birdstrike

I had a couple of large furries and their small daughter in the row across from me a few years back. Great people. Their scrapbook of the convention was quite interesting.

Can my water be considered "screened" if I take a drink from it?

CLELOSER

at CLE only SUPERVISORS can determine if liquids will be allowed. In other words, DON"T EXPECT IT!!!!!

sbm12

It got lost in the other uproar about the changes to the ID rules. But it was mentioned previously. Besides, since this is all dependent on the TSOs or Supervisors approving things, odds of it actually working in the favor of the passenger on a consistent basis are too low to get excited about.

Flaflyer

Can we get a little of that "deliberate inconsistency" here to confuse the tewwowists? So far EVERY decision by Kip has been 100% consistent at confusing the pax and 100% consistent at resulting in negative press. Come on, mix it up a little.

"But they let my water on in Kansas" "You rode a 737 you're not in Kansas any more" Dept.:

OTOH, this "may, at his or her discretion" gives front line screeners with a power trip, if there happen to be any , MORE ability to make up on the spot decisions which will greatly vary from minute to minute depending on who is on donut break, vary from checkpoint to checkpoint within the same airport, and vary between cities depending on what supervisors order as SOP. Only one word to describe this: FUBAR.

NWstu

For more information, see this vanity fair article.

To each his own.

oneofthosepeopleyouloveto hate

I agree that it fulfills the safety function, and also is kinder to passengers ... my only question is whether it can be accomplished with existing levels of staff and equipment? Imagine a bag check called on EVERY bag!

I think that's why the rules have been muddled a bit ... for instance, it appears PAX will ONLY be given a shot at keeping their items if they DISPUTE the requirement. That will eliminate about 3/4 of the testing right there, as people who don't know the 3-1-1 rules to begin with aren't likely to know the rules may be relaxed if they protest. However, if they find out later (or see other people being allowed to keep items when they just surrendered theirs) they're not going to be happy. Thus this has the potential to give the TSA a really big black eye, PR-wise. (I spent a good part of my career in PR, and I'm cringing at the fallout that I fear lies ahead. Thank Goddess I'm just a TSO!)

In my more pessimistic moments, I tend to agree.

IMO, there is a big push right now within the TSA to give more decision-making authority to the people on the front lines (TSOs). This is a direct contradiction to the policy up until now, which considered screeners incapable of snapping off a plastic cover and replacing the 3x3-inch foam fan filter on the back of the ETD machines (really ... we were supposed to call a supervisor if the filter looked dirty! )

I can think of several reasons for the change. One: screener attrition rates are atrocious, and many HR studies have shown that workers are happy in proportion to the sense of control they feel in their work environment. Empower people, and they tend to stick around and even display initiative. Wow, who'd-a thunk it?

Two: Having people follow a rote set of procedures, no matter how carefully-designed, is not really the best way to outwit a terrorist looking to circumvent such procedures (especially since they're not terribly difficult to suss out). Allow people some latitude to be creative, and you increase the chances of actually catching the Bad Guy, should one happen to prevent himself. Unfortunately, allowing people to be creative in the past led to such unfortunate incidents as women reportedly being forced to sip breast milk to prove it wasn't a harmful substance (I say "reportedly" as this account may well be apocryphal).

I wish I had as much confidence in my co-workers as Kip apparently does. Yikes!

So, I'm on the fence here. I guess we'll see how it plays out ...

TheRoadie

Excellent Malapropism! ^

oneofthosepeopleyouloveto hate

ROTFL!

And I call myself a (former) editor. Sheesh!

Wonderboynyc

I heard from a Playboy writer, who wrote on that subject, that there is a special group that is specifically "enamoured" with the TV character, Alf.

studentff

I concur. The answer under an eventual sane policy, IMO, is that liquid containers larger than a certain size (say 100-200 mL) are to be placed in a bin just like laptops for easy testing, and that passengers (like myself) who would occasionally go through security with 10-12 bottles of wine (seriously) would be relegated to the "slow/family lane." Bag checking the 100-200 mL containers is unnecessary, and a good ETD swab of the outer bag will detect traces of the nitrated explosives that are the threat anyway. I could live with that for a while.

I agree that this has the potential to be a PR nightmare.

I also find it odd that Kip is (probably unintentionally) encouraging pax to dispute one set of rules (liquids) while trying to crack down on "activist" pax who assert their right to fly without presenting travel papers (ID) and requesting permission.

My guess is that this policy was conceived to give front-line screeners the ability to waive on the mom with water for her kid's formula, parent with a sippy cup, old man with a bottle of water, etc. It's a noble idea but will quickly get out of control. And once TSA lets it out that they realize not all (or even most) liquids are a threat, they are one step closer to no longer being able to defend the entire war-on-water.

oneofthosepeopleyouloveto hate

Yeah. Which is kind of a shame, because keeping all that stuff-that-looks-like-an-explosive-charge-on-the-X-ray out of the bags really DOES increase the likelihood we'd find a real bomb, if one were present. I have no doubt our Red Team scores have improved since this policy was implemented ...

I wish the TSA had "sold" the public on this rationale, instead of the one that was employed (insisting that every passenger's water bottle might be a bomb, then disposing of them in the public trash container in the middle of the checkpoint).

After all, the public generally is pretty good at getting behind a cause. "Do the patriotic thing -- help the TSA find bombs by leaving your water bottle at home!" may have been easier to "sell" than "We think your 6-year-old's juice box is a bomb!" which obviously is nonsense.

Gee, think I can get promoted to Public Relations? Probably not, huh.

birdstrike

I think the TSA honchos realize that even it's supervisors are aware that the official screening criteria is bogus.

This will allow each airport to set their own requirement.

If something hits the fan, TSA upper management will still have plausible deniability while attempting to ameliorate being the most hated government agency on the planet.

This is a casebook example of how managers can duck responsibility while making provisions for the rank-and-file to take the rap should anything actually go wrong.

Dovster

Apparently, it is something you can be converted to:

aleaf

I think I would vomit.

(I'm passing up a wonderful opportunity here to add a comment about how THAT would be handled in accordance with the new rules concerning liquids. )

birdstrike

My SIL, an opera singer (no, not Cats, an actual opera) wore a skin-tight cat suit for one production.



^ @:-) :-: