What If The Worst Happened

Discussion in 'Aviation Passenger Security in the USA' started by FetePerfection, Jun 10, 2011.

  1. Rugape

    Rugape Original Member

    I have agreed with you on this many times before. Under the wing and employees not screening are a vulnerablitity that I would prefer we not have.
  2. Rugape

    Rugape Original Member

    But you are calling for no further screening than the initial screening based on age. What if they alarm, we just what, let them go? Most of the patdowns you have seen video of on children, are after the child has alarmed. If the child alarms we just what, let them go without resolving the alarm? I will give you the argument on random screenings, I dislike them, I do not see a compelling reason for anything more than random ETD testing. I am also not privvy to all the info and intel they have at HQ.
  3. Rugape

    Rugape Original Member

    That is entirely possible. It could also be something completely different. I am not certain where to begin, but HQ has established a new Professional Standards division (what we used to call internal affairs). I am interested to see what they do over the next year, and hopefully it won't be a small office with about 7 employees doing that whole job. I hope that it is something that expands to a regional situation and that they start running folks that don't need to be here - out.
    DeafBlonde and AngryMiller like this.
  4. AngryMiller

    AngryMiller Original Member

    People who've had bad experiences with TSA make your job all that much harder. They come to the airport with an attitude against TSA. It will take a whole lot of work to undo what has been done. FWIW I didn't start out with a grudge against TSA either. They rightfully earned my attitude.
    Lisa Simeone and Rugape like this.
  5. RB

    RB Founding Member

    Once again I am not going to let you claim I said something I did not. I don't know if your misstatements are intentional or what but please try to read the whole response.

    Here is part of what I stated:

    So I am acknowledging that in some cases more in-depth screening might be needed. My objection is that TSA starts at the most invasive means as step one, not last step of the process.
    Lisa Simeone and Rugape like this.
  6. RB

    RB Founding Member

    I suspect they will be very busy.
    Rugape likes this.
  7. exbayern

    exbayern Original Member

    I generally appreciate your response (and I believe that we have had a similar discussion before)

    I take exception however to using 'large airports' as an excuse. I have been posting recent FRA experiences on FT (I am the first to recommend avoiding FRA whenever possible, but my travel schedule this year requires starting or transferring through FRA including reclearing security)

    If airports like FRA can provide professional screening in a country which has been under threat of aviation terrorism since long before 9/11, to a travelling public very diverse, with a worker base also very diverse, why does the TSA get a free pass simply because some airports are large? Travel through FRA on any given day and you will see a very large number of passengers who speak no English and no German, yet they are treated with respect.

    PEK is listed as the 2nd largest airport in the world. That is also a very diverse airport, and they too can manage to perform professionally and respectfully. Same holds true for HKG, AMS, BKK, PVG, SIN, CAN, and almost any of the 'international' airports listed at the 20 most busy in the world.
    Lisa Simeone likes this.
  8. VH-RMD

    VH-RMD Original Member

    but they are not 'American'.....:rolleyes:
  9. Rugape

    Rugape Original Member

    Agreed. I hope they start soon, the sooner we get to work on fixing the easiest things, the more we can focus on the hard stuff like policy and procedures.
  10. exbayern

    exbayern Original Member

    I've noticed a marked change in the last five years or so amongst female screeners. Generally, I had no issue with them and there were even some who were rather 'warm and fuzzy'.

    Over the past two years however it seems that so many have become aggressive and argumentative, perhaps in a defensive measure. What they don't seem to realise is that they are making the tension rise and thus making things worse for themselves.
  11. Rugape

    Rugape Original Member

    Fair enough, I must have misread it the first time through. I actually agree with that about everyone, not just children. I dislike the patdowns as a first line of screening unless the passenger requests it or is incapable of participating in the other forms of screening. There are some times (random screening) that children are chosen for a patdown, but the vast majority of the time, it is to resolve an alarm. So where do we draw the line? I already disagree with random screening past ETD, or AIT. Where would you draw the line? Just for the sake of discussion, we are not talking about the style of pat down for this question, just where do you draw the line for children?
  12. Rugape

    Rugape Original Member

    I hope they are, if the intention is to get rid of bad apples, then I hope they dump the lot of them.
  13. RB

    RB Founding Member

    First steps should be getting an effective front office which is clearly lacking today.
  14. Rugape

    Rugape Original Member

    I normally would agree with you, but lets say in the case of LAX, while I was there (a 30 day stint), they hired on 300 or so new employees, and lost in the neighborhood of 450. It has slowed down since then, but with a turnover rate like that, it is impossible to keep the best employees. Many of those leaving were moving to a job that paid a baseline salary of almost twice what a new hire TSO makes - from the employee point of view, it would be stupid not to take advantage of it. The biggest difference now is that the economy has tanked and Cali is not as easy to move up in. In many larger cities, TSA is merely a feeder league for more lucrative employment. As I indicated earlier, the rate of loss has subsided a great deal over the last 3 years, so it is not as big of a problem at this point. All that being said, there is no excuse for being rude or un professional anywhere as an employee of TSA. I merely say that to point out the realities, as opposed to the standard (based on more complaints from larger airports).
  15. Rugape

    Rugape Original Member

    I have noticed a bit of a difference as well, probably not as big of a difference as you because I don't travel as much. Staffing with females has been a bit of a problem in the past, it could have something to do with having to carry twice as much workload as the male counterparts in some situations. Not making an excuse, just giving some info.
  16. Rugape

    Rugape Original Member

    I won't argue with you on that, but I will reserve judgement on the current headshed until they get most of their policies in place and moving. If they make positive changes, it is hard to go against that.
  17. exbayern

    exbayern Original Member

    But the high turnover rate is just an excuse to cover up a larger problem. TSA isn't seen as a professional agency by many, and it is clear that they don't hire and retain based on a professional agency.

    In most other countries, airport security isn't seen as an entry level position for those lacking the required skills to obtain a job elsewhere.

    For example, I had a conversation with a FRA screener this week and he told me that his English wasn't quite up to the standard required of him. His English was actually far better than many Germans his age. He appeared to be an immigrant or first generation German based on his accent, so I suspect that he speaks at least three languages somewhat fluently. His role as a screener requires fluency in two. I'm not certain of the requirements for CATSA screeners, but I have had many conversations in both French and English over the years (and many also have a third language as well) English is the lingua franca in India, but most people in skilled roles speak at least two 'local' languages.

    The language skill is just one element of the job, but certainly one sees the difference in the perception of the role of airport screener around the world.
    Lisa Simeone likes this.
  18. RB

    RB Founding Member

    For a child or anyone for that matter, ETD and WTMD for initial screening. Period. If there is an alarm then resolve the alarm using increasingly more invasive means as needed. If a person wants to use WBI then fine, I don't object to that persons choice, however if they object to the electronic strip search then do not go to a full invasive whole body pat down unless cause can be presented showing that need. If they want a pat down then go for it. But not for children; do as little screening as needed to satisfy security requirements, which again should be the process for everyone.

    I don't think I am taking an unreasonable position on this but TSA has jumped the shark on screening, refuses to listen to the public and others who understand the threats to civil aviation and continues doing things which will only increase the growing distrust of the public and makes your jobs harder and harder.

    TSA is its on worst enemy, not the public.
    Lisa Simeone and Rugape like this.
  19. RB

    RB Founding Member

    How long will you give Pissy to get things moving in the right direction?

    I think he has had plenty of time yet his choices have been to increase the screening abuses.
    Lisa Simeone likes this.
  20. CelticWhisper

    CelticWhisper Founding Member

    Yes, just let them go. Seriously. Consider it an acceptable risk that is part-and-parcel of air travel and understand that with liberty comes risk. What we need is to replace Pistole, who seems to think the directive is "Prevent terrorism in the air, all else is secondary" with someone who thinks "Prevent terrorism in the air so long as it does not violate the Constitutional rights of the American public. Protect the liberties of the people, screening for threats is secondary."

    Rights and liberty are more important than security. Without exception, unconditionally, and all the time in all instances in every respect.
    Lisa Simeone likes this.

Share This Page