How Competent Are Airport Screeners ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Location: hong kong
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How Competent Are Airport Screeners ?
Official Says Airport Trainees Knew Questions Before Tests
By MATTHEW L. WALD
Published: October 9, 2003
NEW YORK TIMES.
ASHINGTON, Oct. 8 — Most of the questions on an examination to become an airport screener were rehearsed with the trainees before the test, according to the inspector general of the Transportation Security Administration, who called the practice "extremely disturbing."
Some questions were "simplistic," and "a number of the questions were phrased so as to provide an obvious clue to the correct answer," the inspector general, Clark Kent Ervin, found. He made the comments in an Aug. 29 letter to Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, released by the senator on Wednesday.
Advertisement
A spokesman for the agency, Brian Turmail, said the inspector general's observations were "a microscopic look at one element in an incredibly rigorous training regimen."
Mr. Ervin's letter included some of the questions, including this one:
How do threats get on board an aircraft?
a. In carry-on bags.
b. In checked-in bags.
c. In another person's bag.
d. All of the above.
Another question asked why it was important to screen bags for "improvised explosive devices," commonly referred to by security experts as I.E.D.'s.
The choices were:
a. The I.E.D. batteries could leak and damage other passenger bags.
b. The wires in the I.E.D. could cause a short to the aircraft wires.
c. I.E.D.'s can cause loss of lives, property and aircraft.
d. The ticking timer could worry other passengers.
Mr. Schumer, in a telephone interview on Wednesday, said, "When you read the test, you'd think it was written by Jay Leno's scriptwriters rather than by a testing agency."
Mr. Schumer said his staff had spoken to some screeners, who said that the on-the-job field test was more important. But those screeners described the hands-on field test in ways that made it sound erratic, Mr. Schumer said. "Some people said it depends on the instructor, the day, the week and the place," he said.
The issue arose in January in a report in Newsday, the Long Island newspaper, about trainees at LaGuardia being given the questions in advance. An investigation found that in the system used to train about 30,000 screeners, a 25-question exam included 22 questions used on earlier quizzes. The letter was in response to a question by Mr. Schumer about that report. The agency told Mr. Schumer that the trainers had done nothing wrong, and that 22 of the 25 questions on the exam were in daily lesson quizzes.
The screeners were trained to operate Explosive Detection Systems, called E.D.S. The inspector general complained that of the examinations provided to him by the agency, "not a single question called upon a student to demonstrate a sufficient mastery of the class content to achieve the purpose of the training."
Mr. Turmail, of the agency, said that the test was just one part of a long process. "There are no screeners working today who haven't demonstrated, in a real-world environment, in a hands-on setting, their ability to use this equipment to identify and keep bombs from getting on planes," he said.
By MATTHEW L. WALD
Published: October 9, 2003
NEW YORK TIMES.
ASHINGTON, Oct. 8 — Most of the questions on an examination to become an airport screener were rehearsed with the trainees before the test, according to the inspector general of the Transportation Security Administration, who called the practice "extremely disturbing."
Some questions were "simplistic," and "a number of the questions were phrased so as to provide an obvious clue to the correct answer," the inspector general, Clark Kent Ervin, found. He made the comments in an Aug. 29 letter to Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, released by the senator on Wednesday.
Advertisement
A spokesman for the agency, Brian Turmail, said the inspector general's observations were "a microscopic look at one element in an incredibly rigorous training regimen."
Mr. Ervin's letter included some of the questions, including this one:
How do threats get on board an aircraft?
a. In carry-on bags.
b. In checked-in bags.
c. In another person's bag.
d. All of the above.
Another question asked why it was important to screen bags for "improvised explosive devices," commonly referred to by security experts as I.E.D.'s.
The choices were:
a. The I.E.D. batteries could leak and damage other passenger bags.
b. The wires in the I.E.D. could cause a short to the aircraft wires.
c. I.E.D.'s can cause loss of lives, property and aircraft.
d. The ticking timer could worry other passengers.
Mr. Schumer, in a telephone interview on Wednesday, said, "When you read the test, you'd think it was written by Jay Leno's scriptwriters rather than by a testing agency."
Mr. Schumer said his staff had spoken to some screeners, who said that the on-the-job field test was more important. But those screeners described the hands-on field test in ways that made it sound erratic, Mr. Schumer said. "Some people said it depends on the instructor, the day, the week and the place," he said.
The issue arose in January in a report in Newsday, the Long Island newspaper, about trainees at LaGuardia being given the questions in advance. An investigation found that in the system used to train about 30,000 screeners, a 25-question exam included 22 questions used on earlier quizzes. The letter was in response to a question by Mr. Schumer about that report. The agency told Mr. Schumer that the trainers had done nothing wrong, and that 22 of the 25 questions on the exam were in daily lesson quizzes.
The screeners were trained to operate Explosive Detection Systems, called E.D.S. The inspector general complained that of the examinations provided to him by the agency, "not a single question called upon a student to demonstrate a sufficient mastery of the class content to achieve the purpose of the training."
Mr. Turmail, of the agency, said that the test was just one part of a long process. "There are no screeners working today who haven't demonstrated, in a real-world environment, in a hands-on setting, their ability to use this equipment to identify and keep bombs from getting on planes," he said.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Age: 64
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The one thing that I always wondered was why airport screeners are paid so little.
If an airport screener screws up, the potential loss of life and financial consequences are enormous.
If a ticket agent screws up...well the airline loses some money or you get an aggravated passengers. But everyone gets over it, sooner or later.
Looking at it like that, the difference between the responsibilities is enormous and yet, more often than not, CSRs are paid more than security personnel.
In the days before the TSA, airlines were consistently badgering the security companies to trim their prices (and I know this first hand). The contracts were consistently being put out to tender and the security companies were being played off against each other lower their prices. Consequently many security screeners were on little more than minimum wage.
So, what kind of people are we trying to attract here? People who have a solid education and who can think for themselves? Why on earth would they be doing a job like this for this kind of pay? The only thing I can think of is that they would do it as a stop gap between jobs in this era of relatively high unemployment and are off like a flash when a better opportunity occurs...and who could blame them.
The people who stay are students (working to finance their studies), single mums who have difficulty finding jobs elsewhere (and who generally are probably the best of the bunch, just in case anyone thinks I meant this in a disparaging way...definitely not), and people who can't get jobs elsewhere.
Pretty sad to think that that's what we put our faith in...
The fact is, security doesn't put bums on seats, and nobody is willing to pay for it.
If an airport screener screws up, the potential loss of life and financial consequences are enormous.
If a ticket agent screws up...well the airline loses some money or you get an aggravated passengers. But everyone gets over it, sooner or later.
Looking at it like that, the difference between the responsibilities is enormous and yet, more often than not, CSRs are paid more than security personnel.
In the days before the TSA, airlines were consistently badgering the security companies to trim their prices (and I know this first hand). The contracts were consistently being put out to tender and the security companies were being played off against each other lower their prices. Consequently many security screeners were on little more than minimum wage.
So, what kind of people are we trying to attract here? People who have a solid education and who can think for themselves? Why on earth would they be doing a job like this for this kind of pay? The only thing I can think of is that they would do it as a stop gap between jobs in this era of relatively high unemployment and are off like a flash when a better opportunity occurs...and who could blame them.
The people who stay are students (working to finance their studies), single mums who have difficulty finding jobs elsewhere (and who generally are probably the best of the bunch, just in case anyone thinks I meant this in a disparaging way...definitely not), and people who can't get jobs elsewhere.
Pretty sad to think that that's what we put our faith in...
The fact is, security doesn't put bums on seats, and nobody is willing to pay for it.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: North of the border
Age: 61
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ummm..
Snoopy,
Unfortunately, when you said:
"The people who stay are students (working to finance their studies), single mums who have difficulty finding jobs elsewhere (and who generally are probably the best of the bunch, just in case anyone thinks I meant this in a disparaging way...definitely not), and people who can't get jobs elsewhere."
You just stated the common idea as to who serves in the military.
It really doesn't matter WHY they are doing the job. What matters is that they ARE doing the job. A job that many shun.
I recently flew out of LGA, and passed my jacket through the X-Ray machine. After x-raying my jacket, the screener asked me if I would please remove my Zippo lighter from my jacket pocket so she could see it (and verify its functionality, which she did). I was impressed, and I told her so.
The mantra about "Thousands Standing Around" is not really the deal. They're not all completely stupid. The bad guy will never know if he is getting a sharp screener or not. That in itself is a deterrent. Just like guns in the cockpit. Is there one there or not? Don't know. Maybe. Feel lucky?
Hey, it's late, just throwing around some ideas.
Keep the faith!
PB
Unfortunately, when you said:
"The people who stay are students (working to finance their studies), single mums who have difficulty finding jobs elsewhere (and who generally are probably the best of the bunch, just in case anyone thinks I meant this in a disparaging way...definitely not), and people who can't get jobs elsewhere."
You just stated the common idea as to who serves in the military.
It really doesn't matter WHY they are doing the job. What matters is that they ARE doing the job. A job that many shun.
I recently flew out of LGA, and passed my jacket through the X-Ray machine. After x-raying my jacket, the screener asked me if I would please remove my Zippo lighter from my jacket pocket so she could see it (and verify its functionality, which she did). I was impressed, and I told her so.
The mantra about "Thousands Standing Around" is not really the deal. They're not all completely stupid. The bad guy will never know if he is getting a sharp screener or not. That in itself is a deterrent. Just like guns in the cockpit. Is there one there or not? Don't know. Maybe. Feel lucky?
Hey, it's late, just throwing around some ideas.
Keep the faith!
PB
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Age: 64
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It really doesn't matter WHY they are doing the job. What matters is that they ARE doing the job.
I agree 100%. But then I am writing this from the relative comfort of an 18th Floor office with a superb view of Tokyo. Others who are actually doing the job (and I was as a student financing my studies) may feel differently.
At that level most staff don't identify that much with the job they are doing. That's just the way it is. They will change jobs for 0.20c more an hour. That's just the way it is. And, let's face it, why should they consider the job any more important that many of the decision-makers do? If they are paid peanuts, that's a clear indication of how the job is considered by people who decide what kind of money they should be making.
Just because these people have an important job with a real and tangible responsibility doesn't mean that they recognise it. Once the bureaucrats who run organisations like the TSA (and that could be replaced by any number of similar organisations worldwide - with one notable exception: Israel) actually demonstrate in word and action that these people truly are important and deserve to be remunerated accordingly, then possibly, just possibly, we may see these security screeners beginning to identify with their jobs and show the sense of responsibility that we expect from them. As a by-product, we might see some truly exceptional people applying for these jobs because the appreciation and perception of the job will have improved positively.
I may sound like a trade-unionist, but actually that would be a long way from the truth. What I do dislike is the hypocrisy of putting these people in a no-win situation.
I agree 100%. But then I am writing this from the relative comfort of an 18th Floor office with a superb view of Tokyo. Others who are actually doing the job (and I was as a student financing my studies) may feel differently.
At that level most staff don't identify that much with the job they are doing. That's just the way it is. They will change jobs for 0.20c more an hour. That's just the way it is. And, let's face it, why should they consider the job any more important that many of the decision-makers do? If they are paid peanuts, that's a clear indication of how the job is considered by people who decide what kind of money they should be making.
Just because these people have an important job with a real and tangible responsibility doesn't mean that they recognise it. Once the bureaucrats who run organisations like the TSA (and that could be replaced by any number of similar organisations worldwide - with one notable exception: Israel) actually demonstrate in word and action that these people truly are important and deserve to be remunerated accordingly, then possibly, just possibly, we may see these security screeners beginning to identify with their jobs and show the sense of responsibility that we expect from them. As a by-product, we might see some truly exceptional people applying for these jobs because the appreciation and perception of the job will have improved positively.
I may sound like a trade-unionist, but actually that would be a long way from the truth. What I do dislike is the hypocrisy of putting these people in a no-win situation.
I have to say, although I've never done the job and have no idea about the pay and conditions of these folks, my perception is quite different.
Apart from the more eastern parts of Europe (Romania and points North and East) I've always found screeners to be very consciencious. In Prague a few months ago my Swiss Army knife that I'd inadvertently left at the bottom of my bag was carefully and politely extracted, put in a jiffy bag, and returned to me at LHR (and my bag was re-scanned after). At LAX last week every single piece of check-in luggage was conscienciously checked for explosive residue - I've certainly seen plenty of fellow passengers have bags re-scanned, personal searches when something looks not-quite-right, or tiny (and frankly harmless) nail scissors, etc. removed from their bags.
Overall, whatever they're paid, I've not seen any screeners in Europe or North America who seemed less than consiencious. If they aren't being paid a decent wage, then arguably that's unfair, but it looks like a separate problem to me.
G
Apart from the more eastern parts of Europe (Romania and points North and East) I've always found screeners to be very consciencious. In Prague a few months ago my Swiss Army knife that I'd inadvertently left at the bottom of my bag was carefully and politely extracted, put in a jiffy bag, and returned to me at LHR (and my bag was re-scanned after). At LAX last week every single piece of check-in luggage was conscienciously checked for explosive residue - I've certainly seen plenty of fellow passengers have bags re-scanned, personal searches when something looks not-quite-right, or tiny (and frankly harmless) nail scissors, etc. removed from their bags.
Overall, whatever they're paid, I've not seen any screeners in Europe or North America who seemed less than consiencious. If they aren't being paid a decent wage, then arguably that's unfair, but it looks like a separate problem to me.
G
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snoopy
Lets take a better look at that pay thing you mentioned. Whatever it WAS, was poor, with nothing to look forward too. NOW these folks are Government Employees, with Health Plans, Retirement, Vacation, Holidays etc.. SINCE they now work for the Goverment It will be exteremely hard to get rid of dead wood....
For them it was great.
For the travelers of the world nothing much has changed, except delays BEFORE boarding. Also the knowledge that every jerk behind the counter until you pick up your bag, now has access to any of your personal property. If its of value you should ship it seperate.
Lets take a better look at that pay thing you mentioned. Whatever it WAS, was poor, with nothing to look forward too. NOW these folks are Government Employees, with Health Plans, Retirement, Vacation, Holidays etc.. SINCE they now work for the Goverment It will be exteremely hard to get rid of dead wood....
For them it was great.
For the travelers of the world nothing much has changed, except delays BEFORE boarding. Also the knowledge that every jerk behind the counter until you pick up your bag, now has access to any of your personal property. If its of value you should ship it seperate.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"It really doesn't matter WHY they are doing the job. What matters is that they ARE doing the job. "
I disagree.
What matters is that they do the job WELL.
Some do, and some don't.
and some seem to see it as their duty to cause the greatest inconvenience possible for aircrew on their way to work.
ho hum.
I disagree.
What matters is that they do the job WELL.
Some do, and some don't.
and some seem to see it as their duty to cause the greatest inconvenience possible for aircrew on their way to work.
ho hum.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Jellystone Park
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hear hear! And does anyone REALLY think it makes a difference?
Does anyone REALLY believe that Mrs Smith having her nail file taken off her, Mr Brown losing his nail scissors is REALLY going to make us any safer?
Does anyone REALLY believe that the bad guys will try and get some sort of lethal object onto an aeroplane that way any more? Sure, there are all the security notices showing what has been confiscated, and what was 'nearly' taken on board this that or another aeroplane - what they don't explain is that none of these items was in fact being carried by a potential terrorist who was subsequently charged with anything at all!!
Having said that, while I agree there is some headline high visibility advantage, and I suppose it may just
discourage a young thug from playing silly bugeers in front of his friends, where I feel it shows all its inanity is in the .....er sorry Captain, you can't take that nail clipper/scissors/swiss army knife/leatherman on board...er OK, let me get this straight - you're about to trust me with 100 odd tons of high speed jet fuel and passenger container over central London, but I can't be allowed my nail file??????????
Nuff said, crazy world.
Does anyone REALLY believe that Mrs Smith having her nail file taken off her, Mr Brown losing his nail scissors is REALLY going to make us any safer?Does anyone REALLY believe that the bad guys will try and get some sort of lethal object onto an aeroplane that way any more? Sure, there are all the security notices showing what has been confiscated, and what was 'nearly' taken on board this that or another aeroplane - what they don't explain is that none of these items was in fact being carried by a potential terrorist who was subsequently charged with anything at all!!
Having said that, while I agree there is some headline high visibility advantage, and I suppose it may just
discourage a young thug from playing silly bugeers in front of his friends, where I feel it shows all its inanity is in the .....er sorry Captain, you can't take that nail clipper/scissors/swiss army knife/leatherman on board...er OK, let me get this straight - you're about to trust me with 100 odd tons of high speed jet fuel and passenger container over central London, but I can't be allowed my nail file?????????? Nuff said, crazy world.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last week I inadvertantly tested the screeners at 2 airports (Leonardo in Rome and Heathrow) and both times I'd left a pen knife in my bag and a couple of razor blades. Now I feel very daft for having done this, but I was shocked when I arrived home and found them in my hand luggage. They didn't even register a rummage through at either airport.
I'm just wondering who I should tell about this. (apart from everyone here that is!)
I'm just wondering who I should tell about this. (apart from everyone here that is!)
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am a pilot with an international company which sometimes flies into Olando (mco). On the way out through security I was stopped because I bleeped. I had taken my watch and all metal objects out of my pockets, so was told to take my shoe's off, frisked with the wand, belt off etc. Nothing found. as I was walking to the monorail I realised I had my phone in my shirt pocket. All that searching and they missed the thing that made it bleep. Got onto the a/c and an engineer was scrapping gum off a seat with a knife.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Middlesesx
Posts: 2,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have spent to many years in avaition security in the inspection role. All to often the equipment in use is purchased as it is the cheapest deal and with many items you purchase in life fails to come up to the spec promised.
In a different role having visted a number of mainland european airports this summer the security performances were nothing short of 'criminally negligent'.
Those staffing them are not well paid and as several have mentioned are not flying on your aircraft anyway. The exercise is performed under pressure with time and social restraints and with the Authorities looking to save monies or cut corners.
Finally the skills of the would be terrorist is such that the likely detection is surely by luck despite all the hype the media spews out. Repeating that already stated the authorities are losing focus on security and it sadly can only lead to some futher act of air piracy.
In a different role having visted a number of mainland european airports this summer the security performances were nothing short of 'criminally negligent'.
Those staffing them are not well paid and as several have mentioned are not flying on your aircraft anyway. The exercise is performed under pressure with time and social restraints and with the Authorities looking to save monies or cut corners.
Finally the skills of the would be terrorist is such that the likely detection is surely by luck despite all the hype the media spews out. Repeating that already stated the authorities are losing focus on security and it sadly can only lead to some futher act of air piracy.
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HZ123 has a good point, but as others pay is always mentioned as a problem. I can only speak for the states but most who were working as screeners before are NOW working with better conditions and pay.....So now we have more Morons as Government employess..
If I am willing to be taxed more for their Pay, then I want someone who can at least read and write........and maybe even speak the same language.
Up the Pay, then up the Standards.....
If I am willing to be taxed more for their Pay, then I want someone who can at least read and write........and maybe even speak the same language.
Up the Pay, then up the Standards.....
Last edited by B Sousa; 12th Oct 2003 at 07:48.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The new TSA airport screeners are just as competent as the old non-TSA ones. But, that’s not saying much. I’ve had a lot of experience with these individuals and I understand that they’re only doing their job. What bothers me is that the old non-TSA screeners did the same job and we’re paying far more for the TSA. In my opinion paying tax dollars for the TSA is a waste of money. I understand the need airport security but I believe it should be privately operated. But, what really bothers is that we’re contracting out many busy GA towers. Controllers who are far more skilled then the TSA may lose their jobs. This is stupidity; the TSA takes care of “airport security” but who takes care of lives and traffic. I leave it at that.
I know this isnt exactly what this forum is about... it's just my opinion of the TSA
I know this isnt exactly what this forum is about... it's just my opinion of the TSA
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Age: 64
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What bothers me is that the old non-TSA screeners did the same job and we’re paying far more for the TSA.
Right, but before the TSA the private security companies were being made to cut costs at all levels and trim their overheads. Now what you are paying extra for is the government apparatus to manage it, not necessarily improved conditions for screeners.
The government taking over this role was NOT what was needed. What was needed was clear cut guidelines and controls of private security companies, clearly established training guidelines, trainer certification and strict controls on the part of the FAA with absolutely merciless penalties such as "2 strikes and you're out". This would have disqualified a company such as Argenbright well before they were and sent a clear signal to others what would and would not be tolerated. The government would also have needed to set some minimum pay standards to avoid the cut-throat competition which resulted in the level of screeners that we had.
The fact is that the government took a very black & white view of this without considering a middle ground which would probably have been cheaper and achieved better results. Government managed projects do not have a reputation for efficiency....
Right, but before the TSA the private security companies were being made to cut costs at all levels and trim their overheads. Now what you are paying extra for is the government apparatus to manage it, not necessarily improved conditions for screeners.
The government taking over this role was NOT what was needed. What was needed was clear cut guidelines and controls of private security companies, clearly established training guidelines, trainer certification and strict controls on the part of the FAA with absolutely merciless penalties such as "2 strikes and you're out". This would have disqualified a company such as Argenbright well before they were and sent a clear signal to others what would and would not be tolerated. The government would also have needed to set some minimum pay standards to avoid the cut-throat competition which resulted in the level of screeners that we had.
The fact is that the government took a very black & white view of this without considering a middle ground which would probably have been cheaper and achieved better results. Government managed projects do not have a reputation for efficiency....
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: minnesota
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The FAA publishes its test questions. What does that say about the pilots taking the written test --> nothing i think, because there is so much other testing and experience required!
I was an instructor for the TSA from March until December 2002. I taught over 20 classes throughout the country. Like any industry, the quality of individual varied and so did their performance. Specifically, the written test was only a small part of their evaluation. The practical tests, and the Xray image testing at the end of the course was much more important and challenging. After passing the "course", continued on the job training (average 60 more hours) and then more image testing was required before becoming a screener.
I believe that this professional group of trained individuals working with better equipment than was available in the past, is more likely to stop a terrorist now than ever before. In the future it will only take that one screener, (perhaps with years of experience) to spot something out of the ordinary (it does take time to develop that special ability) and prevent a major disaster. What I told my students is: it will happen, you will make it happen, they are on the front line preventing another major air disaster like 9/11.
russ
I was an instructor for the TSA from March until December 2002. I taught over 20 classes throughout the country. Like any industry, the quality of individual varied and so did their performance. Specifically, the written test was only a small part of their evaluation. The practical tests, and the Xray image testing at the end of the course was much more important and challenging. After passing the "course", continued on the job training (average 60 more hours) and then more image testing was required before becoming a screener.
I believe that this professional group of trained individuals working with better equipment than was available in the past, is more likely to stop a terrorist now than ever before. In the future it will only take that one screener, (perhaps with years of experience) to spot something out of the ordinary (it does take time to develop that special ability) and prevent a major disaster. What I told my students is: it will happen, you will make it happen, they are on the front line preventing another major air disaster like 9/11.
russ
Last edited by russellackland; 13th Oct 2003 at 11:19.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Good post Russellackland
I for one contrary to many posters here welcome the extra security, I take quite a different view from many of the posters here & am also very careful what I pack into my luggage to avoid hassle.
I've just returned from the USA. Mind you when I first arrived at a USA airport for a stopover I was a bit alarmed when I was told to unlock my bag & leave it with the airline, I had visions of some nifty fingered baggage handler rifling through my things but I was reassured by the airline they would seal my case for me. My case was searched in my absentia, & resealed with a card inside notifying me that my case had been searched both for my security & that of my fellow pax. I had no problem with this.
What did annoy me on my trip home when I checked in two case confident that both cases would have a security seal put on them. Instead because only one case was searched only one was resealed leaving me open to theft etc. I contacted the TSA regading this & got a very nice apology in return. It's important to remember that while the airlines feel vulnerable so do pax.
The only other small gripe I would have is I was forced to remove my shoes twice although this is not necessary anymore unless there prone to set off an alarm. Are the security screeners not kept up to scratch with changes in procedure because although I knew it wasn't necesary to still remove my shoes I didn't feel it was a prudent move not to comply or question their authority from what I've read about what happens to people who do.
Good luck to you all & long may you continue to be successful in the front line battle against airline terrorism.
I for one contrary to many posters here welcome the extra security, I take quite a different view from many of the posters here & am also very careful what I pack into my luggage to avoid hassle.
I've just returned from the USA. Mind you when I first arrived at a USA airport for a stopover I was a bit alarmed when I was told to unlock my bag & leave it with the airline, I had visions of some nifty fingered baggage handler rifling through my things but I was reassured by the airline they would seal my case for me. My case was searched in my absentia, & resealed with a card inside notifying me that my case had been searched both for my security & that of my fellow pax. I had no problem with this.
What did annoy me on my trip home when I checked in two case confident that both cases would have a security seal put on them. Instead because only one case was searched only one was resealed leaving me open to theft etc. I contacted the TSA regading this & got a very nice apology in return. It's important to remember that while the airlines feel vulnerable so do pax.
The only other small gripe I would have is I was forced to remove my shoes twice although this is not necessary anymore unless there prone to set off an alarm. Are the security screeners not kept up to scratch with changes in procedure because although I knew it wasn't necesary to still remove my shoes I didn't feel it was a prudent move not to comply or question their authority from what I've read about what happens to people who do.
Good luck to you all & long may you continue to be successful in the front line battle against airline terrorism.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Silicon Hills
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forgotten in some of these posts is the fact that the airlines themselves were begging the Govt. to take over security in the days after 9/11. This before all the facts surrounding the events were known. The public momentum to Federalize airport screening became nearly un-stoppable in no time.
Also, I don't think you'd find a lot more efficiency with private screening if you also factor in the cost of a Federal bureaucracy to effectively monitor the private companies. You wind up with a lot of bickering about what's fair and relevant in screening the screeners. Lawsuits and Congressional inquires about "heavy-handed" tactics etc.
I find the new Govt screeners to be a lot more professional and courteous than the minimum-wage employees before 9/11. Granted, I don't like taking my shoes and belt off. I think some of the rules regarding nail files etc. are just plain silly. But those are not decisions made by the screeners themselves. They are following guidlines made up in Washington, and there's no reason for me to suspect that had we stayed with private screening companies, the rules after 9/11 would have been any less silly.
We tend to blame the person we're in contact with for silly bureaucratic rules, rather than the people who actually MADE the rules...
Also, I don't think you'd find a lot more efficiency with private screening if you also factor in the cost of a Federal bureaucracy to effectively monitor the private companies. You wind up with a lot of bickering about what's fair and relevant in screening the screeners. Lawsuits and Congressional inquires about "heavy-handed" tactics etc.
I find the new Govt screeners to be a lot more professional and courteous than the minimum-wage employees before 9/11. Granted, I don't like taking my shoes and belt off. I think some of the rules regarding nail files etc. are just plain silly. But those are not decisions made by the screeners themselves. They are following guidlines made up in Washington, and there's no reason for me to suspect that had we stayed with private screening companies, the rules after 9/11 would have been any less silly.
We tend to blame the person we're in contact with for silly bureaucratic rules, rather than the people who actually MADE the rules...
Coconuts,
I get round the secure bag issue by 'locking' all my checked-in luggage with electrical cable ties - the same that the TSA use to reseal ones bags after searching. They're dirt cheap, yet keep basically honest people honest - like flimsey baggage locks really. Many has been the time that the TSA has simply cut them off, searched the bag, and resealed with the same. I have no problems with that and it's generally smiles all round.
I get round the secure bag issue by 'locking' all my checked-in luggage with electrical cable ties - the same that the TSA use to reseal ones bags after searching. They're dirt cheap, yet keep basically honest people honest - like flimsey baggage locks really. Many has been the time that the TSA has simply cut them off, searched the bag, and resealed with the same. I have no problems with that and it's generally smiles all round.
