Community
Wiki Posts
Search

TSA stupidity in PHX

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Aug 29, 2006 | 12:03 pm
  #16  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: DEN
Programs: Free checked in bag on UA & DL. Free icecream at Marriott checkin.
Posts: 2,862
The key to get rid of this lunacy is to make sure even the private jets and flights taken by congressmen/women are subjected to the same rules. Imagine what happens then. I remember reading an article last year where a Senator got mad when TSA made him go thorough the procedure. He complained saying that he was "A US Senator"!
TravellingMan is offline  
Old Aug 29, 2006 | 12:05 pm
  #17  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: DEN
Programs: Free checked in bag on UA & DL. Free icecream at Marriott checkin.
Posts: 2,862
Makes perfect sense. I have seen Pilots never removing their shoes!

Originally Posted by Spiff
I think every employee, badged/uniformed or not, should be subjected to the same stupid harassment rules that the passengers, aka the customers are.
TravellingMan is offline  
Old Aug 29, 2006 | 5:08 pm
  #18  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 420
I think most of us can agree that the "liquid rules" go too far for both customers and crews. But while not being able to carry on toiletries is a major pain the rear, it is not on the same level as not being able to bring something that is needed for workplace health and safety. While US did the right thing by making "vats" of sunscreen available for the rampers, they will be come (if it has not alredy) when the "vats" (at hwatever SPF) will run dry. There are (probably) water fountains available in the ramp ready rooms. But if I were loading bags in the Arizona heat, I would want to have my own bottle of water with me, not have to scurry over to the water fountain for a swig of tap water between flights. There is also the double standards of the crew being able to bring toothpaste and hand lotion, while another class of employess are not exempt, at least in PHX.
Dont call me Shirley is offline  
Old Aug 29, 2006 | 5:20 pm
  #19  
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: SJC, SFO, NYC
Programs: 1K, Hertz Five Star
Posts: 1,030
Originally Posted by coachrowsey
Spiff, if I would try to post that here it would take a book. Let's just say when you have had the background checks we've had & been employed as long as most of us have(my airline anyway) there is nothing to worry about.
No disrespect coachrowsey. But, let's see...

Aldrich Ames:
CIA spy who betrayed his country in a very major way.

The Cambridge Spies:
Philby, Burgess and McLean and Anthony Blunt put real British class into espionage.

Klaus Fuchs:
A member of the famed Manhattan Project who developed the atomic bomb, but he turned traitor and gave the plans to the Russians.

Robert Hanssen:Respected FBI agent, family man and staunch Catholic conservative leads a double life spying for the Russians, hanging around strip clubs and surfing Internet porn sites.

Do you think any of these fine gentlemen had background checks?
bnarayan1511 is offline  
Old Aug 30, 2006 | 8:30 am
  #20  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: CLT
Programs: Choice Hotels/FFOCUS
Posts: 7,259
Originally Posted by studentff
I agree that the indoor airport employees and flight crews should be subjected to the same stupid rules as the rest of us (depending on one's point of view either because a) it "enhances security" by keeping even more "dangerous liquids" off planes; after all, we can't even trust a bottle of water purchases airside not to explode, or b) by subjecting them to the same crap they are more likely to complain and less likely to tell their customers "it's not so bad," or "anything for security.").

But for anyone who works outside, I disagree. I personally think any group who is being told to work outside in that type of climate without being allowed sunscreen (and presumably also not allowed unlimited water on demand) should do all of the following: a) immediately strike and refuse to work under those conditions, b) contact whatever agency deals with occupational health violations in that state, and c) contact a lawyer to discuss action against the airline, airport, TSA, police, and/or anyone else suggesting they work under these condititions.

I generally do not support employees/employers punishing customers due to labor spats (i.e., strikes/lockouts) because the loser ends up being the paying customer (ref: some of my inflammatory posts in the NW forum re: my opinion of CHAOS ), but I would wholeheartedly support the ramp workers if they did this and shut down a whole lot of airports. Skin cancer is not to be toyed with.
I want to thank you for all of the good comments ref. outside employees. I agree with you 100% on this. I am in the process of trying to get some one who works the ramp in PHX to register & post here as he can speak of what is going on there much better.
As for some of the other comments about background checks, no one will win in arguement here so I will just respect everyones opinion as we all have one.
As far as employees being subjected to the same bans as psgrs, speaking for myself only, I have chosen not to fly till this crap changes even cancelling a vac. trip I planned. I understand most of you may not have that choice, but if you do you might want to consider it.
coachrowsey is offline  
Old Sep 1, 2006 | 9:05 am
  #21  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: CLT
Programs: Choice Hotels/FFOCUS
Posts: 7,259
Originally Posted by bnarayan1511
No disrespect coachrowsey. But, let's see...

Aldrich Ames:
CIA spy who betrayed his country in a very major way.

The Cambridge Spies:
Philby, Burgess and McLean and Anthony Blunt put real British class into espionage.

Klaus Fuchs:
A member of the famed Manhattan Project who developed the atomic bomb, but he turned traitor and gave the plans to the Russians.

Robert Hanssen:Respected FBI agent, family man and staunch Catholic conservative leads a double life spying for the Russians, hanging around strip clubs and surfing Internet porn sites.

Do you think any of these fine gentlemen had background checks?

Folks, anything can happen at anytime, but do we have to be a bunch of cowards ?
coachrowsey is offline  
Old Sep 1, 2006 | 9:12 am
  #22  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
10 Countries Visited
Conversation Starter
All eyes on you!
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: LAX/TPE
Programs: United 1K, JAL Sapphire, SPG Lifetime Platinum, National Executive Elite, Hertz PC, Avis PC
Posts: 47,221
Originally Posted by coachrowsey
Folks, anything can happen at anytime, but do we have to be a bunch of cowards ?
What are being cowardly about? Not gleefully submitting to the whims and demands of the incompetent criminal leadership of the TSA/DHS?

Or not being strong enough in our resolve to depose such leadership and eliminate these two bureaucratic blights?
bocastephen is offline  
Old Sep 1, 2006 | 9:47 am
  #23  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Commuting around the mid-atlantic and rust-belt on any number of RJs
Programs: TSA Random Selectee Platinum, * Gold, SPG/HH/MR mid-tier, and a tiny bag of pretzels.
Posts: 9,255
Originally Posted by coachrowsey
Spiff, if I would try to post that here it would take a book. Let's just say when you have had the background checks we've had & been employed as long as most of us have(my airline anyway) there is nothing to worry about.
The background checks you have had are a joke. They are the same crap one can get on ussearch (or one of those types of sites) for $50.

As I mention on another thread, I've had a background check that makes the SIDA process look like kindergarten, yet I'm still checking my liquids. A background check also makes you no less likely to decide to lose it in the future.
ClueByFour is offline  
Old Sep 1, 2006 | 9:48 am
  #24  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Commuting around the mid-atlantic and rust-belt on any number of RJs
Programs: TSA Random Selectee Platinum, * Gold, SPG/HH/MR mid-tier, and a tiny bag of pretzels.
Posts: 9,255
Originally Posted by coachrowsey
TSA, I agree with where I work the other just does NOT happen.
I believe one of the gentlemen who was arrested at LHR had the "all access airport pass."

So yes, it does happen.
ClueByFour is offline  
Old Sep 1, 2006 | 1:44 pm
  #25  
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: SJC, SFO, NYC
Programs: 1K, Hertz Five Star
Posts: 1,030
Originally Posted by coachrowsey
Folks, anything can happen at anytime, but do we have to be a bunch of cowards ?
You entirely misread my post. I was just making a point that just having a background check doesn't mean someone is "trustworthy" as you insinuated.

I don't think any passenger needs to go through this asinine nonsense. We have indeed become cowards - pretending people are more trustowrthy because they went through a "background check" is complete nonsese.

The only reason I want to see the crew subjected to the same screening and carry-on requirements is so that they can complain - loudly - right now, they have no incentive to do so.
bnarayan1511 is offline  
Old Sep 1, 2006 | 2:45 pm
  #26  
10 Countries Visited
20 Countries Visited
30 Countries Visited
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Programs: AS, IHG
Posts: 477
Originally Posted by studentff
But for anyone who works outside, I disagree. I personally think any group who is being told to work outside in that type of climate without being allowed sunscreen (and presumably also not allowed unlimited water on demand) should do all of the following: a) immediately strike and refuse to work under those conditions, b) contact whatever agency deals with occupational health violations in that state, and c) contact a lawyer to discuss action against the airline, airport, TSA, police, and/or anyone else suggesting they work under these condititions.
Gee, too bad all of those rampers working for AS in SEA (THEIR HOME BASE MIND YOU) no longer have union protection.... And I totally disagree regarding allowing outside employees free reign, although really they already have it since they don't need to go any further than our bags to get the banned items they need.

What's the turn over rate at Menzies? And the pay scale? That alone should be common knowledge then perhaps Ma and Pa Kettle may no longer feel like they are being protected by having their shoes xrayed and their hand lotion confiscated.

Screening is an absolute farce. I went through two separate screens with a tube of gel in my carry on and after the second screen at the gate I inquired if they cared about the gel in the outside pocket The TSA agent was miffed and stated yes, asked which pocket, I indicated the left pocket. She pulled it out, inspected the Rx label then returned it to its pocket and left the right hand pocket completely untouched.

Last flight, exhausted running for the plane throwing everything liquid in a box to be checked I missed my lipstick, hand lotion and Taco Bell packets in my coat pocket (don't know if hot sauce is allowed? perhaps only if it is cholula). Discovered them upon landing. My jacket went through the belt.

What is the point? Barely screened, highly transient rampers are running around on the tarmac (perhaps not in PHX but definitely in SEA) and should be allowed full access to items that are banned while law abiding citizens are not allowed to travel with water?

When this stupid CRISIS liquid ban took effect I was consoled because I figured there was no way they would try to make these bans permanent.

Frankly, as far as I am concerned, I would rather have my or my children's plane blown out of the sky rather than undergo these STUPID protections because I know damn good and well that if/when it happens again the policies we now have in place are about as effective as stopping a wife beater with a restraining order. The real freaks are always going to "Get 'er Done".

-A

Last edited by AinA; Sep 1, 2006 at 3:04 pm
AinA is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.