Kip is at it Again - More Security is Less
Feb 9, 2007, 10:39 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,956
Kip is at it Again - More Security is Less
In this NY Times article from yesterday ( http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/08/wa...=1&oref=slogin ), Kip is against increasing cargo screening. Perhaps this might open some eyes. My favorite is this paragraph:
Then why do we put almost all of our resources into screening passengers and their luggage, Kip?
Mandating physical inspection of all air cargo could actually reduce safety, said Kip Hawley, the security administration’s director, because the high cost would require other security measures to be curtailed. “History is full of examples of invincible secure systems failing, like the Titanic,” Mr. Hawley said. “If you put all of your resources into making something invulnerable, you end up ironically with less security.”
Feb 9, 2007, 10:43 am
#2
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 728
While Kip Hawley is certainly an idiot, the problem ultimately isn't Kip Hawley. The problem is the US government. Kip Hawley will eventually be replaced with another idiot who will make some pointless changes to appease critics, collect his salary, and then hand off to another idiot who will do the same.
Feb 9, 2007, 10:52 am
#3
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: RSW
Programs: Delta - Silver; UA - Silver; HHonors - Diamond; IHG - Spire Ambassador; Marriott Bonvoy - Titanium
Posts: 14,185
I have been saying this for a long time. Kippy has little, or (likely) no, influence on TSA policy implementation. He is nothing more than a glorified press secretary.
Feb 9, 2007, 10:54 am
#4
Moderator: Coupon Connection & S.P.A.M
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Louisville, KY
Programs: Destination Unknown, TSA Disparager Diamond (LTDD)
Posts: 57,957
I don't believe this.
The buck has to stop somewhere and that somewhere is the pinhead who currently holds the "chief" title for this disgusting agency.
Until there is some transparency and accountability in this sick agency, I put the blame squarely on the shoulders of this lying little piece of trash.
The buck has to stop somewhere and that somewhere is the pinhead who currently holds the "chief" title for this disgusting agency.
Until there is some transparency and accountability in this sick agency, I put the blame squarely on the shoulders of this lying little piece of trash.
Feb 9, 2007, 11:02 am
#5
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
I call BS on this:
So if the system truly were flexible, then when something was truly deemed not a threat, like liquids or I'd even dare say shoes, then it should be relaxed back to the way things were.
Of course, the unpredictability part also implies that they don't know what theyr'e doing and can't control their workforce, so we can't expect them to have a truly "flexible" system either.
Originally Posted by Comrade Hawley
Mr. Hawley, the T.S.A. director, said: “The best way to do any security is in layers. Our system is based on flexibility and unpredictability.”
Of course, the unpredictability part also implies that they don't know what theyr'e doing and can't control their workforce, so we can't expect them to have a truly "flexible" system either.
Feb 9, 2007, 11:08 am
#6
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: DCA
Programs: AA Platinum
Posts: 940
Of course everyone will complain when it starts to cost them 3 times as much to send a package anywhere that isn't ground only. And then everyeone will complain that their box was opened up, things were stolen from it .......
Feb 9, 2007, 12:13 pm
#7
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,166
This is just posturing for budget time. Bush just rolled out his FY 2008 budget and all the agencies are starting their FY 2009 budget cycles. Kippie is simply saying, "It's a lot of money to do cargo screening. Give me the funds to do it or tell me what you don't want me to do in order to pay for it."
Feb 9, 2007, 1:03 pm
#8
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 728
I don't believe this.
The buck has to stop somewhere and that somewhere is the pinhead who currently holds the "chief" title for this disgusting agency.
Until there is some transparency and accountability in this sick agency, I put the blame squarely on the shoulders of this lying little piece of trash.
The buck has to stop somewhere and that somewhere is the pinhead who currently holds the "chief" title for this disgusting agency.
Until there is some transparency and accountability in this sick agency, I put the blame squarely on the shoulders of this lying little piece of trash.
The TSA is wrong. Its actions are economically destructive, immoral, and completely unnecessary. Not occasionally or by mistake, but inherently and by design.
It's easy to call Kip Hawley an idiot. But every single person that works for the TSA is freely doing his bidding. The buck for the damage they do stops with all 50,000 of them.
Feb 9, 2007, 1:10 pm
#9
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: RTP
Programs: AA(EXP), BA, Hilton, Starwood
Posts: 1,250
I think what he was referring to was being given a fixed budget and then being told to divert money from something he thinks more effective (passenger screening) to someting less (cargo screening).
The military makes this argument all the time when a powerful legislator helpfully pushes a weapons program (in their home state) that the military doesn't want/need and certainly doesn't want to have to support for 20+ years.
This story was reported in the WSJ months ago, as I recall. Good old NYT.
The military makes this argument all the time when a powerful legislator helpfully pushes a weapons program (in their home state) that the military doesn't want/need and certainly doesn't want to have to support for 20+ years.
This story was reported in the WSJ months ago, as I recall. Good old NYT.
Feb 9, 2007, 2:24 pm
#10
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,956
Let's help Kip out with what is more effective: Screening for shampoo or screening cargo?
Feb 9, 2007, 4:04 pm
#11
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 9,223
The hijacking problem was pretty much solved by hardening the cockpit doors and letting the terrorists know that passengers will kill them instantly.
Maybe we should indeed move some resources to something else, perhaps even air cargo, a bit less emphasis on passenger screening.
This isn't new. I'm just repeating what others have said over and over.
Maybe we should indeed move some resources to something else, perhaps even air cargo, a bit less emphasis on passenger screening.
This isn't new. I'm just repeating what others have said over and over.
Feb 9, 2007, 4:38 pm
#12
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,166
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98; PalmSource/hspr-H102; Blazer/4.0) 16;320x320)
Prudent agency heads have these conversations behind closed doors with staffers and occasionally with members. Not Kippie - He's right out there in public. What the public doesn't realize that he already lost the funding battle internally. Neither Chertoff or OMB would give him the money to do cargo screening and wage the wars on shoes, shampoo, cash, drugs, breast milk, dog-eared passports, sweating passengers, and, most recently, suspected child abductors.
Chertoff should fire his butt for going around him. But, they are birds of a feather.
Prudent agency heads have these conversations behind closed doors with staffers and occasionally with members. Not Kippie - He's right out there in public. What the public doesn't realize that he already lost the funding battle internally. Neither Chertoff or OMB would give him the money to do cargo screening and wage the wars on shoes, shampoo, cash, drugs, breast milk, dog-eared passports, sweating passengers, and, most recently, suspected child abductors.
Chertoff should fire his butt for going around him. But, they are birds of a feather.
Feb 9, 2007, 5:38 pm
#13
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
Question:
If you go thru a checkpoint at the C terminal at an airport, are you going thru Checkpoint Chartlie?
Might feel like it.
If you go thru a checkpoint at the C terminal at an airport, are you going thru Checkpoint Chartlie?
Might feel like it.
Feb 9, 2007, 6:09 pm
#14
Moderator: Coupon Connection & S.P.A.M
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Louisville, KY
Programs: Destination Unknown, TSA Disparager Diamond (LTDD)
Posts: 57,957
Feb 9, 2007, 6:19 pm
#15
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: RTP
Programs: AA(EXP), BA, Hilton, Starwood
Posts: 1,250
If you've ever managed a project you know it's hard to run anything when your indirect boss with budget control moves your fixed constraints.