Secondary Screening
 

I don't understand what all the big fuss about the shoes is anyway. Granted, it's assinine that the new directive came down that requires us to "suggest" that pax remove their shoes, but it is enforce and for as long as it is screeners will be asking you to remove your shoes. Granted also, you can refuse to remove shoes and walk through and get that secondary screening which you all seem to be screaming bloody murder about. However, apparently none of you have refused to take your shoes off since no one has posted what the consequences of refusing are; namely, should you refuse to remove shoes, then you go for secondary screening and your shoes get swiped (with you in them), and tested on the explosives machine. Big deal, big fuss, for what 90 seconds of delay? You are all going on about "wand raping", civil liberties and inconveniences when in reality that secondary screening is most likely a far less imposition than that of being chosen for random secondary screening (which includes shoe removal and wanding).

Why should we willingly submit to any harassment that was stupidly mandated by your jackass bosses?

Sadly, as long as your bosses act like clowns, you're going to keep hearing about it both on this board and at the checkpoint when you harass people.

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Spiff:
[B]Why should we willingly submit to any harassment that was stupidly mandated by your jackass bosses?

Well, since you're going to have to submit to it if you want to fly, why would you opt for making a big scene about a process that's only going to put you 90 seconds out of your way, if you don't take your shoes off that is? Making a scene only ends up making your stay at the checkpoint that much longer. I cannot tell you how many people I pull for continuous "wand raping" who spend so much time fussing about the process and demanding they be allowed to get their shoes, bags, etc. that I could have had them wanded and on their way by the time they finish, if they'd only let me do my job. The secondary screening process for non-shoe removal takes about 90 seconds, the secondary screening process for continuous takes about a minute longer, at least when I'm wanding it does. I do my job effectively, efficiently and rapidly since I have so many other "randoms" to select.

I'll be fussing too if you try to separate me from my belongings to be secondary screened. This is just completely unacceptable to me. It won't happen.

------------------
"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 06-18-2003).]

I don't think I take it as personally as Spiff, but I think the greater problem is that secondary inspections and the shoe obsession don't make much scientific sense.

It's not your fault, screenergal, nor is it the fault of your immediate superiors.

The current screening strategies, however, are reactionary rather than scientifically sound. As jetBlue CEO David Neeleman said on "60 Minutes," "we're looking for a needle in haystack, and right now we're looking at a lot of hay."

"Random" is perhaps the most dangerous word. Random screening has never been demonstrated to work in drug testing, nor screening for diseases, or in many other operations. US Customs abandoned random baggage screening years ago. So why should it work in airport security?

And, as you've noticed, passengers DO take it personally. And I don't blame them. It's unpleasant to think that everybody now has to take off their shoes because one man unsuccesfully tried to bomb a plane with shoe explosives. He had a suspicious passport and was denied boarding the day prior, so we're being punished by inconsistent security by ICTS in Paris (like all passengers, Reid had been interviewed twice, gone through Aeroports de Paris screening AND ICTS screening.)

This isn't the first time that shoes have been a focal point for airport security. There was a time in the 80's when everyone at Heathrow had to take off their shoes. Hats became an issue in the 90's; now we're back to shoes.

Let's hope that some of this will subside. The TSA is beginning to listen to policy analysts and industry representatives who have shown that there are better ways to conduct passenger screening. The current methodology is flawed, unpleasant for passengers, and extraordinarily expensive.

Let's hope that we'll all begin to work these issues out as the airline industry--and the economy as a whole--begin to recover.

And, as many here have said before, where would we be today if Richard Reid, the attempted shoe bomber, had hidden the bomb in his underwear instead of his shoe? Would we all be getting our underwear searched by screenergal and her friends? And God help us if someone hides explosives in a "body cavity" someday. Even screenergal might draw the line at that! Certainly she wouldn't be in a big hurry to fly, I imagine!

Bruce

We object because it is the right thing to do as an American who cherishes freedom. Our fathers fought and died for our freedoms and anyone who tries to take freedom away or even erode it is our enemy.

People who don't stand up and object to erosion of freedom are un-American. That's why I'm glad to see plenty of people objecting here and in the airport checkpoints. At SFO, which seems to be the worst place for shoes, myself and two other people were getting wanded for refusing to take our shoes off. One of the staff seemed used to it and took our objection in stride. Another staffer was quite upset and put the passenger through extra paces.

I have refused to take my shoes off at various airports throughuot the country. I have never seen the secondary screening take 90 seconds like you state. It takes 90 seconds for the TSA employee to check the wand "to make sure it is working" by wanding their own watch. The least amount of time is 4-5 min. for the screen. The longest has been 15 min. when they were backed up with three passengers to screen and only one screener (with 6 other TSA employees watching from about 8 feet away and laughing and joking around)

Screenergal you would do yourself a favor and all travelers if you would only open your eyes and see how the process works and in the process you would discover that this is the biggest waste of taxpayer dollers ever.

If I am out of line-of-sight of my stuff, either an unscrupulous passenger or screener might steal it. And don't give me BS about video cameras protecting me; that doesn't get my stuff back.

If you won't let me stay in sight of my belonings while you wand me, and if I'm not in a hurry to get to destination (which is usually the case; for business I try to travel 1 day early), then you and I are going to be spending a very unpleasant afternoon with your supervisor and possibly her supervisor discussing incident reports.

Try to understand the concern of the passengers. It's legitimate.

http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...m/thumbsup.gif http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...m/thumbsup.gif http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...m/thumbsup.gif

My thoughts exactly. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...orum/smile.gif

Are we supposed to be scared that you will talk to our supervisors? Like me, he is retired military also and so is the next manager and also the FSD.Best have your .... together when you want too talk.HOOAH


[This message has been edited by tsadude (edited 06-20-2003).]

This is the attitude of TSA. If you don's like the way we do things ****off.

I'll celebrate the day when TSA goes away

This is an attitude that you will probably receive when you become less than cival. I understand why most policeman react the way they do when you poor *******s starting threatening to have their badge because we do not know who we are messing with blah blah blah

Your poor grammar, spelling and attitude reflect poorly on you and your pathetic employer.

You write like a high school kid (or a country bumpkin). Accordingly, I doubt you are employed by the TSA.

If you want to impress us with how professional you all are, perhaps you could take some refresher courses in all three areas. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...um/biggrin.gif

I have only worked one airport, so can only speak about procedure and policy at that airport, and at our airport pax are never out of sight of their belongings, if they request their items are brought over and set down beside them while the screening process occurs, if they don't request the items are shifted from the belt to a table that is in plain view of them as they are being screened. As I said before, the secondary process for not taking off shoes is simply having the shoes swiped and that swipe run through the explosives machine. As I also said before, screening someone with the wand does take about 3 minutes (I stated it takes 90 seconds for the shoe secondary screening). With a pax who is cooperative, I can have them screened and on their way about the time their items come out on the belt. This of course is assuming the person isn't wearing much metal; with those who have all their bracelets on, metal studs on their pants, belts, etc. yes, it does take a bit longer. I do understand how many of you could feel this is an inconvenience, and as I stated in my original post I do agree the shoe policy is not the best thing TSA has thought up, but they have their reasons for it (all SSI of course) and since they do, then we are enforcing it. I also have to take my shoes off since they fall under the guidelines for inspection, the difference is, I do it at least three times a shift, and I just go ahead and do it instead of griping and complaining about having to.

Try not making lame threats and then perhaps we'll take what you say seriously.
No supervisor is going to pull a screener off the line to deal with a passenger because their line-of-site to their luggage was blocked for a few seconds. If it's so important to you, tell the screeners beforehand.

[This message has been edited by CATSA Screener (edited 06-20-2003).]

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that this is a legitimate concern? And wasn't it you tsadude who told me that we have every right to ask to not be separated from our belongings?? If not, it was a screener here.



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

He never said he would be un-civil or that he would be demanding anyone's badge. Just said basically he wasn't going to be wanded unless he was in sight of his belongings. From your reaction, it is pretty obvious where the attitude will be coming from.



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

He was responding to studentff's frivolous threat of getting us in trouble with our supervisor. It was the tone of the message, not the content of the concern.

Real cute,nice comeback. You sound like a REMF.Are you?

One thing they teach in the military is RESPECT (I'm sure you remember that). Assuming that passengers are respectful when dealing with you and your supervisors, I will assume that you'll return the courtesy.

It's a shame that with so many retired military supposedly hanging around in the TSA these days, people and their belongings do not appear to get the respect that they deserve. I've read about many cases (and seen a number of times myself) where people's belongings-- including some rather expensive electronic equipment-- were just dumped out on a table willy-nilly. I usually carry the following with me in my carry-on luggage:

-HP iPAQ h5455 PocketPC
-Archos Jukebox Multimedia MP3 Player
-Noise cancelling headphones
-HP iPAQ h3850 PocketPC (yes, a 2nd PocketPC)
-Toshiba laptop
-Wireless mouse
-Wireless game controller

I am sure that you can appreciate why I wouldn't appreciate someone just dumping all this out onto a table. I am also sure that you can appreciate why I want my baggage to remain with me AT ALL TIMES. This stuff is too small, easy, and tempting to steal-- and I'm sure that I would have a hard time getting reimbursed for any theft by the TSA or any other organization.

I do not see where his comments indicated at all that his intent would be to get a screener in trouble. Fact of the matter is, if you don't go along with what the prescribed prgram du jour is, you'll likely end up with a supervisor and asking for complaint forms as well, since it really shouldn't have to get to that point.


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

Oh well, I guess tsadude and I are too sensitive. It's just like with cops... when you assert your rights, except in the most respectful of ways, we see a smart-.... Doesn't mean we're right, but we have a job to do and we just see your badgering as an impediment to that. Of course a professional won't let such frustrations affect how he does his job so you should get the same level of service whether you "sheeple" through the point or demand that you be able to keep your luggage in sight and your shoes on.

[This message has been edited by CATSA Screener (edited 06-21-2003).]

Respect is a two way street. I cannot speak for other airports nor am I a official spokesperson for the TSA.I speak my mind here at this board and say what I want too and how I want too.You don't know me but yet you judge. I have had my ... chewed for helping too much if you can believe that. We have one of the biggest retirement communities in the nation. We help many confused golden year passengers stay with their items all of the time. I understand your concerns if you have something that is very valuable and it needs to be secure and so do many others. By the way, many of the retired military are not just hanging around, we are keeping the former private screeners on track.

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound too judgemental in the last post. I agree-- respect is a two way street (especially in a customer-service oriented position). I guess the point that I was trying to make (unsuccessfully perhaps?) was that as long as passengers and their belongings are treated with the same respect that you request, problems on the line with picky (whiny?) passengers (like myself sometimes) can be minimized.

I may totally disagree with what you're doing and feel that it is a trampling of my 4th amendment rights, but I will be nothing but courteous and respectful to you and other agents as long as that respect is returned to me. Although I don't like to be secondary screened, I am willing to have it take a few minutes longer so that agents can change gloves and take their time to go through my bags without dumping everything out onto a table willy-nilly. And while I think the whole shoe thing is absolutely ludicrous, I'm willing to be polite and hand them to an agent if asked to do so in a respectful tone.

Attitude and the specific language used have a great deal to do with how I react to commands and interact with people.

There are certain settings and situations in which I will respond immediately to a direct order (I'm sure you've been there too... http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...orum/smile.gif ), and then there are other situations-- scenarios in which I expect to be treated calmly and considerately. In the latter scenarios, being addressed as "Mr. Rankin" (if the screener remembers my name from the ID) or as "Sir" (otherwise, and preferrable) is appropriate-- as long as I haven't been abusive. Any "hey you, drop and give me 20" type attitude http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/wink.gif is met with a similar response. From my perspective, this type of interaction is as acceptable as a CPL issuing an order to a CPT-- it just won't produce good results.

As for the retired military on the lines-- I'm 100% sure that they aren't the ones that I've run into problems with in the past. As I'm sure you'll agree, you can usually tell them apart from everyone else (usually by looking at work ethic and attitude-- well, for the most part at least). And I'm sure that if they're standing around at the lines, they're either on a scheduled break or are observing for a purpose.

While I may diagree with the procedures that have been put in place, I recognize that the folks on the lines have nothing to do with creating them. I have been nothing but curteous to these folks in the past and intend to continue doing so myself. Now, that doesn't mean that I won't continue to criticise and blast when I see problems. It also doesn't mean that I won't continue to lobby my Congressman to push for audits and/or cutbacks to the TSA as well.

Edited for a few spelling and grammer-related changes.

[This message has been edited by clrankin (edited 06-21-2003).]

Mr Rankin, a huge majority of the screeners and supervisors are not there to hassle anyone but just to get you through the checkpoint and on with your travels.Are there some A-holes on a power trip? Yes there is and I cannot stand these jerks and jerkettes just like all of you. Passing through the checkpoint can be an easy thing. Greta Van Sustren passes through ours on a weekly basis and I have never seen her set off the mag.The same with Hulk Hogan. I can do it also. It is not hard.

It wasn't intended as a threat, just a matter of fact, and no I don't expect screeners to be "scared" that I would want to talk to a supervisor.

And quite frankly, I'm glad many screeners and their supervisors are retired miliatry. I grew up as a military brat, and for the most part have found that as long as I know what I'm talking about, dealing with military types is quite pleasant because they generally respect procedure and respect authority, and even in uncomfortable situations they can conduct a respectful, courteous, professional dialogue.

In this hypothetical situation, where I had politely asked to not be out-of-sight of my luggage and was refused that right by a screener, I would be having a simple conversation with the authority (a supervisor) about procedure (there's no procedure that requires taking me out of sight of my luggage that I know of.) The only redress I would expect is the supervisor saying, "Sir, that seems like a reasonable request and we'll try to work on that here. Sorry for the inconvienience."

It seems funny to me that 9 out 10 checkpoints and screeners seem to completely understand this simple concept and work to make it happen (I've thanked screeners at ORD and other places for having wanding stations facing luggage, etc.) while the remaining 1 out of 10 seem to be on some belligerant power-trip with a desire to intentionally separate people from their belongings and intimidate passengers with their coworkers' former careers and the fact that most hurried passengers don't have time to complain or be detained.

I say again that it's a legitimate concern. I don't have to like your agency or most of its policies to have a working respect for the TSA employees who do their job well, and you don't have to like me to agree that my concerns are reasonable, provide an efficient and effective screening, and send me on my way while returning the smile and "have a nice day" that I gave you if everything went OK.

Ok, that's cool. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I resent the TSA, too, especially when it behaves stupidly, but this statement by tsadude is totally consistent with my experience. For quite a while now, I have been getting through security checkpoints in just seconds. I voluntarily take off my shoes, which have steel shanks, remove my belt and everything from my pockets, and that's it. I don't set off the metal detector, nobody is interested in my bags, and I'm on my way. I even take the time to compliment those TSA employees who are a bit more polite than usual. I tell them that we passengers really notice their better-than-usual attitude and appreciate it!

Once in a while, I run into a jerk, like the one at DCA who sent me for secondary screening for being silent! Those are exceptions, however.

None of this is intended to suggest that I am a TSA supporter, just that it IS possible to reduce your interactions with them to a bare minimum.

Bruce