ND Sol

Then I guess the busiest airport in the world doesn't know what is correct. Here is the response I received just last month.

RadioGirl

+1

Australia changed in the 70's; older people will still say things like "or six feet in the old system" but everyone buys meat in kilograms, petrol in litres and carpet in square metres. The US just wimped out.

Don't the (endless, droning) US airport announcements still say something like "liquids weighing more than 3 ounces are not allowed into the sterile area"? That's got to be the trifecta of dumb - it's not weight, it's volume; it's not 3, it's 3.4; and some liquids are allowed under the numerous exceptions.

Bart

*****

TSORon

Just how does one "rudely" pull shoes out of a bin? Does one yell at them as one pulls them out? Does one call them names as they pull them out?

Come on halls, if there was indeed "rudeness" in that interaction I suspect that it was not on the part of either the shoes or the TSO.

halls120

Very easy. I placed my shoes in the bin as I have countless times without saying a word, and a rude, obnoxious TSO walks over and shouts "shoes on the belt!"

Since the TSO was the only one talking during this exchange, I think it is pretty self-evident who was rude.

TSORon

Uhhh jim, you do realize that you have just advocated for the complete dominance of the citizens by its own government, right? If your theory can be applied to changing from one measurement system to the metric system, it can be applied to just about anything, including the TSA, right jim?

IOW, "we are switching from the MMW system to the WBI systems, deal with it!", that seems to me exactly what you are saying the government should do. Did I misread your intent here? Are you honestly advocating this as how government should deal with its citizens?

TSORon

Thats not what you said halls.

No mention of anyone saying anything. Now you change the story. Why not, it makes you look better and the TSO look worse, right? And you wonder why you have credibility issues?

Tom M.

Considering you were not there, how would you know? Why would you make such a statement?

Why not, it makes you look better and the passenger look worse, right? And you wonder why you have credibility issues?

halls120

You are correct - in my initial post, I left out the actual exchange at the moat, because I didn't think I had to recount everything that happened. But since you made the rather inane suggestion that shoes could be rude, I then supplied the actual exchange that prompted my post.

I have credibility issues? Really? How so?

This is funny coming from the master of posting incorrect facts on aviation security. I suspect that if the mods were to allow it, we could come up with a "Ron's greatest hits of incorrect facts" quite easily.

Hey Ron, have you boned up on the FFDO program yet? After all, virtually everything you stated several weeks ago on that program was utterly incorrect.

sbm12

Does the phrase "red herring" mean anything to you??

KRSW

I already have done that, a long time ago. Teleconferences & videoconferences have replaced many of the flights of old, simply because of the hassle of dealing with air travel. The TSA + airlines' mistreatment of self-loading cargo truly has made air travel something I dread, which is sad -- I used to love it. So when I do fly it's often on chartered flights.

Boggie Dog

I wonder when the airlines will understand they are orchestrating their demise? They have let TSA run roughshod over commercial aviation when all that was needed was reevaluating procedures.

All some group of terr-o-wist need do is float some seemly plausible plot and TSA will pee all over itself trying to stop something that's not going to happen.

KRSW

I'm not sure any reevaluation in procedure was necessary, let alone this huge uncontrolled (and constitutionally questionable) agency called Homeland Security and everything that has since fallen underneath its umbrella. The threats to this country today are NO different than they were on 10 September 2001. The only difference is that Congress became aware of what they've been told for years by various people. If the existing procedures in place up to 10 September had been followed, we wouldn't be where we are now. Good intentions and knee-jerk reactions are never a good way to run anything, let alone security.

I've said it many times, but I'll restate it again -- Until DHS/TSA are disbanded, there will be NO security on airlines and any other method of transit or other parts of American life they decide to shove their incompetent noses into.

jkhuggins

Yes, you're misreading my intent. (Long rant follows.)

The whole point of having a representative democracy is that we elect people to make decisions on our behalf. A "pure democracy" only works if the body being governed is small enough, and dedicated enough, to engage with every single issue. That might work in a small town in New Hampshire, but once you get past that level, it's too unwieldy to work effectively. So, we elect people to govern for us, and then we ask them to make all the tons of decisions regarding government services that affect us.

That doesn't mean we like what they decide for us, of course; hence, the whole "petition the government for a redress of grievances" bit. (Not to mention periodic elections.) But that doesn't change the fact that we expect them to act in our best interest.

Sometimes that best interest doesn't sync with public opinion. That's fine. Sometimes the public is right; sometimes the public is wrong. We expect our leaders to exercise judgment beyond simply voting whichever way the latest poll tells them to vote.

I have no doubt that, should the TSA decide to implement MMW/WBI as a mandatory screening technique, the argument they will make will be "this is what's best for you". I don't disagree with the government's right to make that decision. I may disagree with the decision itself, and may petition my elected representatives with my reasons. But that's how it's supposed to work. If several thousand like-minded people petition our representatives with good, substantive reasons for changing TSA, one hopes that those receiving our petition will give careful consideration to those ideas ... and then decide to do the right thing, wherever that decision goes.

I am mindful that a majority of people in this country once thought, at various times, that a slave was only worth 60% of a free man, that women didn't deserve to vote, and that segregating people in public accomodations based on race was perfectly acceptable. Majority rule is not the same as just rule.

I'll never argue that TSA should change because a majority of Americans think they should change. I'll argue that TSA should change because they're doing the wrong things.

TSORon

I'd prefer that jim cover for his own mistakes. He's usually pretty good at it, does not need assistance.

We have a Representative Republic last I heard, simply because the citizenry IS so large.

Unfortunately, this is not how it works, at least not with this administration. The health care issue, seems a good part of the nation is against it, but what are our elected representatives saying about that? "A small group of malcontents", "special interests mobilizing", and a few other things. Seems that they are ignoring the will of the people.