Why not? We should be sharing our observations about a program, especially if we don't agree with the way it is currently being handled.

There should be no "secrecy" on these matters. If we can see these things, others have already seen them.

Since the government steals seats for them on the planes we fly, puts them into seats we prefer to sit in, and allows them to carry weapons on board that we might not want there, it definitely is our business.

Actually, they're not "stolen", the airlines get tax credits for the full fares.

So just because you can, you think it's appropriate?

FF's stand to lose the most should an incident happen aboard a plane.

That is completely false. The airlines receive no financial compensation of any kind.

Yes, I do.

Even more reason for frequent flyers to discuss perceived shortcomings of such a program. @:-)

Unfortunately, the idiots who develop protocol aren't the ones on the planes. Personally, I wish people would document their observations and send them to the TSA. I've had numerous incidents where airports/flight crews have done ridiculous things to draw attention to me.

Unfortunately, I don't have any desire to work with the TSA in any capacity. That agency is incompetent and un-American. While I realize you are just doing your job, I disagree with the current protocols for it and I despise the agency that currently oversees your operation.

Hopefully, the TSA will be destroyed and if the air marshal program continues, it will be transfered to a different government agency. I'd much rather the airlines provide their own on-board security, should they desire to do so at all.

You are operating under the mistaken impression that TSA or DHS actually listen to the average citizen. They don't. They don't listen to other government employees as well, particularly when we point out the idiocy or absurdity of their latest pet project.

I'm not a FAM, but trust me, I despise DHS and TSA more than you ever could. We have differing reasons, but we desire the same results. Our protocols for flying are slightly different than FAM's, but they have many of the same flaws. Documenting what you see isn't necessarily helping the TSA, but helping those of us who have to fly to/from assignments. We can complain, but it becomes a he said/she said situation that nobody wants to address.

I wouldn't trust the airlines to hire their own security. I guess the years of 80 year-old screeners working for $6 have made me skeptical.

Documentation can be a great ally when needed, especially from a third party. The "We weren't aware" argument gets tossed out the window. I not naive enough to think they actually care.

It's not just that I want the TSA gone, I want to have no contact with them at all. It would be like providing assistance to the Communist party or providing comfort and aid to the enemy. This scummy agency maintains secret lists of people and secret rules. It does not respect the Privacy Act and has no oversight or accountability.

But, they were just as competent as the $40k per year screeners are today. Perhaps even more so as I never had a problem with any of the nice folks from Argenbright. A few minor adjustments like cockpit doors being reinforced and closed during flight + explosives detection were all that was needed instead of the albatross of an agency that was hung around the traveling public's neck.

I was NOT talking about DHS nor FAMs in post #10
 

My reference above was NOT about anything to do with any DHS TSO, FAM or FEMA personnel.
Nor was I referencing ANY other specific FED LEO as most people think of them, such as FBI, or Secret Service, for example. :rolleyes:

I was specifically referencing those FEDS who are attached to INTERNAL components of agencies within the intelligence community (and NOT necessarily just the CIA's CSS)-- and those FEDS attached to INTERNAL components of the Executive Branch (EPS and NRO for example), Defense Department (NCIS, DIA, just to name a couple) and State Department (DSS), whom the general public have no real business knowing either their specific duties or function, nor the fact that they may be armed while travelling to and from assignment(s) or station(s).

However, you'd be hard-pressed to pick these out of a crowd, unless you yourself were part of the same crowd or knew any of these individuals professionally. :D

The wise-crack was intended to reference that there's often a ton of weapons travelling through the corridors and concourses of DCA more often than not.

The scary part is with so much weaponry it'd really be a nightmare if one discharged accidentally or a weapon was accidentally lost or misplaced... :td:

Person travelling through ABQ was more than likely with US Energy Dept returning from the Proving Grounds.

From what I've heard on the street, TSA is all about protecting itself and it's contractors. A LOT of the policy decisions are recommended by contractors.... who in turn are not at all beholden to listen to the public (or the TSA employees, except perhaps for those making contracting decisions).

I may be wrong, but that's something I've heard from more than one person.

Yes, in this instance I do find it entirely appropriate - because I cannot see what is secret or unknown about the information being discussed. And I am bound by my country's secrecy rules and have held a security rating.

Would you prefer that internet discussions about such matters be censored?