I think PH1775 felt the same way.

I know I do.

I can think of several ways to get rid of the "SSSS" but I won't mention it cause it'll give the evil TSA an idea.

Correct. IIRC, airlines do not have the discretion under the current system.

After sept 11, the idea of TSA was essentially to ensure that anyone who travels isn't planning to bring weapons or cause criminal acts such as those that happen to the twin towers. It wasn't meant to provide the TSA folks with powers or for them to use condescending behaviour towards travellers.

At that period in time, other airports considered the world safest such as singapore changi airport, Tokyo and others screened passengers and once they were past security, they were never asked to come back. At these screening posts, the screening personnel were aware that even though they were doing "security", they were aware that they were part of the service industry and the expectation is that they cannot be HOSTILE in attitude and remain polite yet professional.

Its really weird and doggy to have to ask someone after they have been through security to go through security again because of some administrative blunder that no one is ready to admit to. To do so is an admittance that TSA didnt screen properly the first time. In which case, i think its fair to say that if anyone lost any property in the terminal or if they are robbed or mugged or whatsoever, TSA at that particular airport can be sued for negligence. It is specific and non-negotiable that TSA would be partially responsible.

To make things worse, there is some truth in the TSA folks being "power hungry individuals" or giving lots and lots of attitude, to put it simple. A lot of times, a lot of complaints are due to the attitude given by TSA individuals.

Let's just use an example being cited in this thread of someone being ask to return to TSA even though they have been screened. Does the TSA individual recognise the inconvenience and mistake that the company made that caused this individual to suffer a re-screen. Furthermore, in such circumstances, it would only be appropriate for the TSA folks to recognise that the poor traveller has gone through the screening process and should only be screened as a "lip service" or "for show" only and not be given a lot of trouble by the individual TSA staff. Very often, it is not.

I have always been against the shoe policy implemented by USA and its inconsistent 1 inch rule. Must someone really suffer physically from the dirty floors that the TSA operate from before a mistake is realised??

Hopefully, Bart can realise what im getting at.

Actually, this is the flaw in selectee screening. It is the fundamental reason why I think selectee screening is a waste of our time and yours. Everyone who passes through the checkpoint IS screened. Selectees, that is, those unfortunate souls with SSSS on their boarding passes, have to undergo secondary screening regardless of whether or not they alarmed the WTMD or had anything suspicious detected by the x-ray operator inside their carry-on. However, my point is that they DID undergo primary screening (WTMD & x-ray of property) just like everyone else.

From a strictly risk-vulnerability point of view, I am 100% confident that any selectee who was "missed" at the checkpoint is NOT carrying anything dangerous that is going to take down a plane. They may have a lighter (heavens!) or maybe a baby Swiss Army knife (gasp!), but they will NOT have anything that is going to pose a real threat to the people on that plane. Nonetheless, we're required to re-screen them again at the gate if they weren't properly screened as selectees at the checkpoint. One time, the airline simply sent a missed selectee back to the checkpoint for the proper screening. My screening manager was upset that the airline didn't escort the passenger back to the checkpoint. I asked him what the big deal was, and he told me that it was considered a breach. Having known him as a friend a number of years prior to TSA, I asked him how he could say that to me and keep a straight face. He didn't appreciate the comment. To this day, I am still dumbfounded how TSA considers this a breach.

As for the rest of your post, you'll get no disagreement from me. There is no excuse for rude behavior. However, allow me to point out that rude behavior existed before TSA from private contract screeners. It exists outside of TSA as well. It is, unfortunately, a reflection of our society where rudeness seems to be tolerated. Reminds me of a joke about a customer who finishes paying for his goods at the register and then asks the cashier, "Aren't you supposed to wish me a nice day?" And she responds, "It's written on the receipt."

It makes sense from an "Ivory Tower" point of view. IF the reason behind the selectee screening is that you should find what was missed in the regular screening, and I guess that's what the I.T. characters believe, then why give the selectee a chance to drop "that thing" in a trash can on his way back to the checkpoint, only to pick it up again on his way to the gate the second time.

I don't see it that way. Regular screening is effective. Yeah, perhaps we'll miss lighters and small pocketknives, but those things are NOT going to take down an airplane. The rationale behind selectee screening, at least my interpretation of it, is that while everyone undergoes screening, we are taking extra steps to ensure that certain people who meet a certain criteria based on some terrorist profile matrix don't pose a threat by screening them TWICE.

Here's my criticism of that mentality based on 20 years of military intelligence experience which includes expertise in measures to counter foreign-directed espionage, international terrorism, sabotage and foreign intelligence collection measures:
Not intended to offend anyone; just being blunt.

Bart,

I couldn't agree more about the stupidity of the selectee screening. I did put a capital "IF" in the front of my sentence just to indicate that IF that's really what the Management thinks about selectee screening, then I could see why the passenger shouldn't be allowed to go back by himself.

But, again, I agree with all your three points against the selectee screening. I, too, think it is a waste of time and resources, both of which could be used much better for the regular screening.

sorry for the truncation but i wanted to say thanks ^ and that i couldn't agree more with your 3 points-especially point #3 as that IS the key. if there is any "possibility", hence SSSS or other indicator, then they don't fly until it is either solved (and fixed to prevent any future incidents-like those who aren't "bad guys/gals" but can't get off "the list" or are continuously SSSS'd for no apparent reason) or the person is arrested becasue they are "bad"

my bad-misread the meaning

Unfortunately, even in a society wherein a screener has a modicum of intelligence, that must yield to the imperative of legalistics. The umbrella of legalism unfortunately is skewed in the direction of TSA and airlines. You can be SSS'ed by g/a who is pissy, and the g/a can feed the SSS onto the BP very easily, using over 100 parameters as justification, several of which he/she should be able to scurry under nicely should the thunder of litigation ever dare roll toward him from the direction of rationality in the cattle chutes.

If SSSS is such a no-brainer, why on earth does everyone in TSA bend over backwards to enforce it? 'World Class Service' mantra again? Or the 'dignity and respect' pledge of TSA which we are supposed to swallow whole, since in a real and honorable world, SSS is supposed to be random? Let's see how many screeners jump on the 'governmental inertia' aspect of such arcanity.


"Damned if I do and damned if I don't" would be another screener/G/A response.

Damned right.

Need help figuring that one out? When will the minions complain to the boss enough times to give him a proverbial slap in the back of the head to wake him up?

Secondary for this poster? Never again. How 'bout you? Okay with it? Floors sticky enough to turn you away yet? Been yelled at by enough idiots whose wages you pay yet?

Once was more than enough for me.

Here is what is so asinine about SSSS and screening at the gate. If someone is thought to be a threat, so that the passenger gets assigned SSSS,and that person is not secondarily screened at the checkpoint, then shouldn't the entire terminal get dumped and re-screened? I hate to even bring up the subject, but let's think through this idiot scenario.

Passenger is assigned SSSS, so somebody or some software concludes passenger is a threat.

Passenger gets through checkpoint screening, and de facto does not alarm WTMD or have anything outlandish in carry-on bags that showed up on X-rays. (Query- if someone crazy shows up on checked luggage, does TSA then inform checkpoint or gate so that additional screening of that passenger occurs?)

Once passenger is through the checkpoint, into the "sterile area", passenger is not explicitly observed. If passenger was able to get some prohibited item through the checkpoint, the passenger could theoretically stash the item for another passenger-terrorist to carry on the airliner.

At the gate, gate agent sees the SSSS and calls for TSA to screen passenger there. Problem is, the SSSS passenger has had the run of "sterile area" for some period of time. "Sterile area" is no longer sterile. If TSA is going to be internally logically consistent, such a breach should result in a terminal dump. Screening the passenger at the gate is purely a cosmetic action to satisfy some meaningless SOP that a bureaucrat developed. Only God knows what SSSS passenger could have hidden in "sterile area" for an accomplice to carry onto airliner. Of course, if checkpoint screening were worth a damn, a passenger could not get anything truly harmful through that step. Either way, this procedure is more Kabuki security, just an entertaining show rather than actual security.

^ You need to be promoted. Go take Hatfield's job at EWR.

Forget Hatfield - watch out, Chertoff!

Employees of "U.S. aircraft operators," including flight crew, qualify for SSSS exemption, so the scenario you mentioned shouldn't happen in the real world. I'm pretty sure members of the U.S. military (active, reserve and National Guard) can also be exempted even when they're not on official travel, per last month's TSA directive on selectee exemption.

If you make it to the gate without being SSSS screened, they should just give up. Telling you to go back to the checkpoint to be screened? That's the most pathetic "security" policy I've heard in a while. As if a terrorist isn't going to be smart enough to drop off his bomb in the bathroom or something before making nice with the TSA?

This reminds me of a similarly stupid Greyhound "security" scheme that I posted about in this forum last year. I'm too lazy to search for the link at the moment.