Some TSA Guys are decent
Nov 16, 2006, 2:15 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Brighton England
Programs: AA Plat, various hotels
Posts: 1,220
Some TSA Guys are decent
At the risk of receiving the wrath of you guys, and to balance all of the negative reports, i thought i'd record my experiences at PHX
My travelling companion gets easily flustered at airports and despite me telling her about the clear bag rule for her cosmetics and creams, which were in small containers, she put them all in her handbag. Naturally she got selected for a bag search.
Now the TSA screener could have just dumped them, but he didnt. In a friendly manner he explained the rules to my companion, went and got a baggie for her cosmetics and gave her some friendly advice about avoiding problems at the next airport. She had 8 items in all, he let her keep them, and she came away feeling more upbeat about facing security again.
He was never threatening and kept a smile on his face.
He was a shining example of how screening should be done and i felt sufficiently moved to post it and tell you.
I hope Bart reads this, as there are others out there like him.
My travelling companion gets easily flustered at airports and despite me telling her about the clear bag rule for her cosmetics and creams, which were in small containers, she put them all in her handbag. Naturally she got selected for a bag search.
Now the TSA screener could have just dumped them, but he didnt. In a friendly manner he explained the rules to my companion, went and got a baggie for her cosmetics and gave her some friendly advice about avoiding problems at the next airport. She had 8 items in all, he let her keep them, and she came away feeling more upbeat about facing security again.
He was never threatening and kept a smile on his face.
He was a shining example of how screening should be done and i felt sufficiently moved to post it and tell you.
I hope Bart reads this, as there are others out there like him.
Nov 16, 2006, 2:59 pm
#3
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: LAX/TPE
Programs: United 1K, JAL Sapphire, SPG Lifetime Platinum, National Executive Elite, Hertz PC, Avis PC
Posts: 42,211
This is the problem - they should be the rule, not the exception. I dare say this forum would be alot quieter if that were the case and TSA management had two brain cells to rub together.
Nov 17, 2006, 5:55 am
#4
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: PHX
Programs: AA Ex Platinum & 1MM, DL PLT, Marriott Gold, HH Diamond
Posts: 2,490
And because screeners like the one described here remain, after 5 years, the exception & not the rule, one of 2 things will happen-either he/she will eventually succumb to the 'dark side' or he/she will leave for greener pastures.
Nov 17, 2006, 6:20 am
#6
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,481
Maybe I've been lucky, but I seem to run into more decent screeners than the contrary. I will admit that the few bad apples do tend to stand out in memory more.
Its the system thats the problem, IMO, and not the front line screeners.
An example: I was passing through IAH and I had forgotten a brand new bottle of cologne (about $70 USD) that I hadnt even opened. Of course I got popped by the x-ray guy for a bag search and the lady searching my bag was very pleasant. She was obviously very sympathetic about the situation (this was genuine). She tried to make it fit into a mailbox slot so I could mail it home, offered to help me through the line if I wanted to go back out and check it, asked if there was anyone I could call to pick it up, etc. Clearly a decent human being just doing her job enforcing a ridiculous rule. This is the way I see the majority of TSA screeners.
Now if I would have started insulting her, barking, asking for supervisors, threatening her with [fill retalitory action here], etc ..... I can't say that I can predict what would have happened. My best guess is that either:
1) I would be lucky enough to be confronting a screener with excellent self control and I would have simply left looking like an a**, or
2) I would be unlucky enough to be confronting a screener who would equal or exceed my level of unpleasantness resulting in all sorts of unecessary stuff.
my 2 cents (keep the change) :-)
Its the system thats the problem, IMO, and not the front line screeners.
An example: I was passing through IAH and I had forgotten a brand new bottle of cologne (about $70 USD) that I hadnt even opened. Of course I got popped by the x-ray guy for a bag search and the lady searching my bag was very pleasant. She was obviously very sympathetic about the situation (this was genuine). She tried to make it fit into a mailbox slot so I could mail it home, offered to help me through the line if I wanted to go back out and check it, asked if there was anyone I could call to pick it up, etc. Clearly a decent human being just doing her job enforcing a ridiculous rule. This is the way I see the majority of TSA screeners.
Now if I would have started insulting her, barking, asking for supervisors, threatening her with [fill retalitory action here], etc ..... I can't say that I can predict what would have happened. My best guess is that either:
1) I would be lucky enough to be confronting a screener with excellent self control and I would have simply left looking like an a**, or
2) I would be unlucky enough to be confronting a screener who would equal or exceed my level of unpleasantness resulting in all sorts of unecessary stuff.
my 2 cents (keep the change) :-)
Nov 17, 2006, 8:06 am
#7
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
I find that a majority of screeners are decent; but it's their job that has indecent aspects. That said, there are a lot of bad apples that need to be tossed .... including the "management". If 10% of screeners are bad apples or are able to take out their bad day on passengers, that's a lot of people being subjected to indecency every day. (10% may be low-......g it.) And most all passengers are subjected to TSA nonsense as set by DHS/TSA "management".
Nov 17, 2006, 8:58 am
#8
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: BDL
Programs: NWA Platinum, HHonors Diamond, SPG, YX, AA
Posts: 5,351
Originally Posted by GUWonder
I find that a majority of screeners are decent; but it's their job that has indecent aspects. That said, there are a lot of bad apples that need to be tossed .... including the "management". If 10% of screeners are bad apples or are able to take out their bad day on passengers, that's a lot of people being subjected to indecency every day. (10% may be low-......g it.) And most all passengers are subjected to TSA nonsense as set by DHS/TSA "management".
Nov 17, 2006, 1:18 pm
#9
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: RTP
Programs: AA(EXP), BA, Hilton, Starwood
Posts: 1,250
At SFO today the screeners were friendly despite the beginning of the end of week crush.
One guy calmly explained three times that "water is a liquid and so is hand cream" to a middle aged woman. I looked for a FlyerTalk tag. :-)
At DFW (had to transit security - long story) they were, as ever, excellent in the face of not enough room and too many people.
I personally would estimate the 'bad apple' ration a lot lower than 1%.
One guy calmly explained three times that "water is a liquid and so is hand cream" to a middle aged woman. I looked for a FlyerTalk tag. :-)
At DFW (had to transit security - long story) they were, as ever, excellent in the face of not enough room and too many people.
I personally would estimate the 'bad apple' ration a lot lower than 1%.
Nov 18, 2006, 1:38 pm
#11
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Originally Posted by Bart
OK, I'll bite. What's indecent about the job?
Indecent aspects:
1. Requirement to enforce stupid rules that don't do much of anything for security.
2. HaraSSSSment screening.
... should I continue?
Nov 18, 2006, 1:44 pm
#12
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 861
Originally Posted by Bart
OK, I'll bite. What's indecent about the job?
1. X-raying shoes.
2. Taking pumped milk away from a nursing mother because her baby isn't present.
3. Taking medicine away from people because they're not aware of the rule du jour.
4. Being part of the apparatus that enforces the no-fly list.
5. Wasting tons of taxpayer money on things that don't increase security.
6. Complying with a rule that requires you to forbid your co-workers from bringing a sack lunch from home into the TSA breakroom if their lunches had a container of yogurt or a carton of chocolate milk.
7. Having to enforce whatever other silly rule your idiotic superiors may come up with tomorrow.
Last edited by docmonkey; Nov 18, 2006 at 1:56 pm
Nov 18, 2006, 1:59 pm
#13
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,389
Originally Posted by GUWonder
What indecent aspects are there to the job?
Indecent aspects:
1. Requirement to enforce stupid rules that don't do much of anything for security.
2. HaraSSSSment screening.
... should I continue?
Indecent aspects:
1. Requirement to enforce stupid rules that don't do much of anything for security.
2. HaraSSSSment screening.
... should I continue?
Nov 18, 2006, 2:13 pm
#14
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,389
Originally Posted by docmonkey
Here are just a few things:
1. X-raying shoes.
Don't agree that this is indecent; do agree that it's stupid. It's not the x-raying of shoes that I have a disagreement with; it's the inflexibility of the policy that does not allow screeners to permit some shoes to be worn while others are x-rayed. The fact that this is based on an actual attempt by a would-be terrorist doesn't seem to phase you, eh?
2. Taking pumped milk away from a nursing mother because her baby isn't present.
Don't agree that this is indecent; do agree that it's another stupid mandate from headquaters that disallows any flexibility or judgement by supervisors.
3. Taking medicine away from people because they're not aware of the rule du jour.
This is a matter of TSOs not knowing the correct procedure. Again, this isn't anything indecent. It isn't right, but it's not an indecent act.
4. Being part of the apparatus that enforces the no-fly list.
You're kidding, right? Airlines deny boarding passes at the counter; the individual hasn't even approached the checkpoint because no boarding pass was issued by the airline to allow the individual to proceed towards the gate. I agree that the policy is faulty; I agree that having no-fly lists is ineffective; however, I don't see how the screener can be blamed. This is like blaming all federal employees for working while a Republican is in the White House.
5. Wasting tons of taxpayer money on things that don't increase security.
Details, please. Details. This is nothing more than empty hyperbole. You haven't stated anything that makes a screener's job indecent.
6. Complying with a rule that requires you to forbid your co-workers from bringing a sack lunch from home into the TSA breakroom if their lunches had a container of yogurt or a carton of chocolate milk.
So following employer rules is indecent, eh? Try again. By the way, I do agree with you that the policy is dumb and stupid. But you have to look in the mirror for the genesis of that dumb policy. It's all done to help satisfy the crybabies among you who complained that screeners were apparently exempt from the policy. Let me know how the shoe fits, eh?
7. Having to enforce whatever other silly rule your idiotic superiors may come up with tomorrow.
Blah, blah, blah. You've failed to point out one single thing that is indecent about security screening.
1. X-raying shoes.
Don't agree that this is indecent; do agree that it's stupid. It's not the x-raying of shoes that I have a disagreement with; it's the inflexibility of the policy that does not allow screeners to permit some shoes to be worn while others are x-rayed. The fact that this is based on an actual attempt by a would-be terrorist doesn't seem to phase you, eh?
2. Taking pumped milk away from a nursing mother because her baby isn't present.
Don't agree that this is indecent; do agree that it's another stupid mandate from headquaters that disallows any flexibility or judgement by supervisors.
3. Taking medicine away from people because they're not aware of the rule du jour.
This is a matter of TSOs not knowing the correct procedure. Again, this isn't anything indecent. It isn't right, but it's not an indecent act.
4. Being part of the apparatus that enforces the no-fly list.
You're kidding, right? Airlines deny boarding passes at the counter; the individual hasn't even approached the checkpoint because no boarding pass was issued by the airline to allow the individual to proceed towards the gate. I agree that the policy is faulty; I agree that having no-fly lists is ineffective; however, I don't see how the screener can be blamed. This is like blaming all federal employees for working while a Republican is in the White House.
5. Wasting tons of taxpayer money on things that don't increase security.
Details, please. Details. This is nothing more than empty hyperbole. You haven't stated anything that makes a screener's job indecent.
6. Complying with a rule that requires you to forbid your co-workers from bringing a sack lunch from home into the TSA breakroom if their lunches had a container of yogurt or a carton of chocolate milk.
So following employer rules is indecent, eh? Try again. By the way, I do agree with you that the policy is dumb and stupid. But you have to look in the mirror for the genesis of that dumb policy. It's all done to help satisfy the crybabies among you who complained that screeners were apparently exempt from the policy. Let me know how the shoe fits, eh?
7. Having to enforce whatever other silly rule your idiotic superiors may come up with tomorrow.
Blah, blah, blah. You've failed to point out one single thing that is indecent about security screening.