Security hurt by sick time at airport
Dec 6, 2004, 1:18 pm
#1
Moderator: Coupon Connection & S.P.A.M
Original Poster
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Louisville, KY
Programs: Destination Unknown, TSA Disparager Diamond (LTDD)
Posts: 57,960
Security hurt by sick time at airport
New Jersey Star Ledger Article
"When I was leaving the morale was just getting terrible," said Peter Bernabiti, a Terminal C checkpoint screener who quit TSA in April after 1 1/2 years to take a mortgage banking job. "They want you to do a thorough job, but they also want you to expedite the passengers through."
Bernabiti and other current and former screeners and supervisors relate similar unsettling experiences: Mind-numbingly repetitive tasks, lack of duty rotations, endless passenger lines, countless bag searches, fatigue from staring at X-ray screens and standing long hours, as well as back strains from lifting heavy luggage."
Solution: Stop harassing the passengers!!!
"When I was leaving the morale was just getting terrible," said Peter Bernabiti, a Terminal C checkpoint screener who quit TSA in April after 1 1/2 years to take a mortgage banking job. "They want you to do a thorough job, but they also want you to expedite the passengers through."
Bernabiti and other current and former screeners and supervisors relate similar unsettling experiences: Mind-numbingly repetitive tasks, lack of duty rotations, endless passenger lines, countless bag searches, fatigue from staring at X-ray screens and standing long hours, as well as back strains from lifting heavy luggage."
Solution: Stop harassing the passengers!!!
Dec 6, 2004, 3:36 pm
#2
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,441
Missed one in four
The last paragraph of the article is very interesting:
In October, the newspaper reported screeners missed one in every four fake bombs or weapons that inspectors attempted to sneak past checkpoints in weekly tests from June to September, according to confidential TSA inspection reports.
In October, the newspaper reported screeners missed one in every four fake bombs or weapons that inspectors attempted to sneak past checkpoints in weekly tests from June to September, according to confidential TSA inspection reports.
Dec 6, 2004, 3:52 pm
#3
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 10,037
Originally Posted by red456
The last paragraph of the article is very interesting:
In October, the newspaper reported screeners missed one in every four fake bombs or weapons that inspectors attempted to sneak past checkpoints in weekly tests from June to September, according to confidential TSA inspection reports.
In October, the newspaper reported screeners missed one in every four fake bombs or weapons that inspectors attempted to sneak past checkpoints in weekly tests from June to September, according to confidential TSA inspection reports.
We're supposed to be safer, right?
Dec 6, 2004, 4:42 pm
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by red456
If the department in which I work had that kind of a failure rate, we'd all be looking for employment. But I guess the TSA would take us.
Dec 6, 2004, 5:05 pm
#7
Moderator: Coupon Connection & S.P.A.M
Original Poster
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Louisville, KY
Programs: Destination Unknown, TSA Disparager Diamond (LTDD)
Posts: 57,960
Originally Posted by bbc1969
It is about the same.
Dec 6, 2004, 5:14 pm
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by bbc1969
It is about the same.
assuming that TSA, and ultimately congress (and the aviation subcommittee) won't agree to laying off the # of screeners to buy those machines (ignoring real world logistics of running one of those checkpoints)-how are those machines going to be "bought"?
a side benefit may be mr. "i carry everything in my carry-ons" may be checked less often.
anyone familiar with the more "advanced" technologies out there? i've read about the explosive puffer portals many a time, but not a whole lot about anything else.
Dec 6, 2004, 10:45 pm
#9
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Colorado
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,745
hey
Originally Posted by robodeer
~the same performance w/the same equipment. to improve performance a # of things could be done. besides the screeners on this board, i assume that no one else has "done the job" who can make an informed decision on the subject of how hard it is to "catch" those things. thus, it would be hard to say how easy it would be to reach 100%. although i would assume (opinion) that there would be a higher % with better machines, or more technologically advanced items. or the low tech approach of checking more bags.
assuming that TSA, and ultimately congress (and the aviation subcommittee) won't agree to laying off the # of screeners to buy those machines (ignoring real world logistics of running one of those checkpoints)-how are those machines going to be "bought"?
a side benefit may be mr. "i carry everything in my carry-ons" may be checked less often.
anyone familiar with the more "advanced" technologies out there? i've read about the explosive puffer portals many a time, but not a whole lot about anything else.
assuming that TSA, and ultimately congress (and the aviation subcommittee) won't agree to laying off the # of screeners to buy those machines (ignoring real world logistics of running one of those checkpoints)-how are those machines going to be "bought"?
a side benefit may be mr. "i carry everything in my carry-ons" may be checked less often.
anyone familiar with the more "advanced" technologies out there? i've read about the explosive puffer portals many a time, but not a whole lot about anything else.
I appreciate what you are saying. Think of it this way: The technology of x-ray detection has remained the same for the last twenty some years. Did we have cell phones twenty years ago? The only technology that is foolproof in the same respect is gamma/proton ray scanners. They just havent figured out how to stop the beam in an easy way. Therefore the machines arent practicle.
Dec 7, 2004, 9:17 pm
#10
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LAX; AA EXP, MM; HH Gold
Posts: 31,789
Originally Posted by eyecue
At least you didnt jump on the murder mouth wagon.
I appreciate what you are saying. Think of it this way: The technology of x-ray detection has remained the same for the last twenty some years. Did we have cell phones twenty years ago? The only technology that is foolproof in the same respect is gamma/proton ray scanners. They just havent figured out how to stop the beam in an easy way. Therefore the machines arent practicle.
I appreciate what you are saying. Think of it this way: The technology of x-ray detection has remained the same for the last twenty some years. Did we have cell phones twenty years ago? The only technology that is foolproof in the same respect is gamma/proton ray scanners. They just havent figured out how to stop the beam in an easy way. Therefore the machines arent practicle.
What's a "murder mouth wagon"?