If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Airport Opt-Out Of TSA
Five airports are experimenting with private screeners, and all want to
continue - primarily because by positioning screeners where they are most needed, they have reduced passenger hassles. The airports are in San Francisco, Kansas City, Rochester, N.Y., Jackson Hole, Wyoming and Tupelo, Mississippi. If an airport went to private security, it would be required to follow TSA guidelines, and the TSA would pay the screeners. Although that would seem to dictate the number of screeners who can be hired, an airport might be able to employ even more if it uses federal passenger charges and its federal allocation money. Ft.Lauderdale-Hollywood, Florida Airport, one of the few in the nation which has shown a significant increase in traffic and travel since September 11th, is debating whether to opt-out of the TSA screener program after November, and go private. MIA (Miami International), the nation's third largest foreign departure airport also is considering it. Along with normal security breeches, some of the major problems people and the airlines cite about the TSA is that they significantly overhired staff, so much so that Congress mandated they cut the number of screeners from 55,000 to 45,000; failed to do adequate background investigations on those hired, particularly on those with runway, airplane jetway, fueling, catering, loading and backdoor access; cargo carriers; failed to train screeners in proactive customer friendly service (TSA is noted for treating every person exactly the same - including elderly, infants, infirmed and handicapped, not in the best interests of the customer service oriented airline industry), and essentially that TSA is "window dressing" and not much different than the private screening which was done before September 11th. Granted there are over 400 airports in the United States to cover, that was a tremendous pipeline to fill the "alleged" security void after September 11th, and we haven't had a significant terrorist incident since then. But the question is - do you feel safer with TSA at the controls now under the administration of the Federal government, or would you feel safer with the screener operation at your local, or most used airport or destination airport, under the control of the individual airport, and airlines? I would imagine this sort of question may come up in the Presidential election this November, so just curious, since I fly regularly out of FLL, usually on Southwest. My personal opinion is that TSA isn't much better than what we had in the past with private screeners, and a return to that - with the September 11th terrorist attack 2 1/2 years past, would probably be sufficient, less costly, and greatly enhance service. Than again, another terrorist incident, and people will stop flying - a terrible blow to the nation's economy. Who better to run airport security, the government, or private? The Air Marshal Service, increased pilot training in carrying firearms, and including the cargo plane's pilots in the umbrella for those authorized to carry firearms on board. are areas where TSA has made more significant strides than passenger / luggage screening, where they often over-react and cause tremendous traffic delays. Granted, it is always better to be down here wishing you were up there, than up there writing about this stuff down here. Comment? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Airport Opt-Out Of TSA
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Airport Opt-Out Of TSA
"Clark W. Griswold, Jr." 73115 dot 1041 at compuserve dot com wrote in message news (Stan-Fan) wrote: Furthermore, I'd feel a whole lot safer in an aircraft in that circumstance than I do today. Hell no! I accidentially wake some one up on a night flight and get a knife in my gut for my trouble.! |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Airport Opt-Out Of TSA
Furthermore, I'd feel a whole lot safer in an aircraft in that
circumstance than I do today. I know if I were a terrorist, those odds would give me pause. You are making a huge assumption, that the holders of firearms are extremely proficient at using them. This is only true for a very small percentage of people. The only people I want on an aircraft to have firearms are those who are well-trained, i.e. great shots. Pilots are an exception (training is still necessary though), as the only time they would use a weapon is if the cockpit door was breached, and that use of a firearm would be the crew's and passengers' last chance. Casey |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Airport Opt-Out Of TSA
"Casey" wrote:
You are making a huge assumption, that the holders of firearms are extremely proficient at using them. This is only true for a very small percentage of people. The only people I want on an aircraft to have firearms are those who are well-trained, i.e. great shots. Wow - a rational response on Usenet. The world must have stopped spinning. Here's my point: I don't want anyone to even try to take over an aircraft, period. If I was a bad guy and I knew that some number of people were armed on board the aircraft, what's the point of even trying? The odds of my being sucessful have just dropped dramatically and I lose any hope of making a big statement. Isn't that the point of the sky marshall program with the possibility of just 1 or 2 marshalls on an aircraft? Once the guns come out, the rules of the game change. Then it becomes compare the cost of losing the aircraft completely with the odds of one or two stray bullets harming a couple of individuals. (Despite what the movies have shown, you won't get an explosive decompression from a bullet through the aircraft skin.) Not a pleasant choice, but significantly better than losing the entire aircraft. And as a side effect, wouldn't it drive the terrorists nuts? Instead of restricting people's freedoms, we've reinforced them. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Airport Opt-Out Of TSA
Agree with Casey. Although there are tremendous numbers of our citizens
out there who carry firearms, and hold concealed weapons permits, the great majority are not trained to use them. I don't care how many have them. And, even though many people have been trained to use the darn things, most people would be helpless even armed, when confronted by criminals and terrorists, mainly because citizens don't live their lives at a highly intense state of self awareness for their personal safety (check the cellphone users speeding and weaving on the freeways all over the country). Advantage is always with the criminals and terrorists because they plan, and strike by surprise. Even highly trained law enforcement officers get blown away walking into tense domestic situations, or simple nightime traffic stops because they are not paying attention to their safety at that high level of awareness their training demands. We lose about 30-officers a year this way across the country. Having the pilots, locked in the cabin at 39,000, armed, and only prepared to use the gun if a breach of the cockpit is happening doesn't bother me - neither does arming the flight attendants with electronic "stun" or "zapper" guns. The guy way back in row 35 seat A of a 767 trying to shoot a hijacker or terrorist the length of the plane, now that would worry the hell out of me up there. However, my personal opinion of TSA, is that although they do an adequate job, it isn't much more effective than the job that was done prior to September 11th. Boxcutters, knives, loaded guns, etc., still get through regularly, and their interpersonal skills are confrontational at best, putting more passengers in fear of approaching them, than is necessary, even though the passengers have nothing to hide. Pilots and flight attendants familiar to the TSA screeners, although they are not supposed to, still get passed around the secure areas without screening, it is pretty simple to order a custom made Delta-United-Southwest-America flight attendants, or crew uniform and walk aboard in a group without showing the TSA people ID's, which their rarely check. If law enforcement officers get shot on routine missions, and they should be aware, does anybody really expect a TSA screener to be so vigilant when faced with the common, everyday sight of a two people in pilot uniforms, or a group in flight attendant uniforms coming at them? Those ancillary people necessary on the ground to move the planes around, fuel them, and cater them, are not checked regularly. The most common security breach located on TSA testing is the door from the ground to the jetway, way past security screening stations. And, my personal observation - that almost any passenger could hijack any airliner whenever they want to, simply by "bullrushing" the cockpit when walking aboard the aircraft from the jetway. Majority of the time, the pilot and co-pilot are sitting in there with the door open, their backs to the passengers, going through their checklist, and only a flight attendant is standing at the front to get by. This phenomena I have observed on almost every single aircraft of the major carriers and the cut-rate ones, with the exception of a Boeing 747. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Airport Opt-Out Of TSA
bullrushing a cockpit might get you IN but you probably won't get "pushed
back" and there is no where to go except forward (FEW aircraft can "back up") into the terminal (ala the Continental MD a couple of years ago at EWR) "Stan-Fan" wrote in message ... Agree with Casey. Although there are tremendous numbers of our citizens out there who carry firearms, and hold concealed weapons permits, the great majority are not trained to use them. I don't care how many have them. And, even though many people have been trained to use the darn things, most people would be helpless even armed, when confronted by criminals and terrorists, mainly because citizens don't live their lives at a highly intense state of self awareness for their personal safety (check the cellphone users speeding and weaving on the freeways all over the country). Advantage is always with the criminals and terrorists because they plan, and strike by surprise. Even highly trained law enforcement officers get blown away walking into tense domestic situations, or simple nightime traffic stops because they are not paying attention to their safety at that high level of awareness their training demands. We lose about 30-officers a year this way across the country. Having the pilots, locked in the cabin at 39,000, armed, and only prepared to use the gun if a breach of the cockpit is happening doesn't bother me - neither does arming the flight attendants with electronic "stun" or "zapper" guns. The guy way back in row 35 seat A of a 767 trying to shoot a hijacker or terrorist the length of the plane, now that would worry the hell out of me up there. However, my personal opinion of TSA, is that although they do an adequate job, it isn't much more effective than the job that was done prior to September 11th. Boxcutters, knives, loaded guns, etc., still get through regularly, and their interpersonal skills are confrontational at best, putting more passengers in fear of approaching them, than is necessary, even though the passengers have nothing to hide. Pilots and flight attendants familiar to the TSA screeners, although they are not supposed to, still get passed around the secure areas without screening, it is pretty simple to order a custom made Delta-United-Southwest-America flight attendants, or crew uniform and walk aboard in a group without showing the TSA people ID's, which their rarely check. If law enforcement officers get shot on routine missions, and they should be aware, does anybody really expect a TSA screener to be so vigilant when faced with the common, everyday sight of a two people in pilot uniforms, or a group in flight attendant uniforms coming at them? Those ancillary people necessary on the ground to move the planes around, fuel them, and cater them, are not checked regularly. The most common security breach located on TSA testing is the door from the ground to the jetway, way past security screening stations. And, my personal observation - that almost any passenger could hijack any airliner whenever they want to, simply by "bullrushing" the cockpit when walking aboard the aircraft from the jetway. Majority of the time, the pilot and co-pilot are sitting in there with the door open, their backs to the passengers, going through their checklist, and only a flight attendant is standing at the front to get by. This phenomena I have observed on almost every single aircraft of the major carriers and the cut-rate ones, with the exception of a Boeing 747. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Airport Opt-Out Of TSA
If I was a bad guy and I knew that some number of people were
armed on board the aircraft, what's the point of even trying? Yes, I see your point, but you miss the more likely scenario. If armed passengers are not well-trained, then one of them is likely to shoot if someone starts slapping his/her spouse. Spousal abuse is not acceptable, but shooting is only a good solution if deadly force is being threatened. Look at the Middle East, where lots of men shoot rifles at weddings and other events. Sometimes people get shot. Lots of armed people is not the solution, but a few well- trained armed people can work well. Casey |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Airport Opt-Out Of TSA
"Casey" wrote:
If armed passengers are not well-trained, then one of them is likely to shoot if someone starts slapping his/her spouse. Spousal abuse is not acceptable, but shooting is only a good solution if deadly force is being threatened. Look at the Middle East, where lots of men shoot rifles at weddings and other events. Sometimes people get shot. Lots of armed people is not the solution, but a few well- trained armed people can work well. That's where the draconian penalty for use of a weapon when a hijack situation is not present. Said individual is just as like to threaten spouse or other individual anywhere - not just on an airplane and endanger people in those situations as well. Again, it all comes down to percentages and you won't get to 100% in any direction. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
JFK Airtrain: Good News, Bad News, Good News and Bad News | Arnold Reinhold | Air travel | 103 | June 30th, 2006 05:59 PM |
Cairo Airport Layover Help - Picking up airline tix and starting RTW. Help with Airport & Facilities | Steve | Air travel | 1 | January 11th, 2004 04:04 AM |
Explosive at airport uncovers security lapse | The Bill Mattocks | Air travel | 5 | December 18th, 2003 03:08 AM |
Changi Airport getting ready for A380 | taqai | Air travel | 6 | November 29th, 2003 02:36 PM |
They changed the name of Atlanta International Airport. | James Anatidae | Air travel | 17 | November 14th, 2003 04:32 PM |