Perhaps this is where the difference in opinion comes in - from a difference in perspective.

I have questioned some things, for instance when I had 5 pairs of tweezers confiscated in the first couple of weeks after 9/11. (I need my tweezers. lol!) I asked the screeners several times about, even asking if they thought I planned to pluck my way into the cockpit? I've also been asked to turn on my laptop on occasion in other countries (in uniform, mind you), and questioned that. Additionally, one airport in particular decided to start asking non-uniformed crew for boarding passes, which we don't usually get until we're at the gate - this new policy caused me to miss a flight once. I did rather angrily challenge that one - and then came home and wrote a letter to TSA and to that airport's director of operations. Suddenly, the rule had changed the next time I flew out of there.

Perhaps the approach I use when asking such questions (or when going through security period) is the reason I've never had a bad experience with the screeners. Most of them are just doing the job they've been handed, and believe me - most are getting tired of pawing through your undies, just as you're tired of being pawed. Complaining to them and giving them a hard time will neither change nor solve anything - they are the workers, not the policy makers. You may be tired of writing letters that seem to go no where, but that's far more effective than harrassing those that you feel are harrassing you.

Just some thoughts...other than those minor annoyances and the biggie that caused me to miss the flight, I've never been subjected to anything that I felt was abusive or uneccessary - and if I were, the first thing I'd do is ask for a TSA supervisor, and then also ask my airline for it's security liason. Then, I'd come home and write letters. It may be frustrating that we can't get our way immediately (we Americans do love instant gratification, don't we?), but there's just no way it can function that way. It may not be the most efficient system, and it's not perfect...but it could certainly be worse.

"Please remove your shoes sir."
 

What if someone wore a suit made entirely of shoes? :D

Try it, and find out. :p

I totally agree, flymeway! Attitude detemines a lot how things turn out. However there can be other factors: race, sex, age, and all the other things that may give someone the mistaken sense that an individual is not due respect can also be in play. Still, attitude tends to get back what it gives.

Do calmly insist on being being treated with respect and dignity on the spot. Do insist on speaking with a supervisor if trifled with .. and if you have the time. Do write letters to people with authority within the system.

I would add one other thing.

Raise your voice in places like this, in the local newspapers "letters to the editor", to your Representatives in the House and your Senators.

Our civil liberties are being erroded. As someone so astutely pointed out on this thread or another, there are fewer and fewer places where you do not have to give identification and where you are free from random search. Cumulatively, we are giving up our freedoms.

BS

Unfortunately yes...I don't personally agree with the profiling based on those other factors and I don't think they're necessary. There are other ways to determine a person's 'threat level'. But on the other hand, we were attacked by a very specific group of people - so it does make sense to be *aware*. My company's policy for us inflight folk is to note behavior, not ethnicity or age or sex or any other such thing - and I'm quite happy of that.

I can name a thousand places where I am free of an ID check or random search....your words here are seriously over-stating the issue. Of the places where we do have security checks....well I imagine your attitude might be different had you lost a loved one on Sept. 11th or witnessed the events first-hand, or had a student point a shotgun at you, or had an soon-to-be-ex-spouse in divorce court with a weapon in her hand bag, etc, etc.

I cannot say that this does not happen, but I do believe it is rare. I have worked at several airports and several checkpoints and the only times I ever heard a passenger being threatened with being denied boarding is when it was absolutely justified. I've even seen one incident where a passenger spit in the screener's face prior to walking throught the WTMD. I'm sure that some FT mambers may cheer the passenger for his efforts. Did the passenger get arrested? NO! Did the screener press charges? NO! Was the passenger refered for additional screening? NO! Was the passenger denied boarding? NO! What did the screener do to deserve it? All that happened was she asked the passenger to wait a moment while the passengers behind her gathered their belongings and space became available. The screener stated that she can understand their frustration and that she was sure it was an isolated incident. So even something that extreme did not keep the passenger from missing his flight.
Coming in with an attitude is not automatic grounds for denial. I denied a passenger only on the grounds of the passenger shoved the screener to the ground as the screener was trying to resolve an alarm. The passenger felt that he should not have to expose his neck chain.
One more incident...passenger is being handwanded. Wallet alarms. Pax states there is a bomb in his wallet. Checkpoint shut down. Law Enforcement decide not to press charges after wallet is cleared. Was he denied boarding? NO!

I may have gone astray from my point. The statement that in the usual case a screener's first response in being asked a question by a passenger will be to threaten them is completely unfounded. Everywhere I have been is that if you ask a screener a question, the screener will most likely answer the question to the best of their ability. If they cannot answer the question, they will refer you to the supervisor. If you ask a screener a question in an attackinig manner, of course they will become defensive. Wouldn't you?
If you're being bullied, get a supervisor, say you wish to file a complaint. Hell, call for a screening manager. Something would have to be done then. I can't guarantee immediate results, but there will be results that may benefit future travelers and yourself in the future.
Keep in mind, I'm not attacking you. You are entitled to your opinion. I am only responding to your statement.

You may just be right, here, kmitchell74. My distinct memories of being threatened with denial of boarding might be only those from September 2001 up to the first few months of TSA days. Screeners are probably more circumspect in threatening passengers now than they were in those early months. It must be, from what you're saying, kmitchell74, that screener training includes the advice not to issue threats to passengers except under extreme circumstances. Is that right?

My airport supervisors told us we can't make that comment to a passenger because as a screener we don't have that power. So no one at my airport makes it.

ScreenerX is right
 

It is not up to the screener to decide whether or not you can fly. Therefore, they should not be giving any statements like that. To the best of my knowledge, screeners are taught that if any screening operation happens other than the normal (normal being passenger divests, passenger walks through, passenger gathers belongings or is sent for secondary) then the screener is to notify the supervisor. It becomes the responsibility of the supervisor to determine which course to take. If the supervisor decides that the passenger will not continue, a screening manager (if present) may be notified. A passenger being rude is not grounds for denial. A passenger being down-right nasty and his behavior is affecting the screener's ability to perform their duties can be grounds for denial. It's all case by case.
IF the screener is giving verbal "threats," then definitely speak with a supervisor. That issue should be immediately addressed, IMO.

Screeners, shut up and get the passengers through.
Passengers, shut up and get through.

There are a$$es on both sides.

GG writes: "As for young, well, grad school being a long endeavor, I'm 29 years old. I travel weekly, get SSSS'ed about half the time, have been molested at a checkpoint, and I'm past the point of tolerating it."

I have to ask, what are you doing so wrong that you get "SSSS'ed" half the time? Have you seriously been flagged for additional screening 75+ times? (3 years x 52 weeks divided by half). Maybe you can figure out what causes you to be 'pulled over' and somehow minimize your chances.

I fly weekly. Domestically & internationally. Rarely to the same place twice. Over 125,000 miles annually. I'm in grad school too plus a full time job. 35 years old. Female. I've gotten the "SSSS" three times since 9/11. Twice was because I took USAir (I think United flagged me for being disloyal :D). Once was in Tokyo but that was a random gate pre-board search not really the "SSS". The Japanese are big on that. (Got gate screened @ NRT pre-9/11 as well).

Sure, you have the right to travel around the U.S. freely, but nowhere in the Constitution or Bill of Rights of the United States does it say you have the RIGHT to travel by airplane (obviously since planes weren't around in 1776) or any particular mode of transportation. Airlines are private companies not public entities, like city buses. You pay money in EXCHANGE for transportation. Transportation is a commodity. Additionally, to use this commodity, you must agree to abide by the rules set forth by the airlines and the U.S. government which includes those security measures. If you don't agree with the rules and do not want to "honor" your end of the contract (i.e. the rules of carriage) then request a refund from the airline on that basis. Or hire a private jet. (maybe not economically realistic but it remains a theoretical alternative) Even so, the owner/operator of the private jets still have to abide by the rules set forth by the gov't. (safety, routing restrictions, waiting in line for take off, all that & more)

So while I'm not gung-ho about certain security measures either, I just go with the flow. Getting visibly irritated is a sure fire way to land yourself in secondary screening and waste time that could be better spent grazing in the Red Carpet Club or skulking around FT at a T-Mobile hotspot

:D

I live in two cities, so I frequently buy one-way tickets because I haven't decided yet when I'm returning on a particular ticket. I also frequently change tickets at the last minute. I don't feel like rearranging my whole life to avoid SSSS, but I've considered it. I feel very pushed around by this nonsense. Why does the TSA not want me to fly one-ways?

And if you think this is confined to air travel, check Boston's public transit system: they are starting random ID checks and bag searches. This kind of thing spreads if citizens don't fight. We have to dig in and say that this is unacceptable. Your papers, please!

But now you're giving me an idea with the private jets thing. Could someone start a no-security common carrier by calling it a private jet that sells tickets? Would that be allowed? I know I'd choose to fly in an unscreened airplane if I could.

They are called private charters. Hey, why don't you get your own plane and fly it?

Do you really think private jets are allowed to land at commercial airports without undergoing some sort of security? Puhleaze! Private jets could quite easily be carrying terrorists, be piloted by terrorists, be carrying equipment/weapons for terrorists and they (and their passengers) still have to undergo security screenings. Very often, its much MORE cumbersome than what we go through inside the terminal where there is (usually) adequate staffing already in place.

The simple truth is that commercial airports and commercial aircraft have ALWAYS been high-value targets for terrorists, whether its Al Qaeda or some other group or individual. If you are on the property in a sterile or SIDA area, you will have to go through some sort of screening. It's a very simple concept, really.