NYT article: Life on the "No Fly" list
 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/bu...flier.html?hpw

Doesn´t even get near describing how annoying it is to be constantly sent to secondary searches, possibly because this person only landed on the list last year. It does describe exactly how useless the redress system is.

I feel sorry for everybody that is on the "No Fly" list. As we have read on FT, the redress sytem is BS. :td::td::td::mad::mad:

Hasn't BB claimed on PV that if the airlines determine a person is a mismatch that they can remove the name from the hit list?

Seems to me that since a person on a watch list (not the No fly List) has to show ID and prove to the airline who they are that for common list errors if a ticket is issued then that name should be removed immediately from that list or some additional information added to prevent that person from being impacted again.

The Redress Program seems to work about as well as the rest of TSA, poorly.

Why search anyone on the "no fly list". I thought those people were banned from flying and should just be turned around at the gate. "no fly" doesn't mean "fly but with extra searching" does it?

In my experience, people use the term "no fly list" to refer to both the genuine "no fly list" and the separate-but-related "selectee list". If you're on the NFL, you don't fly. If you're on the selectee list, you can fly, but you (are supposed to) always get secondary screening.

But "Life on the 'Selectee' List" doesn't make for a good headline. :)

So, how long will it take Blogger Bob to tell us that it

a) isn't all that bad ("he even admitted not to have missed a single flight, we can't be careful enough")

b) it's the airlines' fault ("he has a redress number so it should really not be an issue, you can't blame the TSA for airline failure")

c) secure flight is changing all of that and will work perfectly ("we're constantly trying to sort the bad guys from the good guys and not bother the good guys too much")

Any estimates? A day? Two? Maybe with a few personal insults for the poor man to spice things up? What do you think?

I believe there's an FT regular in this forum who says they're on the NFL. Perhaps he/she'd like to comment?

You would think a "reporter" (and I use that term lightly) from a respected news paper would be able to get their facts straight. They are on the no-fly list, yet fly. Hmmmm. No they are on the selectee list.

I just wonder: if he can't that most simple fact correct, what other mistakes does he report? How can you believe anything he writes?

Kinda makes a good argument for why we can't trust TSA. @:-) :rolleyes:

No, are you saying a reporter might actually twist the truth to make things more dramatic??

Let's try it this way SATTSO. For 3 years I could not print my boarding passes either at home or at the kiosk, always needed to see a counter agent (and had to convince the counter agent) to get my boarding passes printed. When you are trying to do your job 2 x week this was a major impediment for any out-of-town project schedule. My wife still cannot get her boarding passes printed.

Would you like to guess how long it will be before I forget what the TSA has done to me (and my wife)? Would you like to guess how many errant TSA screeners get treated the same way the TSA has treated me?

You made a choice who you work for SATTSO. It just so happens you decided to work for an agency that knowingly hires a convicted felon for robbery while touting about how you can be trusted because "all our screeners get background checks".

I would not count on your agency earning anyone's respect anytime soon. I would suggest wearing a very thick coat on the job.

Using that metric, care to explain to all of us here why Alvin Crabtree was allowed to keep his job?

True, everyone should be honest.

If he actually did what he is accussed of, he should be fired and charged with a crime.

However, how is this dishonest? If what we know is true, nothing was distorted, correct? But then again, I haven't kept up with that story, so maybe some of what came out was distorted, which would not be honest.

How about "Life As A Suspect"? That's what gets people increased scrutiny. Doing things like the underwear bomber, traveling to Yemen to listen to speeches by Osama The Sequel. Or whatever airline security considers equivalent. But I always wonder what they put with the name to make sure that every person with a given name doesn't get caught in the dragnet.

You set the metric of stating that the reporter's bona fides were questionable.

Alvin Crabtree violated the law and got a 30-day suspension but was able to keep his job. Why should we trust Alvin Crabtree as a TSO?

(Or do you think the faux pas by the reporter is of equal or greater importance than Crabtree bringing a firearm to work?)