Wasn't aware that staffing levels are adequate even to manage the new self selection procedures, such as at OAK. Just a few weeks ago, while going through screening at IAD, we ran out of bins in the queue. So the Xray reader got up from her chair, and collected an armful and restocked them herself. And she slammed them down on the table rather angrily, and muttered something about there "not even being enough staff around to cause a clusterf:eek:ck!"

Agree with goalie, just some birds and turds somewhere up the food chain trying to CYA and keep their jobs next year

Do they have TSA complain forms at the gate??:confused:

Hehe. Gaming the system by artfully concealing your real desire to be first down the jetway (on WN, for instance) could result in a suspicious increase in false politeness. "You first please." "No, I insist." "After YOU!", "NO, after YOU, M-F!"

First person down the jetway is a "hat on a stick"?

"Do you want to make your flight or not? You're going to have to wait if you want one."

Pretty much. The ASASP is a duty that TSO's volunteer to do... (thankfully) I am not a part of it.

Any lawyers reading?
 

I have a question:
What is their legal justification for forcing random searches like this?

You've already cleared entrance into the "sterile" area so apart from an LEO requirement (Terry or Hibel stop) that escalates into a detainment and search, how is the TSA even grounding this in the law*?

Earlier in the "TSA existence" (2001/2002) there were gate screenings but I thought that was due to those airports not yet having ramped up on TSA staff to do proper checkpoint screening - aka, private companies were still doing it.

Anyway - if someone who's reading this can supply some form of legal gymnastics to prove why they're allowed to force you to comply with ANOTHER administrative search it would be appreciated.

If it wasn't for the fact that I'm flying to Vancouver ("international" destination) and on a late night flight I'd be hard pressed to allow TSA to rummage through my crap AGAIN w/o having an LEO called because I was 'uncooperative'.

* Laws? We don't need no stinkin' laws! (Blazing Saddles reference if you're confused)

Oh, but their new blue shirts and shiny shields will make it all better :rolleyes:

This is just exacerbating a horrible travel experience, causing more stress on an industry that can't handle it and reducing ANYONE's desire to leave their home. So glad we're part of a global economy.

Fixed it for you.

Henry

Maybe US Airways has signed a revenue sharing agreement with the TSA to give 20% of revenues from onboard water sales if the TSA will take all the post terminal checkpoint water purchases..... :td:

I was thinking about the "big picture" of Air Travel 2008; it looks like this (and I'm sure I've left out a few steps):

- GOOD: Print boarding pass at home before arrival at airport
- BAD: Above point moot if necessary to check a bag - have to wait in airline counter queue to engage understaffed (and possibly contracted out) airline personnel, and depending on airline and amount/size of bags, pay fee to check 'em
- BAD: Proceed to security checkpoint, to be subjected to ever-longer and more delayed queues, inane ID checking procedure, delays getting through to the WTMD due to clueless Kettles, bag sizer templates, barking TSOs, etc etc etc, show boarding pass yet again because the first check was inadequate, be subjected to possible secondary haraSSSSment, and finally get through
- BAD: Be forced to camp out in front of the gate prior to boarding because that's the only way to win The War for Overhead Storage (TM)
- BAD: Possibly have a surly GA (even more surly with his/her new responsibility of being "carry on cop") enforce new carry-on restrictions, and possibly charge you to check a bag if you are not in compliance
- BAD: Possible gate haraSSSSment by TSA, resulting in possible loss of overhead storage space due to the boarding delay (despite the above strategic positioning at the gate prior to boarding)
- BAD: Face a possibly surly FA who is hating his/her job even more because in addition to the ongoing job uncertainty and labor concessions, he/she now has to deal with his/her "carry on cop" responsibilities even more, possibly having to break the bad news to later boarding passengers that they'll have to go out and check their bags and pay a fee to do so
- BAD: Settle into a cramped and dirty seat and cabin (even more cramped if flying a POS CRJ200), tolerate infringement into personal space of often-inconsiderate fellow passengers, with few or no in-flight amenities, and try to get through the flight without suffering bodily injury due to the lack of space
- GOOD: If far enough, arrive at destination sooner than one would have compared to driving

That's an awful lot of "BAD" for those few "GOODs", ya think?

Various news stories have said that TSA finds about 30% of objects when a Test Team checks an airport. Which means 70% get through. If the gate screen has the same "success" rate, then overall in two checks TSA finds 51 out of 100 items, and 49 out of the 100 items make it on the plane.

Since they find half the contraband, Blogger Bob can brag about "we make you twice as safe by existing" and Kip and his lackeys can give themselves a big bonus for doing such a great job. :td:

This past January, I was suprised to get a screening in the jetway JFK-IAD.

I was the 2nd (3rd) person to board and the only one with red carpet status. I would have been first but I insisted that this couple with a wheelchair go ahead even though they said that I could go. So I was the first able bodied person to board. I was suprised and somewhat embarrassed standing with my legs spread and arms out while the rest of the flight proceeded to board.

The find rate is only that high if the gate screening covers 100% of the passengers. If it only covers 10% of the pax, then the success rate for contraband goes down only from 70% to 68%.

TSA must be counting ENTIRELY on the deterrent effect.

On a related note, gate checkers don't take away sterile-side purchased water, do they? That would be pure evil.

I was on an UA flight the other day. I saw some TSA folks milling around the gate and "gallantly" allowed couple of women to board before me. Unfortunately the TSA were no where to be found and no one got caught. But the system can be gamed pretty well.

Tel Aviv, supposedly the world's most security-conscious airport, has no gate screening.

And I specifically recall the TSA discussing how they "wanted to get it right the first time" instead of having gate screening.

It just makes them look so incompetent and inefficient. And the handful of times I've been "chosen" at the gate, I've been embarrassed, humiliated, and--of course--deprived of bin space.

I feel like the TSA is working harder and harder every day to make themselves look bad.