Scubatooth

you mentioned the contract of carriage, and that is contract i entered into with the airline and except for those mentions TSA is not mentioned anywhere else.

Have you ever bought a plane ticket? because i just went through the booking engine on all of those sites and between the Fare Rules and COC TSA has very few mentions in the the contract terms i entered into with the airline.

N965VJ

Go try telling that to the customers of SeaPort Airlines:

No lines. No rubber gloves. No need to take your shoes off. Simply arrive 15 minutes before your flight, board and go. It's air travel the way it should be - fast and hassle-free.

IT'S ABOUT TIME

halls120

FIFY

GUWonder

You can bet that there are those in the TSA who want that airline to go under or even want some kind of bad incident to happen on board that airline's flights.

clrankin

What Ron means is that TSOs and BDOs present threats to aircraft, just in different ways. With the criminal records that some of them have, I think I'd have to agree.

TSA's mission is to make sure prohibited items don't make it into the sterile area. That should not require speaking with someone in the vast majority of cases. And it should require the person to answer in even fewer of those cases.

Given the above, I don't see how not answering questions that an agent of the government may or may not be allowed to ask can be construed as interfering with the screening process. I can only see a vast majority of those "determinations" being made by TSOs who feel insulted because the passenger refuses to acknowledge some authority that the TSO thinks s/he has.

Questions like "Where are you going today", "Is that your bag", and others of a routine nature can be self-answered by the agent (or do not need to be answered at all). The ID checker had the opportunity to ascertain each passenger's destination when looking at the boarding pass. The ID tag on the luggage, coupled with the person standing right by waiting to pick it up should provide some visual clues to the second question.

Friendly banter questions have no requirement of being answered. If someone wants to make chit-chat, fine. If they, like I, wish to glare and remain silent while you ask about the weather, family, or whatever, that should be fine too.

The above categories eliminate 99% of the possible conversation topics/opportunities between a passenger and TSO. The remainder of the possible questions are investigatory in nature and should most properly be asked by real law enforcement personnel after a person has been informed of the Constitutional rights.

I honestly don't see any requirement for a TSO to have any sort of conversation with someone while putting them through the screening process-- especially if that person clearly doesn't want to participate in one.

Would you mean the Contract of Carriage, like posted as part of the JetBlue link above, or USAir link above, or UA link above, or AA link above, or (well, you probably get the idea)?

The last I checked, the Contract of Carriage was the actual agreement between the passenger and the airline. I may have missed something since I really haven't flown in the last year or so, so I'll let one of the more informed people in this area chime in and answer...

Now, simply because something isn't in the CoC doesn't mean it can't be required. I'm sure that the CoC doesn't say that a passenger must show up wearing underwear, pants, socks, shoes, and a shirt... but I doubt the airline will welcome naked people on their flight (though that does seem to be the natural progression that a certain agency is requiring for passengers ).

PoliceStateSurvivor

If I remember correctly, there is something in all contracts of carriage that gives the airline the right to deny boarding to a passenger it finds objectionable, in its sole judgment.

At the same time all contracts include an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, which prevents the airline from acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner.

IANAL, so someone may be able to give a better assessment.

ND Sol

An airport open to the public and under government control (as are all that the TSA operates at) may not impinge on the free speech rights of persons in the airport for matters unrelated to transportation if there is not an ample alternative means of conveying that person's message.

Just today, the California Supreme Court ruled that Hare Krishna's may not solicit the exchange of money at airports since they have "ample alternative means of conveying its message." "It can distribute literature and speak to willing travelers. It can even seek financial support, as long as it does not request the immediate exchange of funds," states the majority opinion, penned by Justice Carlos Moreno.



And don't forget that commercial airlines are "common carriers" so they are held to a higher standard in order to deny boarding.

Dan_E

"We should move even closer to an Israeli model where there's more engagement with passengers," Harding said, according to Reuters. "I think that increases the layers and pushes the layers out." Even though the program has already deployed behavior detection officers at selected airports around the country, there have been conflicting claims about its efficacy. From January 2006 to November 2009, more than 232,000 people were referred for additional screening at the security checkpoint by behavior detection officers, according to numbers TSA provided to AOL News. Of those, 1,710 were eventually arrested and more than 2,400 were "referred for continued investigation."

Wow, 1700 arrests. I guess Harding isnt such the idiot?

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/articl...nsion/19412523

Spiff

Number of arrests related to terrorism?

Math quiz, people.... Zero divided by any non-zero number is...?

Harding's not just an idiot, he's a scumbag.

Dan_E

Well, he at least gives some folks an icon to focus their venom towards. Meanwhile, their peeing in the proverbial wind changes squat, and the rest of the lemmings line up for another useless scan.

At least I have Kirk as a role model, things might one day go right. And Chuck Norris. He can divide by zero.

Spiff

You would be better off studying L'Hospital instead of poorly-written fiction if you plan to divide by zero.

DevilDog438

Wow - less than 1% of all people referred were actually arrested for anything. How many of those arrests directly relate to TSA's defined mission?

Dan_E

Beats zero. That is 1700 Bad Guys™ off the streets.

Aint ya ever heard of mission creep? Its a word.

Spiff

What BS. 1700 arrests != 1700 convictions.

1700 Bad Guys™ off the streets would mean a reduction in Workfare to 46,300.

DevilDog438

1700 alleged "Bad Guys." How many of those were convicted of Aviation Security offenses?

Mission creep is two words, and, yes, I have heard of it. It has pissed me off since the first time I was exposed to it as a teenager and it still pisses me off today.