I'd Rather Not
Dec 5, 2004 | 12:55 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: May 2003
Location: GEG
Programs: Motel 6 Club Avoir Le Cafard
Posts: 5,027
I'd Rather Not
"I'd Rather Not Remove My Sneakers." These are the magic words, guaranteed to send you to secondary at a shoe-hell airport (I refuse to euphemize by calling them carnivals). But I have heard that theoretically you are not required to remove your nonmetallic shoes, so (if I have time) I have been known to utter the above Magic Words, thereby volunteering for the Full Treatment. The last time, I was retaliated against by having some stuff stolen from my carry-on.
Dec 5, 2004 | 3:39 am
#2
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Arlington VA
Posts: 5,735
Maybe one of the T-S-A'ers can point out why from a NATIOANL SECURITY perspective it it was ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY (and their SOLEMN RESPONSIBILITY) to search your non-alarming carry-on due to your refusal to removeyour non-alarming shoes.
Dec 5, 2004 | 10:28 am
#3
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2000
Location: أمريكا
Posts: 26,931
I'm not taking my shoes off anymore, I've decided. Unless I'm running late, I'll take the secondary, private screening, the whole thing. If they're going to give me the treatment, I'll take full advantage of it. And eventually, if enough people do take full advantage, the system will screech to a halt and changes will have to be made.
Dec 5, 2004 | 10:57 am
#4
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Colorado
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,745
uuum
Originally Posted by mbstone
"I'd Rather Not Remove My Sneakers." These are the magic words, guaranteed to send you to secondary at a shoe-hell airport (I refuse to euphemize by calling them carnivals). But I have heard that theoretically you are not required to remove your nonmetallic shoes, so (if I have time) I have been known to utter the above Magic Words, thereby volunteering for the Full Treatment. The last time, I was retaliated against by having some stuff stolen from my carry-on.
Dec 5, 2004 | 11:10 am
#5
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Arlington VA
Posts: 5,735
Originally Posted by eyecue
Why did other passengers retaliate against you?
But the idiotic policy that separated the passenger from his bag for non-compliant shoe removal is the sole fault of the T-S-A.
Dec 6, 2004 | 1:52 pm
#6
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 174
Originally Posted by AArlington
We'll have to let the OP clarify the circumstances and if he believes the items were lifted by a pax or a uniformed T-S-A agent.
But the idiotic policy that separated the passenger from his bag for non-compliant shoe removal is the sole fault of the T-S-A.
But the idiotic policy that separated the passenger from his bag for non-compliant shoe removal is the sole fault of the T-S-A.
Course this slows the process down which I'm sure the TSA loves.
In ether case during one instance at DFW while I was being searched due to my shoes I demanded that I would have full view of my carry-on in order so that I could keep track of my carry on since I was responsible for it.
Separated is one thing, taking it away is another.
-Stephen
Dec 6, 2004 | 2:01 pm
#7
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,542
Originally Posted by Doppy
I'm not taking my shoes off anymore, I've decided. Unless I'm running late, I'll take the secondary, private screening, the whole thing. If they're going to give me the treatment, I'll take full advantage of it. And eventually, if enough people do take full advantage, the system will screech to a halt and changes will have to be made.
Dec 6, 2004 | 2:19 pm
#8
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2000
Location: أمريكا
Posts: 26,931
Originally Posted by climbermom
I've only ever had secondary at EWR, but when I refused to take off my flip flops, they put me in a chair in secondary and took my shoes (yes, rubber flip flops) and ran them through the machine anyway.
I've been through a lot of punitive shoe penalty secondaries and they've never asked me to take my shoes off (at least not in the past year or two; the old security people did once or twice). They wand and when nothing beeps because I've got no metal, that's the end of it. Once or twice they did the explosives swab.
Dec 6, 2004 | 2:37 pm
#9
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Orange County, CA
Programs: Vanishing
Posts: 1,681
Originally Posted by cphobes
My understanding is that a passenger can request their carry-on be placed at the very least within sight. You can also request that you can watch it go in and then out of the machine to prevent tampering or theft.
Course this slows the process down which I'm sure the TSA loves.
In ether case during one instance at DFW while I was being searched due to my shoes I demanded that I would have full view of my carry-on in order so that I could keep track of my carry on since I was responsible for it.
Course this slows the process down which I'm sure the TSA loves.
In ether case during one instance at DFW while I was being searched due to my shoes I demanded that I would have full view of my carry-on in order so that I could keep track of my carry on since I was responsible for it.
The answer from TSA, when I complained, was that "screeners are trained to observe several things". Talk about smoke screens.