Do self opt outs HELP the TSA?
 

I have a question.

By carefully scoping out and avoiding WBI scanners, by going to airports and security lanes that don't have them installed BUT continuing to fly, are we merely inconveniencing ourselves and aiding the TSA? The more time that goes by before Congress or the Airlines act, the more scanners will be in place. The more people will have become inured to the pat-downs (we need to find a better word for that - pat-down is too innocuous). The longer the current status quo is in existence, the harder it will be to change.

I have stopped flying. That's relatively easy for me since I travel for pleasure, not business. I know there are many here who CANNOT stop flying. But the longer the current situation lasts, the deeper entrenched it will be.

I personally believe the airlines have the most power here. But they won't care if you're flying out of smaller airports or otherwise inconvenienced as long as you keep flying. I know this is impossible, but imagine 1 day where nobody flies. Just 1. How cool would that be?

So, that's my question. By delaying our pain, are we lessening the chance it can be beaten?

No ... not at all.

1) Don't fly if you can avoid it.

2) Opt-out if you have to. If they ask you why tell them you aren't going through until the TSA agents themselves are allowed to wear radiation badges (they aren't allowed to and a lot of the agents are pissed about this).

3) If you are going to fly, but it's not mandatory and you want to screw with the system, then buy a refundable ticket (preferably first class). If you are selected, opt out and then tell the screener you don't consent to being sexually assaulted. Its a roll of the dice what happens here, likely leading you to a denial of of boarding. Tell the TSA you are happy to refund your refundable first class ticket.

If the airline doesn't have any standby's or there are a couple seats left on the planet, then they just lost enough revenue to mean that flight was a net loss for them. The airlines hate this crap to and they are the only ones who will ultimately be able to change anything.

I recently opted-out and received a double-your-pleasure extra pat down. I requested a witness from the airline (since they refused my intial request for a LEO).

The airline rep was really pissed at having to be there. Hopefully he said something to his boss someting about watching one man touch another man's junk not being in his "job description."

If the airlines aren't going to step up to the plate for their customers than screw them. I hope they start losing money again.

I think it helps them in their own minds. They view the typical checkpoint and observe a small number of people opting out by choosing the frisking & genital grabbing over the Cancer Machines. But, there people are just one of many layers of opt-outers. Let's make a list:

1. People who have opted out by not flying anymore.
2. People who have opted out by taking another form of (as of yet) non-harassed transportation.
3. People who have opted out by flying out of airports without Cancer Machines.
4. People who have opted out by self-selecting a lane a safe lans for various reasons.
5. People who, as a last resort, have failed all of the above steps and are forced to make the "cancer or groping" opt out.

So, opting out is as layered as the TSA's view of security, as Kippie hatched it several years ago. If you add up all of the people executing at least one of the opt out scenarios, it becomes a non-trivial number that the TSA has no interest in calculating.

My point is that the airlines only care about numbers 1 and 2. The TSA doesn't care about any of the numbers no matter how non-trivial. To get the attention of the airlines, we need to affect their bottom line.

I'm not in any way saying don't the other items. I'm not criticizing anyone who's using any of the opt-out options. I'm just wondering what other people might think about the 'harder to fight the AITs as they become more entrenched' idea. I.e., is time of the essence?

I agree. My point is that the TSA sees a relatively small percentage of people who have opted out, because many of the people who opt out never go near an airport these days.

The issue, as I think you're getting to, is that the TSA, as a government agency, is not a stakeholder in the viability of the airline industry. They have nothing to lose if the airline industry went belly-up. If there were no commercial flights, they would still be out -- all 50,000 of them -- standing around in empty airports.

Doing my part. I used to average 8 - 10 roundtrips per year...I've been to all 50 states and five of the seven continents.

Haven't been on a plane since October. Only one trip scheduled for 2011. Letters written - and rewritten - to airlines & my reps.

I am somewhat discouraged by allegedly higher passenger load factors for December, although they're probably lower than projections.

Just one data point of anecdotal info. I have been on three WN flights since January 1 and all were far from full. Most of the routes I fly go out full or nearly so. I have had empty middles and even one whole row on one flight. We may be sitting in each others laps on Thursday, but it seems to me that the flights are not as full.

Another data point: no back ups in security or check in anywhere either.

We had 17 opt outs on my shift today and nearly the same yesterday.
out of 6k that is not a high rate.

I can second that on all but one of my flights in the past few months. (approx 5 r/ts) Plenty of room to spread out on UA and US flights these days on routes that used to be full or oversold ~85% of the time.

Also no problems with security wait times lately. Hmmm... Perhaps the numbers of paying pax are declining overall?

And I'm getting good at getting felt-up too. :mad:

JB

Try sending all of those 6k passengers through the nude-o-scopes and let us know how many opt-outs you have then.

Are you claiming that you virtually strip-searched 6,000 people during one shift at your airport today, or that 6,000 people total were screened by either virtual strip-search or WTMD? Who keeps track of these numbers, your boss the former federal judge?

Yeah, part of the problem in fighting the TSA's strategy is the well informed passengers can avoid the scanners for the most part. The resistance is passing through metal detectors unnoticed (along with the majority of the travelling public that is still flying). That's why I purposely got in line for the scanner when I had the opportunity. I see it as visible, active resistance. Incompetano and Pissy don't want me to do it, the TSO's don't want me to do it, so that's what I'm going to do. Say no to the machines every chance I get, and demonstrate my refusal to submit. So if I had to fly(which I don't at the moment), I would target the scanners. I think it would be a lot more effective, especially if groups of people like business travelers did scanner runs just to tie things up.

That was 6k pax who went through the AIT?

BTW, how many of that 6k were involuntary opt-outs (medically unable to stand and hold the position, wheelchair pax, etc?)

(edited to add: I obviously responded to eyecue's post before seeing others had already done so.)

And how many of the 6K that were scanned required pat downs anyway after the scanner showed something?

And if it's not SSI, can you say if did any of the pat downs (voluntary, medically unable, or scanner alarms) found any concealed prohibited items?

6,000 during your shift, or the entire day?

yummy. some real numbers.

You say it was a "shift". I'll assume 8 hours.

6,000. You don't indicate if that is total passengers or total naked scans. Lets go with your unstated intention that it is 6,000 naked scans.

If a naked scan take 45 seconds to complete. It would require 13,333 minutes to naked scan 6,000 people, or 222.222 hours.

But your shift is only 8 hours long. Therefore we need more machines so that we can fit 222.222 scan hours into 8 hours. To do so would require 27 Naked Scan machines.

SO we have two possibilities:

1) Eyecue worked an 8 hour shift.
6,000 passengers were scanned using 27 machines. Only 17 opted out. That 2.8% opt out rate. That in line with government figures.

OR

2) Eyecue worked an 8 hour shift.
6,000 passengers were scanned using both the WTMD and naked scanner. Only 17 opted out. A 2.8% opt out rate was reported using COMBINED WTMD and naked scan counts. The ratio of naked scan to WTMD was conveniently left out of the story.

Conclusion?

Only #2 is remotely possible. What airport has 27 peepshow booths in operation for 8 hours? Answer NONE.

This also leads us to conclude that government figures of about a 2% opt out rate also includes figures for WTMD scanned passengers as well.

If they strip-searched 6000 people, the line would have stretched all the way to Boulder.


And, assuming my "5 Layers of Opting Out" list, the 17 people who were frisked were in category #5 and don't count the countless others who were in layers 1-4 who never set foot on Pena Blvd that day.

Thanks for running the numbers!

please remember, less than 1% of TSA clerks tell the truth.

Gotta love numbers. In arithmatica veritas!

And that's probably only by accident.

Simply put, I must travel by air if I want to eat. I believe I was one of the first to have posted here about having been groped after opting out. I believed the grope to have been punitive.

In future, I'll allow the TSA to see my junk as opposed to the alternative. The grope experience was humiliating in the extreme.

We should make this abhorrent pervasion of basic civil rights to disappear. I now live in Europe. Americans are now the object of much derision here as we have allowed our rights to be destroyed. Can you imagine, Europeans enjoy more protections than Americans. Unthinkable in my mind.

thanks for the numbers oboshoe. now, would you be saying low eyecue is LYING. and if so, WHY would he feel compelled to do so?

You are saying you put 6000 people through radiation today and only 17 opted out? Sounds like more propaganda to me.

Also... the 2.8% number is actually 3X higher than Napolitano's 1% number so we know her number was aggregate propaganda as well and not accurate.

What are the real numbers of how many people you irradiated that it was even possible for them to opt-out of anything? This is like Thanksgiving where they turned all the scanners off and then claimed "no one opted out". Opt-out counts only matter as a function of how many COULD have opted out. Additionally, the only way to get true opt-out numbers is to make sure people are AWARE of the choice. Claiming people are CHOOSING the scanners if they didn't know they had a choice means all you are doing by posting that statistic is pushing materially inaccurate propaganda.

Your statistics are MEANINGLESS until you tell everyone they have the option of opting out and you report how many did of the people you told that to.

And, Mr. TSA ... you should know that I will -always- be an opt-out. I will be an opt-out and make you dirty filthy people touch my penis until the day I die. And, because those machines will actually give people cancer, you will need to be able to make the legal defense when people get cancer ... you are always going to have to allow people to opt-out. That way, 20 years from now when people come back with cancer lawsuits you claim "you could've opted out". You will always need that excuse.

Do you know what that means Mr. TSA?

That means ...

You will be my bent over gay little do-boy massaging my dick for me, for $14/hour...

So, you guys coercively imposed your oppressive security theater and I've made my choice.
You get to be my little gay do-boy.

... forever.

I'm fine with that choice, looking down at you as you service me.

In another thread yesterday, eyecue wrote:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trave...ng-people.html

DEN has two main security checkpoints and one lower-volume access. If my memory is correct, the mains have about ten lanes and the secondary has six or eight. Last I noticed there are two AITs per checkpoint. Two lanes feed to each machine. That's six scanners that I have never seen fully staffed at one time.