Slashdot Mirror
Schneier Talks to the Head of TSA
Bruce Schneier recently had the chance to sit down with Kip Hawley, head of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and discuss some of the frustrations travelers experience head-on. "In April, Kip Hawley, the head of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), invited me to Washington for a meeting. Despite some serious trepidation, I accepted. And it was a good meeting. Most of it was off the record, but he asked me how the TSA could overcome its negative image. I told him to be more transparent, and stop ducking the hard questions. He said that he wanted to do that. He did enjoy writing a guest blog post for Aviation Daily, but having a blog himself didn't work within the bureaucracy."
Ask him the procedure for getting yourself off the no-fly list.
I'd ask myself, but I'd rather stay off that list, and since no one can say how you get on, this post might put me on that list, but I wouldn't know it until I couldn't fly next week.
P.S. Ask him if he admires Kafka and is trying to emulate his writings...
Bruce Schneier recently had the chance to sit down with Kip Hawley, head of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and discuss some of the frustrations travelers experience head-on.
I have flown quite a bit this past year and visited airports across the country (for pleasure, never for business) and have never once had a run in with the TSA. My issues are solely with the airlines and their "customer service".
Last night was a prime example. Flying from SAV to ATL and on to MSP. My flight out of SAV was delayed from 19:42 to 22:15 and then in ATL we were originally delayed out until 01:20 then moved back to 22:10 (which I would have missed the connection) and then back to 00:10 (which was actually 00:30). We arrived at MSP 45 minutes late (which isn't that bad overall).
The flight from ATL to MSP has a TERRIBLE track record according to Flight Stats (0.9 out of 5 stars).
Then with Northwest's pilots calling in sick and them dropping ~9% of their flights for the weekend (170 to 200 flights) is just a joke.
The TSA hasn't exactly been friendly or courteous but at least they are doing their job. The airlines, OTOH, aren't doing anything except making a big hole and getting bailed out by the taxpayers while paying their CEO's millions.
And they really seem to get into the details of airport security. Certainly doesn't seem like PR fluff, could be an interesting read.
...but is it art?
Most of it was off the record... I told him to be more transparent, and stop ducking the hard questions. He said that he wanted to do that.
Hey buddy, if you want to be more transparent, hold less of your meeting 'off the record'.
Since this 3oz liquid horse shit has been going on, Hawley has been saying it's based on "scientific findings" like a broken record. But he has yet to show these "scientific findings".
So what would the justification be for prohibiting lip gloss, nasal spray, etc? There was none, other than for our own convenience and the sake of a simple explanation.
There you have it folks, Hawley freely admits that he's stupid and lazy.
Oh, I'll report if I get on the "No-fly" list for this. Because, obviously, I'm a "threat" for pointing out Government stupidity.
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
told him to be more transparent, and stop ducking the hard questions. He said that he wanted to do that
There's a million reasons why there will be practically no transparency. While it's easy to point fingers at the current administration and break out the tin foil hat, most blame goes right back to non-voters and voters alike.
It's nice that the TSA head honcho knows how to play Good Cop but that's about all one can expect.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Treat passengers with dignity. That, in my opinion, is the most important part. It does not cost very much — hardly anything at all.
For example, if you force people to remove their shoes (and I always refused to do that, when it was still optional — until a year or so ago), do keep the floor sparkling clean in the area — and make sure, TSA employees are bare-feet too as a reassurance. Thousands of people cross those spots daily — it is not only undignifying, but also unsanitary to be walking there without footware.
For crying out loud — a Ukrainian airport provides travelers boarding a JFK-bound flight with disposable footwear. Can JFK not do the same?
When I made myself a pair out of paper-towels, the TSA-thugs at JFK (both the drone and his supervisor) insisted, I take them off too...
Of course, my calling them names (as I just did) only further alienates them and contributes to the problems, which Mr. Hawley is trying to solve...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The TSA is doing their job about as well as the airlines are doing THEIR jobs! The TSA is totally funded by the public, and if you don't like one of the low-buck airlines you were dissing, you are welcome to pay a little more you cheap bastard and get good service.
We can't opt-out of the TSA.
Blar.
n/t
--- What?
of subjecting myself to air travel (and TSA "probes") to reevaluate my decision to fly as infrequently as possible. Reading that validated my increased drive-radius and train utilization defaults.
The sad thing is that most likely this person believes the rubbish he emanates in his bureaucracy-vetted statements. The comments on the blog below the entry call out the doublespeak point by point in random order.
BEGIN EXCERPT
"If the TSO throws your liquids in the trash, they don't find you a threat."
If they didn't find (you) a threat, then WHY THROW THE FREAKIN' LIQUIDS IN THE TRASH?!?!?
Jeez Louise...
~EdT.
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
Ok, perhaps in person Kip Hawley is not an idiot. But he's still running an organization that's offensive, dishonest, unconstitutional, and a bunch of thugs, and the fact that he does have a grip on reality doesn't change that.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
KH: "If the TSO throws your liquids in the trash, they don't find you a threat."
If they really think it's not a threat, why throw it in the trash?
And I can take larger bottles of saline solution on-board, but not my Venti mocha-decafe Starbucks drink I bought just yards from the checkpoint?!
Dodging the issues, indeed. I thought his first answer was just in jest and sarcasm, but after reading the article, I'm beginning to wonder if he wasn't being honest.
I fly through Canada when possible.
A customs check is annoying but less annoying than dealing with US airlines.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
I fly internationally (O.K. Canada) for business twice a month. I don't mind the processes at customs or security checks at all. Sure, I've been searched roughly 1 out of every 5 times, and my computer opened and booted up 3 times. No prob.
The only thing which I find amusing with security at the airport is the amount of people it takes to X-Ray. Often, I will see 9 to 11 individuals on one X-Ray machine, standing shoulder to shoulder. At least three are 'managing' the others. I find it to be wasteful and unnecessary.
That's my only beef with TSA. This process seems to have a lot of cogs which are really useless. One person reminds us to take off our shoes. One person stacks the dish buses. One person confirms that our pockets are really empty.
Other than this one particularly inefficient step, I do not find TSA or other TSA-related processes to be annoying or burdening.
After RTFA, I was surprised at how much, someone in such a position, could talk about nothing at all.
/when going through security, I display contempt
//have yet to be stopped
His rhetoric gave me nothing more than what is capable from mental abstraction.
It's not reassuring to know that the TSA is clueless all the way from screeners up to the Heads of Administration.
NEWSFLASH: Government Fails again.
And the worst part of it all... you can't complain for fear of the airline throwing your ass off the flight.
It's an attempt to confuse the when you do follow the scripted PR.
Right
That seems completely illogical to me. And the attempt at evading the specifics just illustrates how much of a PR flak he is.
Personally, I'd like to see a purely private system of airports open up in the U.S., whereby said system posts a $10 billion bond to cover terrorist attacks. Then we would see practical, market-driven, security.
Can you imagine what the anti-spam, IDS, and other computer security technology would be like if it were administered by a TLA?
Airlines have problems because travel gets bigger every year, but airports (generally) do not. There's a bit they could do to resolve problems like yours (for instance, keep more pilots in reserve so pilots calling in sick doesn't affect flight schedules), but a lot of those delays are simply too many planes and too few runways/gates.
Comment of the year
I told him to be more transparent, and stop ducking the hard questions. He said that he wanted to do that.
Maybe he does (bwahaha, you don't get to a federal government position that high up by being "transparent", Bruce) - but if you think the Bush administration was controlling with scientists and public health officials (see recent stuff from surgeon general), I bet his control of "security" people is even worse.
Most of it was off the record, but he asked me how the TSA could overcome its negative image.
First off, why didn't Bruce say, "I'll only come if everything is on the record?" As it stands, this is basically a PR puff piece for nerds.
Second, to actually answer the question:
I'm too disgusted to keep thinking about this. Overall? Don't do something unless/until you can do it competently.
Please help metamoderate.
...I feel pretty qualified to suggest how to improve things:
Fire all the dumbasses that think they are either "federal agents" or otherwise "law enforcement."
They need to focus on customer service and let one or two guys at any given checkpoint be "the bad cop" in that the primary mission and focus for screeners would been to assist passengers in compliance with regulations rather than "getting the cattle through the meat processing plant" mentality that we have now.
I'd rather be inconvenienced and safe then killed in an avoidable plane crash...
YES... they go over board but put yourself in the shoes of the person at the gate doing the inspections... FOR ONE THING they're obviously going to be extra careful and stop things that aren't necessarily "dangerous" because honestly would you want to be the person at the gate that let the guy on the plane with the weapon/bomb/whatever. ALSO they're dealing with people who are tired of waiting and bitch for 8 hours (or whatever their shift is) straight... honestly how polite would you be after passenger number 9999999 gives u an attitude for doing your job.
the 3 oz thing... well it doesn't have to be a bomb.. I imagine a 3 oz container of some sort of chemical or biological substance could do some serious damage.
one thing I will admit however the shoe things sucks... it's needed but it could be done a little more polite as brought up by "mi" earlier it would be great if they'd just give you disposable shoes so you're not standing their bare foot or even if they had like a little roll of that paper stuff doctors use on their beds so you can stand on it while u wait for them too inspect your shoes then tear it off and pull out a fresh piece for the next person... it wouldn't take too long. and it'd make alot of people more comfortable
----------
Trying to fix or change something only guarantees and perpetuates it's existence
- We pledge to briefly look into important issues but pay huge attention to irrelevant trivialities that will result in maximal discomfort. We'll take so much time you won't be boarding your flight in time. We consider this "one-passenger-less-is-one-threat-less-based-secu
r ity".
- You will treat us respectfully. We will huff and puff, you will respect our hand gestures as if you were our female dawg. Failure to comply will give us further reason to "secure" your flight.
- We will not explain any of our steps, pro-actively or in a reactive fashion. Try asking us a question, go ahead, make our day.
- You may request a private screening. Did you notice you need to request a private screening ? That requires you asking something... make our day, no really...
- If you make it to this step, you must be guilty of something, we'll see to securing your flight.
- Our trash bin will more gratefully receive your feedback. If we don't like your tone, we'll feed you to our lawyer. Be assured that your next flight will be very safe and secure.
- Unless we didn't receive your feedback in the first place, we'll respond in a timely matter
Living up to the original pledges would be an awesome improvement... Next achievement will be: how to treat other people's property without spilling them all throughout their luggage.Look at the possible threats involving airplanes. And then consider how much damage is possible and how to best reduce the threat or eliminate it.
#1. Flying planes into buildings. Lots of people die. Lots of damage. Lots of expense. So you fit the flight deck with a secure door. One that can keep out the terrorists long enough for the pilot to land somewhere.
#2. Blowing up a plane. About 200+ people die. You lose a plane. It might hit something on the way down. So you check passengers AND crew AND support staff for bombs. You COMPLETELY redesign the airports to restrict ALL traffic and you have MULTIPLE checks on the path to the planes. Right now a terrorist can get a job as a janitor and leave a bomb in the bathroom for a traveler to pick up and carry onto a plane.
And so forth. But we won't be doing anything for one reason.
It costs the government too much money.
But forcing you to toss out excess liquids costs them almost nothing.
The reason the ban on lighters was lifted is because it cost the government MILLIONS OF DOLLARS to dispose of them. Not because they were suddenly determined to be "safe".
>> "he asked me how the TSA could overcome its negative image"?
What about the complete disregard for the constitutional rights of US citizens? What about due process? To me, the TSA is just the German SS of World War II reborn here in the US of A.
It seems that the problem is the *existence* of the TSA. Heck, they're just doing the unconstitutional work they're told to do. The problem has to be solved in an entirely different manner.
As a starting point for ideas to solve this differently:
+ Let's empower the passengers and crew more, instead of neutering them.
Allow us to protect ourselves and other passengers. Give us a bit more room
to move around on the aircraft and do so.
+ Make the aircraft be a less desirable target - ie, smaller planes carrying 100 people,
instead of huge 500+ person flying targets. [Yes, there's business challenges, but these
can be solved]
+ Allow profiling! Heck, stereotypes and prejudices arise for a reason. But don't be stupid
about it, people still need to be treated as individuals instead of members of a group.
I'm talking about statistical screening.
+ And heed what Bruce S says - rants - about. Travelers aren't stupid! They know when
security "practices" are just idiotic and there as feel-good measures. There will be
much more public support for true, valid security measures, than these idiotic practices
we see today.
We CAN solve this problem in a better way! Without trampling our freedoms!
I can partially sympathize with him. The TATP plot wouldn't have worked, but there are probably other things that could be smuggled onboard and used to bring down a plane. By limiting quantities and the sizes of things that could be used as mixing/pressure vessels, some risk may have been mitigated.
> Hawley has been saying it's based on "scientific findings" like a broken record. But he has yet to show these "scientific findings".
And I can even go so far as to say I agree with him on his lack of specifics. There's no need to censor recipes, but there's no need to publicize them. Better to let the bad guys Google it themselves, wind up with something copied out of a 60s-era cookbook, and Darwinize themselves out of the gene pool without hurting anybody.
> Oh, I'll report if I get on the "No-fly" list for this. Because, obviously, I'm a "threat" for pointing out Government stupidity.
And therein is the root cause: bureaucracy. Kip Hawley may not be an idiot, but he's a bureaucrat. It doesn't matter how smart you are if the system you're working with is fundamentally flawed. That applies from Kip all the way down to the goon who barks at you for failing to remove your shoes soon enough, or the goon who barks at you even louder for removing your shoes before you were ordered to.
Since the typical TSA Goon is too poorly-educated to understand chemistry, and the typical civilian is too poorly-educated to understand either chemistry or risk, that neither audience needs to know.
There's the first idiocy: A bureaucracy is happy to tell you "what" (three ounce containers, one Freedom Baggie) to do, but never "why". The TSA goon enforces the policy with mindless efficiency; he is trained to be mindless. His civilian subjects see the policy as wholly arbitrary unfounded in reason or logic, because no reason or logic has ever been supplied, and treat him as the goon he is -- and he likewise learns to regard the cilivian subjects as idiots, because they're too stupid to follow a rule as simple as "3 oz containers in a 1-liter baggie".
And here's the second level of idiocy: Since nobody has a "need to know" the reason, nobody's allowed to know, and it's not too big a step before you get is afraid to know and is afraid to even think.
Some guy ahead of me was raising a fuss about the 3/1/1 rule, and I would have loved to have explained to him the reasoning behind the rule. Of course, I didn't. If I'd said "Dude, it's about limiting the size of reaction/pressure vessels and the amount of reagents that can be smuggled in without having more than a certain number of people buying airline tickets within a certain timeframe, just chill out and toss the toothpaste", I'd probably still be in some black hole somewhere.
It's this second level of idiocy that's the real problem: the notion that, in a bureaucracy, anyone who does think through the reasoning behind a policy, must be a threat.
More than however many years since (a plot that's mentioned in TFA that I no longer want to type on a web form), more than 5 years since 9/11, two years since the bogus liquid plot, and only now, on an obscure web forum, does the bureaucracy actually come out and admit why the rules are what they are.
The original policy isn't a great idea, but it isn't exactly a dumb idea either. But it's taught arbitrarily to the goons, it's enforced arbitrarily against the goons' victims, and ends up with all three sides (Policymaker, Goon, and Civilian alike) regarding each other with nothing but contempt and suspicion. To the point that I (like
He said, "Can we have another option to fly? We'll call it Fly At Your Own Risk Airlines. We won't screen for anything and you can pay for your tickets five minutes before your flight just like in the old days-1997."
CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
"Terrorist - a person who terrorizes or frightens others." http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorist . Looking at all the FUD from the TSA, Homeland Security, and the Airlines. I think the terrorists have accomplished exactly what they want - cause as much disruption in America's (and other countries) as possible.
3,000 people have died on American soil this CENTURY from terrorism. Meanwhile, 40,000 people a YEAR die on the highways. Why isn't some of that Homeland Security money going towards safer highways?
God help you if you're exiting highway I-72 onto 6th street in Springfield in the snow. The speed limit drops from 65 mph to 25 mph on the exit ramp, which is a frightening distance high. God help you if you're on Highway 55 going past that ramp when some drunk goes flying over the embankment on top of your car!
Do guard rails cost that much?
Don't get me started on this nation's REAL terrorists - R.J Reynolds and Ronald McDonald. Ronald kills half a million Americans every single year. Osama must be jealous as hell!
-a href-"http://www.mcgrew.info
Bruce should have asked him why "Toy Transformer Robots" are included on the Permitted / Banned items list, but the threat of actual Trasnformer robots are ignored by the TSA.
Haven't they seen the documentary currently playing at theaters across the nation?
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
Right, what about 3oz of talcum powder that has anthrax in it?
Nobody 'puts themselves in my place' when interacting with me at my job, those TSA goons shoulda known what the customers were going to be like. Don't like it? Quit!
Tired of people apologizing for the illiterate mumbling goons I've encountered at security checkpoints.
Blar.
Riiight. Like if I wanted to, I couldn't fit some really, REALLY nasty shit that couldn't be mixed from a handful of 3oz bottles that couldn't kill everyone on board an enclosed space of a plane before someone got wise and vented the cabin. Yeah, right.
That was just an excerpt from the blog comments. I included it to show that there were actual comments of some merit or other on the site. Of course, I know it's theatre. That doesn't make it any less annoying to have your shave cream looted before you get to your business meeting. Or to have your Congressional Medal of Honor paraphanalia stolen from you: http://forums.realpolice.net/archive/index.php?t-2 5284.html
Personally, I think they ought to be forced to take down the posters of stuff they've taken from passengers designed to make them look good and us feel like criminals. Instead, they should put up posters of all of the stuff they had no business taking. It might make us non-criminals feel like someone in that agency is trying to keep the beast in check.
Of course, this is all stated from the realistic premise that TSA isn't going anywhere. I'd love to have the old America back, you remember: the America where you didn't even have to show id to travel and assemble... But that part of the Constitution isn't relevant anymore.
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
More people are beginning to understand that security theater is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. But not enough to end this lunacy any time soon, I'm afraid. Some people are still convinced that this hoax somehow makes them "safer". Frankly, I'd rather have travelers scared crapless -- if the cowards would stay home, there'd be less congestion at the airports (and maybe fewer people bringing three-year-old kids to kick the back of my seat for five fscking hours!)
John
Flying from Seattle to Amsterdam on British Airways recently, I watched as their boarding pass barcode scanner went on the fritz. It appeared to be unable to scan about 25% of the E-ticket (printed at home most likely on an empty toner cartridge) passes. They had no backup procedures and simply waved passengers through when their passes didn't scan. I didn't think much of that until they lost my checked bag. Upon filing a claim and attempting to track it through their (practiaclly inoperative) on-line claim system, I realized that they don't have any idea where bags are in ther system. They think they know exactly where it is but seem unable to actually make it appear.
So, after doing a bit of thinking, I've already come up with several ways of exploiting their systems' flaws to get an unaccompanied suitcase loaded onto an airplane.
Does anyone care? Nope. As long as we have to take our shoes off (another interesting story there) and subject ourselves to a bunch of pointless searches (yet another story) that make the general public think they are safe, that's all that matters.
Interesting note: Before the infamous 'shoe bomber' and 'liquid bombers' I purchased a comfortable pair of walking shoes with gel insoles. Since these events, I've worn them (and had them x-rayed) numerous times. Nobody has ever raised an eyebrow.
Interesting story: A friend of mine was supposed to be across the state to meet some people. Upon attempting to drive, his car quit. Now late and in a panic, he called a local commuter airline and booked a flight at the last minute. After rushing to the airport (SeaTac), he boarded his flight and arrived successfully. Only after all of this he realized that he had just boarded and flown across the state carrying one pistol (he has a carry permit) on his person, plus another and ammunition in his carry-on luggage. Security never noticed anything.
Have gnu, will travel.
2: I was 18B in the Army
3: 3 oz of liquid explosives is plenty to make a hole in a airframe (and a lot of other things).
4: You can see liquid explosives on most of the X-ray machine the TSA uses and all PAX screeners were trained for this since TSA inception. (you can also tell the difference between nail clippers and a knife or gun, but many screeners see metal and immediately call for a bag search)
I hate slashdot
Many TSA screeners -- not most, but enough to matter -- exhibit an attitude towards the public that should be flat unacceptable. And that makes jumping through the hoops all the more irritating, and hurts TSA's image more than anything.
This attitude problem isn't unique to TSA. It happens frequently to low-status people who are given more authority than they know how to handle. It happens to cops and to computer systems administrators who forget that they are ONLY working for the benefit of the people they are mistreating.
If TSA wants to fix it's image, they should look around to law-enforcement and other public-facing agencies and find ones who have been effective training their front-line employees to be both firm and courteous, both vigilant and respectful.
A small portion of people will always find a way around detection but that doesn't mean you remove a very low cost method that prevents the dumb or lazy ones (the vast majority) from succeeding.
"...so we'll pretend that little problem doesn't exist."
No one pretends it doesn't exist; the cost and feasibility for preventing it is too high.
Once you've secured the planes, the next problem spot would be the terminal itself. And you didn't go far enough with your scenario. Imagine doing that at 5 different airports at once. ALL air traffic would be shut down, again.
You can mitigate that by moving the vehicles away from the terminal. The passengers would need to unload and move to an initial screening point.
And so on and so forth. You'd have to have enough redundancy to handle the holiday rush so that you'd have no more than 20 - 50 people stuck at any one location.
It would be expensive. Very expensive.
Seriously, this isn't about about plane crashes (supposedly). We're talking about protecting ourselves from people willing to strap bombs to themselves or drive cars loaded with explosive material into buildings.
These individuals have a serious commitment that many fail to understand, and I fail to see how the current "safety" checks and precautions would do anything against such strong determination.
I was a long-time flier of Northwest Airlines. I'm done with them after my experiences this summer. They've canceled too many flights on me due to not having enough pilots. If you don't have enough pilots, don't schedule the fvcking flight.
Since no one else has posted yet: http://geekz.co.uk/schneierfacts/
"It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
On my last few trips to the USA I have been pulled over by the TSA on about a third of the flights (several internal flights on each trip), and by customs once. Since they were not pulling over one third of the people in the line, I presume something about me had me flagged as a potential terrorist. Every single time, the operatives have been polite and efficient.
Last but one time it was not at all surprised to be flagged, since I had only noticed that there was a screw up with my booking when I went to collect my ticked and I was, in fact, booked on the flight exactly one month earlier (fortunately the airline just charged me a token 'don't be a numpty again' fee and let me on). Even I can see this is quite suspicious behaviour (although the fact my connecting flight was booked on the correct day would have been evidence of incompetence, rather than malice, on my part). The guy who checked my hand luggage was very friendly, and since I wasn't in a hurry (and the airport wasn't busy at that time) we chatted for a bit after he had decided that I probably wasn't a terrorist. I was a bit worried about being searched then, since my laptop had one broken hinge and being opened carelessly would have probably snapped the other one and pulled the screen off, but they let me open it and after I pointed to the damage were very careful with it. They wouldn't let me have another go in the machine that blew a puff of air at you from all directions to find explosive residue though.
The next time I think the security personnel were more interested in seeing what the Nokia 770 I was carrying could do. It took about five seconds to assure them it wasn't a bomb, and then another five minutes of demonstrating the various features and discussing with them and whether they should buy one. I felt like I was trapped in a parallel universe where 'does it run Linux' was a more important question than 'is it a bomb.' While that might be true on Slashdot, it probably shouldn't be to security people.
I haven't been in an airport where I couldn't see at least a couple of ways of bypassing the security[1], but I've also never been inconvenienced by it. At Narita, I arrived at the check-in desk as they were packing up and my flight was due to start boarding. They rushed me through the pilots-only lane in security and got me from the airport entrance to the boarding area in ten minutes (it would be the furthest terminal away from the entrance when I was running late...). It's a shame airports aren't always this efficient.
[1] Interestingly, some of the security is expressly designed this way, as a honeypot. They make a few ways of bypassing it obvious and then have a secondary check which picks up the people who do.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Did anybody feel the slightest bit more informed after reading that...?
No sig today...
I would absolutely fly on the "Fly-At-Your-Own-Risk" airline, and I'd love to see the terrorist that could get me and 100 other flying-at-our-own-risk passengers to let him run our plane into a building!
"We have nothing in common, your attitude annoys me, and your political views are appalling."
Not to defend these abhorrent procedures, but these are two ways they use to reduce the overall ticket price at the expense of people who don't actually use the tickets they pay for. If you kill these practices, then the average ticket price would necessarily go up. If only one airline killed these procedures, then the market would drift away from them as their prices rise. If these practices are ever done away with, it will have to be due to an act of congress or the FAA in order to raise all ticket prices on all airlines by a similar (if not equal) amount.
Imagine what the airport security checks would look like if they've would have been underware bombers instead, ehe.
"I couldn't help but think of what your post might look like in the future:"
Hyperbole that has no grounding in the real world. Any such check like the one you mentioned would kill the industry because of the wait time. You can't search every passenger in an extremely detailed manner.
"These individuals have a serious commitment that many fail to understand, and I fail to see how the current "safety" checks and precautions would do anything against such strong determination."
Because the vast majority of people are stupid including criminals and those who intend to do harm. You want further proof of stupidity? Just look around you next time you are at the friggn' airport. Listen to the conversations around you: "I have to take off my shoes?" -- "I can't carry my knife, gun, etc. on the plane?" -- "What do you mean I can only have one carry on that's not the size of a small car?" -- "What do you mean I need to show ID?"
Sure people can and will do you harm if they are determined enough; that doesn't mean you stop screening for the ones who are idiots and are easily caught.
No one is living in fear; we are living in the real world.
yet another overly simplistic economic analysis which is probably incorrect...
What you say requires a free market.
The FAA-supported oligopoly of airplane travel is far from a free market.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
And the screeners don't pay any attention to my logic of "The purpose of the one-quart bag is to limit the total liquids carried on a plane. It's only one less than 3 oz item item. Of course it could fit in a one-quart bag. Now give me back my cologne."
Want to make airport security less untolerable. Tell the screeners to use common sense and not inflexibly apply procedures when there is an as/more efficent way that applies in this one case.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
If you meant "reading that site about how Kip Hawley is an idiot", then yes, I do feel better informed after reading that.
--
make install -not war
This head of the TSA keeps on talking about liquid explosives as if there is such a threat. No one has been able to point out such a threat, at least not that I have seen in any of the blogs / slashdot and people have looked for it.
I know there are liquid explosives. Nitroglycerin is an oily liquid. There are blasting slurries. Those are all strange and suspicious-looking liquids, which no one would confuse for bottled water.
Are there any other liquids which are explosive and which are credible threats to airplane safety? What could this TSA guy be talking about? I don't believe him until some specific liquid can be described. The way he says it, the terrorists already know about this stuff so discussing it in a public forum shouldn't hurt.
Here's something I observed, and fortunately was not directly affected by:
United flight from Hong Kong to Chicago. There's two of these a day. The day before our flight, both flights had been overbooked and everyone showed up. So they had to pay people effectively $1200 each to stay an extra day in HK. The day we were flying everyone showed as well as the people who had been left over from the previous day. They paid 56 people $1400 to wait around in the hopes of getting the second flight that day. One of them had been bumped twice the previous day and had no reason to hurry home so he had gotten a total of $5000 in order to delay his flight a day or so. Keep in mind the plane tickets themselves were $1200 each when we purchased them.
The weird part is that once we were on the plane and they had already paid 56 people who were at the gate to not get on the plane, they had to ask another 10 to get off because of weight restrictions. So the airline paid out $92000 on that flight alone because they overbooked it. This is why the airlines are going bankrupt, because their predictive models of who is going to no-show isn't working anymore. I have several relatives who always build an extra 2-3 days into their travel schedules so they can volunteer to be bumped. As a result they usually end up essentially getting upgraded to business or economy plus AND getting to fly for free.
this is getting old and so are you
blog
Weird how tickets being transferable prior to 9/11 didn't cause any of the airlines to have to jack prices up. Prices were even cheaper then. The requirement for ID -- demonstrably useless against hijacking, remember all the 9/11 hijackers had valid ID and flew under their real names -- is just a way for the airlines to stop ticket transfers without them being seen as the bad guys. After all, it's for "security".
Overbooking at least makes financial sense, they're hedging against the possibility of last-minute cancellations leaving them with a less than full airplane. But ticket transfers effectively cost them nothing, and allowing them would not raise prices necessarily. It didn't before. It would merely deprive airlines of a newfound source of income. Though I agree very little will cause them to let go of said new income.
The enemies of Democracy are
Is to acknowledge the simple fact that 99.9% of the people they screen every day ARE NOT terrorists,
and deserve to be treated with courtesy and respect.
That shouldn't be too much to ask of "trained security professionals".
If the screeners can't manage to be polite and courteous, maybe even swap a bit of
small talk with the people they're screening, while still doing their job,
then perhaps they should look for a new job.
That one order, issued by the Director of TSA, could go a long way towards improving their image.
I've had it with silent, surly TSA staff, who expect you to read their minds and know what they
want you to do. Speak to me, treat me like a human being and help me to help you, and we'll all be
happier. Lose the attitude, folks. Start acting like you're there to help us, and we'll stop resenting you.
From the article:
I often read blog posts about how someone could just take all their three-ounce bottles -- or take bottles from others on the plane -- and combine them into a larger container to make a bomb. I can't get into the specifics, but our explosives research shows this is not a viable option.
The logical conclusion is, therefore, that the arbitrary 3 oz volumetric limit is irrelevant (the research apparently shows this). But let's take a look at the statement anyway. It clearly can't be the container, as passengers are free to take nearly any container on board, as long as it is empty. But then, 10 people going through security at loosely the same time can easily carry 5 vials of 3 oz each, for a total combined volume of 150 oz (this is heavy enough that it requires a little thought and effort for one person to conceal). If nearly 10 pounds (a little over 4 kg) of nasty stuff isn't enough to bring down a plane, then my model of the world is completely borked, and I prefer the alternative explanation that the answers in the interview are not much more than hot air
Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
I fly through RDU a lot, and I've found the TSA folk there to be nice and helpful. I've generally found them that way at other airports too.
Quack!Quack!.....QUACK!!
My favorite TSA brain-dead incident happened while returning home from a recent trip to South America.
My original flight out of South America was canceled and I was forced to stay an extra day (this fact will become important). The flight the next day ended up leaving 3 hours late. When I arrived in Miami, instead of the close to 4 hours I would've had, I had 45 minutes to clear customs and get my luggage re-checked and get to my connecting flight. Everything went surprisingly well with customs and the airline...the ticketing agent even accompanied me so that I could skip the TSA line. And it actually looked like I would be able to make my flight on-time (they were waiting to take off, so there was no chance I'd actually miss it). It all looked like it was going to work out well.
That was up until the TSA decided that I needed a secondary screening due to the fact that my ticket had been purchased the previous day (by the airline in South America). Somehow the fact that it was part of an arrangement replacing tickets purchased months before made no difference. Neither did the fact that I could prove I'd only been in Miami for less than an hour and my luggage had just been checked by customs officials (also TSA). I'm sure it was important that they ensure that I hadn't met up with an accomplice in Miami (a city I wasn't even supposed to travel through on my original tickets).
Anyway, the secondary screening took over 15 minutes. My flight ended up leaving 30 minutes late (because we missed our scheduled window, we had to wait until there was a free window to take off). That 30 minute delay no doubt had repercussions for other travelers for their connecting flights. So in many cases, the GP's complaints about delayed flights can actually be caused by TSA incompetence.
I used to pack a small portable amateur radio staion with me when I flew. Twice I packed it in the check-in luggage and twice the ignorant fools at TSA completely trashed my suitcases because they didn't underestand what they were looking at. I now carry the whole thing with me as carry-on, a major pain in the butt, just to avoid having my luggage destroyed by one of the TSA idiots using pry bars to smash the support linings and bend the metal braces supporting the rim to prevent damage to the contents. If they had paged me to question me before making such an invasive search it would have been preferable to having to buy new suitcase everytime I fly - and I fly a lot on business.
Too lazy to create a sig...
Overbooking happens because on a certain percentage of flights business travelers always fail to show up. By overbooking the flight they can sell the seats of those no-shows. More bums in the plane = Cheaper airfares. Therefore, I don't want them to stop overbooking as airfares I pay will by extension go up. Bumping = cheaper airfares. Typically most overbooked flights are swarmed with volunteers willing to be bumped in exchange for perks, so this is a red herring. If you show up sufficiently early to check in it's unlikely you'll be bumped due to an overbooking scenario.
Allow tickets to be transferable. That would allow people's plans to be more flexible (but prevent some of the ways they price gouge).
Tickets *are* transferable if you purchase the correct fare class. If you purchase a cheaper ticket there are more restrictions. As a consumer, I don't want all tickets to be transferable, as 'cheaper' fares will disappear.
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
Not sure where you were in the world, but in the USA and Canada discount-price tickets were NOT transferable prior to 9/11 either. In fact, prior to 9/11 to get a cheap fare you had to stay a Saturday night. That doesn't happen any more - There's one anecdotal piece of evidence of lower fares.
I don't travel out of the US by plane... I'd love to don't get me wrong... just haven't
... amount of time of search... shoes?... etc... just compare and contrast 'cause i'm curious
ANYWAYS
to those of you who have... how does other countries airline security stack up against ours... ruder/more polite
----------
Trying to fix or change something only guarantees and perpetuates it's existence
Not sure where you were in the world, but in the USA and Canada discount-price tickets were NOT transferable prior to 9/11 either.
Of course they were transferable in the USA and presumably Canada, and I've done it myself. Here's how it worked: You bought a ticket. You decided you didn't want to go. Your friend said they would like to go if you aren't using your ticket. You hand the ticket to your friend. Your friend goes to the airport. He shows them the ticket. He gets on the plane. Easy-peasy.
Now there's a catch: you have to show your ID at the security checkpoint and it has to match the name on your ticket. What does this have to do with security? Nothing! But it does make a ticket worthless to anyone but the person it was originally for.
They might not have wanted you to transfer tickets before, but it was perfectly simple to do so and it wasn't even illegal. Now it is thanks to TSA.
The enemies of Democracy are
"And what kind of intruder does your fence deter? The most half-assed."
And, just like a large majority of the public, criminals and those who would do you harm are also half-assed, stupid and lazy.
Shall we not have passwords to access computers now by simple reasoning that hackers will always get what they desire?
"We're actually screening for the more difficult method of delivery, and this is supposed to deter the guy who apparently wasn't really serious about blowing up a plane?"
Gee, I don't know because it's easier to scan a shoe than it is to do a full body cavity search? Don't know how you fail to grasp that concept.
"It appears to be doing something to increase your security, when in reality it is doing nothing."
In reality it is doing something, just check out the confiscation warehouses for further proof.
Screening procedures existed long before the threat of "terrorism"; just because you aren't old enough or don't understand that doesn't mean that doing so is useless or a facade.
All in all, I'm more concerned about an intoxicated flyer or mentally unstable person getting into an argument and pulling a knife or a gun than terrorists -- which screening for weapons largely prevents.
Ah.. I understand. Sorry, by transferable I thought you meant "change the name on the ticket in the airline computers."
I always figured doing this made it easier to identify the bodies :)
Perhaps you're right about overbooking, but I doubt it has a significant effect on consumer prices, since the airline has to assume they will only get ($ticket price * number of seats) in revenue, so somebody not showing up and letting an overbooked passenger onto the flight is gravy.
You're definitely wrong about transferability though. This policy is merely a tool to allow the airlines to increase the price of tickets as the flight approaches, in exactly the opposite way prices for tickets to anything else with limited seating work. Making tickets transferable may increase early sale ticket prices slightly, but it would decrease last minute prices dramatically. This may drive some of the older non-discount airlines into bankruptcy, but I'm completely OK with that. It's time they had a management shakeup imposed on them from the outside anyway.
More time waiting is equivalent to a higher cost ticket. Perhaps your time is worthless?
Tickets are transferable if you give up any money you would have saved by purchasing early. In reality, ticket prices should go down as the flight nears, in order to encourage sales of the remaining seats. Additionally, agencies should be able to purchase discount tickets and resell them later on. Both of these things are only possible if all classes of tickets are transferable, and they also both reduce the costs to you as a consumer. Additionally a transferable ticket allows you to cut your losses if it turns out you can't travel as planned. You're a complete fool if you think non-transferable tickets save you money. They exist to extract the most money possible out of you, not to save you money.
Documenting the stupidity that is the TSA, OHS, and related other bureaucratic bunglements.
Warning: learning just how f'ing stupid the government is may cause hilarity, depression, or both.
Part of the Second American Revolution!
Nope, but if I'm travelling in business I can just get to the airport and work on my laptop. Who cares whether I'm at my desk or at Starbucks? And if I'm travelling for pleasure I've already taken the day off so who cares if I'm hanging at home or at the bar in the airport?
In reality, ticket prices should go down as the flight nears, in order to encourage sales of the remaining seats.
Incorrect - The vast majority of people who purchase tickets "last minute" are people who MUST travel on date X at time Y. As a result, the airline can and does charge more for these seats, for the 'privilege' of booking last minute. If you study airline economics you'll see that there isn't a pool of last-minute travellers who snap up the cheap seats. There is, however, a pool of last-minute travellers who will pay more to travel right now.
Additionally, agencies should be able to purchase discount tickets and resell them later on.
They do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_consolidators
Both of these things are only possible if all classes of tickets are transferable, and they also both reduce the costs to you as a consumer. Additionally a transferable ticket allows you to cut your losses if it turns out you can't travel as planned.
As a passenger, I don't want to subsidize other passengers who can't 'travel as planned.' Those pax should be purchasing insurance or more expensive tickets, not asking me to subsidize them through my ticket.
Profit margins on the airlines are razor-thin. If 'all classes of tickets were transferable' then the higher costs of administering this would be passed on to the flying public. You and I would pay higher fares. And I don't want to.
You're a complete fool
And you're a complete fool for accusing others of being fools without doing your homework first.
If you think non-transferable tickets save you money. They exist to extract the most money possible out of you, not to save you money.
They save me money. The airline has said "If you're willing to commit to this flight on this day, X days in advance, and you're not going to change your ticket I'll only charge you $Z. If you want additional services on your ticket, we'll charge you more."
"Making a quantity of TATP sufficient to bring down an airplane is not quite as simple as ducking into the toilet and mixing two harmless liquids together."e lid=80&contentid=3831&page=2
Summary:
http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?chann
Create concentrated Hydrogen Peroxide without blowing up your secret laboratory
Bring Sulfuric acid, H2O2 & acetone on board, keeping them cool with frozen gel packs
Also needed: a thermometer, a large beaker, a stirring rod, and a medicine dropper.
Secertly schlep all this to the WC
For the next couple hours add acid, drop by drop, while stirring constantly
ignore flight attendants banging on WC door asking about the terrible odor.
Hope you brought enough gel packs, if the solution gets too hot, you get a weak explosive or even a small explosion that probably kills/injures only you
Allow to dry an hour or so
ignore flight attendants continued banging on WC door
While a slapdash concoction will explode, it's unlikely to do more than blow out a few windows, you need enough quality, quantity and potency to bring down the plane.
It seems a much better solution would be to restrain anyone who spends more than 30 minutes in the WC.
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
Bruce, you should have asked for a spoiler for the next episode of Security Theatre!!
Scene: Little girl crying no the plane and her mother is explaining to the person next to her how the TSA disallowed her Teddy Bear because it could have shed Lint.
LINT!
Haven't you ever heard of a lint bomb? All those fluffy pieces floating around just WAITING for someone to set fire to them. If ONLY they'd kept the ban on disposable lighters in place, we could have been safe from lint bombs and my little girl could have carried her Teddy Bear... *sniff*
[Fade to black over heroic music]
While the GP's experience may have been more negative with the airlines than with TSA, I agree with the parent that it's more the TSA. "Is it just my bad luck that I keep getting this?" I asked myself. I don't think so.
The airlines have incentive to improve their service; some do, and some don't. But for the TSA, there is no reward to providing better service. The security guy doesn't get a performance bonus for calling out "Please take out all metal objects" a greater number of times. On the within-US and international flights, I have yet to see a single instance of "How is the TSA doing? Tell us how we can improve". (I've been averaging about one flight every three weeks or so.)
At one airport (LAX), the airline counters had airline staff who were eager and ready to help check in, and short lineups. Unfortunately, that was because everyone first had to go through the big long TSA lineup, which for some reason started right inside the main entry doors. TSA had no concept that the entry hall was a place to enter and go through to get to the counter, kiosk, or boarding gate; they didn't see anything wrong with the entry hall being the destination for people entering the airport --I mean, that's why people come to the airport, right? To go line up at the TSA lineup.
By contrast, at a different overseas airport (HKG) where the need to move people along quickly is taken for granted, there was one wing of the airport dedicated to travellers to the USA. These couldn't have been actual TSA people, so perhaps they were hired to meet USA TSA requirements. Security worked hand-in-hand with the airlines to move people quickly; latecomers were given priority to get through the screening (especially because a number of travellers, who were used to travelling to other destinations, did not realize that extra screening was required for USA). There were TWENTY-FOUR security screeners in twenty-four parallel lineups checking people's luggage. This was to allow them through to a cluster of about eight boarding gates. (By contrast, I've never seen more than three security lines at a time at a US airport for, say, twenty boarding gates.) The line was long, but moved so quickly that I thought, "Oh, they must be just doing a cursory examination." But, no, they were actually opening up suitcases and going through stuff for bottles of water exceeding 3oz, etc.
I am astounded that Kip Hawley of the TSA actually realized that the TSA had a bad reputation; I thought they would have been patting themselves on the back for making the USA even safer from terrorists masquerading as a mother carrying bottles of milk for her wailing twin babies. I think that TSA should be dependent on income from flights, so that they might have some incentive for providing some semblance of normalcy in air travel.
As far as I'm concerned, the terrorists have already won.
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
Ah.. I understand. Sorry, by transferable I thought you meant "change the name on the ticket in the airline computers."
:)
:)
Yeah, I don't think they've ever let you do that. They just had no practical way to enforce the rule. Now they can, in the name of "security".
I always figured doing this made it easier to identify the bodies
You know, that's got to be the best explanation I've heard.
The enemies of Democracy are
>>Stop overbooking. Just stop. No conditions, exceptions, nothing.
>
>Overbooking happens because on a certain percentage of flights business travelers always fail to show up.
Part of "no conditions, exceptions, nothing" might include "no-shows still *pay*"
Airline could often be paid twice for the same seat. Once for the no-show, once for the lucky standby passenger.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
I was quite amused one time when flying with 3 other people all on guest passes, and we all went through security at once. The TSA people were surprised to get 4 "random" screens in a row
And while we're at it, people shouldn't need to show identification to travel.
How we know is more important than what we know.
But there is no effective screening method for that, so we'll pretend that little problem doesn't exist.
Or, "nobody has succeeded in blowing anything up that way yet, so we haven't thought of it."
Would you pay twice as much money for the same kind of seat, on the same kind of plane, if the plane was guaranteed to leave on time?
Repton.
They say that only an experienced wizard can do the tengu shuffle.
You've got the cause and effect backwards. The only reason the airline can charge more is because they can prevent you from buying a seat from a third party. The only time tickets should be more expensive as the date grows nearer is if the flight is sold-out. The economics for ticket sales for air travel are minimally different than for concerts, theater, anything with a limited pool of tickets. And you'll be hard pressed to find disagreement on that from a non-industry source. With cheaper seats as the departure time nears, more flights would be full. People would be forced to pay a premium to book early and guarantee a seat. Business and casual travelers would be more likely to fly at the last minute, and the need for overbooking would diminish, as travelers who now stay home would once again start flying standby. Do you not remember what it was like before the rules changed in the '90s?
The flaw in your logic is two fold. First that $Z is the lowest you'll pay even if the rules were different, and second that you don't consider the costs of inflexibility. Yeah yeah, your life makes it easy to plan in advance, and you can work from the airport. Bully for you. Most people aren't like that.
And before you accuse people of not doing their homework, you should read your own link. The ability to make airline tickets non-transferable has all but destroyed the consolidator's market within the US; it remains only for niche travel and for associated group rates. Outside the US without the artificial restriction they are still flourishing and keeping airfare lower than it is here. You, sir, are the one who needs to do his homework.
You just reminded me of something:
[offtopic]
It's a common practice when approaching the Canadian border to drive in oncoming lanes to take advantage of the split from 4 lanes to 16 booths. Everyone that does this gets pulled off to the side for a full car search. It's a fun game to remember which cars pass you and then see them all lined up on the side as you cruise right through.
[/offtopic]
Yes and no - United says 'we're the only ones who can sell you a ticket' but they can't prevent you from buying a ticket on Southwest, JetBlue or Delta. They're in effect the 'third party' - The competition. Competition in major markets has also pretty much determined the lowest fare available anyway - So even if these mythical 'third parties' could resell tickets they probably wouldn't have a discounted fare to offer you anyway. This is one of the reasons Priceline hasn't done as well as one might have expected. In the air the fare you have to bid isn't much, if at all, below what simply purchasing a ticket would have cost.
The economics for ticket sales for air travel are minimally different than for concerts, theater
They're quite different, actually.
Here's something someone recently sent me that helps explain it -
Major airlines have rarely, if ever, posted reasonable profits. So, keeping in mind that a good percentage of flights are always going to lose money, the airline industry has a system that tries to keep this in check. Basically, every flight has its seats divided up into 'classes' (this has nothing to do with first class/business etc) that we'll call A, B, C and D. These classes have mostly to do with price.
When an airline plans a flight, they look at how much it's going to cost, and divide the seats up in different price classes. A simplified model might look like: Cost of flight : $20,000 When the flight is announced, the airline will say 'if we sell 20 seats at $1000 we break even'. So, They add 20 seats to the plan with an A class.
Then through some process of voodoo economics, the number of various classed seats that must be sold is decided.
So, 3 months before a flight, you can get a C class ticket quite easily, as they expect that in that time they might sell 80 seats. As it gets closer to the flight day, all the $250 seats may have sold, or they start to realize that they are not all going to sell, so they stop selling C class tickets and only have B. Twice the price, but you need half as many customers, which is half as many seats, meals, bags, etc etc.
A few days before the flight there may only be A class tickets, as they'd rather sell just one ticket at A class price than 4 at B class. If you _really_ need to get somewhere you'll pay whatever they ask right? Besides, if they've sold all the C class, they break even. Adding cheap seats at this point can actually lose money (more staff needed, more fuel needed etc.)
Then, standby is D class.. since we're about to leave, and we're not going to sell these seats, we'll get you on board... but only if we need the money.
So, they don't want to sell you a seat at any old price, because it takes a seat away from someone who *might* pay more for it. This is why pricing flights is so complex. It may not even be NP complete, and it's nowhere near O(n).
This is very different than the theatre, where they have three or four 'classes of service' and sell off tickets cheap the day of the show.
They're screening people with stuff to physically use the plane itself as a weapon.
That problem was solved by the American people, in an amount of time easily expressed in minutes after the first plane hit the World Trade Center - over a Pennsylvania field.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
"Most of the workers get a large salary plus lots of benefits and all."
What's wrong with these guys? Is it so hard to work for low pay and no benefits? They could at least go through the motions of being a 3rd world employee.
"The idea is to make the shee--I mean, taxpayers--feel like they're getting something for their dollars."
The purpose of security after 9/11 isn't to actually make airplanes more secure. That can be done simply and almost without cost or complication (i.e. secure cockpit door, instructions to pilot never open). The purpose of this new security is to (as you suggest), give the appearance of that the government is "doing something". But more importantly, after 9/11 people didn't want to travel. An important reason for the window-dressing security provided by the TSA is to make passengers feel as if the airplanes are safe once again, even though the only thing that is different these days is that your shampoo is thrown out, and you have to take your shoes off. That's it. That's the security.
oh, and certain people can't fly, but no one can tell you who or why. You just have to kinda... find out.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
"How do you fail to understand this?"
At some level he does understand this. But as I said in an earlier post, the point of these new security measures is to make people feel secure, not actually increase security to a significant degree.
AC is suggesting the procedures make him/her feel more secure. By your bringing up the point that it isn't really doing anything, you are antagonizing them because it would force them to admit to themselves that they really are not safer today than on 9/10/2001. And that makes them feel anxious and less secure. So they become angry at you.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
The flight from ATL to MSP has a TERRIBLE track record...
Then with Northwest's pilots calling in sick and them dropping ~9% of their flights for the weekend...
And yet you (and millions of others, apparently) keep flying. And whining.
I got no sympathy, friend. You bring it on yourself.
"Oh, the guard scanned my shoes, I must be safe from shoe-bombers, thank you government for making me safe" only benefit, and that's only a benefit if you're a propagandist."
And if you are right, what exactly is wrong with being a propogandist?
Would you rather, say, do nothing and risk crashing the airline industry (even more so than it is already) because a large segment of the public is scared to fly or acting irrationally?
If you were the TSA admin and got 100k e-mails a day from enraged passengers, albeit illogical ones, asking what you are doing about "shoe" bombs, what exactly would you do, tell them to "fuck off"?
Or would you implement a simple system to check people's shoes, wait until the uproar blows over, people forget and then rescind the policy?
Mock all you want. It doesn't mean you are living in the real world.
"The amount of inconvenience is irrelevent, because the in the cost/benefit equation the benefit is zero."
Well, it's more than zero because it convinces some people they are "safe" to fly and then the question of inconvenience is damn relevant.
"People taking off and putting back on their shoes is a major cause of backups in front of and on the other side of security."
And another major cause of backups is people not having their ID ready. Is this the fault of the policy or the idiots in line?
Actually, just GTFO
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
A sad but true story:h eTSATookMyLighterAway.jpg.html?g2_imageViewsIndex= 1
http://www.donhopkins.com/drupal/gallery2/v/tsa/T
The TSA Took My Lighter Away!
(with apologies to The Ramones)
She went away for the holidays
Said she's going to Amsterdam
But she never got there
She never got there
She never got there, they say
[Chorus: x2]
The TSA took my lighter away
They took her away
Away from me
Now I don't know
Where my lighter can be
They took her from me
They took her from me
I don't know
Where my lighter can be
They took her from me
They took her from me
Ring me, ring me, ring me
Up the President
And find out
Where my luggage went
Ring me, ring me, ring me
Up the FBI
And find out if
My lighter's alive
Yeah, yeah, yeah
oh oh oh oh oh oh
oh oh oh oh oh oh
Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
Hey, my forebearers showed up after all the fighting was done, looking for an increase in living standards.
Some of those dreaded 'economic migrants' the Right doesn't seem to like.
Of course, the Irish weren't white until 1963....
Then why can I take multiple 2 oz containers?
RTFA, read the above comments, and read between the lines.
The rules exist because TSA is worried about the container itself as much as the liquids. Yes, you could take explosive liquids on in lots of little bottles. BUT, as the TSA flack says in the interview, most of the existing explosive liquids are already tested for. They can be seen in x-ray, or can be found by the chemical testing devices employed at security lines.
The liquid bomb plot came up with the new approach of manufacturing explosives onboard from a bunch of liquids that are not themselves explosive and therefore wouldn't set off the detectors. But to do this requires combining the liquids in a reaction chamber at temperature and pressure for some period of time. To make enough of it within the time duration of a flight, that reaction chamber would have to be larger than 3 ounces.
So, by making sure people don't carry any large bottles, then they know you don't have any (disguised) reaction chambers necessary to manufacture explosives onboard in a little homebuilt chemistry lab.
Whether the plot would have worked (many explosives chemists say no) and how realistic or efficacious the TSA's bottle limits are I can't say. But it's not simply about limiting total liquid quantity.
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
No, because the flights are not advertised as "may or may not leave on time" at their current pricing. For another completely arbitrary example to go with yours - I would pay half the amount for a flight that wasn't guaranteed to leave on time.
..being able to behave like a moron appears to be considered a perk of the job. I always find it interesting to observe what an illusion of power does to people. Those with character and backbone don't change their behaviour (draw your own conclusions here :-).
Having said that, courteous behavior comes from two sides..
Insert
My dad once said that the reason certain companies and industries have unions is that the deserve them. As an airline pilot and union member, he was not a fan of unions, but even less a fan of airline management.
'the Internet is right.'
And I'm perfectly confident that the invisible hand of the market will keep the planes from colliding with each other mid-air.
Well said, Sir!
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
I've been so focused on the civil liberties and inconvenience aspects of the no-fly list that it never occurred to me to find out what happens to the money you've paid for your ticket if you are denied boarding because you are on the no-fly list. I'd have to assume that your money would be refunded, though I wouldn't expect additional compensation. Has anyone reading this ever had this experience?
Well, clearly the airlines do not guarantee their flights to leave on time, because flights are often delayed and people don't get any restitution.
My feeling is that Americans too often shop based only on price. This means companies have to cut costs to compete, and so things (or people) start to break. Hence my question — if consumers were willing to pay more for the same "surface level" service (seat size, frills, etc.), they might get better reliability. And maybe some consumers would value an hour or two of their time more than an extra $100...
Repton.
They say that only an experienced wizard can do the tengu shuffle.