MCI? But I thought private screeners were supposed to be better? :rolleyes:

I don't know if they're "better". This is my home airport. I've read here about their insistence that everyone take off shoes and have experienced it myself. I told one screener that my shoes had been through many metal detectors with no problems and she said I had to take them off. I know the consequences of replying, "Well, I'll just walk through and you can wand me if the shoes set it off"- the dreaded secondary screening. (I have not tried this personally, but there are plenty of stories about it in this forum and some of my co-workers confirmed it in a conversation last week.)

Fpr Christmas I'd like to buy them a bunch of the platforms they have at ORD. If you put your foot (with the shoe on) on it and it beeps, take the shoes off and put them through the metal detector. Otherwise, keep 'em on.

I agree. I'm all for doing what we can to grind the checkpoint to a snail's pace as a form of civil disobedience. But, I think the stakes are higher with the gropings/pat-downs. We've got to do everything we can to keep this in the public's eye. If we take it to a back room, it will go away and the TSA will have won and the Constitution will have lost.

Once, when I was asked if I wanted a private screening, my response to the screener was, "Let's do it right out here in front of everyone. What are you afraid of???"

Uh FliesWay2Much, I can't speak for the TSA person, but my guess is s/he was trying to pro-actively offer you the privacy that GradGirl says she wants (although in her case she wants it so she can be obstructive), not because s/he was 'afraid of something'. But odds are thx to your response someone else might not be offered that option in the future, or will have to request it rather than it being offered up naturally.

Sharon

:D

what an odd reaction.

The TSA themselves have said (quoted in another thread) that the ability to request and receive a private groping/patdown can't be denied.

I firmly believe, if the gropings/patdowns go behind closed doors, it will be out-of-sight/out-of-mind and the issue goes away.



That's exactly why I said what I said. My intent was to put the screener on the defensive.

Once again guys tactics like that are going to hurt your fellow passengers and the airlines more than it will hurt us. We have to stay at the checkpoint for the full shift regardless of the presence of protestors or not. If a bunch of people intentionally request privates for no reason then the line will have to stop since the secondary area will be full and two screeeners are needed for private screenings. Therefore the screeners at the MAG and x-ray will have to stop things since everyone else is busy doing privates and secondaries and there is no place to put any more bags or passengers. So when the couple of hundred people behind you start missing their flights because you want to make a statement please feel free to explain that to them.

It's so easy to say stop all the needless secondary stuff but for the 1,000,000'th it's not up to the people you see at the checkpoints. Procedure changes like the pat-downs get handed down from above by the big guys.

Good points above but I have a slightly different take on the suggestion of increased private pat-downs.
One advantage of many people requesting private pat-downs thus slowing the lines and causing mucho people to miss their flights would be a quick and overwhelming reaction by the airlines directed toward Homeland Security.
I don't see any way that the airlines are going to idly stand by and accept 1000's of pax missing flights.
The airlines can get the ear of the TSA bigwigs much faster than the average pax. Slow down the process, create a spate of missed or delayed flights and I predict the airlines will quickly step in and carry the ball on this.

Cholula,

I agree 100%! While I'm not a fan of private gropings/patdowns per se (because they take this practice out of public view), I'm for anything that would bring the system to its knees in a very visible way.

The TSA has really built itself a lose/lose situation. The press hasn't dropped this issue and has stayed on it much longer than any other "TSA improvement." GredGirl has started a web site. If lots of us demand private screenings, resources are tied up, the lines slow down, people and airlines complain and the TSA loses. If the TSA rescinds it policy to conduct private screenings, people -- especially women -- will complain about that louder than ever. Screeners, supervisors and passengers wil be stressed out in the trenches. The TSA loses again. That's OK -- in the name of liberty.

To follow your football analogy, it's 3 & 34 for the TSA and we have to pin our ears back and blitz 9 guys. We MUST force a very public debate on groping/patdowns that the TSA was either incapable or unwilling to have on its own. We rolled on the shoe carnival and we rolled on unlocked luggage. Shame on us if we roll on gropings/patdowns. It's time for the American people to take a stand.

Speaking of making airlines complain, how many of you have written to your airlines yet? I wrote to mine to tell them why I won't be flying weekly as I have done for the past three years. I told them that I understood that the TSA's policies weren't under its direct control, but that I couldn't fly their airline without being humiliated and endangered by the TSA. I asked my airline whenever and wherever possible to add its voice to the chorus of those asking for change. I received a very prompt personalized reply, so I know at least that someone at that airline is aware the TSA is costing them business.

FliesWay2Much, you have it exactly right. We need constant stories in the media, constant letters of complaint, as much confusion and delay at checkpoints as we can cause, and a police report for every slight infraction of the TSA's strictest patdown policy. Take a stand: this is war.

Umm
 

THAT REMARK COULD BE CONSTRUED AS TREASON.

eyecue...I don't see the ;) on your treason comment so have to assume you're serious.
What GradGirl is suggesting in this thread might best be described as civil disobedience rather than treason.
But I think even civil disobedience is too strong. Her suggestion is trying to change the current system in what is currently a legal, approved and acceptable manner.
Just my personal opinion....

I'm sure it could, in the former Soviet Union or in Walter Ulbricht's East Germany.

This is almost not worth anyone's time to respond, but here it is anyway:

from www.m-w.com:

TREASON: the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family.


This is worth responding to --

I guess I would consider it reason, too, if I took ridicule of my employer be beating them at their own game personally.

This civil disobedience is not only legal, it's TSA SOP! Heck, I can slow down a line by getting a groping, requesting a private session, insisting they change gloves, etc, ANY TIME I WANT simply by walking through the metal detector with my running shoes on. We all can do that any time. Imagine a couple dozen or more people all doing this at the same time at the same place...

Nope
 

Treason is also the act of declaring war on the United States by one of its citizens. She said that this is war. That was the remark that I was alluding to. The act of civil disobedience is of no consequence, except how many people can remain civil?