Global_Hi_Flyer

The last sentence appears to be giving the middle finger to commercial interests.... I'd suspect that mere citizens fall lower on the totem pole.

Original Article

LessO2

If that last sentence were true, Hudson News, Chili's, Cinnabon and Quizno's would not be selling liquids airside.

whirledtraveler

The funniest thing about it is that it's a lie. There are any number of things that the DHS could do to "make us safer" which would completely destroy aviation, various businesses, and the economy at large. And, they know that.

They are always walking a tight-rope.

Don't let the puffed out chest fool you. He's playing to Ma and Pa Kettle.

LessO2

You forgot the word 'only' in your last sentence.

whirledtraveler

No, he might just believe his own B.S.

jcwoman

Not too long after they ramped up security after 9-11, I wondered how badly the airlines would go out of business from having their customers harrassed. It's interesting that they haven't. It seems they can keep on prodding us and we keep on buying airline tickets. Well, truly, I understand just how important flying is to today's economy, so that explains it.

But can you imagine the same thing on a smaller scale, say if the gov set up a TSA checkpoint at the front door of Joe's Eatery at 342 Main St. How many days would it take for Joe to go out of business.

Sad...

alex0683de

That, my friends, is the problem. We need somebody fresh and new at the top of that juggernaut - preferably somebody who still has some degree of common sense, if that particular commodity still exists in Washington.

whirledtraveler

That could mix it up a bit, but I don't think it would make a difference in the long term. When people take a job, they start to see the world through that lens. It's sort of like Stockholm Syndrome.

civicmon

Bolded letters do not compute.

Sadly...

alex0683de

That's what I thought.

bocastephen

Exerting control over GA could be a significant tipping point - AOPA is strong, and smaller airports (including private ones) will likely work to make the TSA's life a living hell.

My Alma Mater is much bigger now than it was when I was a student, and I remember all our comings and goings on the aviation ramp as we went out for flights - if there was any screening or checking involved, the entire process would go awry, not to mention the completely ludicrous concept of screening crews of GA flights and their passengers, who are more often than not, family members, friends and associates.

Go ahead, Skeletor - put your hand in the fire and let's see what happens. As for security trumping commercial interests - watch what happens to Republican campaign contributions when your new initiatives push businesses over the deep end and consultants start suggesting their clients (airlines, airports, and other interests) take action in the political arena. Security might trump commercial interests, but politics trumps security.

birdstrike

Well said, my friend, well said.

Points Scrounger

Apologies once again to the mods - I'm going to dip a toe into Lake Omni here to reply, but will try really hard to limit myself. Thanks in advance.

Those who currently make these decisions have a Manachean (sp?) mindset (absolute good vs evil); this extreme viewpoint is unlikely to continue at the top at DHS past next year, but it remains to be seen how much influence such folks at lower levels will still have. It is to be hoped that the incoming team will be more realistic about "the 'threat' out there".

Bart

No offense intended; however, no matter who is voted into the Oval Office or who gains the majority in Congress, very little will change in airport security. The biggest challenge currently faced by TSA which Congress gives a damn about is cargo screening in terms of finding an effective way to do it. Right now, there are random inspections and validations of shipper ID, etc. but there is always room for improvement. The biggest bone of contention are those cargo items that are permitted aboard passenger aircraft. While you may argue the common sense position that if it goes aboard a passenger plane, then it ought to be screened; that argument will fall on deaf ears because the airlines have a vested and profitable interest with the status quo.

As for the rest of it, my friend, the ugly political reality is that besides some degree of inconvenience to you and other travelers, Congress is satisfied that it has successfully put a check in the box next to "improve post-9/11 airport security."

I'm not defending this; I'm just stating what I perceive to be a political reality.

All you can expect to see along the way are minor changes to procedures based on public input. But the basic procedure will remain the same. For those who think that Congress will suddenly mandate a return to private security screening, gimme some of what yer smokin'! Because that ain't gonna happen. It's not that I see this as a threat to my job. Hell, I could move on and do just about anything if I chose to. The reality is that once a government agency has been established, and once it has survived its infancy, it is here to stay.

bocastephen

Unless enough airports opt out ...

Perhaps Congress is unwilling to get rid of the TSA, but the airports could.