He/she is either a lead or Supervisor, we don't make anywhere near that amount as a screener. Or B, he/she doesn't work for TSA period.

We at TSA, nothing. You don't speak for everyone of us. A lot of what is said on here does have a ring of truth, take off the blinders and you might be able to see that.

That right there was a good point made by Spiff and all you could say was whatever.

That's interesting... How many times now have passengers passed the screening checkpoint when a screener suddenly realized some contraband on the X-Ray screen? The airport gets shut down, but the passenger is never found or even identified? Good thing they have those cameras!! http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/wink.gif



[This message has been edited by SNA_Flyer (edited Feb 19, 2004).]

<Spiff is my new best friend>

Edited to add:
Trolls like whatsinyourbag seems to exemplify everything that we're finding to be wrong with the TSA, while those like screenerx understands that the FACT that the system employed by the USA is far from perfect, and that the decision by the Clinton administration to never use racial or religious factors in airport security was an enormous mistake (i.e. random screening does not serve any useful purpose).


[This message has been edited by sowalsky (edited Feb 19, 2004).]

How much do you want to be that when a pax complains something was stolen from their carry-on by TSA, the film from the cameras is never used to solve the case? How much do you want to bet that all these cases where emotions get high between a pax and a screener and the pax gets arrested that the pax isn't granted access to the film to prove that the screener was out of line? And although TSA films the whole thing, what do you think would happen if a pax used their own camera to film their own screening process?

I once had an LAX T7 screener take personal offense that I wouldn't let my bag out of my sight. He accused me of calling him a thief and said, "We're all federal workers here," and "There are cameras everywhere." (while waiving his hand at the ceiling). He didn't seem to like my answer that if my stuff went missing, his cameras weren't going to help me get it back in time to make my flight and get home that evening.



[This message has been edited by studentff (edited Feb 19, 2004).]

You should've told the sad sack that if he could treat you like a terrorist, you have every right to treat him like a thief.

Quote:
"You should've told the sad sack that if he could treat you like a terrorist, you have every right to treat him like a thief."

Yeah but unfortunately if you pissed him off they would probably detain you for using the word "Terrorist"!

First, this was not a Clinton Administration decision.

Second, why limit the use of racial or religious factors to airport security? Let's say that we should audit European Americans at 10 times the rate of African Americans. After all, it would net bigger and more "threatening" tax cheats.

Why not set up check-points to screen Christian males whenever there is an incident of a woman being abused or assaulted? After all, Christian males are the majority of violent offenders in America.

The list goes on an on.

[By the way, I believe the only useful security for airports is comprehensive explosives screening, unidentifiable armed skymarshalls -- unknown to even the crew -- and validation that no harmful (chemical or otherwise) agents or automatic weapons get on board.]