I find it hard to believe this is sustainable, even at just five airports.

All you have to do is go back and do searches of TSAers posts and see how they're mandating overtime and being extra stingy with vacations.

Oh but the terrorists don't know that....right Kip?

Are you kidding? That means less airport revenue.

Capitalism will always beat out TSA "security."

Anyone on these boards gutsy enough to say "You can't do that!" to ANY TSAer for any reason in any U.S. airport at any location in that airport? Of course not. That's why you all are so damned willing to keep lining up and bending over for these sky knights.

Enjoy. Singing lessons cannot commence again until friend and foe are more transparent.

Oh for god's sake, that is THE most annoying and intrusive thing that TSA does. The first time I'm confronted with having to gate check my carry on because I was selected for this "enhancement," I'll be yelling and screaming long and loud to the airline. THIS is enough to make me stop flying -- I'll conduct my business some other way.

Random screening at the gate is all about harassment or, more accurately, expanding the dog and pony show that is Security Theater so that the Kettles will feel comfortable enough to buy their once-a-year bargain fare to go visit GrandMaw.

You tell me what this accomplishes. You tell me why, if they find anything at these random gate screenings, it wasn't caught at the primary screening if TSA is actually doing their job.

I think it's a way of counteracting developing and growing criticism of the TSA by the flying public and Congress. They are trying to justify all the money that's been dumped into the organization, most of it wasted, while looking for even more money from Congress.

Bingo! ^ ^ The SINGLE, biggest problem with Federalizing this nonsense. Despite unending criticism of GWB on this and almost every other IBB in the universe, am I remembering correctly that then Sen. Daschle was in the lead on this ridiculous bureacratic undertaking, or not??

Best, Dave

Yep. Gone-but-not-lamented idiot Daschle (I can insult him because he's not a FlyerTalker!) is the one who first said, "You can't professionalize until you Federalize." I'm not sure that "professionalize" is even a word, but setting that aside, the obvious implication of his moronic statement is that people who are not Federal employees can't be professional. I'll have to mention that to my doctor one of these days.

Bruce

I often disagree with a lot of the TSA criticisms here because my friendships with a few international "government employees" have given me insight into how many things are prevented around the world on a daily basis. That being said, I despise the gate checks because of the ensuing difficulties with getting carryons onto a full flight. Cameras and computers shouldn't go under the plane, not only because of the theft issues, but because they are very sensitive to the accumulation of vibration and it is very common for many of us to arrive at a job to find that one of our lenses will not zoom out properly due to a screw that has gotten loose from the flight. It may not seem like a big deal to most, but when the EU locks us into one carry on and we have to connect from BNA via a CRJ to the international hub, one bag in your possession at all times becomes a very big deal.

If the TSA is set on this policy, then if you are ever going to profile (another topic for some), then this is the time to do it. Then it MIGHT become a deterrent. Maybe we should move the puffers to the gate to add to the drama.

You are correct, Sir. The TSA is a massive bungle of the Democrats. Not only that, Daschle pushed it through in order to get contract business for his wife - certainly a conflict of interest, possibly illegal, and definitely downright despicable.

If his "you have to Federalize in order to professionalize" rings true, why is it that corporate American can make profits while the Federal government is drowning in debt and few of its departments produce net income after expenses and fraud? I think private enterprise is the way to go. Make stronger rules, but let the free enterprise system carry them out.

The 'aircraft search' part is going to be interesting - aircraft are private property of the airline and under the sole jurisdiction of the airline and the flight crew. Not even law enforcement can board an aircraft without either permission or probable cause to search.

Whereas many flight crews are TSA rah-rahs, I know quite a few who despise the TSA with an intense vengeance. It will be interesting to see how these haters react to a demand by a bunch of screeners to board and search their aircraft, which in all likelihood will delay boarding and departure, and ding the crew for being late.

Note to Hawley - drop the double-speak crap. More and more people are seeing through your charade every day and can smell your septic tank of an idea pool from a mile away. The more people whose buttons you and your staff push, the faster you'll be gone.

No offense to your friends, but a lot of that is conjecture and swank. There are no credible threats that currently impact the US or most developed western nations on a daily basis. If something was real, the government reaction would be noticeable and hard to miss.

Sure, we need to remain smart and vigilant, but to suggest that terrorism is attacking everyone everywhere on a daily basis, and secret government projects and teams are rushing around the world to stop the attacks every day is more of a movie script than reality.

All employees attempt to convince their customers and investors that the target market for what they do is as large as they can convince their audience that it is. Sometimes they exaggerate or even lie about the size of those markets, although doing this in a competitive environment can get people burned, as the customers and investors can quickly move their capital elsewhere once seeing these people cannot be trusted. The government's employees, facing zero competition, naturally claim target markets for what they do that are drastically larger (and in the case of security, scarier, of course) than most rational people outside the government believe them to be.

In this case I don't question the source. I've been involved in the meetings and had to aid in a problem with an international event. There was no "conjecture or swank", merely action.

The larger issue is simply how much is reasonable security and how much is window dressing? Anyone who thinks we don't need reasonable security is too stupid to leave home alone, let alone travel. But...let's not waste time wanding 80+ grandparents from Iowa.

I'm sure you can give us more detail or a description of the 'event' without naming names.

See my edit where I explain my point in more detail. You should question your source. I don't doubt that they believe what they are telling you, but they aren't unbiased.

If airport security is that important, that's all the more reason that the government should be removed from it.