FlyerTalk Forums

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)
-   Practical Travel Safety and Security Issues (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/practical-travel-safety-security-issues-686/)
-   -   Oh BEEEP No! (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/practical-travel-safety-security-issues/1195835-oh-beeep-no.html)

ElizabethConley Mar 18, 2011 12:44 pm
Oh BEEEP No!
 
http://www.centreforaviation.com/new...industry/page1

Panel by Tom Ridge, a former Secretary of Homeland Security...

...Nonetheless, they did come up with some very specific goals.

Implement a risk-based trusted traveler program. Doing so would allow greater focus on those who may pose a greater threat.
Improve the preparation of travelers by disseminating more information about screening earlier in the booking and planning process.
Encourage fewer carry-ons. The panel attributed the increased complexity of the process in part to bag fees that increase carry-on luggage. In a move that will doubtless generate an airline response, they recommended that one free checked bag be included in the ticket price and that all be more diligent in reducing hand baggage.
Reduce repeat screening of those arriving on International flights and connecting to domestic services.
Allow frequent international travelers to enroll in the US trusted traveler program.
Give TSA full authority in the checkpoint area and reduce confusion of security “ownership”.
Develop a comprehensive technology procurement strategy and make certain that programs are funded for the life of program rather than year-to-year.
Develop and implement well-defined risk management processes.
The group urged Congress and the administration to move towards implementing the suggestions, citing polls that indicate Americans are quite displeased with the present arrangement and many have cut back on travel to avoid the system.

Roger Dow, President and CEO of USTA, closed by saying, “When combining the staggering economic consequences of the current system with the widely held views of the traveling public – and with the American way of life hanging in the balance – the picture becomes clear. We must find a better way and build a new traveler-focused system for aviation security.”
Absolutely, unequivocally no way. I mean it. That can not happen. That bunch of fascist led thugs cannot be given free reign.

eturowski Mar 18, 2011 12:49 pm
Does this imply that we would no longer be able to call for LEOs if a problem arises? Would this take the checkpoints out of LEO jurisdiction?

ElizabethConley Mar 18, 2011 12:53 pm
Originally Posted by eturowski (Post 16059556)
Does this imply that we would no longer be able to call for LEOs if a problem arises? Would this take the checkpoints out of LEO jurisdiction?
I'm no lawyer, but that's the conclusion I'm drawing. Citizens would be left without hope of succor.

Boggie Dog Mar 18, 2011 12:54 pm
Originally Posted by eturowski (Post 16059556)
Does this imply that we would no longer be able to call for LEOs if a problem arises? Would this take the checkpoints out of LEO jurisdiction?
I would take that statement item to indicate that some (all) TSA checkpoint trolls would enjoy police powers.

Totally unacceptable!

Cartoon Peril Mar 18, 2011 1:29 pm
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog (Post 16059595)
I would take that statement item to indicate that some (all) TSA checkpoint trolls would enjoy police powers.

Totally unacceptable!
Well, I don't see this happening without some kind of authorization from Congress. Additionally, general police authority would cast doubt on the legality of the "administrative" search regime.

Flaflyer Mar 18, 2011 1:35 pm
I will go for this part if this sentence is finished correctly:

"In a move that will doubtless generate an airline response, they recommended that one free checked bag be included in the ticket price" and

the airlines provide full replacement insurance for contents regardless of value and the airlines pay full replacement with a minimum of $10,000 per bag for any bag they lose.

Under these conditions I would not carry on and instead check a bag at least half the time. :rolleyes: Actually I would still carry on and check a dummy bag and hope they lose it. ;)

Cartoon Peril Mar 18, 2011 1:35 pm
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog (Post 16059595)
I would take that statement item to indicate that some (all) TSA checkpoint trolls would enjoy police powers.

Totally unacceptable!
Well, I don't see this happening without some kind of authorization from Congress. Additionally, general police authority would cast doubt on the legality of the "administrative" search regime.

I'd Rather Walk Mar 18, 2011 1:48 pm
Originally Posted by Cartoon Peril (Post 16059879)
Well, I don't see this happening without some kind of authorization from Congress. Additionally, general police authority would cast doubt on the legality of the "administrative" search regime.
Pistole doesn't need authorization from anyone. His mandate is to do whatever he wants in the name of security. All he has to do is tell the President that this is needed to keep people safe. No hearings, no public input, no Congress, just like the sex assaults. I still don't see how it's legal for a beaurocrat to tell his employees they can touch strangers in places they should be arrested for touching. What if he said they could shoot anyone that refused to be searched? Sounds ridiculus, last year someone saying that being seen naked and routinely getting sexually assaulted at the airport would be ridiculus. I never understood how the Nazis could get so people on those trains. Now I'm starting to understand.

srirams Mar 18, 2011 1:50 pm
Originally Posted by eturowski (Post 16059556)
Does this imply that we would no longer be able to call for LEOs if a problem arises? Would this take the checkpoints out of LEO jurisdiction?
Don't LEOs usually just side with the TSOs....

FlyingUnderTheRadar Mar 18, 2011 1:50 pm
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.

Fornebufox Mar 18, 2011 1:55 pm
Originally Posted by Cartoon Peril (Post 16059879)
Well, I don't see this happening without some kind of authorization from Congress. Additionally, general police authority would cast doubt on the legality of the "administrative" search regime.
I have little confidence that Congress would resist this. But if things go this far it ramps up the likelihood of more TSA cases coming before the Supreme Court.

a_random_guy Mar 18, 2011 2:04 pm
Originally Posted by FlyingUnderTheRadar (Post 16059962)
...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.
Efficient brown shirts are scarier than incompetent ones. We need to keep pushing the State initiatives. Outlaw the current TSA behavior, or for that matter outlaw TSA. The States have the resources to push this - almost no one else does.

Al Coholic Mar 18, 2011 2:04 pm
Originally Posted by FlyingUnderTheRadar (Post 16059962)
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.

Yeah, right. http://abc.daytonsnewssource.com/sha...vid_6103.shtml

FriendlySkies Mar 18, 2011 3:37 pm
That really worries me! :eek:


Originally Posted by srirams (Post 16059961)
Don't LEOs usually just side with the TSOs....
Not always. I have read stories on ft where the LEO understands that the clerk is being an idiot, and told the traveler that they are free..

Lara21 Mar 18, 2011 4:01 pm
Originally Posted by ElizabethConley (Post 16059520)
http://www.centreforaviation.com/new...industry/page1



Absolutely, unequivocally no way. I mean it. That can not happen. That bunch of fascist led thugs cannot be given free reign.


Give TSA full authority in the checkpoint area and reduce confusion of security “ownership”.

I'm thinking that TSA really is trying to get the authority to do custom style searches along with the authority to detain passengers like they do at border crossings. Because there is no other reason for them wanting total authority and security ownership of the checkpoint areas other than to have complete control of the passengers so they can do the searches they want since Pistole is former FBI and we all know that during the current searches he is looking for more than just items that can bring down a plane.

jkhuggins Mar 18, 2011 4:27 pm
Originally Posted by Lara21 (Post 16060768)
Give TSA full authority in the checkpoint area and reduce confusion of security “ownership”.

I'm thinking that TSA really is trying to get the authority to do custom style searches along with the authority to detain passengers like they do at border crossings. Because there is no other reason for them wanting total authority and security ownership of the checkpoint areas other than to have complete control of the passengers so they can do the searches they want since Pistole is former FBI and we all know that during the current searches he is looking for more than just items that can bring down a plane.
Actually, I think there is another explanation ... which doesn't come across as nearly as sinister as some of the other theories suggested here.

We've heard any number of times in different threads here that TSA is "merely" a renter of its space in the airport --- and because of that status, it doesn't have full control of the screening process. Consider:
  • TSA won't screen TSOs everytime they enter/leave the checkpoint area, and won't subject them to the same LGA restrictions as passengers, because in many cases their break areas are outside the sterile area, and since they're not in complete control, they can't require a break area for TSOs inside the sterile area.
  • TSA can't install more physical space for passengers to disassemble themselves before the checkpoint, and reassemble themselves after the checkpoint, because they're not in complete control of how much, and what kind, of space they're given at the airport.
  • During the inevitable discussions about whether or not there ought to be a separate line for first-class passengers feeding into the TDC position at the checkpoint, we're told that TSA's rental space begins at the TDC position, and since they're not in complete control, they can't control whether or not the airlines create separate lines for first-class passengers.

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.

Lara21 Mar 18, 2011 4:56 pm
jkhuggins you may be correct, but when it comes to TSA. The way they behave makes us think worst case scenario being the outcome of any changes they decide to come up with.

goalie Mar 18, 2011 5:03 pm
I'll just focus on two of the data points...

Encourage fewer carry-ons
Which will result in an increase of complaints by passengers that items "have gone missing" from their checked luggage (and imho, an increase in baggage handlers and/or TSO's getting arrested fro stealing from pax luggage) :td:

Reduce repeat screening of those arriving on International flights and connecting to domestic services.
Something that actually makes sense ^

halls120 Mar 18, 2011 8:42 pm
Originally Posted by Cartoon Peril (Post 16059879)
Well, I don't see this happening without some kind of authorization from Congress. Additionally, general police authority would cast doubt on the legality of the "administrative" search regime.
You obviously don't understand how TSA operates. From the very beginning, their view of their authority is that it is what TSA deems it to be - until that time that the courts rein them in.

LuvAirFrance Mar 18, 2011 8:45 pm
Develop a comprehensive technology procurement strategy and make certain that programs are funded for the life of program rather than year-to-year.
In short, make sure WE don't suffer in the budget cuts to balance the budget. We want a PERMANENT flow to our nipple! NOW!

onlyairfare Mar 18, 2011 9:19 pm
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.

LuvAirFrance Mar 18, 2011 9:32 pm
Congress should call Napolitano on the carpet for the number of felonies committed by employees of the agency. Surely they can keep people with no self discipline off the front lines with passengers.

tkey75 Mar 18, 2011 9:42 pm
Originally Posted by LuvAirFrance (Post 16062132)
Congress should call Napolitano on the carpet for the number of felonies committed by employees of the agency. Surely they can keep people with no self discipline off the front lines with passengers.
I'd rather they don't exist in the agency at all, but if they're going to allow felonious behavior (by virtue of ignoring it), I want them where I can see them. Not behind the scenes rifling through my bags at will!

LuvAirFrance Mar 18, 2011 9:43 pm
No question. That is the perfect solution. Just "defund" the damned circus. And use the existence of a "continuing criminal enterprise" as the excuse.

bocastephen Mar 18, 2011 11:09 pm
Unless they're packing guns or tasers, they can give them all the law enforcement status Pistole's little heart desires, but outside of the sterile area, I will continue to ignore them, including any attempt to detain or arrest me unless they have the hardware to do it.

Inside the sterile area, I will simply refuse to answer their questions without a lawyer present - since they are law enforcement, any statement I make could be the basis for self-incrimination.

Giving these moronic goons law enforcement authority will not go over well - seriously, could you imagine these people being given actual authority??

I just don't see it happening. Pansies in Congress might talk the talk publicly, but outside of the rare idiot like Peter King, I don't think anyone agrees that TSA people have the mental capability or qualifications to assume that sort of authority.

LuvAirFrance Mar 19, 2011 1:50 am
"The dumber they are, the more they need power".

n4zhg Mar 19, 2011 8:09 am
Originally Posted by LuvAirFrance (Post 16062172)
No question. That is the perfect solution. Just "defund" the damned circus. And use the existence of a "continuing criminal enterprise" as the excuse.
There's an idea! Declare TSA a "continuing criminal enterprise" and prosecute the lot of them under RICO.

mre5765 Mar 19, 2011 9:05 am
Originally Posted by Flaflyer (Post 16059877)
Under these conditions I would not carry on and instead check a bag at least half the time. :rolleyes: Actually I would still carry on and check a dummy bag and hope they lose it. ;)
Blast you ... because of your idea, if this becomes policy, I'll be spending weekends scouring garage sales for used suitcases. :D

bzbdewd Mar 19, 2011 9:15 am
Originally Posted by mre5765 (Post 16063769)
Blast you ... because of your idea, if this becomes policy, I'll be spending weekends scouring garage sales for used suitcases. :D
Don't you have a dozen in the garage and a couple under the bed like we do? :)

n4zhg Mar 19, 2011 10:23 am
Originally Posted by bzbdewd (Post 16063807)
Don't you have a dozen in the garage and a couple under the bed like we do? :)
Probably, but I bet they all exceed the current dimensional limitations.

candi Mar 19, 2011 4:41 pm
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.

ElizabethConley Mar 19, 2011 5:04 pm
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.
We need legitimate law enforcement presence available to us at checkpoints in order to keep the TSA from getting any worse. Over the last few months, we've seen local police realize that "unquestioningly providing backup" to the TSA is not their legitimate role. We've seen the local police forces take back a measure of their honor and integrity. This is as it should be.

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.

Combat Medic Mar 19, 2011 5:34 pm
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.
Problem with that is that you are talking about the federal government seizing private property.

Cha-cha-cha Mar 19, 2011 5:38 pm
The best way to "encourage fewer carry-ons" would be for airlines to quit losing luggage so often!

jkhuggins Mar 19, 2011 6:20 pm
Originally Posted by Combat Medic (Post 16065906)
Problem with that is that you are talking about the federal government seizing private property.
We crossed that Rubicon long ago; the concept of eminent domain actions has an incredibly long history in the U.S..

Cityhawk Mar 25, 2011 10:20 am
Originally Posted by srirams (Post 16059961)
Don't LEOs usually just side with the TSOs....
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.

chollie Mar 25, 2011 10:34 am
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.
Unfortunately, this would undoubtedly lead to an 'LEO-qualified' subset of TSOs within the larger TSO community. That would mean that any interaction or dispute with a TSO 'bad apple' would be effectively adjudicated on the spot by another TSO, albeit LEO-qualified.

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.

chollie Mar 25, 2011 10:35 am
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!
^^^

chollie Mar 25, 2011 10:37 am
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.
There's the problem.

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.

nachtnebel Mar 25, 2011 1:30 pm
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?
I would like to see a correlation between TSA hiring surges and release dates from USDB, Fort Leavenworth.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 9:30 am.


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.