Confessions of a Security Manager
Apr 27, 2009 | 1:35 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 145
Confessions of a Security Manager
Hello,
I have made one post, and thought about making others. But each time I hesitated because I wanted to make an introductory post first. Well here goes. I am not going to tell you which airport I work at because I want to be honest here. Part of my job is to represent the TSA in a positive light. I have First Amendment rights the same as anyone else, however I do not wish to make public criticism of the organization to undermine my effectiveness.
I am a Security Manager. I work at a large airport, but I have had experience at much smaller airports. I started with TSA six and half years ago as one of the contract employees who transferred into the federal system. I only worked for the private company for a few months after September 11. I was hired as a basic screener, and worked my way up to Security Manager.
I know that many of you have proposed that TSA be privatized. My personal experience with TSA has been uniformly better than working with the private company. The federal government does have its faults (and I am not afraid to speak about those faults), but I can tell you that every part of my experience of working with the private company was worse than compared to the federal government. The management was incompetent, my co-workers were of lower quality, as an organization we treated customers terribly, and we performed security inadequately.
TSA has been better. The people I am surrounded by are more literate, better teammates, and much more professional than the ones I worked with in the private sector. TSA has not been the perfect employer, and we have made some mistakes. I have had some opportunities to move on, one of the things that has kept me with TSA has been that we have done better each year.
My biggest concern is that the TSA hasn't quite decided upon the correct level of security that we will provide and how to provide it in an airport environment. Many of our policies seem to assume that the we are going to ensure zero risk of terrorist attacks against aviation. But we also want commercial aviation to thrive and to have as little public criticism as possible. Simultaneously we have developed a fear about releasing any information to the public because we have convinced ourselves that releasing any amount of information into the public sector creates a vulnerability.
My own view is that I agree that aviation is different than other forms of transportation, that it has been targeted by terrorists from the beginning. Another terrorist attack would devastate the country. But you can't create risk free systems that serve millions of people each year. Trying to do so creates an attitude among screeners that accepts short cuts and outright violations of policy. That becomes necessary because if screeners followed every policy each time then no one would get through the airport.
Some examples of what I mean. The SOP requires that shoes be placed sole down on the belt without anything inside of them in order to get the best X-Ray image. Many passengers like stuffing things inside their shoes or want to jam all of their belongings into one bin. At some airports, screeners will rigorously adhere to the TSA standard and separate passenger items so that the X-Ray operator gets the best image possible. However at any particular airport, many X-Ray operators or loaders ignore the requirement. And the reason is that at the largest airports or at the busiest times, TSA screeners could spend all of their time and energy just rearranging passenger bins. And the result would be that passenger throughput would slow to a crawl.
I could spend the rest of this post citing examples. For example, there is an 18 page checklist that the TSA uses to assess screeners on hand wanding. TSA employees often argue about policy because the word choice is convoluted and can be interpreted different ways. I was at a meeting of managers last year from different airports and in an informal gathering several of my peers argued at length about whether an X-Ray operator was required to call a bag check on liquids in containers less than 3.4 ounces that was identified inside of a bag. One of the policymakers who wrote the SOP section on this subject gave his opinion only to be overuled by someone else on the policy side. The organization spent millions of dollars to offer new "Engage!" training to officers which "empowered" them to make decisions only to fail to codify that training into official policy. As a result many officers feel that they have the authority to prohibit anything they individually think is dangerous and allow anything they think is not a threat. And many other screeners who read policy come to directly opposite conclusions.
Another criticism that I would make is that our personnel policies do not fulfill the organization's mission. Specifically the agency should make an effort to put it's best and brightest on the frontlines. We should design incentives around switching to the busiest areas. More of the organization's resources should be devoted to high traffic times and to busy airports. Not so much because busy areas should receive a higher level of security, but that it is harder to enforce a consistent level of security in areas or at times of higher traffic.
Instead those areas become ghettoes. At my airport, new officers are encouraged to do a good job so that they can move into more desirable locations. The organization has been obsessed with creating specialized teams that cherry pick the best screeners from the frontlines. Every few weeks my airport selects new officers to become BDOs or ADASP screeners. Inevitably they select my best screeners and leave checkpoint screeners who are poor performers or who have poor customer service skills.
The problem is nationwide. Smaller airports are much more desirable to work at, the work is much less intense. And many (not all) of these airports are located in areas that have a low cost of living. And there are much more of these airports than the larger airports that serve the most customers. And each of these small airports has an FSD who is lobbying for greater resources that compete with the larger airports.
In my opinion, the consequence of these problems is that the TSA provides an inconsistent level of security. The busier the area, the lower the standard of service and security that the agency provides.
Castro Benes
I have made one post, and thought about making others. But each time I hesitated because I wanted to make an introductory post first. Well here goes. I am not going to tell you which airport I work at because I want to be honest here. Part of my job is to represent the TSA in a positive light. I have First Amendment rights the same as anyone else, however I do not wish to make public criticism of the organization to undermine my effectiveness.
I am a Security Manager. I work at a large airport, but I have had experience at much smaller airports. I started with TSA six and half years ago as one of the contract employees who transferred into the federal system. I only worked for the private company for a few months after September 11. I was hired as a basic screener, and worked my way up to Security Manager.
I know that many of you have proposed that TSA be privatized. My personal experience with TSA has been uniformly better than working with the private company. The federal government does have its faults (and I am not afraid to speak about those faults), but I can tell you that every part of my experience of working with the private company was worse than compared to the federal government. The management was incompetent, my co-workers were of lower quality, as an organization we treated customers terribly, and we performed security inadequately.
TSA has been better. The people I am surrounded by are more literate, better teammates, and much more professional than the ones I worked with in the private sector. TSA has not been the perfect employer, and we have made some mistakes. I have had some opportunities to move on, one of the things that has kept me with TSA has been that we have done better each year.
My biggest concern is that the TSA hasn't quite decided upon the correct level of security that we will provide and how to provide it in an airport environment. Many of our policies seem to assume that the we are going to ensure zero risk of terrorist attacks against aviation. But we also want commercial aviation to thrive and to have as little public criticism as possible. Simultaneously we have developed a fear about releasing any information to the public because we have convinced ourselves that releasing any amount of information into the public sector creates a vulnerability.
My own view is that I agree that aviation is different than other forms of transportation, that it has been targeted by terrorists from the beginning. Another terrorist attack would devastate the country. But you can't create risk free systems that serve millions of people each year. Trying to do so creates an attitude among screeners that accepts short cuts and outright violations of policy. That becomes necessary because if screeners followed every policy each time then no one would get through the airport.
Some examples of what I mean. The SOP requires that shoes be placed sole down on the belt without anything inside of them in order to get the best X-Ray image. Many passengers like stuffing things inside their shoes or want to jam all of their belongings into one bin. At some airports, screeners will rigorously adhere to the TSA standard and separate passenger items so that the X-Ray operator gets the best image possible. However at any particular airport, many X-Ray operators or loaders ignore the requirement. And the reason is that at the largest airports or at the busiest times, TSA screeners could spend all of their time and energy just rearranging passenger bins. And the result would be that passenger throughput would slow to a crawl.
I could spend the rest of this post citing examples. For example, there is an 18 page checklist that the TSA uses to assess screeners on hand wanding. TSA employees often argue about policy because the word choice is convoluted and can be interpreted different ways. I was at a meeting of managers last year from different airports and in an informal gathering several of my peers argued at length about whether an X-Ray operator was required to call a bag check on liquids in containers less than 3.4 ounces that was identified inside of a bag. One of the policymakers who wrote the SOP section on this subject gave his opinion only to be overuled by someone else on the policy side. The organization spent millions of dollars to offer new "Engage!" training to officers which "empowered" them to make decisions only to fail to codify that training into official policy. As a result many officers feel that they have the authority to prohibit anything they individually think is dangerous and allow anything they think is not a threat. And many other screeners who read policy come to directly opposite conclusions.
Another criticism that I would make is that our personnel policies do not fulfill the organization's mission. Specifically the agency should make an effort to put it's best and brightest on the frontlines. We should design incentives around switching to the busiest areas. More of the organization's resources should be devoted to high traffic times and to busy airports. Not so much because busy areas should receive a higher level of security, but that it is harder to enforce a consistent level of security in areas or at times of higher traffic.
Instead those areas become ghettoes. At my airport, new officers are encouraged to do a good job so that they can move into more desirable locations. The organization has been obsessed with creating specialized teams that cherry pick the best screeners from the frontlines. Every few weeks my airport selects new officers to become BDOs or ADASP screeners. Inevitably they select my best screeners and leave checkpoint screeners who are poor performers or who have poor customer service skills.
The problem is nationwide. Smaller airports are much more desirable to work at, the work is much less intense. And many (not all) of these airports are located in areas that have a low cost of living. And there are much more of these airports than the larger airports that serve the most customers. And each of these small airports has an FSD who is lobbying for greater resources that compete with the larger airports.
In my opinion, the consequence of these problems is that the TSA provides an inconsistent level of security. The busier the area, the lower the standard of service and security that the agency provides.
Castro Benes
Apr 27, 2009 | 1:46 pm
#2
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Finally back in Boston after escaping from New York
Posts: 13,684
Hi Castro Benes! Welcome to FT! We are always happy to have TSOs here. Please note that the abuse you will take is nothing personal. 
What you have described is what frustrates us. I think everyone here would agree that we need some level of security at the airport. I think we would also agree that there are parts of the TSA that have potential, but the organization has been mismanaged into the ground, potentially beyond repair.
Airline traffic certainly is different, but hijackings aren't nearly as much of a threat as they were before 9/11. Between the reinforced cockpit doors and the fact that passengers will no longer sit back with hijackers on board, we're probably done for now on airplanes.
Okay, the frustration: It is impossible to be 100% safe. Risk-management is what we should be striving for, not risk-avoidance. It is certainly impossible to do it without trampling all over the Constitution. And the lack of consistency from the killer clowns at the top is being written off as being done on purpose to mess with the terrorists. Yeah, right.
In any case, we hope that you will continue to post, remember that IJAFIBB and let us know what you hear.
Mike
What you have described is what frustrates us. I think everyone here would agree that we need some level of security at the airport. I think we would also agree that there are parts of the TSA that have potential, but the organization has been mismanaged into the ground, potentially beyond repair.
Airline traffic certainly is different, but hijackings aren't nearly as much of a threat as they were before 9/11. Between the reinforced cockpit doors and the fact that passengers will no longer sit back with hijackers on board, we're probably done for now on airplanes.
Okay, the frustration: It is impossible to be 100% safe. Risk-management is what we should be striving for, not risk-avoidance. It is certainly impossible to do it without trampling all over the Constitution. And the lack of consistency from the killer clowns at the top is being written off as being done on purpose to mess with the terrorists. Yeah, right.
In any case, we hope that you will continue to post, remember that IJAFIBB and let us know what you hear.
Mike
Apr 27, 2009 | 1:47 pm
#3
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
Thanks for the post, Castro.
I do have one issue:
The problem is, the very things you say about private security are the very things we say are wrong with TSA. I see generally incompetent management (especially at the senior levels), low quality workers, and TSA treats the general public terribly. I also think that overall, TSA doesn't provide security.
While the private security in the past may or may not have been adequate, I don't really see it as any different than what we have now. It just costs more. A lot more. It's become a lot more invasive too.
Some airports are already privatized. While they generally have to enforce TSA's rules, they seem to fare better in actual results and seem to have more accountability vs. TSA.
Super
I do have one issue:
I know that many of you have proposed that TSA be privatized. My personal experience with TSA has been uniformly better than working with the private company. The federal government does have its faults (and I am not afraid to speak about those faults), but I can tell you that every part of my experience of working with the private company was worse than compared to the federal government. The management was incompetent, my co-workers were of lower quality, as an organization we treated customers terribly, and we performed security inadequately.
While the private security in the past may or may not have been adequate, I don't really see it as any different than what we have now. It just costs more. A lot more. It's become a lot more invasive too.
Some airports are already privatized. While they generally have to enforce TSA's rules, they seem to fare better in actual results and seem to have more accountability vs. TSA.
Super
Apr 27, 2009 | 2:32 pm
#4
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 239
Excellent introduction, castrobenes. I'm sure you will be a welcome addition here. In my opinion, you have offered a clear, well-written explanation of some of the issues at TSA. A few thoughts:
It is good to see someone in management who started as a basic screener. As a manager, I would think this experience would give you a better understanding of the overall needs and operational realities in TSA. Have you found your experience as a screener to be helpful? Have you found your perspective to be different from others in management who do not have the "ground-up" experience?
I would like to hear how you would change personnel practices to address this issue. I think you provided a good, succinct explanation of the personnel issues, but I think it's a little more difficult to come up with changes to actually address the issue. I've been involved in a few discussions of TSA's personnel practices in the workplace, and I'd like to hear your take on the issue.
I am a Security Manager. I work at a large airport, but I have had experience at much smaller airports. I started with TSA six and half years ago as one of the contract employees who transferred into the federal system. I only worked for the private company for a few months after September 11. I was hired as a basic screener, and worked my way up to Security Manager.
Another criticism that I would make is that our personnel policies do not fulfill the organization's mission. Specifically the agency should make an effort to put it's best and brightest on the frontlines. We should design incentives around switching to the busiest areas. More of the organization's resources should be devoted to high traffic times and to busy airports. Not so much because busy areas should receive a higher level of security, but that it is harder to enforce a consistent level of security in areas or at times of higher traffic.
Instead those areas become ghettoes. At my airport, new officers are encouraged to do a good job so that they can move into more desirable locations. The organization has been obsessed with creating specialized teams that cherry pick the best screeners from the frontlines. Every few weeks my airport selects new officers to become BDOs or ADASP screeners. Inevitably they select my best screeners and leave checkpoint screeners who are poor performers or who have poor customer service skills.
Instead those areas become ghettoes. At my airport, new officers are encouraged to do a good job so that they can move into more desirable locations. The organization has been obsessed with creating specialized teams that cherry pick the best screeners from the frontlines. Every few weeks my airport selects new officers to become BDOs or ADASP screeners. Inevitably they select my best screeners and leave checkpoint screeners who are poor performers or who have poor customer service skills.
Apr 27, 2009 | 2:38 pm
#5
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 145
Thanks for the post, Castro.
I do have one issue:
The problem is, the very things you say about private security are the very things we say are wrong with TSA. I see generally incompetent management (especially at the senior levels), low quality workers, and TSA treats the general public terribly. I also think that overall, TSA doesn't provide security.
While the private security in the past may or may not have been adequate, I don't really see it as any different than what we have now. It just costs more. A lot more. It's become a lot more invasive too.
Some airports are already privatized. While they generally have to enforce TSA's rules, they seem to fare better in actual results and seem to have more accountability vs. TSA.
Super
I do have one issue:
The problem is, the very things you say about private security are the very things we say are wrong with TSA. I see generally incompetent management (especially at the senior levels), low quality workers, and TSA treats the general public terribly. I also think that overall, TSA doesn't provide security.
While the private security in the past may or may not have been adequate, I don't really see it as any different than what we have now. It just costs more. A lot more. It's become a lot more invasive too.
Some airports are already privatized. While they generally have to enforce TSA's rules, they seem to fare better in actual results and seem to have more accountability vs. TSA.
Super
I know that there are a few privatized airports. I am skeptical that their success will necessarily result in a better passenger experience. The current model is that the airport director chooses to opt out and a private contractor approved by TSA hires the same screeners according to the same standards. TSA policies that you disagree with also won't go away because an airport is privatized.
There was a lot of worry about this program in the screener ranks a few years ago. Almost no airport managers chose to opt out. I think that the airport managers are happy that they don't have to deal with screening. All complaints or screening issues currently get referred to TSA management. Any complaints with a private contractor would get bounced around through another layer.
Another worry is that privatized airports may lose out to federalized airports in terms of resource competition. The few airports that are privatized now are loss leaders for the contractors, they are investing money hoping to get more airports. But if I was an airport manager I would worry that my airport would not be first in line for federal resources that get directed to TSA screeners.
Finally a privatized airport would be vulnerable to labor unrest in ways that a federalized airport is not. According to ATSA, you can't simply hire screeners off the street. They have to be assessed, and trained according to TSA standards. If federal screeners ever went on strike at one airport, they would lose their jobs and replacement screeners would be flown in immediately. I do not know what the law is about private screeners, but I would not want to be the airport director who abandoned TSA asking for federal help after the private contractor I brought in went on strike.
The private contractor I worked for saved money by cutting corners. We never had enough gloves or other supplies. When the manager perceived that volume was low, he sent people home without pay. Good people quit and ones who couldn't find a better job stayed.
Castro Benes
Apr 27, 2009 | 2:44 pm
#6
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Somewhere near BWI
Programs: DL DM, HH Dia, SPG Gold, MR Plat, Hertz PC
Posts: 3,654
Some examples of what I mean. The SOP requires that shoes be placed sole down on the belt without anything inside of them in order to get the best X-Ray image. Many passengers like stuffing things inside their shoes or want to jam all of their belongings into one bin. At some airports, screeners will rigorously adhere to the TSA standard and separate passenger items so that the X-Ray operator gets the best image possible. However at any particular airport, many X-Ray operators or loaders ignore the requirement. And the reason is that at the largest airports or at the busiest times, TSA screeners could spend all of their time and energy just rearranging passenger bins. And the result would be that passenger throughput would slow to a crawl.
The emphasized point above is just one of many reasons why folks on this forum complain, almost constantly and vigorously, about the judicious need for TSA to finally get off of their collective asses and post the ACTUAL RULES/REGULATIONS regarding passenger transit of a TSA C/P. This SOP is yet another non-public item that drives me nuts, since it is, as you noted, not applied consistently. I do have an issue with it, for various reasons:
- I have been known to place my credentials inside of my shoes, as it keeps then out of the general view when the items are on the conveyor
- If I am wearing a jacket, I will conserve space by placing my shoes ON TOP of my jacket within a single bin
- I have witnessed TSOs placing their hands inside of my shoes, and those of other passengers, to move them or remove items WITHOUT gaining consent or providing notification to the person to whom the item belongs
How is it that removing something from shoes does not garner the same response as needing to re-screen a bag. In those cases, a TSO, usually (although I will admit to using that word very loosely), will ask who owns the bag in question and advise the reason for either going into the bag or re-scanning it. Not that they don't give a crap-@ss attitude about it most of the time (case in point, my home airport and C/P - BWI C pier).
Publishing a list of rules, instead of constantly hiding behind the flimsy and absurd notion of SSI (how a law/regulation that applies to US Citizens can be considered Constitutional when it is hidden is beyond me) every time someone asks about clarification, would go a LONG way to improving relations with the public your organization serves. While I realize that you are not in a place to legally post a great deal of information, due to the asinine rules regarding the BS unofficial classification level of SSI, you are in a position to make these types of complaints known to the upper management levels. It is my sincere hope that you take comments/complaints from the public seriously and do pass them on, rather than just sending them to File 13 like it appears happens with these items within the rest of the TSA management structure.
Apr 27, 2009 | 2:49 pm
#7
Moderator: Hyatt Gold Passport & Star Alliance
Join Date: May 1998
Location: London, UK
Programs: UA-1K 3MM/HY- LT Globalist/BA-GGLfL
Posts: 12,760
I think what is really needed is the risk based concept which many of us apply in our professional lives being applied at airport.
Explain why I had to endure the idiotic secondary check at the gate today when I had sailed through the inspection at the entrance? When challenged the screener simply said it was 'layered security' and that some passengers had not started their trips at this airport. Of course there was no answer when I pointed out that these passengers had been screened by the TSA at their originating airport and after all this they checked one bag, the smallest.
That seems to be the theme of the TSA, rude arrogant screeners under a management that has no idea about proper security.
Explain why I had to endure the idiotic secondary check at the gate today when I had sailed through the inspection at the entrance? When challenged the screener simply said it was 'layered security' and that some passengers had not started their trips at this airport. Of course there was no answer when I pointed out that these passengers had been screened by the TSA at their originating airport and after all this they checked one bag, the smallest.
That seems to be the theme of the TSA, rude arrogant screeners under a management that has no idea about proper security.
Apr 27, 2009 | 2:50 pm
#8
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: CLT
Programs: Choice Hotels/FFOCUS
Posts: 7,259
One question for you that another TSO would not answer. Please explain why liquids are dangerous & how they can be made into a bomb on a plane ?
Ques is for Castro Benes
This ones for you Spiff^^^
Last edited by coachrowsey; Apr 27, 2009 at 2:51 pm Reason: add last line
Apr 27, 2009 | 3:03 pm
#9
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
I know that there are a few privatized airports. I am skeptical that their success will necessarily result in a better passenger experience. The current model is that the airport director chooses to opt out and a private contractor approved by TSA hires the same screeners according to the same standards. TSA policies that you disagree with also won't go away because an airport is privatized.
There was a lot of worry about this program in the screener ranks a few years ago. Almost no airport managers chose to opt out. I think that the airport managers are happy that they don't have to deal with screening. All complaints or screening issues currently get referred to TSA management. Any complaints with a private contractor would get bounced around through another layer.
Another worry is that privatized airports may lose out to federalized airports in terms of resource competition. The few airports that are privatized now are loss leaders for the contractors, they are investing money hoping to get more airports. But if I was an airport manager I would worry that my airport would not be first in line for federal resources that get directed to TSA screeners.
As far as screening goes, though, I'm not sure of the style of contract used, but I would imagine it being more of a cost-plus type so contractors could still have the same resources as TSA. They'd be really stupid to do it on a firm fixed price.
Finally a privatized airport would be vulnerable to labor unrest in ways that a federalized airport is not. According to ATSA, you can't simply hire screeners off the street. They have to be assessed, and trained according to TSA standards. If federal screeners ever went on strike at one airport, they would lose their jobs and replacement screeners would be flown in immediately. I do not know what the law is about private screeners, but I would not want to be the airport director who abandoned TSA asking for federal help after the private contractor I brought in went on strike.
On the flipside of the coin, private contractors should have more flexibility in firing bad apples and as a company, should have more accountability to the government. We clearly see that TSA rarely, if ever, lets go of bad apples. Many people see the same jerks badgering the public week after week despite complaints. Firing in the federal government isn't an easy thing to accomplish. A private screener wouldn't have those issues and should be able to hold its employees accoutable much more easily. Additionally, if a company does a bad job, TSA would have means of sanctioning the contractor, either thru penalties, cancelling the contract for breach, or simply not awarding it to the incumbent when it comes up for recompete. If anything, it gives the contractors more incentive to perform acceptably. We don't have any of that kind of accountability with TSA. If TSA performs badly - oh well. Kip didn't care.
The private contractor I worked for saved money by cutting corners. We never had enough gloves or other supplies. When the manager perceived that volume was low, he sent people home without pay. Good people quit and ones who couldn't find a better job stayed.
Apr 27, 2009 | 3:26 pm
#10
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 145
Excellent introduction, castrobenes. I'm sure you will be a welcome addition here. In my opinion, you have offered a clear, well-written explanation of some of the issues at TSA. A few thoughts:
It is good to see someone in management who started as a basic screener. As a manager, I would think this experience would give you a better understanding of the overall needs and operational realities in TSA. Have you found your experience as a screener to be helpful? Have you found your perspective to be different from others in management who do not have the "ground-up" experience?
I would like to hear how you would change personnel practices to address this issue. I think you provided a good, succinct explanation of the personnel issues, but I think it's a little more difficult to come up with changes to actually address the issue. I've been involved in a few discussions of TSA's personnel practices in the workplace, and I'd like to hear your take on the issue.
It is good to see someone in management who started as a basic screener. As a manager, I would think this experience would give you a better understanding of the overall needs and operational realities in TSA. Have you found your experience as a screener to be helpful? Have you found your perspective to be different from others in management who do not have the "ground-up" experience?
I would like to hear how you would change personnel practices to address this issue. I think you provided a good, succinct explanation of the personnel issues, but I think it's a little more difficult to come up with changes to actually address the issue. I've been involved in a few discussions of TSA's personnel practices in the workplace, and I'd like to hear your take on the issue.
I think that my experience as a screener is essential to everything I do as a manager. I work with a few managers and my direct supervisor who never screened. Some things come naturally to me because of my floor experience that they just don't get.
For example my boss came up with a plan to reorganize the checkpoint last month. He thought it would allow us to concentrate our staffing better. But I had to point out that it wouldn't work because he had increased the number of stationary positions that couldn't be walked away from. A simple thing, but someone with screening experience understood it right away. I can also see through screener BS better than manager's who don't have that experience.
I have a lot of policy recommendations. I will make them in other posts so as to not clog up this thread. However I can tell you that I would end the BDO program (and other specialized teams) as a separate entity and incorporate some of the training into passenger screening training. I would pay more to work at high traffic airports. I would insist on a physical fitness standard for screening officers.
I would require that the promotion process includes service at high traffic airports. I would alter the federal leave policies so that they were specifically designed for the TSA. We need to stop pretending we are office workers, and acknowledge we work in the travel industry.
Castro Benes
Apr 27, 2009 | 3:50 pm
#11
Join Date: May 2005
Location: MIA/SJU/MCO
Programs: AA LT PLT; DL GLD, UA nothing, B6 Mosaic; Emerald Club Executive
Posts: 3,333
2 1/2 questions.
#1- regarding Passport Cards and TWIC cards (both of which I have). Have the screeners at your airport been trained in what these are and that they are indeed valid for domestic air travel?
#1B- in addition, that a passport book is acceptable for domestic air travel
#2- Flying domestically with $10k in cash is not illegal... and you guys aren't DEA or LEO's. What's the big deal?
#1- regarding Passport Cards and TWIC cards (both of which I have). Have the screeners at your airport been trained in what these are and that they are indeed valid for domestic air travel?
#1B- in addition, that a passport book is acceptable for domestic air travel
#2- Flying domestically with $10k in cash is not illegal... and you guys aren't DEA or LEO's. What's the big deal?
Apr 27, 2009 | 3:54 pm
#12
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: washington dc
Programs: ual, aa, hertz, starwood, hilton
Posts: 398
i can tell you that i would end the bdo program (and other specialized teams) as a separate entity and incorporate some of the training into passenger screening training.
I would pay more to work at high traffic airports.
I would insist on a physical fitness standard for screening officers.
I would require that the promotion process includes service at high traffic airports.
I would alter the federal leave policies so that they were specifically designed for the tsa. We need to stop pretending we are office workers, and acknowledge we work in the travel industry.
Castro benes
I would pay more to work at high traffic airports.
I would insist on a physical fitness standard for screening officers.
I would require that the promotion process includes service at high traffic airports.
I would alter the federal leave policies so that they were specifically designed for the tsa. We need to stop pretending we are office workers, and acknowledge we work in the travel industry.
Castro benes
^^
^^^
^^^^
^^^^^!
Apr 27, 2009 | 3:55 pm
#13
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 145
Welcome to FT.
The emphasized point above is just one of many reasons why folks on this forum complain, almost constantly and vigorously, about the judicious need for TSA to finally get off of their collective asses and post the ACTUAL RULES/REGULATIONS regarding passenger transit of a TSA C/P. This SOP is yet another non-public item that drives me nuts, since it is, as you noted, not applied consistently. I do have an issue with it, for various reasons:
How is it that removing something from shoes does not garner the same response as needing to re-screen a bag. In those cases, a TSO, usually (although I will admit to using that word very loosely), will ask who owns the bag in question and advise the reason for either going into the bag or re-scanning it. Not that they don't give a crap-@ss attitude about it most of the time (case in point, my home airport and C/P - BWI C pier).
Publishing a list of rules, instead of constantly hiding behind the flimsy and absurd notion of SSI (how a law/regulation that applies to US Citizens can be considered Constitutional when it is hidden is beyond me) every time someone asks about clarification, would go a LONG way to improving relations with the public your organization serves. While I realize that you are not in a place to legally post a great deal of information, due to the asinine rules regarding the BS unofficial classification level of SSI, you are in a position to make these types of complaints known to the upper management levels. It is my sincere hope that you take comments/complaints from the public seriously and do pass them on, rather than just sending them to File 13 like it appears happens with these items within the rest of the TSA management structure.
The emphasized point above is just one of many reasons why folks on this forum complain, almost constantly and vigorously, about the judicious need for TSA to finally get off of their collective asses and post the ACTUAL RULES/REGULATIONS regarding passenger transit of a TSA C/P. This SOP is yet another non-public item that drives me nuts, since it is, as you noted, not applied consistently. I do have an issue with it, for various reasons:
- I have been known to place my credentials inside of my shoes, as it keeps then out of the general view when the items are on the conveyor
- If I am wearing a jacket, I will conserve space by placing my shoes ON TOP of my jacket within a single bin
- I have witnessed TSOs placing their hands inside of my shoes, and those of other passengers, to move them or remove items WITHOUT gaining consent or providing notification to the person to whom the item belongs
How is it that removing something from shoes does not garner the same response as needing to re-screen a bag. In those cases, a TSO, usually (although I will admit to using that word very loosely), will ask who owns the bag in question and advise the reason for either going into the bag or re-scanning it. Not that they don't give a crap-@ss attitude about it most of the time (case in point, my home airport and C/P - BWI C pier).
Publishing a list of rules, instead of constantly hiding behind the flimsy and absurd notion of SSI (how a law/regulation that applies to US Citizens can be considered Constitutional when it is hidden is beyond me) every time someone asks about clarification, would go a LONG way to improving relations with the public your organization serves. While I realize that you are not in a place to legally post a great deal of information, due to the asinine rules regarding the BS unofficial classification level of SSI, you are in a position to make these types of complaints known to the upper management levels. It is my sincere hope that you take comments/complaints from the public seriously and do pass them on, rather than just sending them to File 13 like it appears happens with these items within the rest of the TSA management structure.
I think that you should be notified before anyone moves any of your possessions around. As to why it is done without telling you, the answer is that we have not placed enough emphasis on treating people's property with respect. This is partly procedural, but it is also a resource problem.
Items in shoes do obscure the X-Ray image. But if we are going to enforce this standard, then we need to devote enough resources to do it correctly. Some officers are diligent about it. Others realize that it is a losing proposition. Others simply don't care.
I work every day against this attitude. When necessary, appropriate disciplinary actions are taken against officers.
I do take passenger complaints seriously. I work hard to address the one's I can do something about. I am not really in a position to alter policy or procedures. I do try to make sure the officers I supervise are polite to passengers.
Castro Benes
Apr 27, 2009 | 3:55 pm
#14
Join Date: May 2008
Location: BOS
Programs: TSA TSO
Posts: 455
I've signed Standard Form 61, which after that good old civil servant oath of office which you say we have failed to uphold time and time again states this:
B. AFFIDAVIT AS TO STRIKING AGAINST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
I am not participating in any strike against the Government of the United States or any agency thereof, and I will not so participate while an employee of the Government of the United States or any agency thereof.
I am not participating in any strike against the Government of the United States or any agency thereof, and I will not so participate while an employee of the Government of the United States or any agency thereof.
And with H.R. 1881, the Transportation Security Workforce Enhancement Act of 2009 possibly passing and switching all of us from me and Dean up to Castro and onto FSDs into the General Schedule... there's a little provision which states that this law reaffirms that we have no right to strike.