No help from the Senate regarding the TSA
 

I wrote to my Senator to discuss some of my frustrations with the continued liquid ban, BDOs, and gate screening, among other TSA insanities.

Some highlights of Senator Boxer's response included:

"Thank you for contacting me about the current economic crisis. I appreciate hearing from you, and I want to assure you that Congress and the Obama Administration are moving swiftly to address this critical issue."

To get our economy back on track, the very top priority must be to save and create jobs. That is why I supported H.R.1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which President Obama signed into law on February 17, 2009. This legislation will inject $787 billion into our economy through tax cuts and spending on projects to save and create jobs. It will make significant investments in vital infrastructure projects, give much-needed aid to our states, and help to create and save millions of American jobs."

In other words, she didn't read anything I wrote.
I'm open to suggestions for other ways to attract the attention of Congress.

I get that from Robert Menendez all the time.

Keep a copy of your correspondence, send it and the response to your local paper.

Call your CongressCritters office in D.C. (don't call the local office) and (1) identify yourself as a constituent, and (2) ask who handles legislation and matters regarding the TSA.

Talk to that individual - first make sure you have the right person, i.e., "I'm a constituent in [state/Senate] [district/House] and I am looking for the staffer that handles matters concerning the TSA, would that happen to be you?" ... "Are you the senior staffer that oversees this, or is it just you?" -- start by fishing around a bit.

After you're done fishing, get to your complaint and be assertive. If the staffer tries to bring the conversation off-course, bring it back ... "I'm aware there is no legislation on the table affecting (issue) at the moment, but aren't you working on the budget at the moment, which would affect their funding?" ...

Ask questions when you speak to this person and request that they follow-up with you personally. Sometimes when a staffer tries to drive you into a deadend "ok, will let the senator know your thoughts" -- turn around and ask what is the senator's view? Could you find out and let me know? ... or start talking about oversight with that particular issue. Obviously you can't keep dragging the call on if the staffer wants to drop the topic and dismiss you, but at least you've given it your best shot and hopefully a commitment to get a response on a particular item the individual cannot answer.

That is how I go about handling complaints with my Senators and House Rep.

I take this approach regardless of the issue. I let them know I'm not calling just to get generic form letter back about the issue a few weeks later only to read cookie cutter boilerplate letter that wastes my time, postal service resources, and paper.

SDF_Traveler

Being very honest here, I think there are bigger issues on our elected representatives' plates than gate screening.

But don't get discouraged and not contact congresscritters, I would say just don't get easily discouraged.

As much as the TSA needs to be re-evaluated, it will take time.

I'm not sure if you noticed, but the TSA issues are really only cared about by a small number of very fundamentalist Flyertalk posters. Your average person on FlyerTalk really doesn't care that much about what most people complain about on here. People who post on FlyerTalk represent a very small sample of the traveling public who in turn represent a very small part of the voting public.

Kudos for reaching out to your Senator and being part of the democratic process, but good luck on getting a Senator to really care about this issue. Given that we're drowning in debt, unemployment and facing the worse economic conditions since the great depression, I highly doubt that you'll find a lot of political will to push in the Senate for the repeal of a minor regulation that is an issue for a small subset of a small subset of a small subset of a small subset of the population.

You might want to consider just letting go. The TSA rules have almost no bearing on either my work or personal travel. I'm not sure why it would be different for others.

JUST LET GO????? Are you kidding? Don't you know that the TSA is COMMUNISM, FASCISM, HITLERISM, TOTALITARIANISM, and everything else bad rolled into ONE?????

Seriously, though, General, I agree with you. But, then again, I'm not one of the subset of the subset, of the subset, of the subset ... .

^

Because it doesn't affect us personally, we should just let it go? the reality that TSA is a shameless, wasteful bureaucracy that contributes nothing in the way of increased security over what existed before TSA was created?

There are bigger issues in Washington, but the TSA has wide-ranging impact:
It's expensive.

It humiliates and hassles tourists and business travelers. I live in a city that counts on tourism, so foreign visitors are less likely to come (and spend money) if our airports are so difficult.

The airlines are struggling, and we need to make flying easier.

If more people drive, the risk of auto accident fatalities is higher, and there is potential for adverse environmental impact.

The TSA does affect my personal and business travels: I'm thinking of turning down a job that would involve greater travel. Why? I don't want to deal with the hassles of flying.

I certainly did not expect a senator to read my letter and write a personal response. I DID expect a staffer to say "we're concerned," or "one of many issues we're looking at," or "thanks for your interest--that's not something we want to work on right now." Instead, I got a lengthy form letter about unrelated issues.

You know, you really ought to do a Google search on articles written about the TSA in the media. Specifically, ones on-line that enable user comments.

Sure, some of them are right out of fourth grade. However, there is a large majority of them that share the disdain of the TSA, its "ideas" and its operation.

You make an excellent point about the horrible economic times. Have you ever given thought that the $6 billion spent annually on something the GAO has even said isn't any better than pre-9/11 might be better spent elsewhere?

Speaking of letting things go, if you are so quick to minimize what's said in here and the people who say it, then why do you repeatedly come in here with your sunny disposition? Why don't you consider "letting it go?"

Maybe your senator just hasn't had her bare feet wanded in secondary yet. Be patient. Tell her nothing's wrong, and to keep lining up.

Write back thanking the Senator for her letter but you are confused as nothing in her response addressed your concerns and you now feel that there is another constituent who has received the Senator's answers to your correspondence. Would they please find their file copy of the Senator's reply to you and provide a copy to you.

Don't forget about Senator Feinstein and your Representative. I agree with the other post about actually calling Senator Boxer/Feinstein's office and talking to some one personally, as their offices get hundreds of letters a day and all of their letters are pre-made. You may want to write someone that is on the Senate/House Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, since the TSA is a part of the Department of Homeland Security.

^^

:-::-::-::-::-:

I would further add that, at least it is my impression, that the number of Kettle's commenting on those articles have been increasingly negative towards the TSA & it's security theater, especially over the past year.

So, no general, I don't believe it's just a very small sample of the traveling public that are complaining. It may have been a small sample that has been the most vocal, & for the longest, but as more & more of the general public have come in contact w/the TSA directly (don't forget, the TSA has been trying their darndest to branch out into things like light rail, the Superbowl, & even political events-do a search, there are threads about all of these things right here in this Forum; the light rail even includes video of them in 'action' in PHX!) they are realizing how much of a farce the TSA is & are starting to speak out, even if just in response to articles on-line.

You beat me to it, but I’ve noticed that as well. The “Its okay if it makes us safer” style comments have essentially dried up. With the TSA moving into rail travel, stupid programs like LASP, and things that have nothing to do to with transportation such as BDOs at the Super Bowl, more and more people will get a taste of what the TSA is all about.

I should have also added that even w/in the articles themselves, it's now becoming rare to find a Kettle spouting the 'anything to keep us safe' nonesense, case in point being Thomas Frank's article last week on the gate screening (there's a thread around here somewhere on that w/a link to the article; too early or I'd search for it).

Let's be honest. Most Congressfolk and Senators (other than because of their own air travel) don't give a flying F**k about the "flying public" and the modest percentage of even that minority who find the TSA inconvenient/unjustifiable.

It's the voters at home who sit at the kill switch for Congressional careers, not the "flying public" or the even far smaller group that fly with any frequency.

All it takes to insure a majority of 435 Congressional votes for the TSA is one more replay of the video from 9/11 on the national TV networks. The TSA is one of those inevitable by-products of an iconic event. For a comparison, it took newsreel images of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bomb detonations and the scenes from the deck of MISSOURI to erase from Americans' eyes and psyche those clumsy film recreations of Pearl Harbor. Short of ObL and numerous henchmen strung up in some public square, a la Benito and Clara in Milan, the TSA may be with us always.

The big clue....How many Congress members or Senators are on record, on paper or tape, calling for the dismantling or even major changes to the TSA? Count'em!

And yet, your powerful invectives, often directed AT FTers and their powerlessness against TSA mark you as a strange arbiter of acquiescence. Do you REALLY think it's time to lower our heads and plod on with the Arbeit Macht Frei attitude simply because TSA is some kind of an iron-clad "inevitability?" Methinks I sense despair seeping in around the edges of the erstwhile bombasts.

I suspect that both you and I have too finely tuned our individual irony meters.

I've no problem with legitimate complaints over the TSA or its activities. I do find that the repetitive "bombast" from many here is simply tiresome twaddle, and I relish poking fun at them, their anchor chains stretched to taught that the vibration causes droplets of moisture to effervesce into fine spray. I suspect that were we to take a survey (and gain truthful answers) that probably less than 5% of the loudest complainants have ever bothered to officially complain to a legislator. ....But then, maybe they realize the contents of the response letters.

The fact does remain that few (if any) current or near term prospective Congress members (and only a rarity among potential presidents) would go so far as to alter the TSA's policies, much less vote to dismantle its structure.

TMOliver,
I agree, legislators are not likely to care or notice... unless we continue to speak our minds.

Something is obviously very wrong: we're taking whole-body x-rays of people, then patting them down again to make sure they didn't acquire contraband after that. But we're not screening cargo or airport employees.

As I've thought more about it, I don't agree with "letting go," but I certainly understand that argument. I would like to see 20/20 or 60 Minutes take a look at TSA expenditures, the public humiliation issue, and the absence of evidence or research to support their activities.

TV news--however tabloid--might rally the Kettles and influence policymakers.

For many people, their only routine interactions with the Federal government are the IRS, the TSA, and CBP. If legislators want to garner support, it is in their best interest to protect the public opinion surrounding the agencies with the greatest "customer contact."

When I've talked about my TSA frustrations with friends and neighbors, they are all very much in agreement that the TSA is over the top, they do not like being treated like criminals, and share a sense of humiliation. But they just roll their eyes and try not to think about it. I'd prefer that we try to change it. Interestingly, these opinions transcend political allegiances; my conservative and liberal friends all agree that it's a waste of time and money.

I'm not well-connected in the media or politics, but maybe other FlyerTalkers are.

Therein lies the rub, AND a possible glimmer. TSA turned me INTO a "Kettle" 4 years ago. They are creating a small but vocal group of intellectuals who damn well won't suffer their wandings, gropings and upcoming sweatometers for sincerity residue both pre and post swabbing. This criminal violation of you and me America has just got to stop Somewhere.

I agree with Dr. TMOliver to the point that most won't protest or file complaints. I can and did and will continue to do so until BOREDOM becomes inuring, or until somebody actually HEARS me. Sometimes thin security and/or ticket lines can be a message, but as long as the lines lengthen and the strip-searching is tolerable, there is no message and the insipid chimera will not go away.

So, keep lining up, if you think expediency is akin to wisdom...

Airport security always was expensive. There were screeners, xray equipment, etc, before and they were all expensive too. The security now really isn't much different than security was before 9/11. The only difference I can think of in my actual go through of security is pulling out my freedom baggie and taking off my shoes. Given that both are readily accessible, it doesn't slow me down at all.

Do you seriously think that people in other countries are saying to themselves that they don't want to come to the US because they have to take off their shoes or actually check a bag?? They have to do similar things in their own countries. You should more be focusing on the customs/immigration barriers to entry for tourists than the TSA.

The airlines are struggles are due to their industry not being profitable in the long run, high costs of fuel, equipment, personnel and there being too many companies in the industry. I don't recall reading any recent article where a CEO of an airline was speaking about TSA instead of fuel and recession.

Your biggest concern in a travel job is the TSA? Seriously, it takes me a good 5 minutes to get through security on the way out and way back. My flights are usually 2.5 hours each. I have to live in a hotel and spend hours driving in a rental car. Not to mention that I have to find food, internet, deal with company travel policies and try to somehow fit in time for a workout each day. The implication that the TSA has on my working week is absolutely minimal. The TSA can maybe cause me a 5 minute delay if they decide to do a secondary search on me. That's it. Hertz not having a car available, Hertz giving me a crappy car, $20 hotel buffets, my flight being late, being stuck on the tarmac, weather, forgetting something at home, wanting to be home with friends/relatives, my hotel room not being nice, etc, etc, all are far more of an issue for me than the TSA.

Traveling for work, quite frankly, sucks, but it's the nature of the beast for many jobs. The TSA has almost no ability to ruin my week. Working 16 hours a day, eating unhealthy food and having no work/life balance are far, far, far worse than anything the TSA can do.

I would seriously spend a lot more time considering the potential company's travel policy than the TSA. It's rather easy to find 3oz travel sized toiletries. Having to book the cheapest flight even if it's a 3 hop and staying in a Motel 6 are your bigger concerns.

Sorry you're disappointed in your Senator. I haven't written one, but perhaps they made note of the issue and sent a generic response. You might have gotten just that no matter what you wrote about.

Sigh. I rest my case.

Last year close to $7 billion was spent by the TSA. How much was spent on airport security in 2001?


Actually, I do hear from family and friends in Europe how they spend their vacation euros in places other than the States to avoid the TSA/CBP nonsense.


I’m sorry to hear you hate travelling.

Perhaps you can have the person who first brought up the cost issue get busy with that. I see little difference in security now and before 9/11. I doubt that the costs are excessively different.

Your people don't want to come here because of TSA/CBP or do you really mean CBP? What they go through with TSA is more or less the same as what they go through at home, so how possibly could that be a deterrence to them visiting. You might have a valid point about CBP, but you really don't with the TSA.

Why would you be sorry that I hate traveling for work?

Why? For someone who likens himself as an intellectual, you really don't do a good job of getting your point across. Have fun with your protest and let me know when the boredom has become too much for you.

The above from boingboing.com

from andrewlih.com

American Hotel and Lodging Association

Actually, as has been documented here pretty thoroughly in the past, the Shoe Carnival & War on Water are limited to flights to/from/within the US.

I agree that the hysteria that has taken over the country during the past nearly 8 years w/re: to immigration has made it equally discouraging for foreign visitors trying to come to this country, but add the 2 together, &, again, as has been documented in other threads, the overall number of visitors to the US has plunged.

And no, I don't 'feel' the least bit safer because of it. I am sad & ashamed that this is what my country has turned into.

I've never been to NZ, but I have been to Australia. I found the customs there more or less the same as that in USA, Canada and places in Europe. Of course, in Australia, you do have the extra baggage search for extra items. Oddly, I didn't see a customs agent offering to carry my bags for me. They were too busy doing their jobs. I'm not sure exactly what the point is in your paste of boingboing or entirely how it is relevant to the debate.

In terms of the other article that you pasted since you seem unable to come up with your own opinions, the person who wrote it is really not representing the truth.

The liquids ban is in place in China as well.

http://www.airchina.com.au/en/manage...on/liquid.html

Whoever wrote that article really should give up blogging. The liquids ban isn't the barrier for people visiting the US. It's more the immigration issue and that isn't the responsibility of the TSA.

Nice try though. Next time, why not write your own opinions instead of pasting those of others.

Thegeneral,
You're right. I do spend more time talking or whining about the TSA than actually dealing with them.

But the interactions I do have are often disturbing.

Not to rehash all of our collective frustrations, but it's the barking, the waiting in line, the drawn-out ID inspection, getting a random search at the checkpoint and AGAIN ten minutes later at the gate. Unless there is a delay, the TSA is the most time-consuming part of the airport experience.

It is somewhat dependent on which airport and which checkpoint you use. I have had some "glide through" TSA experiences. But with the ramp-up in random secondaries and gate searches, this becomes less likely.

Point is, General, even boredom beats the holy hell out of relinquishing my constitutional rights to anyone. For any reason. Any time.

Period.

At least that's what I believe.

You?

I guess you didn't look hard enough and this really explains the nature of all of your posts as a TSA/CBP cheerleader.

I'm a dual US/Australian citizen. In Australia I'm welcomed home by the immigration officer. In the US, I generally deal with an assclown holier than thou CBP idiot. From these experiences, I can only guess how much worse it is for non-citizens.

In Australia, I can board a domestic flight without removing my shoes, showing ID, or having to leave my dangerous liquids behind. Why? Because they are not credible threats. Australia gets it.

Here’s a start. I’m sure someone has some more complete figures on what was spent on security in 2000 (which should be a more accurate comparison than 2001):

Linkage

In their eyes of a traveler from outside the States, what’s the difference? The end result is the same if you have government employees with badges at airports with poor customer service skills. There’s plenty of vacation destinations in the world where one can go without being barked at, the Shoe Carnival, the War on Liquids, etc.

I guess my take on it is that a lot of folks here still enjoy travel. Like me though, the TSA is really taking the fun out of the game.

It's not just that. It's the fact that funding TSA adds more $$$ to the growing federal deficit, and produces nothing in the way of real security over and above what was in place before TSA.

I'm not a TSA cheerleader. I just think it's stupid how people make one sided arguments. They ..... about the limits of the liquid ban, but they don't stop to realize that they would be .....ing more if there were no solid guidelines. You call them on this and then they bring up their overall issues with the liquids ban. This, of course, almost always has nothing to do with the argument at hand.

I don't recall exactly how I was greeted in Australia. That said, plenty of people I know find Canadian customs and immigration worse than that of the USA. I have gone through customs in Europe once this year and I don't recall them asking me politely if I wouldn't mind if I could bend over so they could kiss my backside. I don't recall them doing this in Japan when I was there. Going through customs and immigration is a serious matter. I go through customs in the US about 20 times a year. I've yet to have had a problem with crossing ever.

Australia gets it? I guess the US and the EU and various other countries don't. Then again, I couldn't use my phone when I landed in Australia and had to spend an hour going through an invasive species screening. The folks there wouldn't even give me, "that's not a knife, that's a knife", "throw another shrimp on the barbie" or a few rounds of Waltzing Matilda. Of course, I didn't want or expect that. I wanted them to do their job just as they do stateside or in other border crossings.

The difference is rather elementary. They go through the same screening process when flying ANYWHERE as they do here. The immigration is the difference. Think back to Sesame Street and, "One of these things is not like the other".

They can go ahead and fly somewhere else of course, but if they're in Europe, they deal with the same thing pre-boarding. Of course, it's not called TSA just something else.

Having to take off your shoes and put your toiletries in a bag is ruining travel for you? :rolleyes:

Disturbing? Such as what? Do they take you in a closed room and make you dissect kittens or something? What exactly is it that's distrubing? That' 10 seconds of taking off your shoes and removing your liquids? That's what bothers most people on here. Of course, they have to call it a shoe carnival and war on liquids in order to make it sound like something far worse than it is.

There was id inspection before 9/11. The random searches as the checkpoint are few and far in between. The searches at the gate even more rare. The odds of getting both have to be at most 1/1000. That's what, 500 trips?

In terms of the delays, you're flying out of SFO, they do have elite lines. If you don't fly enough to actually even get a basic elite status, why even bother posting on a website devoted to flying? Going through security now doesn't take much longer than it did before. Certainly, airline volumes and loads were very high for a while, but people always had to go through security. Somehow, people forget that.

By the way, the drawn out ID inspection is rarely a rate taking step. The drawn out part involves shining an ultra-violet light on my boarding pass. The id inspection at a strip club takes longer.

Things might be dependent on your airport, but in having a quick look at the regional forums, I don't see people .....ing about gates in their airport, but they come in here and feel that it's great to come in here.

Thus far this year I've gone through security in MXP, SEA, EWR, LAX, SAN, SFO, BUR, MSP, MCO, DEN and a slew of other airports. I don't recall either one taking more than five or ten minutes. The vast majority are in the <5 category.

Seems to me that it's "thegeneral" who doesn't get it.

Why doesn't this statement surprise me?

Well, not in most countries they don't.. But everytime a flight is to/from the US they have to check and double check everything. All these 'extra' security measurements originated from the US.

However, as I said, most countries do not have extremely 'thorough' check like gateway cities.. And it's much more friendlier and nicer than those of the USA.. Even in Changi!

Now, from my stand point; I don't really care about the security checks and what not, but sometimes the attitude is unbearable. I remember one time I was just asking a question and got barked at by TSA and the 'glare' got me scared.. That time was my first outbound trip alone from the US back to Indonesia and well, got treated like that really made me put on a defensive mode everytime I wanted to ask a TSA officer.

As a student that goes home twice a year and have moderate domestic flights inside the US, it's just hard keeping up with tight TSA security and so on.. Perhaps I might not understand why things are as is.. But I know very well that it's nicer flying in my home country and almost in any other countries that does not implement a very paranoid policy like the USA..

I'm a gold frequent flyer, and I do use the elite lines. But I'd like to think that anyone is welcome to post here. We welcome everyone's point of view.