TSA Adjusting Prohibitions/Designated "Ask Bart" Thread
Aug 13, 2006, 7:29 am
#3
Join Date: May 2005
Location: FLL
Programs: DL ♦M MM|HH♦|Marr Slvr|CO UA AA US|Pri Cub Plat|SPG|Avis 1st|Htz 5*
Posts: 5,044
Originally Posted by Bart
Hi all,
My advice to you is to carry a pair of socks to wear as you pass through the WTMD without your shoes on. It seems that the shoeless requirement has taken root and may end up being one of the more permanent measures. Sure do hope I'm wrong about this.
My advice to you is to carry a pair of socks to wear as you pass through the WTMD without your shoes on. It seems that the shoeless requirement has taken root and may end up being one of the more permanent measures. Sure do hope I'm wrong about this.
"You don’t have to remove your shoes before you enter the walk-through metal detector. However, our Security Officers may encourage you to remove your shoes before entering the metal detector based on the....."
Clarify please. Which is it? Required or not required?
Aug 13, 2006, 7:32 am
#4
Join Date: Dec 2004
Programs: AA, WN RR
Posts: 3,122
Originally Posted by Evan!
If there is a "shoeless requirement" then why does the TSA.gov web site say, as of 9:27 a.m. EST, Sunday, Aug 13, 2006:
"You don’t have to remove your shoes before you enter the walk-through metal detector. However, our Security Officers may encourage you to remove your shoes before entering the metal detector based on the....."
Clarify please. Which is it? Required or not required?
"You don’t have to remove your shoes before you enter the walk-through metal detector. However, our Security Officers may encourage you to remove your shoes before entering the metal detector based on the....."
Clarify please. Which is it? Required or not required?
Aug 13, 2006, 7:34 am
#5
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Rockville MD USA
Programs: UA former 1K MM
Posts: 2,184
Originally Posted by Bart
For example, and this is strictly an example and NOT an indication of any real changes, I am using this to illustrate as an example of how these changes may occur: a tube of Desenex may be allowed if the passenger is flying with infant in arms and all of the usual baby-carrying paraphernalia. However, a passenger who has a tube of Desenex but isn't flying with an infant may be offered the option of either packing that tube in checked luggage or abandoning it at the checkpoint. In one case, it's obvious that a baby in diapers with a rash will require this sort of medication, whereas the passenger traveling without an infant may not.
Aug 13, 2006, 7:36 am
#6
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,441
Originally Posted by Evan!
If there is a "shoeless requirement" then why does the TSA.gov web site say, as of 9:27 a.m. EST, Sunday, Aug 13, 2006:
"You don’t have to remove your shoes before you enter the walk-through metal detector. However, our Security Officers may encourage you to remove your shoes before entering the metal detector based on the....."
Clarify please. Which is it? Required or not required?
"You don’t have to remove your shoes before you enter the walk-through metal detector. However, our Security Officers may encourage you to remove your shoes before entering the metal detector based on the....."
Clarify please. Which is it? Required or not required?
I think it's high time all FTer's started wearing orthopedic shoes. That's what I'm going to tell the clowns at security the next time I fly, even if my "orthotics" do come from WalMart courtesy of Dr. Scholl's.
Aug 13, 2006, 7:38 am
#8
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: ORD
Programs: CO PLT, HH DIA
Posts: 1,461
Bart,
Again, a voice of reason and sanity in an unreasonable and insane bureaucracy. Several posts in the least couple of days call for your input as you are able to give it.
Thanks for taking the time to visit us frustrated travelers again. CNN just ran a breaking news piece that "refinements" to the screening process would be announced at midday.
I do have to echo a question psoted above...if the shoe carinval is now mandatory, why does the TSA web site, which when you call the national call center you are pointed to the web site to get the most current information, STILL say that shoe removal is NOT mandatory??
Good luck, keep your head down!
--PP
Again, a voice of reason and sanity in an unreasonable and insane bureaucracy. Several posts in the least couple of days call for your input as you are able to give it.
Thanks for taking the time to visit us frustrated travelers again. CNN just ran a breaking news piece that "refinements" to the screening process would be announced at midday.
I do have to echo a question psoted above...if the shoe carinval is now mandatory, why does the TSA web site, which when you call the national call center you are pointed to the web site to get the most current information, STILL say that shoe removal is NOT mandatory??
Good luck, keep your head down!
--PP
Aug 13, 2006, 7:54 am
#11
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: GSP (Greenville, SC)
Programs: DL Gold Medallion; UA Premier Executive; WN sub-CP; AA sub-Gold
Posts: 13,393
Originally Posted by Bart
Please keep in mind that I only used that to illustrate the methodology behind the judgment calls but that this was not, in itself, an example of an actual change.
I disagree with your opinion. On Thursday, I had to confiscate children's cough medicine from a mother whose baby was clearly sick. On Friday, turns out that I could have allowed it. The difference is that Friday's guidance allowed me more flexibility to exercise judgment and discretion.
As for the paper socks, I think that's a matter of a bureaucratic blunder that is finally paying off. Back in 2002, when TSA first started requiring shoes to be removed, if I recall correctly, these paper booties were available in the supply catalog. And many airports ordered these items until TSA put the word out that it was not going to keep these in stock. I don't know if they remained in stock or if they simply were banned as TSA purchases. What I do know is that boxes of these paper booties remained inside of supply rooms at some airports while others simply issued them to passengers until supplies ran out. In view of the August 10th measures, I think that some FSDs took advantage of this as an opportunity to get rid of these surpluses.
My advice still stands about packing an extra pair of socks. Relying on an assumption that a TSA checkpoint will have booties available is an erroneous one.
Also, how much more money are you willing to pay to supply these booties in terms of hidden security costs?
I, too, am a taxpayer and don't want to pay any more than I have to. How about you?
I disagree with your opinion. On Thursday, I had to confiscate children's cough medicine from a mother whose baby was clearly sick. On Friday, turns out that I could have allowed it. The difference is that Friday's guidance allowed me more flexibility to exercise judgment and discretion.
As for the paper socks, I think that's a matter of a bureaucratic blunder that is finally paying off. Back in 2002, when TSA first started requiring shoes to be removed, if I recall correctly, these paper booties were available in the supply catalog. And many airports ordered these items until TSA put the word out that it was not going to keep these in stock. I don't know if they remained in stock or if they simply were banned as TSA purchases. What I do know is that boxes of these paper booties remained inside of supply rooms at some airports while others simply issued them to passengers until supplies ran out. In view of the August 10th measures, I think that some FSDs took advantage of this as an opportunity to get rid of these surpluses.
My advice still stands about packing an extra pair of socks. Relying on an assumption that a TSA checkpoint will have booties available is an erroneous one.
Also, how much more money are you willing to pay to supply these booties in terms of hidden security costs?
I, too, am a taxpayer and don't want to pay any more than I have to. How about you?
Aug 13, 2006, 7:55 am
#12
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Winter Garden, FL
Programs: Delta DM-3MM United Gold-MM Marriott Lifetime Titanium Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 13,498
Originally Posted by Bart
...I am personally greatly frustrated with that because this will tend to justify the Nervous Nellies in the bureaucracy who believe that circling the wagons is always a wise move. It is wise to circle the wagons when you are about to be attacked, but it is unwise to keep the wagons circled indefinitely. Sooner or later, the wagon train has to keep moving or else it will wither away....
Bruce
Aug 13, 2006, 8:10 am
#13
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: west of DFW airport
Programs: AA LT Gold 1.9 MM flying my way to LT PLAT
Posts: 11,074
well Bart, thanks for posting.
In the midst of all this confusion, it's good to hear from you.
Yes, I will be checking more, 2 bags instead of just one or none with a carry on. One will be a heavy Zero-Halliburton make up case that is leak proof. I haven't used it for many years due to the fact it is heavy, but here we go....it's coming out of the closet.
We need to know exactly what we can carry on board.
In my opinion taking medicine from a sick infant is a sin. There is no fexcuse for doing so. You should have appealed to a supervisor to help that Mother. That was cruel. You had the guts to tell us you did so, but it still wasn't the right thing to do.
Yes, I will be checking more, 2 bags instead of just one or none with a carry on. One will be a heavy Zero-Halliburton make up case that is leak proof. I haven't used it for many years due to the fact it is heavy, but here we go....it's coming out of the closet.
We need to know exactly what we can carry on board.
In my opinion taking medicine from a sick infant is a sin. There is no fexcuse for doing so. You should have appealed to a supervisor to help that Mother. That was cruel. You had the guts to tell us you did so, but it still wasn't the right thing to do.
Aug 13, 2006, 8:37 am
#14
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 143
Bart, could you elaborate a bit on what security measures have been misrepresented in the media reports. I think there exists much confusion yet.
I think most clearly understand about liquids/gels and so on. However, with specificity to laptops, cell phones, I-pods and so on, could you clarify?
As I review the TSA Website, and the question an answer section, it clearly states that although the aforementioned items will be screened at security, they are in fact permitted on board.
I am assuming this is correct. I am assuming this is for domestic and Internatiional flights.
What about digital camera's?
Thank you for your assistance, or to whoever else in in the know who maybe able to impart some accurate information regarding this issue.
I think most clearly understand about liquids/gels and so on. However, with specificity to laptops, cell phones, I-pods and so on, could you clarify?
As I review the TSA Website, and the question an answer section, it clearly states that although the aforementioned items will be screened at security, they are in fact permitted on board.
I am assuming this is correct. I am assuming this is for domestic and Internatiional flights.
What about digital camera's?
Thank you for your assistance, or to whoever else in in the know who maybe able to impart some accurate information regarding this issue.
Aug 13, 2006, 8:43 am
#15
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 4,531
Originally Posted by Bart
We have unfortunately taken a giant step backwards towards risk avoidance. I am personally greatly frustrated with that because this will tend to justify the Nervous Nellies in the bureaucracy who believe that circling the wagons is always a wise move. It is wise to circle the wagons when you are about to be attacked, but it is unwise to keep the wagons circled indefinitely. Sooner or later, the wagon train has to keep moving or else it will wither away.