Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I also would support airlines hiring their own security, however, I feel all airport security should have uniformed regulations and procedures.
First, a requirement that they have a degree in Security and training in psychology, and can spot the signs that there is a reason to bother them. Foreign airports use this as a cornerstone. Pay them more and use far fewer and don't abuse the innicent traveler.
And use something effective and not invasive like dogs. The military does. The FDA does IN airports. Beagles come in all sizes, barely off the ground to knee high. As I'm on my second one, I can verify that sense of smell. A sniffing by a dog would be far less of a problem than some creeps hands or irratdiation and would work. The FDA trains each dog in the beagle brigade to sniff out one thing when checking luggage. The dogs are non-agressive.
If the dog sniffs your bag for explosives, and you have shampoo, you get to take it home with you that way. And no more harrassment of people with ostomies, women with formula or breast milk, and the water bottle and hand cream that makes the trip easier. And gives some respect to travelers.
Fire the GED guys unless they can qualify.
Have the behavoral crew evaluate prospectives for the lower level jobs for the sort who like power trips and do not hire them. If it shows, fire them. It should not be about intimidation, but real results.
First, a requirement that they have a degree in Security and training in psychology, and can spot the signs that there is a reason to bother them. Foreign airports use this as a cornerstone. Pay them more and use far fewer and don't abuse the innicent traveler.
And use something effective and not invasive like dogs. The military does. The FDA does IN airports. Beagles come in all sizes, barely off the ground to knee high. As I'm on my second one, I can verify that sense of smell. A sniffing by a dog would be far less of a problem than some creeps hands or irratdiation and would work. The FDA trains each dog in the beagle brigade to sniff out one thing when checking luggage. The dogs are non-agressive.
If the dog sniffs your bag for explosives, and you have shampoo, you get to take it home with you that way. And no more harrassment of people with ostomies, women with formula or breast milk, and the water bottle and hand cream that makes the trip easier. And gives some respect to travelers.
Fire the GED guys unless they can qualify.
Have the behavoral crew evaluate prospectives for the lower level jobs for the sort who like power trips and do not hire them. If it shows, fire them. It should not be about intimidation, but real results.
You know at least once a week I am hearing a new story on the News about how the TSA confiscated this, or searched that 85 year old women or 3 year old child. Always accompanied by how OUTRAGED everyone is that they would do such a thing. Just tonight I heard what would become the inspiration for this thread. Apparently, a TSA workeer confiscated a cup cake.
To all those who complain....why exactly are you complaining that they are doing a good and thorough job? You act as if an 85 year old women could not be a terrorist or that an adult terrorist would never hide a weapon on a child? Like a terrorist absolutely could not hide a chemical agent in a cup cake or other pastry.
If all this complaining leads to a draw back on how the TSA operates, it will lead to them being more lax and create a weakness amongst airport security. Think about it, if you were one of these terrorists, where would you hide a weapon? Hmmmmm..... they will never suspect a child or an elderly women would be concealing any weapons, so lets try that!
TSA will not stop a professional terrorist. They just harass the good guys. They are trying to stop something that happened 10 years ago and will never happen again.
We don't need the extreme costs and measures that DHS and TSA have implemented.
I'm not saying the TSA is fully competent either though. Let me share a little story with you about the last time I went on vacation.
We were going to NC from OH. Most of the family had decided to drive but there were a few of us who had prior commitments and had to leave a few days later. So as to avoid baggage fees, I had sent my luggage with them in the van. So, I showed up the morning of mt flight, with only the clothes I had on and whatever was in my pockets.
Niow, I'm a smoker, and wasnt sure what the regs on lighters and matches were, so I had one of each in my pocket, along with my cell and a pack of smokes. So in other words, here I am, a guy with a one way ticket to NC { planned on riding back, not flying } with no baggage, a lighter, a pack of matches, and a cellular phone in my pocket. I got right through security with no problem. I thought sure I would raise some kind of suspicion, but I didnt.
If that didn't raise suspicion, then what does? The TSA could, without a doubt, use some improvement, but I am still glad it's there.
You have no idea if you raised suspicion with them or not. You don't know if they were following you and keeping an eye on you are not. You don't know who they have spoken to about you just to get more information.
I understand your point, but the way it works is that a lot of what some of you THINK should happen is not going to be done in your plain sight. One thing I notice is that people try to figure out what is going on with the work that these various agencies are doing. People say, "Well, why didn't this happen?" "Why didn't they check this?" Etc., but the truth is that a lot of the time, things are going on that people don't even know about.
It is wrong to say that I'd happily put up with more attempted bombings if it meant getting through security faster and not being hassled by someone with a double digit IQ and triple digit income every time I want to take a vacation?
Whipper, but why does it have to be government though? Why can't the airlines (or even the airports themselves) hire third party?
The issue is that we hear these horror stories and everyone says omg my freedom, but you hear one of these stories every so often.. and yeah.. they are bad. The reason why they make news is because it's the Government: There is nothing we can do in regards to this.
You see, if the airlines hired their own crew.. and every airport had one... you would hear about how bad "Philly's airport" is.. or "Houston has the best security".. instead, we hear a few bad examples and they all get lumped together in a negative way.
I think the group itself is unconstitutional, I think it's a waste of money...but I fully support airpoirts (or airlines) hiring their own.
Who will give the employees of these third parties security clearance? Why does it matter if it is the government? Won't the security measures still have to be the same? When a serious, very serious, imminent-danger threat is discovered, won't those third-parties have to eventually hand over the situation to the government? Yes, they will. The U.S. government agencies are highly-networked and organized. Do you really believe that private security companies should be responsible for airline security instead of such highly-resourced entity as the U.S. government? You realize the amount of intelligence the U.S. government is able to attain as opposed to a private security company, right? I'm not trying to be a cheerleader for government, but I know that there is no comparison.
Two days before 9/11 I took a friend who was visiting to a large regional socal airport. Her plane was delayed for two hours, and we were sent back and forth several times getting her lost item left on the plane. In total I walked back through 'security' five times. The first four, when it was both of us with luggage, the entire rent an agent crew was sitting in a corner taking a break, munching and talking. Didn't even look to see if anyone was there. Last trip through one asked if he could look in my purse, since by then I was leaving and there wouldn't be any point.
Thing is, anyone could have walked through with whatever they wanted before. Just enforcing the existing security which was not overly invasive would be proper.
If you want to talk about bombs, bring in dogs to sniff for explosives. Dogs who work around the public are trained to behave. They could even tell you where the bomb was if it got hidden on a body. And keep HANDS OFF people who just want to get on the plane.
How many dogs in an airport would you like to have in order to pull that off? It'd take a lot, it'd be chaos and it would be less efficient.
Also, you're OK with having full-grown dogs sniffing around a person, but not having a human being pat them down?
Also, I don't recall when I said that there was enough security before 9/11. I don't know why that user said that in their post.
Why do some of you all say this? If you don't know what you are talking about, you shouldn't be spewing misinformation like this.
From the TSA's own website they state that the requirement was for them to screen 100% of baggage/cargo, to date they have only managed to be able to screen 50%. They have had 10 years to figure this out - what a freakin failure.
TSA: Air Cargo (http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/layers/aircargo/index.shtm - broken link)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
