Slashdot Mirror
TSA Opens Blog — You Can Finally Complain
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The TSA has opened their own blog. According to Ars Technica, it's beginning to attract complaints from people who are sick of removing their shoes and having to forfeit their drinks. 'The blog's first post has 131 comments so far, almost all of which fall into one of two categories: TSA employees who got the internal memo about the blog launch and dropped by to post positive things, and citizens who are really mad about the liquids screening policy.'"
I haven't flown since before 9/11. Unless the TSA cleans up its act, I will never fly again.
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
I can imagine that the comments feature will soon be disabled.
There are some serious problems with how the TSA is doing things, and this is a great step towards communicating some of them. ...if we, as the public, can keep our act together long enough to avoid dropping shrill, screeching, hate bombs of ranting incoherence on this website that'll convince the TSA that there's nothing of value to be gained from this conduit. Each "YOU GUYS ARE FASCIST NAZI LICKING THUGS!" message cancels out the positive effects of any five or ten polite & firm, well reasoned messages describing weaknesses and suggesting positive change.
Unfortunately, I'm guessing this restraint won't be evident.
Blown up? Maybe. Hijacked? NO! Why? Because we know the rules have changed. In the pre-9/11 days, people were told to cooperate with hijackers, because if they did, there was a good chance they'd get out of it alive. Now, we know that the hijackers are willing to kill us all as they use the plane as a weapon, and thus, we have nothing to lose by fighting back. Once the passengers of United 93 learned what had happened to the other plans, they realized this, and they fought back. There will never be another attack in the style of 9/11, and it's not because of the TSA or Homeland Security. It's because we know better.
It's obvious from the blog sections that the TSA already knows the areas that generate complaints (inconsistent procedures from airport to airport, confusion about rules, general annoyance at the liquids ban). Are they relying on the flying public to alert them that the screeners required shoe removal in Columbus but not Cincinnati?
Why waste time maintaining a blog will quickly become unmanageable? Use your resources to get more screeners out there, speed up the lines, train people, and standardize procedures across the system.
"We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
that this is just a clever move to find people that disagree with them and put them on the no-fly list.
(Anonymous for obvious reasons, I like flying)
Why chase them? Let them come to you...
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
Wonder if they see who complains and put them on the list
...and they will listen.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
This is what they'll do, at the most. They'll read the comments, take a few minor suggestions that are about as a substantive of a reform as a changing the paint on the wall from beige to white, and call it even. Then everyone in power will trumpet how the system works, the people were heard, and how America is still the greatest country on the face of the Earth.
In the end, we'll end up with an agency that can best be described as being filled primarily by the sort of people that routinely get rejected by local police agencies, affirmative action hires, etc.
I'll never forget the one time I've flown since 9-11. I was going to Italy from Dulles Airport in Virginia in 2005. The TSA personnel I saw were mostly obese people you know that got hired to fill a quota. The people they hired were clearly by and large not their on their ability to screen and secure the choke points in the airport. What I'll never forget was going to De Gaulle Airport and feeling like the French actually knew how to run security.
For the love of all that is holy. When French security is more intimidating and professional looking than your own, you know that you've made a mistake along the way that doesn't bode well.
more like, the web form outputs to.... /dev/null
Seriously, this is like a big wall you can pound your head against all you want, with no realistic chance of any of your feedback having any effect.
They are part of the current 'terrorists are everywhere, and if you let your guard down, you and everyone you know will immediately be killed in a slow and painful way' mindset of the US gov't. If you want to change this, you'll need to elect a gov't with a different mindset, as this is driven top down, not bottom up.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Now I'm used to it, I'm fine with the liquid restrictions when going through security (though if they take my toothpaste again I might flip) -- it stops them from spotting other dangerous/hazardous/banned items about my person such as a pressurized lighter, fruit & food (on international flights) and a nice bit of da mary J ;-)
instead of repeating the instructions over and over again, put up a sign.
Why do they keep saying "please have your boarding pass in your hand when you go through the metal detector" over and over again? Just put a sign on the metal detector.
Of course, when I see how incompetent they are at passing on a simple instruction like that I know they are there to do nothing but make idiots "feel safe".
How we know is more important than what we know.
Maybe they will explain on there why they murdered that mentally ill guy aboard the plane.
People posted tons of obvious changes for the TSA to "consider"... but I'd assume that if these silly and obvious issues haven't been changed yet while most at the TSA must have already been aware, then hearing that it pisses off a few hundred other people probably isn't going to cause any extra pressure to change.
stuff |
Poll: Which airline do you feel safest flying with?
( ) American
( ) United
( ) Delta
( ) Southwest
( ) KipThorne Royal Airways
How much liberty does the TSA have with the screening that takes place? Surely it was either mandated by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act or is a reaction to perceived threats since, real or otherwise?
In the same way that a local police chief can't decide what the state speed limit is (although he might decide how anally to enforce it), I can't believe that the head of the TSA has a lot of freedom when it comes to screening:
Richard Reid? Off come the shoes.
Alleged binary liquid plot? No bottled water onboard for you.
It seems (from a perspective from across the sea) entirely reactive, and a result of the current political climate. That's not to say that US airport security wasn't atrociously lax pre-2001, it was; but things aren't going to become any easier until something rather more dramatic occurs than an official in a government agency starting a blog.
My suggestion is quit making me throw out my drink, and allow everybody else the same freedom. It's a risk I'm prepared to take.
I can't *STAND* the TSA. The whole SSSS thing. The whole thing about them telling you to tell the travelers lies in the training book that you have to turn in when you do airport training. Lies and scandals. They are a bunch of fudgep [CONNECTION TERMINATED]
The government has no business performing security checks on passengers.
If passengers wish secure flights, the airlines will provide security checks, different airlines might even offer different security levels to cater from the person in a rush to the paranoid.
What if someday, I went to the doorstep of a DHS officer and start requiring every one entering, including his friends and family to strip naked, out of security concern for him. What if, even worst, I decided to charge the service to him, by threatening to put him in jail if he doesn't pay for the service or comply with the security checks. Hey I'd be arrested.
The government is doing the exact same thing and guess what : they're just a bunch of people. They are not different from other people. Just because they're elected by a majority and have a nice nametag saying "Hi, I'm from the government" doesn't really give them super-moral powers. If a normal person is not allowed to do something, there's no reason people from the government should.
With a monopoly on law enforcement, it is natural that the quality of enforcement lowers and the price rises. I mean... if everyone is forced to buy your security services, you're going to charge for anything. Hey why not protect people from nail clippers in airplanes ! Good !
\u262D = \u5350
I'm seeing a lot of "Anonymous says" in the comments... is Anonymous going to war with the DHS as well?
The burden of airline security should rest on the airlines/airports themselves. Private entities are going to be much more accountable, as well as efficient. One of the first pieces I've done in my blogging career actually concerned the abolishment of TSA. As a former employee for Air Wisconsin, I've had to deal with this people on a daily basis. I can tell you that although a good amount of the employees are decent people, there are some who get their rocks off on the fact they're federal employees. Believe me, I have a few stories over the relatively short time I worked there. It's kind of ridiculous.
Random Rants from an Airline Employee
Air travel is one of the safest modes of transportation, and that was BEFORE all the new inconveniences. Nothing has changed. 9/11 didn't change that.
Bravo- but don't be disillusioned into thinking that *anyone* in the federal government cares about *your* safety.
All they care about is a protecting their own asses. George W. Bush doesn't care about a plane getting hijacked unless someone's trying to ram it into the White House. *That* is why they're so fucking frightened: airliners are the trump card to any presidential security measure. The president would probably survive such an attack and the White House itself would be in a rubble- but the damage to the President's power, both at home and abroad, would be devastated.
Please help metamoderate.
...and they will put you on the no-fly list. There, fixed it for you.And it's a risk you're happy to impose on everyone.
The liquids ban has nothing to do with security. Basically, they don't want you pissing during the flights. Each flush of the onboard toilet costs the airlines around $500. A friend reported to me that China Air now bans liquids on flights, PERIOD. Can't bring anything on the plane, can't buy anything on the plane.
If you actually read the intros and responses written by the TSA blog maintainers, it does seem (to their credit) fairly sensible and honest so far; so it has a decent shot at being effective. Yes, it's moderated, but not in a draconian way: they're trying to keep things as written, throwing away only the obvious personal attacks or things rife with ads, etc.
"Microsoft killed my company, I hold a personal grudge. I don't use Microsoft products and neither should you."-JWZ
I only remove my shoes if asked explicitly. That's my little version of passive resistance. I do it just to make their job harder, since it's obvious security doesn't do their job.
If a handful of careless security agents weren't asleep at the wheel 6 1/2 years ago, newspapers on 9/12/01 would read "19 terrorists arrested in diabolical plan" instead "America Under Attack: Thousands Feared Dead"
I'd say the fair thing to do is put it to a vote.
I hate to play the tinfoil hat card here, but it's never been explicitly proven that these guys really did try and mount an offense. Seems a lot of the material pertaining to that situation was not released in it's entirety.
I could be wrong, if so, please link me some uncensored material that shows this wasn't merely patriotic hoopla.
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask where they're goin' and hook up with 'em later.
Allowing illegals free access (LA Raza) to cross the Mexican border into the USA while frisking old people since 12/2001 is wrong.
Its a sore subject with me. Watching at two separate airports homeland security frisking elderly white and black couples for no reason. Meanwhile I get through security with my zippo and screwdrivers. "Yes, I do have a knife, its packed in my bags". Oh.. Ok, your cleared.
- AQ is not going strike on airlines anymore, they know that they would fail (Flight 93, Some Americans still have Balls).
- If the Bush doctrine was correct, we pretty much "Fucked" AQ worldwide so how many are still here in the USA? How many worldwide?
- Were still killing AQ cells in Iraq. I'm all for it. I wish I were younger and could take my gun.
- Our kids and grandkids will never have to deal with a Nuclear weapons program from Libya.
The US government could be a little more straightforward with us. During the State of the Union, Bush did not once say if we were winning or loosing the War on Terror. When does the frisking of seniors end?
At this time, Iraq is just an occupation waiting for the natives to take over (And no, it was never about the oil). When and where can we kill more AQ cells next?
Homeland security is an extra layer of government incompetence that needs to stop. When do we win the War on Terror?
My pissed off opinion
Enjoy,
It's just the normal noises in here.
Either that or they'll be put on some terrorist watch list.
Either way, I would be EXTREMELY wary of commenting on that site. As it is, I fully expect THIS comment to land me in trouble. I suspect not even Slashdot could hold up against the army of trash that our fine government tries to get away with.
Course it could just be a ploy for someone to try and get votes in an election that may or may not be coming up.
The categories are actually:
1) TSA employees who got the internal memo about the blog launch and dropped by to post positive things, and citizens who are really mad about the liquids screening policy and
2) people about to added to the no-fly list.
Who is RTFM and when will he help me with Unix?
I for one would glad impose that "risk" on anyone willing to fly. You wouldn't? If not I hope you don't drive since that imposes much greater risks on the public than liquids on a plane ever will.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
I've flown from Warsaw to Montreal through Heathrow in August 2007 and I had no additional screening except flashing my passport again. Unless, maybe, you're not a European Union citizen ?
On this page it says that toy transformers are allowed on the plane. Anyone have Megatron I can borrow to test this?
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
Nope only half right you can only say what you want but they wont listen.
>people were told to cooperate with hijackers
Often repeated, assumed, believed. Cited?
>Nope only half right you can only say what you want but they wont listen.
Both of the complaints I made to TSA where acted on promptly, and in a satisfying manner:
1. The conveyor belt damaged my property. I was given a form on the spot, and the person in charged recognized the fact that I was in a hurry to catch my plane and made sure I had what I needed to make my claim. The claim took a couple of weeks to process, but I was fully reimbursed for my property without question.
2. I made a complaint about the way one of the screeners handled the contents of my camera bag, and about a comment the screener made about my huge amount of batteries. (I'm a semi-pro photographer and on this trip I was going directly to a field assignment). Anyway my complaint was taken very seriously, the person responsible was immediately taken off the line, the person in charge asked me to stay long enough to show them where my complaint began on the tape, and I was allowed to go catch my plane.
I realize the TSA screener job, for most people in it, is the first job out of high school, GED more likely, or vocational rehab. But in any situation where you ask for a supervisor, you find you there *is* one, because *not* having a supervisor around, supervising, represents a bigger problem than any complaint a passenger could have. You'll also find they are well trained, career people. At least, I have found this, to my surprise.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
How about the crater in Shanksville, PA? The plane had long been hijacked and, unless the hijackers intended to put a hole in a field in the middle of nowhere, something happened on that plane to stop them. I doubt the terrorists had a sudden change of heart and weren't sure how to land.
"Anonymous said...
In retrospect, I'm just glad Richard Reid didn't try to hide a bomb in his undershorts."
Ain't that the truth!!
Flight 93 was shot down by an AAM fired by a U.S. F-16. I can personally guarantee this. Of course, you'll have to take the word of an AC for this, because I'm not stupid enough to attach my name to that particular disclosure.
Security should have some more intelligent design, not just evolving.
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
Does it matter? Whether or not the passengers on United 93 fought back, any future hijacking attempt will meet with passenger resistance. That's the point the OP was trying to make, with United 93 being just a perhaps less-than-successful example.
100% correct.
I'll go on record as saying that in the United States there will never, ever, be another successful hijacking. I don't know about you, but if I saw someone stand up and begin the hijacking "process", I'd start the "process" of eliminating the threat.
And I suspect I'd have many passengers coming over my back to assist in the effort.
Even the old ladies and 10 yr olds.
Lindsay Blanton
RadioReference.com
If you are walking a crown on the rocks to the gate - I think you should throw it out as well.
Lindsay Blanton
RadioReference.com
Don't fall for this crap. They are just luring people to reveal themselves so they can go and round them all up.
So, they put out a shingle, collect comments, make their operations a little "nicer" which calms down the rabble, bu doesn't get rid of the social relation. It's a trap. The point is, the TSA SHOULD NOT EXIST. PERIOD.
But this ruse shows "they are listening" and THEY have to EXIST to listen, so by letting them collect comments, those opposed have already surrendered the fight by letting them exist. Duh. That's how hegemony works. Stuart Hall, Noam Chomsky. Read them.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
As opposed to the continued violations of the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments (and occasionally the Sixth when the courts get involved) that the federal government continues to impose on everyone on the name of continuing this charade of ensuring safety?
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
Actually, there have been hijacking's since 9/11 where the passengers did not fight back. I know there was one in Turkey, for example.
God knows why.
expandfairuse.org
Does complaining really work? IMO, no way.
I don't listen to people who complain. Ever hear the phrase "lifes NOT fair" ?
If you are too lazy to solve the issue, then you deserve to complain and complain.
If I have an issue, and its important, I fix it. I deal with it. I don't need a committee
to TALK about it. I might do some research. Then I act.
Action gets results, if you do it right.
"know your enemy" : extremely important.
NEVER fight fair. Attack him at his weakest angles, his weakest time.
Attack when their sleeping, when their distracted. A fair fight is for losers.
Complaining is for the weak, the lazy, the girly men, and all other "girls".
Now, before you get into a sexist rampage.
Some women are STRONG. They also take action.
Some women don't need to TALK about it. Talking is SO overated.
Conclusion :
Complaining is useless. It only reflects how WEAK the complainer is.
When do dictators listen to an unarmed man?
I thought "TSA" mean "thousands standing around"
Libertas in infinitum
Those screeners sound like real arseholes!
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
I would almost say there will never be a hijacking of an airliner ever again (at least in this country). Now passengers will assume the worst regardless of the intentions of the hijackers and take back the plane at any cost.
Libertas in infinitum
I was going to say the same thing. Doh! *redundancy!*
A fool and his lamb are worth two in the bush.
So who is going to post a goatse ASCII post on the TSA site? It's just demonstrating the proper screening procedure ;-)
Libertas in infinitum
On my move to California, the fucking TSA went into my wallet and removed money from it. I had $60 before screening, I had $40 after screening.
They had BEST be glad I was anxious to move to California, or I'd probably still be in MEmphis, locked up and behind bars.
The TSA is NOTHING but a thief-run organization, and all they do is train thieves.
Anyone got any ideas on how I can get legal recourse against these assholes?
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
What risk does my soda pose to you, anyway?
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Both of the complaints I made to TSA where acted on promptly, and in a satisfying manner:
My experience has been different. On one trip the TSA screener didn't know how to open a laptop computer with a latch on the screen, and just forced it, breaking the latch. I complained and asked for the Supervisor (and no doubt earned a special note in my "file"). I was told it was my problem, TSA had no responsibility for damage they caused. This was just 2 years ago, long after the 9/11 hysterical reaction.
I was left with a new laptop with a broken latch, and a $200 repair bill to fix it.
On many other trips, I have been fortunate enough to win an extra personal screening of my carryon bag filled with computer cables, batteries, and papers. Every single time, the screener has completely ignored the cables, wires, batteries, and electronic equipment. They have focused on the business papers in my carryon, looking at each page and each book. I happened to have some money in my carryon, so that it was not in my pocket to fall out or be picked. The screener held it up in plain view of everyone at the gate, and asked in a loud voice why I had money in my carryon bag. Needless to say, this greatly enhanced my personal security on that flight...
There is no justification for this kind of nonsense relating to security of the flight, since there is no relationship to security.
In any other context, this kind of search (of personal papers and reading material) would be expected to cause an enormous outcry, and would not be tolerated. Unfortunately, the climate of hysteria and "we don't know what we're doing, let's at least look busy" procedures is at its heart an effort to make the public comfortable with the idea of carrying ID at all times ("Your travel documents please!") and putting up with being stopped, questioned, and even detained at any time for any cause real or imagined, all in the name of "Security".
It's been done before. (approximately 70 years ago) Itty-bitty steps down a slippery slope; by the time anyone notices, it's too late.
In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice, they rarely are.
The best way to make complaints to the government agencies about them is to put them on paper with your signature. Blogs are amusing to the writer and that's about all of it.
What I fail to understand is why TSA is giving good ole regular Americans all of this grief. When its not us that want to hijack planes and blow ourselves up,its the guy with the bath towel on his head and while not all of them are bad it would better to shake down a few of them than all American born people that fly.And I fly a lot and like someone posted not all airport security is equal,when you couldn't carry lighters on the plane I would carry 4 or 5 disposable ones and if I got caught I would give up 1 and I came back from Mexico with some bud in my front pocket and it was still there when I got home.I personally don't have any worries about terrorism if it happens it will,I won't give up any rights because I am afraid.Everyone dies sometime,I'll deal with it when I do.
>I was left with a new laptop with a broken latch, and a $200 repair bill to fix it.
>It's been done before. (approximately 70 years ago) Itty-bitty steps down a slippery slope; by the time >anyone notices, it's too late.
You didn't submit the claim form, and you're comparing that to... what exactly are you saying here?
There's a process where you swear that the damage was done, and it's routinely compensated. They can't do it at the airport, but the washington ppl do it. It's pretty much automatic.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
The TSA is a giant joke played on the middle class.
Seriously, have you ever taken a whiff of Everclear? You can easily smell that several feet away from an open bottle.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Those products are extremely reactive. They've gotta be ... they're fucking explosives! Well, guess what, that means that they're disgusting, extremely toxic, induce vomiting, or all of the above. In fact, IIRC the supposed binary agents that were supposed to be used for the bomb that started the whole liquid ban bullshit are so reactive that they can't be kept in plastic, they have to be shipped in thick glass bottles, with thick glass caps.
In other words, even the most autistic TSA agent should be able to tell the drinker is not sipping Evian.
...human combustion.
Best to ban all humans from planes!
Actually I find it incredibly funny that Oral Roberts damned all Australians for all eternity after being subjected to an airport inspection that would be considered very mild today. In the case of the TSA it is far more annoying due to the fact that it is mostly for show so little effort has been made to choose and train staff to actually be effective at more than just theatre.
I wrote this up, with the intention of putting it on the TSA blog comments. Then I realized that it was a Blogger based site, and could almost certainly be traced back to me even if I used the Anonymous option. Not wanting on the no-fly list, I chickened out and put it here:
Here's the reality: TSA security will have nothing to do with the next terrorist attack. The terrorists will either not attack airplanes, or they will take non-prohibited items through and turn them into weapons, or they will secrete them in body locations TSA will not search, or they will have them placed on the planes for them by ground crew.
No TSA employee will ever stop a terrorist attack. No TSA security measures will ever save a single life. You are small people, doing a small, unimportant job, and inside you are well aware that if your job was anywhere near as important as you pretend it is, you would never be considered qualified to do it.
So spare me the hystrionics, don't waste my time asking if I want my loved ones to be the first ones to die, quit pretending this is about anything but the pretense of security and the excercise of authority for its own sake.
That's not going to make anyone safe. As long as American hegemony exists the US will be a target for every mental case with an agenda. To eliminate that hegemony would require creating a power vacuum. At that point, US hegemony would be replaced by another nation. My money is on China.
Another thought: the WTC attacks deserved a nuclear response. I personally don't really give a shit whether it was 20-odd random lunatics from some Arab country. I would have selected a suitable location in each participant nation for a demonstration and detonated, somewhere where we'd get casualties, but within measure of 9/11. Make clear that attacks from residents of said nation are considered acts of war, and that the next attack upon the US would result in a significant deployment of our strategic arsenal onto the offending country. The colloquial parking lot effect.
Problem solved. Self-policing will take care of the rest.
Please note that this is how the Russians would have dealt with such a thing, more or less. Because they are pragmatic.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Too bad this doesn't work if we try to fight back against our own government. They're just as willing to take us down in their own cause.
Someone should inform the TSA of proper bomb disposal procedures.
They prevent you taking a bottle of liquid with you onto the plane, due to the idea that it might be an explosive. And then dump it in a bag next to their checkpoint.
What they SHOULD be doing is call in the bomb squad, set up a big safety area around the bottle and toss whomever brought that bottle to the checkpoint in jail for a few days for disrupting public security.
After all, if you really suspect that it's an explosive, isn't that what YOU would do? Imagine that it was a stick of dynamite instead - would you just toss it in a plastic bag next to your workstation?
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
I work for the TSA. You should've filed a complaint about the laptop damage. It's hit or miss whether they would've paid for it.
The screener didn't ignore the cables, wires, batteries. Those, combined with the business papers and/or magazines, would attract attention. On an x-ray it's similar to a bomb. They checked out the papers to make sure it you didn't have any sheet explosives in there.
You should've complained about the guy holding up your money and announcing it. That should've got the screener in trouble.
Complaining to a supervisor actually works. Writing a complaint actually works but you need to be specific about names and times.
This doesn't mean the passengers stopped them. They could have been shot down by a fighter plane.
Which is what many suspect but cannot prove either way.
I heard this from an ex-military guy.
"The only thing you need to hijack a plane is a heart of stone and a baby (which almost every plane seems to have). You pick up the baby, and break a finger on the baby, and say either we're going where i want or I break another one. Guaranteed reroute of plane because no one likes hurt/screaming babies, and no baby screams more than one with a broken finger. No one can tackle and hogtie you because then you drop the baby."
How does bag screening, no liquids, shoe checks, etc. prevent that from happening?
stuff |
To find the real reason why we have an ID check just before security and a liquids ban, you have to stop thinking security and think economics.
Bruce Schneier has already adequately explained the reason for the ID check. It does not solve any security problem, but it does solve a huge economic problem for the airlines. Once the ID check went into effect, the grey market on non-refundable tickets went away. It's a giant profit center for the airlines when some percentage of your "non-refundable" tickets do not get used. In the pre ID check days, there was a thriving aftermarket sale of non-refundable tickets because purchaser A was no longer able to take his flight, and rather than thrown the money away, A would sell the ticket to B who would fly in A's place.
But, the airlines do not want B flying on A's ticket, because if A does not fly, they get to keep 100% of the cash and provide no service.
So what do we have, an ID check that makes it too difficult for the average joe to buy a non-refundable ticket from someone else on the cheap and use it to fly. Note, it is not too difficult for the determined who are willing to obtain fake ID's and such to get away with things.
Now, turning to the liquids ban. What does limiting carry on luggage to only a certian amount of liquids per passenger provide, from an economic standpoint, to the airlines...... Weight reduction. Pre ban, passengers were most likely carrying 10lbs or more of liquids in their carryons (which oddly enough, are not weighed). 200 passengers x 10lbs extra per passenger = 2000lbs extra weight on the plane. That does not sound like a lot for one plane, but multiply that by all the planes flying times all the air miles and it is a significant amount of saved weight. How does saving weight help, well it saves fuel to fly the plane. There is the economic link. By reducing weight for carry on luggage, the airlines reduce fuel consumption. Reducing fuel consumption reduces costs.
Now, some will argue that folks will simply stuff the added weight into their carry on luggage instead. And while some will, yes, negating some of the savings, every single passenger will not transfer the full amount of weight from their carry on to their checked bags, which still results in a weight savings, just not 100% of the possible savings. Also, remember that checked bags are weighed, and there is an overweight charge. For some passengers, who routinely were at or near the checked weight limit, moving the pounds from their carryon to their checked bags will result in an overweight charge. If this happens, guess what, more money for the airlines. If instead, the passenger does not pack a few things to avoid the overweight charge, then the weight reduction again occurs.
So, when evaluating anything the TSA does, think about it from the viewpoint of how does this result in a money savings for the airlines. When you do, you'll find that almost all of the "security" is "security" in name only and is in reality only present to solve an economic problem for the airlines, without the airlines having to look like the "bad guys" in the process.
You didn't submit the claim form, ...
There's a process where you swear that the damage was done, and it's routinely compensated
Can you not read? He spoke with the TSA supervisor, who says it was not their problem. He was NOT given a complaint form, he was NOT given a claim form.
How can he fill out a form he was not given, to get compensated for something he was told he would not be compensated for??
Pre ban, passengers were most likely carrying 10lbs or more of liquids in their carryons
I call BS.
"A pint's a pound, the world around". Are you seriously saying each airline passenger was carrying 10 pints (a gallon and a quarter!) of water onto the plane?
I was in Singapore during the world bank stupidness last year. I arrived at the hotel only to find out that I'd chosen the same hotel as a large amount of the world bank delegates.
I was greeted by a police contingent who insisted on x-raying my luggage to make sure I didn't have any bombs.
they pulled me up regarding my suitcase, which had my tool-bag in it (naturally, I'd checked it in for my flight there)..the cop who was dealing me asked me to open my case because it had dangerous items in it.
it turned out that the dangerous item was a penknife which I had in my tool bag for stripping cables...on the discovery of this, I asked him if it was OK for me to bring my screwdrivers and soldering kit in "oh no problem" was his reply.
at this point, I flipped out..why is a 2-inch pen-knife banned, but a 5-inch screwdriver ok?
all these guys are doing is following their rule lists. Even they admit that they are acting like idiots, but their bosses are the ones making the rules, so they have no choice.
the really funny part of this whole thing is that after me making a huge fuss about the absurdity of their security check, I came back down from my room and went out to the 7-11..they saw me when I came back and just waved me through because they thought I was a difficult client.
security should be secure..not a token show of force.
"...Now, we know that the hijackers are willing to kill us all as they use the plane as a weapon..."
Hijackers that will let you live if you cooperate don't fly into cities. They fly somewhere they will land safe and can get a ransom.
If a hijacked plane is headed for a densely populated area there is only one reason.
Where were the scrambled interceptors? In the pre-9/11 days as you call it we were prepared for such a scenarieo as what happened.
The air force totally failed us.
K0Z4M
I did submit the claim, and it was denied. At the moment it happened, I *politely* requested to speak to the supervisor. He came over and gave me a phone number to call to make a claim.
I called that number, they took my address and mailed a form. I completed the form, included a copy of my boarding pass as instructed, and mailed it to the address specified.
The claim was denied.
In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice, they rarely are.
Again, I did file a complaint about the laptop, following the specified procedure by mail, and my claim was denied.
Regarding the guy holding up my money, this was long past the x-ray. This was not a matter of some shadow on the x-ray being possibly similar to a bomb. The x-ray screener had no problem telling exactly what it was, and they did not need to open the case for visual inspection. They didn't even have to run it through the x-ray a second time. No problem.
This was at the gate, while they were still doing those "random" searches of people in line to board at the gate. The random search was conducted at a table just to the side of the door, and there was no privacy screen, so everyone at the gate could see everything. Specifically, everyone getting onto the same flight could see the money, could see what bag it was in, and could see what I looked like. Not good if I have to leave my seat to use the toilet and leave my bag behind.
I *did* immediately in a very low but firm voice demand to see the supervisor *now*. While everyone else was boarding, we waited for a supervisor to be called to the gate, which took quite a while. The gate agents were trying to close the door without me on the plane. The supervisor finally showed up, and I explained how the screener had utterly failed to enhance my security and how.
The screener *did* get in trouble, and for all I know lost his job. I did write down names and employee numbers, but there was no means for me to do anything in writing at the time, just a phone number to call. The ultimate outcome is unknown to me. I had a flight to catch. And was just barely allowed to get on the plane at all.
And funny thing, for the next dozen flights or so, I was usually pulled aside for another "random" search of my carry-on bag. At least I didn't get put on the No-Fly List for speaking out.
In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice, they rarely are.
I was in the LAX Thursday and had a nice, 10-minute conversation with the "big-kahuna" TSA person behind the desk and she confirmed, (only on being pressed) that photo id is NOT REQUIRED to fly in the US.
At first she said it was, "You gotta show your id", "ID is required"... she said it several times. But I pressed. I said, "what if I don't have one, I lost it, or left it at home? What if I'm a foreigner from a place without government IDs?" At first I left out the obvious privacy and search issues. She says, "Well, then we do a full search of you and your bags and let you fly." Bingo! (It took me almost 5 minutes before she would admit this existed) So I continue: "What if I show up and say, 'I don't want to show ID. I don't think I need permission from the government to fly.' " She says, "Well, then we turn you away". This went on for a while, and it became clear (to me) that their mission is to "lie" to my face and get me voluntarily show ID even though I'm not legally REQUIRED to at the checkpoint. The conversation was witnessed by at first 2 then about 4 other people from TSA. She did not agree with my assessment that "ID is required" is effectively a lie, but she did agree that people could fly without it, and pretty soon she said, "You gotta go talk to your government representative" not realizing that with a big TSA badge on, she WAS representing the government.
So, from now on, I have lost my ID. Really, I'm not sure where it is I will take the extra hour at the airport. It sucks to spend the hour and make them follow their inane search circus policy.... but the alternative is much worse. I've been asked for photo ID at best buy, hotels, grocery stores, bars, on and on -- all just to do the my daily life activities I want to do. Once that becomes the norm, we'll need government permission to do anything. Unless people realize the problem and start telling people "no, I'd rather not" when asked for ID, this problem will continue to get worse.
Get your own plane.
;).
A fair number of pilots take their own plane down every year.
I doubt the TSA can make that impossible
I don't know what you count as proof, but there are audio recordings and telemetry that convinced me beyond any reasonable doubt. I've heard some of those audio recordings on the radio, so I'm sure you can find them. I don't want to hear them again. It still makes me cry remembering the recording of one of them say goodbye to his family just before the passengers rioted.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
In the interest of security and safety, we could put the babies in a cage in the cargo section with the dogs and cats. Sometimes we have to be willing to make the hard choices and make some sacrifices to our comfort (or our babies comforts) for the good of our fellow travelors security.
That's bullshit. What we know is that this has happened in the past. It's not known in any given case what the hijackers are after (and don't give me the schpiel about "people not looking to use the plane as a weapon will know they're going to die if they try it and won't hijack the plane", because a glance at the success rates for plane hijackers will demonstrate that these aren't people who play the odds (or examine them, probably)). There's a good chance that the passengers will attack, of course, but the question of whether or not this is the right decision is a more difficult one--cooperation may still be the way to ensure that the fewest people die.
It's a blog, you expect anything different?
I'm half waiting for someone to post videos of "Leave The TSA Alone!!" on there...
Large print giveth, and the small print taketh away
Who cares if you have to take off your shoes before you get on a plane? I'd rather bear with such minor inconveniences in favor of better security. What shocks me is that people don't complain about the obvious problem with flying: the lack of leg room! Leg room has been shrinking for years and for anyone 6 foot or higher it's downright impossible to come out of a plane without back problems.
Airline and airport "fees", on the other hand, have been increasing over the past couple years.
Why don't people stick to *those* important issues and get things done instead of complaining about more controversial issues they might well be wrong about? There is no chance you of you being wrong about wanting more leg-room.
The hope is that constructive criticism would drive improvement.
The truth is that the TSA is a bureaucracy, where bureaucracy is a three-way-cross of kudzu, humans, and sloths.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Various pieces of real events could be combined to make a new kind of event. Drug mules, bomb makers, and apparently from the last UK bombings - Al Q terrorists can be medical professionals. So that says to me all you need to blow up a plane is an implanted bomb. Airport screenings don't do anything for that. Hostile passengers don't do anything for that. In this case, you get on the plane, you die. What fixes this is the designed killing field of Iraq.
Killing babies, and this far down in the list, lets call that a Godwin.
Absolutely. Much like I'm willing to expose everyone to the risk of passengers who aren't in chains (you know, someone with good hand-to-hand skills and a stiff pen (for small joint manipulation) could probably hurt a lot of people real bad in a small place like a plane).
The requirement of the boarding pass makes it sound like you took your complaint against some airport authority, as opposed to process that's handled by the Coast Guard.
In order to deny your claim, some individual had to sign an affadavit which was literally a sworn oath that the damage you claimed was not done. This, you can take to court.
They bought me a new laptop, and a new belt. It took longer to get the belt.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
First Poster: "I flew once and it sucked. TSA is dumb!"
Second Poster: "I fly a few times annually and it goes well. TSA is good."
Third Poster: "I fly weekly and it sucks. TSA is dumb!"
And thus we see the nature of the beast. It's all in personal experience. Since heightened security has gone into place, I've never had issue with TSA or it's policies. Of course, I'm usually only flying once or twice a year (so I guess I'm somewhere between the first and second posters...)
But in a way, if you look at the three posts. It makes sense:
For the first poster, the 1 flight they took went poorly so they'll remember it and associate it with airline travel as an overall negative.
For the second poster, they fly out a few times each year. So while they may have had a negative experience or two, they've got a larger sample size and an overall postive experience.
For the third poster, they fly out weekly. So they're frustration comes not with the policies, but with the frequency they have to do them. Much like a poorly laid out intersection or stoplight timing can annoy somebody who commutes everyday, but a passerby may not see the problem.
But in the end, it's all anecdotal. Somebody else who flies everyday could come by and say "Well overall for me it's been good" and the whole thing would be meaningless.
It could have been something like formula or liquor.
Someone else will open a high security airline, charge more...have armed security on the plane.
Excellent implementation of the Elitist Mentality. Let's pause for a moment to take into consideration large families, college students, or other "regular" people who would likely be unable to afford the expensive "We have security" airlines. Or even the business traveler who's flying in and out of the airports on a weekly basis (he/she may not pay for it, but the company does).
And consider this, airlines all use the same airports. So if one security checkpoint is lax and another is super tight, they both get into the same airport. Unless of course you remodel airports so that the "lax" airline passengers and the "secure" passengers never cross paths.
There are lots of luxuries that we can charge obscene amounts of money for. Security should not be one of them.
The whole screening for liquids thing is ludicrous. And if taking down an airplane with liquids, even a binary liquid, it would be TRIVIAL for a terrorist to accomplish.
To wit, that big-bosomed woman who just waltzed past security might be carrying the explosive liquid in her BOOBS. Those 44DD's could be filled with explosive liquid and detonated on the plane. They more than exceed the 3-1-1 designation (by a large margin).
Are you forcing women with large mammeries to choose one or the other to toss out before getting on the plane? Are you checking to make sure those implants are still filled with saline? Just what ARE the TSA procedures for inspecting women with large gazoombas anyway?
Considering that terrorists are employing women more and more as suicide bombers, the case I'm proposing is not as jocular as might at first be presupposed.
My suggestion to the TSA regarding "Security Theater" -- remember that the first job of the actor is to convince the audience to "suspend their disbelief."
I doubt however that you will actually post this letter though since it actually makes sense and points out the absurdities that have been foisted upon the American people in the name of "fighting terrorism".