Secondary isn't that bad. You go through screening faster - more time in the smokers lounge. Besides, maybe a Roman Republic is what we need. ;)

Only a few prefer liberty - the majority seek nothing more than fair masters. - Sallust

Management is doing fine. :cool:

Yesterday, we began our new shift schedule (we change schedules every six months). One of the supervisors I worked with yesterday finished her six month rotation as a trainer and is now working the floor. She was surprised at how we were still doing certain things and pointed out certain SOP changes. I was chagrined to find out that we've been working for the past two weeks completely oblivious to these changes.

If you are wearing criteria shoes and do not alarm the WTMD, we may conduct secondary screening consisting of an ETD sample of your footwear without you removing your shoes. The catch here is that you are screened immediately and/or are not in the holding area with other passengers awaiting the full handwanding screening. Otherwise, you will have to undergo the full handwanding.

If you are a selectee, when we search your bags, all we have to do is take an ETD sample of the interior of your carry-on bags rather than conduct a whole bag search as we've been doing in the past.

The other changes really don't affect you as passengers, but they do help us streamline certain methods at baggage and checkpoint.

Frustrates me that we've been working harder than we needed to these past two weeks and this only increases my contempt for a majority of the supervisors I work with. The one who pointed this out to me is one of the very few I truly respect.

Can you forward a copy of this directive to OAK and SFO? It appears they didn't get it. And still don't get it. :D

A couple items in this post cry out for devil's advocate treatment:

1) "The catch here is that you are screened immediately and/or are not in the holding area with other passengers awaiting the full handwanding screening. Otherwise, you will have to undergo the full handwanding."
With all of the information technology available nowadays, if TSA does not act quickly enough, a "shoe selectee" is forced to undergo full screening? How about giving shoe selectees a card signifying just ETD rather than full secondary screening? Such a procedure would save both passenger and screeners' time.

2) "If you are a selectee, when we search your bags, all we have to do is take an ETD sample of the interior of your carry-on bags rather than conduct a whole bag search as we've been doing in the past."

I thought that one of the reasons for the bag rooting procedure was to look for non-metallic prohibited items, not just explosives. I guess the danger from such non-prohibited items just went away, similar to the danger from lighters suddenly increasing this past April.

I am grateful for a shift toward risk management and expediting secondary searches, but one has to wonder about the geniuses who develop TSA policy.

Darn, I guess it will be much harder to catch all those terrorist pot smokers who stash a dime bag in their carry-on.

Why does TSA still insist on the terminology "Selectee", rather than "Public Example"?

ROFLMFAO!!!!!

Mrs. Super laugher her arse off too. :)

On another note, Mrs. Super finally had enough of the shoe carnivals after her experience at DCA last week.

Send a copy to SJC while you're at it. Pax still get the full treatment for refusing to de-shoe.

<off-topic post removed>

I agree with you on this one. DEN decided to not use the new SOP because of the issue with hand off of a PAX. So they are going to get the whole banana in the wanding chute still.

I guess the decision is that IED is the biggest threat. The xray person should be able to spot a gun.

So, if an individual FSD can decide to opt out of the SOP, why have any SOP at all? No wonder there's so much discrepancy between airports.

BTW, we've not heard anything from members flying out of EWR on the new alleged SOP. Anyone have anything to share?

Pretty hard to do considering how the SOP specifically prohibits FSDs from modifying procedures without clearance from TSA Headquarters.

Taking off your shoes would save everybody time.

I think screeners will respond more quickly. It's easier to only ETD shoes than to give the full Monty, so this alone is incentive enough for screeners. But the easiest thing is for you not to put yourself in that position to begin with. You already know what the so-called SSI standard is for shoes; if you're stubborn enough to keep them on and still protest about it, then that's a choice you'll have to deal with.

As pointed out by eyecue, that bag is already x-rayed. What you continue to ignore is that selectee bags are already screened once, and that should be sufficient, just as it is for everyone else who is not a selectee. So it's not like we are ignoring any aspect of prohibited items. We are, in essence, doing a security overkill on explosives. While that's not necessarily a bad thing; I think it's still ineffecient.

You're not the only one wondering. However, I still see it as a step in the right direction. I think this still boils down to the type of people hired by TSA: those with extensive security backgrounds. Not necessarily a good thing because security folks tend to be strongly rooted in risk avoidance. They pay lip service to risk management but really don't understand what it means. I think former military personnel (military police, military intelligence, security police, etc) have a better understanding because it's a philosophy the military has followed for almost 20 years.

But I'm just a small cog in a big machine.

Yes I do know the standard and I adhere to it. Many screeners do not and do not, which is why I am stubborn and protest about it.

Without going into details, if you saw the state of my feet you wouldn't want me taking my shoes off anywhere near you :eek:

Why don't they hand the passenger a card that says "Shoes" on it? If they don't have the card, they get the full treatment. Or you can put a little sticker on the boarding pass itself to indicate shoes only (just like with checked baggage). It shouldn't be too hard for passengers to hold on to since at many places they are required to hold on to their boarding passes.

That is what is frustrating. Because it would be slightly more difficult for the TSA at DEN to follow SOP, the passengers have to suffer for it.

No, don't worry. Us passengers will always get the blame for holding things up. Especially in these little instances when we expect SOP to be followed.

Just chalk another one up to DEN. It's already got a reputation among other TSAers at other airports. This just adds to it.

You are correct to legitimately complain IF the screeners are not following the SOP. I am death on screeners when it comes to this and emphasize that only certain shoes need to be screened as opposed to all shoes. In this regard, I completely agree with you. I'm talking about the ones who ARE wearing criteria shoes and feel compelled to fall on some sword by refusing to remove them AND complain about the secondary screening.

As far as giving the pax a card that says "shoes" goes, so that they just have to have shoes screened, it doesnt work because if you get put in the chute with another passenger, the other passenger could hand something off to the guy that is just in for his shoes to be checked. As far as not following the SOP and why have one at all... The local FSD can be more restrictive than the SOP but not less. That is why Denver can not go with the rule on just screening shoes now. At least that is what they are telling us...

I understand that possibility, but that seems to be really stretching. However, maybe if DEN did follow SOP, then something could be done about those demeaning cattle chutes. At least have one for shoes and another for full.

We have been told that being more restrictive than the SOP is not an option. If that was the case, couldn't the FSD decide to do body cavity searches on all passengers?

That makes absolutely no sense - the new SOP seems to be just to screen shoes - the DEN FSD would not be less restrictive, he'd just be following the new procedure.

Or a ploy to jusitfy staffing levels.

Actually, the FSD cannot modify the SOP at all. Nada, zip, zilch.

I know what you are saying! I could cite the section. However for example lets say that the SOP says that we have to check all pink flowers for bees. The FSD decides that we have to check all pink and all other flowers too! He isnt circumventing, he is being overly cautious. According to the SOP he can do that. At least that's the interpretation here.

Actually the FSD has a buttload of leeway to do things. As long as he doesnt circumvent the SOP. There have been a number of things that have been proposed that the fsd could do (like full open bag search and handwand all pax for a period of time.)

our staffing levels are too high right now. We have to cut. last year at Thankgiving we had over 900, this year we will be just over 700.

I don't want to sound like piss and vinegar, but this exact misunderstanding of the SOP...the Bible, the way things are supposed to be (and its arbitrary application) is the core of the frustration of most TSA animosity.

The new sop says that we are too screen shoes that are over the criteria IF the passenger chooses to wear them through the metal detector and the passenger doesnt set the metal detector off. However the sop says that the passenger has to be handed off to an available screener without contact with other passengers. DEN has deemed this to be a problem and so they get the full monty.

That's what I mean. Slower lines leaving the impression that you need all that staffing. I wish the IG would make it to DEN and see the SOP violations there (and hopefully run across a couple of the rudest screeners I have seen).

The changes that your FSD refuses to abide by were apparently designed to speed things up and, presumably, leave space to trim staff levels (presumably by the trend of trimming TSA budgets).

So if all 400+ other airports can do this, is DEN simply incompetent, and/or is there a rogue FSD who thinks he knows better?

I went through security at DFW last week. The TSA guy barked out, "we suggest you remove your shoes before going through the metal detector." I ignored his "suggestion" and went through with them on anyway. After I went through, he said, "step over there for secondary screening. I asked you to remove your shoes, and you refused." The last time I checked the dictionary, "ask" and "suggest" did not mean the same thing! :mad:

Morrissey, Morrissey, I worry about you. I really do. And all those other folks out there who believe the ol' Funk and Wagnall's Dictionary still applies to our language and Constitution. Since some folks are not quick on the uptake, I'll write these next items VERY SLOWLY...

1) "We suggest you take off your shoes..." = "Or else, you damned lying PAX! And don't hold up OUR line..."

2) "Random" = "You pissed me off."

3) SSI = Hide 'n Seek with your right to due process.

4) SSSS = Public Example Punishment. YOU get to try to figure out why.

5) Pledged Dignity and Respect by TSA = Our estimation of PAX intelligence. If they can make you think there's ANYTHING dignified or respectful about a CP, if you were a dog they could get you to buy a muzzle.

6) "Do you have a PROBLEM with any of this, Sir?" = "I understand legal coercion MUCH better than you do, you damned, ignorant, lying PAX. Comply or I'll do more than VEIL my travel threats."

Glad to help clear things up.