A Travel and vacations forum. TravelBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » TravelBanter forum » Travelling Style » Air travel
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Airport Opt-Out Of TSA



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 17th, 2004, 07:49 PM
Stan-Fan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old February 18th, 2004, 02:45 AM
Clark W. Griswold, Jr.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Airport Opt-Out Of TSA

(Stan-Fan) wrote:

But the question is - do you feel safer with TSA at the controls now
under the administration of the Federal government,


H#ll No.

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?


Neither does much for security. Consider this:

Supposed we removed the screening points completely and permitted everyone on
board to carry a handgun, knife or other defensive weapon. (And yes, I know that
defensive weapons can be offensive weapons. Don't be pedantic.) Along with this
would be very draconian penalties for discharge/use of said weapon in
circumstances other than an attempted takeover of the aircraft.

Consider the percentage of people in the world that actually are willing to die
hijacking an aircraft. Compare that to the percentage of law abiding citzens who
are willing to carry a weapon and use it in dire circumstances.

Neither number is very large, but I'd be willing to place good money that the
latter group is much larger than the former. Certainly there would be many more
armed citizens than there are armed sky marshalls.

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.

But then again, in a society that is constantly told it needs a government to
protect and provide for it...
  #3  
Old February 18th, 2004, 10:56 AM
Mark Hewitt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old February 18th, 2004, 03:31 PM
Casey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old February 18th, 2004, 03:56 PM
Clark W. Griswold, Jr.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old February 18th, 2004, 04:43 PM
Stan-Fan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.

  #7  
Old February 18th, 2004, 05:26 PM
DALing
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Airport Opt-Out Of TSA

lets just go back to something reasonable - NOW THAT THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT
HAVE CHANGED. keep the guns and bombs off the aircraft and the rest will
take care of itself. I STILL hate to point out to a TSA idiot that I can do
far more damage with my pen than a nail file... (oh, they removed the
prohibition on nail files and clippers...) Actually probably damage more
than a penknife (will poke nicely, but not CUT, though)

The reference to rules changing have to do with pax protecting themselves

"Clark W. Griswold, Jr." 73115 dot 1041 at compuserve dot com wrote in
message news
(Stan-Fan) wrote:

But the question is - do you feel safer with TSA at the controls now
under the administration of the Federal government,


H#ll No.

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?


Neither does much for security. Consider this:

Supposed we removed the screening points completely and permitted everyone
on
board to carry a handgun, knife or other defensive weapon. (And yes, I

know that
defensive weapons can be offensive weapons. Don't be pedantic.) Along with

this
would be very draconian penalties for discharge/use of said weapon in
circumstances other than an attempted takeover of the aircraft.

Consider the percentage of people in the world that actually are willing

to die
hijacking an aircraft. Compare that to the percentage of law abiding

citzens who
are willing to carry a weapon and use it in dire circumstances.

Neither number is very large, but I'd be willing to place good money that

the
latter group is much larger than the former. Certainly there would be many

more
armed citizens than there are armed sky marshalls.

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.

But then again, in a society that is constantly told it needs a government

to
protect and provide for it...


  #8  
Old February 18th, 2004, 05:44 PM
DALing
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old February 18th, 2004, 11:46 PM
Casey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old February 19th, 2004, 01:53 AM
Clark W. Griswold, Jr.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 TravelBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.