CameraGuy

There are MORE than enough screeners available to do this.

If the people in charge of scheduling had any type of clue how to perform their jobs properly, there would be no wait time at the Airport.

LarryJ

You folks are STILL confusing the different types of machines in use. They use Xray, metal detectors, ETD machines and EDS machines.

The Xray doesn't detect eplosives, just shows the relative densities and outlines of objects as well as what is organic. It's up to the operator to use his judgement and experience to find weapons or explosives.

The metal detectors (arches and wands) detect metal. Explisves aren't metal so they're pretty useless in finding explosives unless a bomb happens to include a lot of metal.

ETD machines are the table top devices which analyse the swabs that are wiped on the bag being tested. Works well but it's slow and labor intensive.

EDS machines are the mini-van size machines that are falsely accused of having a 30% false positive rate. The EDS machine does something that none of the other machines can do--it can determine that a bag does not contain explosives without any human intervention (other than the agent who placed the bag on the conveyer belt at the ticket counter).

The EDS machine clears a bit over 70% of the bags competely automatically leaving close to 30% uncleared. If we are to call that a 30% false positive rate than the Xray machine used at the passenger screening point has a 100% false positive rate because it can't clear *ANY* bags without operator intervention.

The nearly 30% of the bags that the EDS machine can not clear are handled similarly to how 100% of the carry on bags are screened. The EDS machine alerts the operator who then performs a function very similar to the function of the Xray operator. They look at the images produce and can take additional scans. Some percentage of those bags are cleared immediately by the operator and sent along. The remaining bags can be screened in one of three ways, explosive sniffing dogs, ETD machines, or physical inspections.

The purpose of the EDS machines is to reduce the number of bags which must be screened through the more labor and time intensive methods and that's exactly what it does--it reduces the number by a bit over 70%.

tsadude

You sir,have no clue as to what you are talking about. Come on down and spend some time with me and bring your lumbar support belt.There are not enough screeners for this system. Maybe they will figure that out someday and change it.

CameraGuy

They could always pull the screeners who are sitting at the gates reading a newspaper, or the screeners who are standing around at the checkpoints doing nothing.

Or:

They could schedule screeners to be at the Airport when the Airport is busy and NOT at the Airport when the Airport is dead.

There are PLENTY of bodies. They are just not being utilized properly.

tsadude

Checkpoint screeners are not trained to work in the baggage area. The schedules are already made to handle the busy hours. Some airports have mandatory 12 hour shifts. You would actually have to be there for a couple of shifts to see the busy and slow times. Add in the breaks and lunches and it gets real fun.

CameraGuy

That's where Cross-training comes into play.

All Screeners should be trained to perform all screening functions.

As for 12 hour shifts, I can think of only a handful of Airports that have that much traffic. At the other Airports, scheduling is poor at best. Even if it required Split-Shifts, the scheduling should be done better.

Just Passing Thru

Actually, they are. The bag containing the bomb (which exploded onboard PA103) was actually interlined from a flight originating in Malta. At the time, German authorities did not screen checked bags that were being transferred from inbound international flights. That has now changed.

Technically, you're right that PA103 was loaded in Germany, but you're wrong because the bag didn't originate there. Therefore, it wasn't checked; a hole in security that the bombers successfully exploited.

You're also incorrect since the Germans are now screening all checked bags for explosives before loading them; this is something they were not doing before.

tazi

The ones that actually did receive the training for baggage screening are now wanting a pay increase because they learned soemthing new and it is harder work than passenger screening is.



------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin

tsadude

It is alot more physically demanding the the checkpoint, but there is alot less contact with passengers

rawbert

That's all we are asking for, alot less contact with passengers.

rawbert

TakeScissorsAway

If, for instance, I build widgits, and the boss tells me, "OK, we will teach you how to insert the widgit into the thing-a-ma-bob, and it will be 10 times more labor intensive". Do you think my union would stand for this without some sort of monetary compensation ? I think not.

tazi

This may come as a surprise to you but, most of us don't work under the protection of a union. Part of maintaining our jobs depends on learning new skills. And it takes much more than learning to earn a pay increase ... you need to show proficiency in the skill and the ability to apply it in a productive manner.


You might also want to consider that labor intensive does not normally equate to higher pay. On the contrary, it usually is just the opposite.


------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin


[This message has been edited by tazi (edited 03-18-2003).]

ACES II

I have to agree with Tazi on that one. My job can be very labor intensive, even maddening with all the little parts and safety wiring. However, it is the knowledge and application of that knowledge that gets one a raise/promotion, not just the ability to connect one part to another. Union protection is pretty much a myth as well, they usually lead to lower standards and the "dumbing" down of tasks, meaning that instead of one guy changing that light bulb, you now are required to have an elevation engineer (to set up the ladder correctly), a safety observer (to observe for OSHA violations), and finally, the lighting engineer (to change the bulb). Although I tend to side with the TSA, a union would not help. It will only mean that those individual screeners that are trying to make it work will be straddled with those who just can't cut the mustard but have union "protection" keeping them in their jobs.

TakeScissorsAway

OK, let me put it another way. If the baggage area is being swamped because of the number of "call-ins" that day, we cannot call down to the CP for help because those folks are not CTX trained. However, if the CP is overwhelmed, and needs a hand, they waste no time in calling in the baggage "calvary". We have more training, and should be compensated accordingly.

tazi

Were you forced into becoming a baggage screener? I understand it was something you asked to be trained for. Did anyone say this would be a higher paying job? If not then you have nothing to complain about.



------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin