No change at OAK as of Sept 24. I had an hour to kill, so I refused to remove my shoes. Asked the hall monitor to call a supervisor. Told her that TSA rules do not require shoe removal. She told me that I was wrong because TSA "recommends" that I remove shoes. Told her that it is not a "recommendation" when you send people to secondary inspection when they refuse to de-shoe.

I was then sent me to secondary for the full wand treatment. Screener also instructed me to remove shoes so that they could run them through the machine. It was pretty clear that this one done to show me the "futility" of my protest. TSA supervisor returned with her name and badge scribbled on a piece of paper.

Had some concern that supervisor would retaliate by putting me on permanent blacklist, but those fears were allayed this morning when I strolled through the checkpoint at BUR. My Bruno Magli's passed with flying colors, and I continued on my way without so much as a peep from the screeners.

My complaint letter will be on its way to Chertoff's deputy shortly.

Interesting it didn't make it out there, but got to PWM. My wife took the secondary and only got the shoe swab.

OH PLEASE.

What planet did you just drop in from. Unionized government employees OVERWHELMINGLY vote Dem.

Active duty military, do vote Republican by large majority. BIG difference between Military an federal employees.

Um, hello, NOT all of the government is unionized. A lot of it isn't.

I AM a federal employee and we're NOT a union shop.

OAK is one of the airports I never encounter shoe issues with. I was just through last Sunday, and cruised right through without issue. I was even thinking about asking for a comment form so that I could compliment them on their operations there.

I absolutely *hate* CMH.

I was coming through in my non-profile purchased-for-the-airport shoes today. Things were going well and it was pretty empty.

I started to step through and that's when the screener blocked my path and ordered me to step back through and told me to take my shoes off.

I refused. I told him I'd take the secondary and that my shoes didn't seem to be a concern most anywhere else.

"You're in Columbus, now," the screener said with pride.

So I replied, "Oh, and I guess TSA procedures don't apply in Columbus."

The guy actually replied, "We get way too much crap from people like you."

So I said, "And you'll continue to until the screening procedure is consistent across the country."

Then I hear "male wand" being spoken on the radio so I mentioned that I know that shoe screens don't involve wanding in the new procedures. Then he lied and said he never said "male wand" and he quickly told the wand person to just screen my shoes.

Another day, another complaint form. Gosh, I feel safer. Get me back to MSN, where I've NEVER had to remove my shoes.

RichMSN,

Thanks for speaking up!

I think that a lot of my hostility toward the TSA derives from the fact that my home airport (CMH) is particularly awful.

-Mats.

I dug through the archives and found a post from a trip report dated 1 September 2001. This is an example of what CMH was like BEFORE the TSA started:

Can someone summarize what the changes are and whether they have been put into effect? This thread has been all over the place. I haven't noticed a difference in screening.

*wild applause* ROTFL.

Nice!

Can someone summarize what the changes are and whether they have been put into effect? This thread has been all over the place. I haven't noticed a difference in screening.

The changes I have seen is that if you walk through the WTMD with your shoes and you don't alarm, but your shoes otherwise do meet the profile, then you are only subject to an ETD swab of your shoes. You do not get the full secondary wanding and your shoes do not have to come off.

I also understand that changes related to carry-ons have been made, but I haven't noticed any differences on that yet.

My understanding is that the changes began a week ago Monday, which comports with what I have seen.

...but what about the right to "Peacefully Assemble"???

THAT'S the one I'VE been waiting to see reinstated! This 'Freedom from Illegal Search and Seizure' thing, now... that's just ASKING for trouble. I'd rather just keep taking my shoes off, doing the dance and getting free Tootsie Rolls instead of this here "constitution" thingy they keep mentioning...

Yes, that is what they did at SFO this morning!

An observation (although I know this will prompt the usual banter from the usual suspects):

One of my screeners who deployed to Houston commented how she was concerned how frustrating it might be working with the different screeners there from all over the country and the different applications of the SOP (based on the numerous comments, whines and complaints we hear from passengers). She was pleasantly surprised to find that everyone was on the exact same sheet of music. There were no adjustments made, no compromises made: everyone had the exact same understanding of how they were going to screen the passengers and they did it.

What's my point? I think TSA is pretty standard across the board contrary to the complaints I read in here. Are there those who deviate from the SOP? Certainly there are. But this doesn't mean that TSA doesn't have its act together. It means that there are those exceptions of screeners who deviate from the standard procedure. No doubt TSA should work to correct this. It should be logical to assume that in a workforce consisting of approximately 45,000 employees scattered across the nation at some 450 airports, there are going to be a number of those who "don't get the word." Saw it happen in the military where every effort was made to communicate the "word," but there were always those who still didn't receive it.

The SOP does allow FSDs a certain degree of flexibility. For example, a passenger asked me why is it that he didn't get the upper body torso pat-down when he was screened at one of the major airports (I forget which one it was he mentioned). I explained that under certain conditions, such as long wait times, FSDs could modify the upper torso pat down procedure to a random basis. Our airport never really faces those types of situations; the longest wait time we've ever had is somewhere around 45 minutes and usually in the low 30's if we ever reach that point. Otherwise we usually get people through within 10 or 15 minutes (during our peak periods). So we'll always stick to the upper torso pat-down for all secondary screenings.

Another aspect is the degree of latitude allowed for certain prohibited items. For example, the SOP identifies "pointed metal scissors" as prohibited. Under the old baseball standard of "tie goes to the runner," I don't prohibit the small aluminum scissors found inside of sewing kits. Hell, they don't even cut the thread they're packed with. Also, there's a particular type of kids school scissors that do not come to a sharp point that I allow through. In my mind, they do not meet the "pointed" aspect of the SOP. The blunt-tipped manicure scissors have more of a "point" than this type of school scissors. In each case, however, I explain to the passenger why I am not prohibiting the item and that other airports may have a tighter interpretation of the SOP. So I advise them that it is always better to just pack them in their checked baggage the next time they take a trip. (You'd be amazed at how many people try to surrender these to me even after I've explained to them that it's okay to keep them.)

As for unsual looking items such as spectrum analyzers or other specialized equipment, I don't fault screeners for asking for a bag check. On the x-ray screen, the configurations of wires, batteries, mechanics, etc do look somewhat unusual and would require a second look. However, (and this is where some of my screeners get a little frustrated with me), it's none of our business what the item is or what it's supposed to do if it doesn't alarm. In other words, if we ETD the item and it doesn't alarm, as far as I'm concerned, it is not a threat object and is cleared to go. If it does alarm, then the next logical question should be to ask what the device/item is. Other than idle curiosity or polite conversation, there's no reason for screeners to ask about the item ("what is it?" "what's it do?"). Some passengers take easy offense to this and don't realize that some screeners are just friendly that way.