TSA Policy for Double Opt-Outs

Old Nov 22, 10, 9:30 pm
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: BOS
Posts: 813
TSA Policy for Double Opt-Outs

http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flying...-thanksgiving/

This blog has the scoop on what TSA will announce tomorrow about people who opt-out of AIT and then try to opt-out of the pat down.
xSTRIKEx6864 is offline  
Old Nov 22, 10, 9:36 pm
  #2  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Fresno
Posts: 195
They saved the best until the last paragraph:

So for those of you who intend to refuse a pat down and leave with no argument and peacefully … there will be no US$11,000 fine for your actions. This new policy may also give the TSA additional 4th Amendment wiggle room in allowing people to refuse the pat downs without legal consequences.
CaliC is offline  
Old Nov 22, 10, 9:37 pm
  #3  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Denton County, TX
Programs: AA Executive Platinum, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 737
Oh this oughta be rich.

Pissy is trying to find away to exert his authority and not cave in to us while at the same time being able to say that he gave us a choice. This will work for about a week in my estimation. After their bellies are full of turkey and egg nog, Americans will still go back to saying (and more loudly than ever):

"We will NOT be radiated by our government"

and

"We will NOT allow your hands in our pants under the false premise of security".

Last edited by TXagogo; Nov 22, 10 at 9:37 pm Reason: typo
TXagogo is offline  
Old Nov 22, 10, 9:37 pm
  #4  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Live: HVN -- Work: The World
Programs: DL - exPlat (now Gold) ; AB - Gold ; TK - Gold; BMI - exGold; US - exChairman ; UA-ex1K; NW-exGold
Posts: 1,248
This policy is for all pat down refusals. Not just opt out refusals.

You alarm on the WTMD and refuse the pat down ... buh-bye.

I have been posting a few policies and security directives before they are public ... this one leaves a few gaps that need to be answered. Such as ... if I am at PHL and refuse at Terminal B, what is to stop me from reentering at Terminal C and walking to my gate?

Happy Flying!
sefrischling is offline  
Old Nov 22, 10, 9:37 pm
  #5  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Somewhere near BWI
Programs: DL DM, HH Dia, SPG Gold, MR Plat, Hertz PC
Posts: 3,654
Nice that any attempt to re-enter the security chokepoint will be considered a terminal breach.

Keep piling on the .... TSA.
DevilDog438 is offline  
Old Nov 22, 10, 9:38 pm
  #6  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Kansas City Metro | MCI
Programs: UA*G, Hyatt Globalist, Marriott Plat., NEXUS, Amex, TSA Disparager Unobtanium
Posts: 20,228
Wow, evac of the terminal Why not have a LEO go after the pax?
FriendlySkies is offline  
Old Nov 22, 10, 9:40 pm
  #7  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,683
Originally Posted by FriendlySkies View Post
Wow, evac of the terminal Why not have a LEO go after the pax?
Can you imagine 2 or 3 terminal dumps the day before Thanksgiving?
JoeBas is online now  
Old Nov 22, 10, 9:42 pm
  #8  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Somewhere near BWI
Programs: DL DM, HH Dia, SPG Gold, MR Plat, Hertz PC
Posts: 3,654
Originally Posted by JoeBas View Post
Can you imagine 2 or 3 terminal dumps the day before Thanksgiving?
Methinks that is the reason for the suspected wording...gives TSA a way to say "look, we warned you, it wasn't our fault"...
DevilDog438 is offline  
Old Nov 22, 10, 9:42 pm
  #9  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Denton County, TX
Programs: AA Executive Platinum, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 737
Originally Posted by FriendlySkies View Post
Wow, evac of the terminal Why not have a LEO go after the pax?
Honestly - at this point - as much as I want to see my friends/family and eat turkey - I am beginning to care less if they evacuate the terminal and I miss my flight. Let em do it. Let's make this whole situation an even bigger debacle than it already is. Maybe open some more people's eyes to the bullying that we are enduring.

I will be able to look back on this proudly and say I was there protesting for freedom while my niece and nephew look at pictures one day and say "Did they really used to do that in airports? Wow, could you imaging if they tried that today??"
TXagogo is offline  
Old Nov 22, 10, 9:43 pm
  #10  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: NW Fla. - VPS, PNS
Programs: DL, NW, HH
Posts: 332
Originally Posted by DevilDog438 View Post
Nice that any attempt to re-enter the security chokepoint will be considered a terminal breach.

Keep piling on the .... TSA.
I read it that way at first, but actually I think it says any attempt to go toward the gate area. It's not really clear but it appears that they're saying if you try to go toward the gate instead of leaving with the escorts, the checkpoint will be shut down.
breny is offline  
Old Nov 22, 10, 9:45 pm
  #11  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Programs: WN A-list, TSA-D Silver
Posts: 479
Originally Posted by JoeBas View Post
Can you imagine 2 or 3 terminal dumps the day before Thanksgiving?
Yeah THAT will work well for the TSA.

"There was a security breach, we HAD to clear the entire terminal!"

"Where was the breach?"

"In the line!"

"You mean... with all the OTHER un-screened passengers?"

"Yes!"

And so on.
jordanmills is offline  
Old Nov 22, 10, 9:46 pm
  #12  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: MSY; 2-time FT Fantasy Football Champ, now in recovery.
Programs: AA lifetime GLD; UA Silver; Marriott LTTE; IHG Plat,
Posts: 13,209
As I read it (bolding mine)
If any person who has refused a pat down makes any attempt to go towards the gate area the TSA security checkpoint will be immediately shut down. The shutting down of a security checkpoint may result in a passenger evacuation of a terminal due to a security breach. Any evacuation of passengers would be based on a threat assessment at the discretion of the TSA and law enforcement at the terminal.
So merely trying to re-enter the checkpoint (to hope for a non-NoS lane?) won't trigger the shutdown. The shutdown is if you try to enter the secure area without having been screened. And the terminal evac is based on TSA/LEO discretion, which presumably means it'll happen if you get out of sight, but not if an LEO is able to stop you.

None of this is new, that's the way it's been for years.

All that's new is the clarification about how you'll be escorted out, and the fact that there won;t be a fine just for refusal.
swag is offline  
Old Nov 22, 10, 9:48 pm
  #13  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Somewhere near BWI
Programs: DL DM, HH Dia, SPG Gold, MR Plat, Hertz PC
Posts: 3,654
Originally Posted by swag View Post
As I read it (bolding mine)


So merely trying to re-enter the checkpoint (to hope for a non-NoS lane?) won't trigger the shutdown. The shutdown is if you try to enter the secure area without having been screened. And the terminal evac is based on TSA/LEO discretion, which presumably means it'll happen if you get out of sight, but not if an LEO is able to stop you.

None of this is new, that's the way it's been for years.

All that's new is the clarification about how you'll be escorted out, and the fact that there won;t be a fine just for refusal.
That is probably the way the policy is expected to be understood. We have all seen overzealousness, I can foresee the mere act of re-entering the chokepoint easliy becoming the breach point for some chokepoint supervisors.
DevilDog438 is offline  
Old Nov 22, 10, 9:49 pm
  #14  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: NW Fla. - VPS, PNS
Programs: DL, NW, HH
Posts: 332
Originally Posted by swag View Post
As I read it (bolding mine)


So merely trying to re-enter the checkpoint (to hope for a non-NoS lane?) won't trigger the shutdown. The shutdown is if you try to enter the secure area without having been screened. And the terminal evac is based on TSA/LEO discretion, which presumably means it'll happen if you get out of sight, but not if an LEO is able to stop you.

None of this is new, that's the way it's been for years.

All that's new is the clarification about how you'll be escorted out, and the fact that there won;t be a fine just for refusal.
That's how I read it.

I think that wording has been used to confuse people and make them think than opt-outers are trying or may try to breach security to cause problems.

Originally Posted by DevilDog438 View Post
That is probably the way the policy is expected to be understood. We have all seen overzealousness, I can foresee the mere act of re-entering the chokepoint easliy becoming the breach point for some chokepoint supervisors.
Good point. That may be the motivation for the ambiguous wording.
breny is offline  
Old Nov 22, 10, 9:51 pm
  #15  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Marriott or Hilton hot tub with a big drink <glub> Beverage: To-Go Bag™ DYKWIA: SSSS /rolleyes ☈ Date Night: Costco
Programs: Sea Shell Lounge Platinum, TSA Pre✓ Refusnik Diamond, PWP Gold, FT subset of the subset
Posts: 12,473
Originally Posted by DevilDog438 View Post
Nice that any attempt to re-enter the security chokepoint will be considered a terminal breach.

Keep piling on the .... TSA.
Originally Posted by FriendlySkies View Post
Wow, evac of the terminal Why not have a LEO go after the pax?
Originally Posted by JoeBas View Post
Can you imagine 2 or 3 terminal dumps the day before Thanksgiving?
Hold on a sec- I read this as someone who refuses screening, but then still tries to enter the sterile area, then there's a dump.

If any person who has refused a pat down makes any attempt to go towards the gate area the TSA security checkpoint will be immediately shut down.



EDIT: there have been subsequent posts that have clarified this in the past few minutes.

Last edited by N965VJ; Nov 22, 10 at 10:11 pm
N965VJ is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: