L-1011

And what does box cutters have to do with this?

ND Sol

Really? What plane has been hijacked with a pocketknife? And with a paradigm shift in how we deal with hijackers after 9/11, I don't see how it would be possible.

Well, at least you are looking at an analysis, but how is the risk of a pocket knife weigh anywhere near the cost of replacement on every trip? The knife CO gives me can do more damage than my little pocket knife.

And so I should spend time and money on each trip to replace a product that is not a security risk? That is not practical nor logical.

So if I mail it, it will take days for me to receive and by then I could be on my next trip. That just isn't practical nor is it cost effective. I guess that you just don't understand how many business travelers operate.

birdstrike

I use my Swiss Army knife multiple times per day and feel lost without it. D@mn right there is a need.

There was never a reason to prohibit them in the first place. Prohibiting them today does not reduce access to sharp objects already on board. It is a pointless exercise and we both know it.

rufflesinc

nothing, nothing at all. unless you wish to count the 4 airplanes, two towers etc etc

cheers.

rufflesinc

L-1011

For the umpteenth time: It wasn't the boxcutters that made the hijackings possible, it was the airline policies: cooperate with the hijackers, spend a night in Cuba and then come back home. Well, I have news for you, that doesn't work anymore. Not even if you shake an empty pizza box on the plane and claim you have a bomb.

ND Sol

Then they are about the same danger level as a pen in the right hands. What you are failing to grasp is that post-9/11, a boxcutter is not sufficient to hijack or take down a plane. As such, it is not a credible weapon.

Feel free to see. Go into a PC at EWR and you could pick up a dozen. Is that a problem?

Almost everything can be a security risk. A belt, a laptop, an empty wine bottle, a laptop cord, a flashlight, hairspray and a match, etc. Are you in favoring of banning all because of the small security risk of each?

Yes, we can spend all of our national income to make us safe, but that would leave nothing for everything else. That is not what people want. There is a balance to be struck and until the TSA is effective in preventing credible weapons and explosives on board and not kabuki security, we have not reached that balance. TSA is not even successful in preventing credible weapons.

L-1011

So is a laptop or its power cord. So is a a pen or a wine bottle. Should we forbid them also?

Somewhere you have to draw the line and yes, there is an economic balance you have to strike. You can not be 100% safe and sooner or later you come to the point where an additional "secrity" measure costs more than it is worth.

ND Sol

I thought we were already at that point.

L-1011

We are, but some people here haven't realized that yet

birdstrike

Well over that line.

whatsinyourbag

Do you honestly think that your LITTLE $5.00 surcharge covers the salaries? Get real...

Maybe your company should have video conferences, then you won't have to fly...

whatsinyourbag

Actually, it was the nasty attitudes of "frequent fliers" that think they know everything...

As far as quit, you gotta be kidding... Dish out all you want, I don't take any **** from anyone... Dish it out, get it right back...

wr_schwab

As someone who has worked in positions where I have faced the customer (about 13 years ago doing telephone tech support), I was expected to take whatever the customer could dish out and still attempt to help them. There was no dishing back to them. The company would have seen it as being very unprofessional, and doing that to a customer would have resulted in immediate disciplinary action. Our standard was such that we had to act professional to the customer no matter what they did because the company realized that calling tech support can be in itself a very frustrating process on both ends of the line.

It is frustrating for the customer because they are calling because something doesn't work and many times they think it is our fault because it used to work before. This had the affect of making them irritable especially if we told them that as far as we knew everything was working properly on our end. It was frustrating for the agent because they had to rely on what the customer was telling them, which may or may not be accurate, and their ability to follow directions.

It is this type of standard that every person in a customer facing position should be held to. If a person is unable to meet that standard they should not be in that type of position.

I can appricate that being a screener is a frustrating position, but the personel must be held to the same standard as all others in customer facing positions.

That said, their management needs to move away from Kabuki Security Theater and towards real security. All of the costs/benefits/risks must be weighed against one another and reasonable steps taken to mitigate the most probable risks.

No one has been able to demonstrate that in non-labratory conditions that a liquid explosive attack is even possible where you make the explosives on the plane. No one has been able to demonstrate that a premixed liquid explosive is stable enough in high enough quantities that would cause the loss of a plane. Until this is done, the entire liquid ban is just Kabuki Security Theater.

X-rays cannot detect explosives. Even a person from the TSA admitted that. Forcing customers to remove their shoes to search for explosives makes no sense when the equipment can not detect explosives. Again, this is just another example of Kabuki Security Theater.

The TSA wants respect, then give your customers real security instead of Kabuki Security Theater. Until then, every person should complain when they see Kabuki Security Theater and the TSA does not follow their own SOP.

I have felt safer going through security in JNB, SIN, BKK, and NRT then anywhere in the US. Going through security in those airports I felt safer and all of the agents attempted respect all of the passengers going through the checkpoint rather then being barked at and demeaned by screeners in the US.

vassilipan

This attitude cannot exist without at least tacit approval from supervisors or similarly held beliefs.

TSA is a service organization, just like any other organ of government. We, the American flying public, are the customers. As such, we have an absolute right to complain and criticize. If you don't "take any **** from anyone," then you are in the wrong business. If you give back what you get, you are in the wrong business.

Sooner or later, the chickens will come home to roost.