Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > TravelBuzz
Reload this Page >

TSA to require birthdate at time of reservation

Community
Wiki Posts
Search

TSA to require birthdate at time of reservation

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old May 6, 2005 | 6:11 pm
  #31  
All eyes on you!
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Programs: Hyatt Globalist, AA Executive Platinum
Posts: 2,093
Originally Posted by Doppy
Whenever people propose new legislation or regulations, I like to look at it the other way - what's the benefit.

As it appears that bad guys could simply lie about their DOB without too much trouble, requiring it seems to do nothing to improve security. Since I see no benefit, I don't have to get to your question of "what's the harm?" (Though I have already answered that question in detail in a related thread in Travel Saftey / Security.)
One potential benefit may be fewer false positives on the no-fly list. I suspect anyone who shares a name with someone on the list would consider this to be a great benefit.
murphy is offline  
Old May 6, 2005 | 6:17 pm
  #32  
All eyes on you!
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Programs: Hyatt Globalist, AA Executive Platinum
Posts: 2,093
Originally Posted by Globaliser
The alternative is that the TSA should go out and learn how to do it the way that other countries do it: that is, other countries which have lived with serious terrorism for much longer than the US has, and which remain at the same level of risk of terrorist attack as the US, yet manage not to be either as hysterical or as incompetent as the TSA.

As for the searching of children etc, we should never forget the story of the man who was travelling with his girlfriend (then pregnant with his child) on holiday to Israel. He didn't manage to get tickets for both of them on the same flight, so they were booked on different flights. She was on El Al, he was on another airline.

At the security check at the gate in London, El Al found the bomb that he had put in her cabin baggage.
As far as I can see, the only country that is at the same - actually higher - level of risk as the US is Israel. While I agree El Al security is likely more competent and effective, they are also significantally more intrusive.

I believe the US is the second-most hated country in the world right now.
murphy is offline  
Old May 8, 2005 | 4:54 pm
  #33  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Desert city where Venice, Paris and NY are within walking distance
Programs: Delta and Hilton make a lot of $$ off me
Posts: 671
Originally Posted by LAX
Perhaps you have never been inconvenienced at security check points, or your loved ones have never been fondled at security check points. It's not so much that I don't like to comply with these security measures because they inconvenience me. If all these TSA measures do indeed make flying safer, I will comply without questions. The fact is, as many have pointed out, none of these have proven to be effective and yet the inconvenience/harm of these measures seems to far outweight the benefits. Why don't they just stop wasting our time and their resources (perhaps our resources??) with all these "security theaters" and still not make flying any bit safer??

LAX
I have been inconvenienced a few times. So what? They pat me down, open my carry-on and delay me for 10 minutes. Wow, what a catastrophe indeed!!!

If the TSA ever did an Israeli style security check, like you have to show up at the airport 3 hrs early, you'd be howling that they are wasting your time.

TSA is damned if it does, damned if it doesn't
da_guy is offline  
Old May 8, 2005 | 5:04 pm
  #34  
All eyes on you!
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Programs: UA Explorer card, AA Plat, Copa Plat, IHG Plat,
Posts: 570
Your DOB doesn't make any difference if the TSA's don't bother to look at anything on your BP. Twice my GF and me have gone through security check with each others BP by mistake. TSA's never caught it either time, our ID's were not even close to name on BP different first and last names.
rrohio is offline  
Old May 8, 2005 | 7:04 pm
  #35  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: (not Montana. Nor is my name really Helena, nor am I female)
Programs: Delta, USAirways, Starwood, Priority Club, Marriott, Amex
Posts: 2,557
You people are all so negative and cynical! I bet the nice people at TSA just want to send us all a nice birthday card each year, to thank us for our patronage.






Helena Handbaskets is offline  
Old May 8, 2005 | 7:23 pm
  #36  
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 317
Originally Posted by Helena Handbaskets
You people are all so negative and cynical! I bet the nice people at TSA just want to send us all a nice birthday card each year, to thank us for our patronage.

We do have many nice people who appreciate what we do, maybe 2 out of 50 are rude to us. I just wish you would be in line any given day when we pull a boxcutter out of a bag, knifes and even today in our small airport a undeclared gun. We never get any credit for what we do find in the bags, just what we miss. The checked baggage is so much better today, we screen every piece of luggage, would like to see more done for cargo. I would like to see better xray machines, newer technology but think the average screener is doing a much better job at security than the pre 9/11 screeners. I work with many that were private screeners and they feel the same way. I know there are the differences in shoe policys. It all depends on your manager, sup and lead. I for one would rather use more common sense but they are concealing crap in shoes that we can't detect unless they are xrayed or a swab test done for explosives. I would hate to come to your workplace and run down your job performance so it does help a lot when people are friendly to us.



flpab is offline  
Old May 8, 2005 | 8:03 pm
  #37  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 232
Just one more layer of intrusion for not much gain IMHO.
caligirl is offline  
Old May 8, 2005 | 10:04 pm
  #38  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: IN and NV
Posts: 1,006
Originally Posted by da_guy
So what is the alternative? Do we all just get on a plane like we do on a bus and hope for the best?
You bet we do.

Use the original homeland security device - the 2nd amendment.

Terrorist should be afraid to get on airplanes with Americans. It would be like hijacking a police station. Citizens carried firearms on board planes in the 50's and 60's all the time - how many terrorist acts were there then?

The government created a war on poverty and there is more poverty. The government created a war on drugs and there are more illegal drugs. The government created a war on terror and guess what we have.



See this website - www.projectsafeskies.org sometimes it is not available. Or this one that refers to it: http://www.ncc-1776.com/tle2001/libe...011001-05.html
GDIW is offline  
Old May 8, 2005 | 10:13 pm
  #39  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: IN and NV
Posts: 1,006
Originally Posted by Reindeerflame
The Constitution only guarantees the right to travel, not the right to fly or ride Amtrak. If you object, walking may be your best option, as long as you avoid looking like a vagrant.
The 4th amendment gives us the right to free travel as well as the right to protect ourselves from illegal search and seizures. Which is defined as any search done without probable cause and warrants. Planning a family vacation or business trip is hardly probable cause for being a terrorist.

What part of the constitution allows the government to randomly search people?
GDIW is offline  
Old May 9, 2005 | 7:56 am
  #40  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
All eyes on you!
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Programs: Mucci. Nothing else matters.
Posts: 38,752
Originally Posted by murphy
As far as I can see, the only country that is at the same - actually higher - level of risk as the US is Israel. While I agree El Al security is likely more competent and effective, they are also significantally more intrusive.

I believe the US is the second-most hated country in the world right now.
I think there's a false assumption here that the most-hated countries are also necessarily the most at risk of terrorist attack. Of course, the belief that this is so helps to underpin the ineffective excesses of the TSA.
Globaliser is offline  
Old May 9, 2005 | 10:27 am
  #41  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Conversation Starter
All eyes on you!
25 Years on Site
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: أمريكا
Posts: 26,931
Originally Posted by murphy
One potential benefit may be fewer false positives on the no-fly list. I suspect anyone who shares a name with someone on the list would consider this to be a great benefit.
Yes, that is a benefit. It's also a benefit for bad guys who are on "the list" too - they can simply lie about their DOB.
Doppy is offline  
Old May 9, 2005 | 6:20 pm
  #42  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
30 Countries Visited
2M
All eyes on you!
25 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: in the vicinity of SFO
Programs: AA 2MM (LT-PLT, PPro for this year)
Posts: 19,784
Originally Posted by caligirl
Just one more layer of intrusion for not much gain IMHO.
Well, I agree about not much gain, but I'm not sure it's really much intrusion, at least for international tickets: I'm going to have to deal with my passport for that anyway.
nkedel is offline  
Old May 9, 2005 | 6:31 pm
  #43  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Miami, FL
Programs: AA EXP/Marriott Plat/Hertz PC
Posts: 12,724
Originally Posted by jerry crump
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155541,00.html

This will allow them make sure you are not confused with a terrorist with the same name.

In reality it will give terorist the opportunity to give a false date of birth since it won't be verified and hassle hundreds of millions of honest folks.
Lots of luck getting AA to change their website.
whirledtraveler is offline  
Old May 10, 2005 | 8:18 am
  #44  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Desert city where Venice, Paris and NY are within walking distance
Programs: Delta and Hilton make a lot of $$ off me
Posts: 671
Originally Posted by GDIW
You bet we do.

Use the original homeland security device - the 2nd amendment.

Terrorist should be afraid to get on airplanes with Americans. It would be like hijacking a police station. Citizens carried firearms on board planes in the 50's and 60's all the time - how many terrorist acts were there then?

The government created a war on poverty and there is more poverty. The government created a war on drugs and there are more illegal drugs. The government created a war on terror and guess what we have.
]
Last time I checked the government didn't create the war on terror like the first two.

I think guns on board is a crazy idea. Guns for pilots, fine. But you want some guy who's had 5 vodka-tonics carrying a loaded gun at 35K feet? Not me.
I am a member of the NRA and back the 2nd Ammendment 100%...just not on an airplane.
da_guy is offline  
Old May 10, 2005 | 8:26 pm
  #45  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: IN and NV
Posts: 1,006
Originally Posted by da_guy
Last time I checked the government didn't create the war on terror like the first two.

I suggest you check some of the information at this sight www.weknowthetruth.net It may make you re-think things about the war on terror.

I think guns on board is a crazy idea. Guns for pilots, fine. But you want some guy who's had 5 vodka-tonics carrying a loaded gun at 35K feet? Not me.
I am a member of the NRA and back the 2nd Ammendment 100%...just not on an airplane.
The above is a contradiction of terms - you can't back the 2nd ammendment 100% - but not on airplanes. People carry concealed weapons every day - even in bars. An armed society is a polite society. No one will start a gunfight when they know others are armed.
GDIW is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.