|
Skynet "saw all humans as a threat; not just the ones on the other side," and "decided our fate in a microsecond: extermination." Skynet began a nuclear war which destroyed most of the human population, and initiated a program of genocide against the survivors.
At least with Skynet, most of the masses would be willing to fight back. |
Originally Posted by onlyairfare
(Post 16062080)
In defense of some police officers, I report my screening experience at FLG just before New Year's Eve.
The TSO spotted my gifts of valuable Navajo jewelry I was carrying home, and announced she had to re-screen my "suspicious items" - 2 jewelry boxes and my wallet. I believe her intent was to steal them once they were out of my sight behind the X-ray. I asked the police officer standing at the CP if he would please supervise the process to protect me from having my family's Christmas gifts stolen. He watched her closely through each step and when the bin came out of the X-ray, he made her bring me the bin and my suitcase so I could check to be sure all my items were there, which they were. I thanked the officer and sent an email to the Chief of Police commending the officer for his diligence. At least some police officers are willing to protect the pax from TSA transgressions. I don't want to see the TSA permitted to run wild at checkpoints. The agency and their employees have shown they are unfit for that degree of responsibility. |
Originally Posted by jkhuggins
(Post 16060925)
I think that TSA's desire for "complete control" might simply be a desire to have complete control over its physical space at the airports --- not merely the same (lack) control given to any other airport tenant.
Of course, the other theories promoted here could just as easily be true. I'm not saying whether or not my theory is more or less likely ... just pointing out an alternative theory that isn't quite as Orwellian. |
The best way to "encourage fewer carry-ons" would be for airlines to quit losing luggage so often!
|
Originally Posted by Combat Medic
(Post 16065906)
Problem with that is that you are talking about the federal government seizing private property.
|
Originally Posted by srirams
(Post 16059961)
Don't LEOs usually just side with the TSOs....
|
Originally Posted by FlyingUnderTheRadar
(Post 16059962)
LEOs can do an administrative search. Happens all the time at court house entrances. As such, it is not so much as who does the administrative search as to what and how the search is conducted.
In some discussions that I have had with a congressional staffer, they noted that some would like TSA to have LEO credentials. Under the current system, (i.e. those currently employed) the vast majority of the TSO would probably not be able to pass the LEO standards. As such, if they were weeded out, the system might be much more professional and efficient. Think what if TSOs had to have the same level of education and LEO training as those in the Secret Service/Federal Marshall. BTW I am not saying I am for it. But I am certainly all for raising greatly the standard for those being hired as TSOs. In some airports, LEOs rubber stamp TSA's actions. There have been a few reports where the airport LEOs did not do so. If we give anyone in TSA LEO authority, we will completely lose. This is the scariest potential development I have heard yet. BTW, we keep hearing that a significant percentage of TSOs have LEO/military backgrounds. Has anyone ever actually seen stats on this? There are clearly many many TSOs who, just based on appearance (age) couldn't have extensive pre-TSO background in much of anything, let alone LEO/military. I wonder how many base TSOs actually have such experience. I should add, I don't see previous LEO experience (or even military experience) as necessarily helpful. Seems like folks with such backgrounds are pre-disposed to view every pax as a perp. |
Originally Posted by Cha-cha-cha
(Post 16065920)
The best way to "encourage fewer carry-ons" would be for airlines to quit losing luggage so often!
|
Originally Posted by Cityhawk
(Post 16100559)
Depends. If the agent is just making up rules off the cuff, demanding a LEO could very well cause them to back down. You should know the rules before attempting it, though.
The rules are not what is on the website (outdated). The rules are whatever the TSO or FSD has decided they are. They are SSI, so even LEOs don't have access to them. |
Originally Posted by chollie
(Post 16100638)
BTW, we keep hearing that a significant percentage of TSOs have LEO/military backgrounds. Has anyone ever actually seen stats on this? |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 2:51 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.