her care should be forced to use a longer line?
No. I'm saying anyone under 35 should. How old are you?
PTravel is offline  
Old Dec 28, 2009, 9:35 am
  #40  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Programs: Marriott Lifetime Titanium
Posts: 15,347
Originally Posted by PTravel
No. I'm saying anyone under 35 should. How old are you?
I like to think I *look* like I'm under 35.
RichMSN is offline  
Old Dec 28, 2009, 10:03 am
  #41  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,732
Originally Posted by PTravel
That said, and regardless of how fast you think you can get through the line with two infants compared to other pax, you're not going to be faster than the average frequent-flying business person with a rollaboard and a computer bag. The polite thing to do would have been to use the family line.
A kid with velcro shoes and no electronics can beat a "frequent-flying business person with a rollaboard and a computer bag" through security any day. Can't tell you how many times I've had to listen to said business person argue about turning on their computer, taking it out of the sleeve, getting their fancy socks damp, etc. which holds up the whole line. For a while there, I think I was as sick as the TSO's of hearing "But they don't make me do _____ at X airport!"
CDTraveler is online now  
Old Dec 28, 2009, 10:06 am
  #42  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: SNA
Posts: 18,240
Last time we were at LAX with our kids the guy really pressured us to use the family line rather than the elite line, we declined and got a sigh from him. My kids are 7 and 10, have one small backback each and always wear slip off shoes. Their and my backpacks and shoes are off and in the bins long before my husband has gotten his laptop out of his backback, his shoes off and his keys out of his pockets. The girls and I go thru and wait for him, the supposedly fast, elite traveler.
VickiSoCal is offline  
Old Dec 28, 2009, 10:38 am
  #43  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
Originally Posted by RichMSN
I like to think I *look* like I'm under 35.
Uh-oh -- then it's off to the kiddie line with you!
PTravel is offline  
Old Dec 28, 2009, 10:41 am
  #44  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
Originally Posted by CDTraveler
A kid with velcro shoes and no electronics can beat a "frequent-flying business person with a rollaboard and a computer bag" through security any day. Can't tell you how many times I've had to listen to said business person argue about turning on their computer, taking it out of the sleeve, getting their fancy socks damp, etc. which holds up the whole line. For a while there, I think I was as sick as the TSO's of hearing "But they don't make me do _____ at X airport!"
Interesting. Whereas I've never, not once, experienced this. On the other hand, I don't ever get on a line behind people with children, though I'll sometimes note their relative progress. The only time they've beat me through the WTMD is when I get stuck behind a Kettle or Gomer who doesn't understand that pocket change is metal.

How old is your kid?
PTravel is offline  
Old Dec 28, 2009, 11:04 am
  #45  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: SEA, SoCal
Programs: AS 75K, DL Plat, AA, WN, Hertz, HHonors, Marriott
Posts: 1,306
Originally Posted by RichMSN
Why? Are you seriously saying that anyone with a minor child in his/her care should be forced to use a longer line?
I think anyone with a small child should just stay the heck away from the airport. However, if you do choose to be inconsiderate enough to subject the traveling public to your spawn, it should automatically forfeit any elite benefits including access to the F cabin regardless of what fare you paid.
hgdf is offline  


Contact Us - Manage Preferences - 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 © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.