Enough is enough

[Guest Razz]

I am for the "not flying" plan. I wish more people could/would choose this option. If the airlines started to lose even more business due to the TSA...believe me, things would change.

I am an avid traveler. I've been all over the world, lived in seven states, traveled to 48. I stopped flying six years ago. I'm not willing to be fondled by a half-trained, undereducated thug so that the government can pretend they are protecting me. I don't have the patience to hold my tongue during the process and I genuinely fear for my freedom now that the NDAA says I can have my rights revoked without reason.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I want to know what really has changed since the 60's. You have weak kneed people who tend to want to be coddled

and protected because they have given up on their own sense of self and duty to themselves and expect it from others.

Otherwise, I don't see anything different from the 60's that necessitates things like the TSA. We were doing fine before

it, and it hasn't produced a damned thing except a huge cost. Airline safety certainly hasn't been aided by them, only

hindered boarding and leaving the planes with a bunch of fools doing the checking and fondling.

I only occasionally get in a private plane with my brother or a friend. I quit commercial flying a long time ago.

[Sam1]

My favorite TSA story was when the best man at my wedding bought a gift pack of gourmet mustards INSIDE the checkpoints at one airport and was forced to throw it away at his connecting flight's airport...even though he had a receipt with proper markings.

I can't believe I still let myself get worked up over this one, 4 years later, but I really hate the TSA.

Been through that before, but it was in China. Coming back from the Philippines with a horrible case of food poisoning a few days prior so I was still dehydrated. Bought some water after going through checkpoint #1, had to go through another checkpoint at the terminal and they made me toss all 3 bottles. Got into the terminal and bought 2 more bottles, then they had a full hand search of everything on the dang walkway before boarding and they made me throw both of them away again. Was pretty pissed off, but being in China and all, it didn't seem like the place to voice my opinion

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I think it's probably more intimidation than security, or the airlines would do it on their own and do it more

reasonably.

[TMF]

I want to know what really has changed since the 60's.

There is now a limitless supply of people willing to suicide themselves to create mass casualties by using a plane as a guided missile. Pretty effective too when you consider 9/11.

I don't think that one event justifies the TSA though. There are plenty of passive measures that have been taken to answer the mail on our security weaknesses. More Air Marshals would essentially end the need for any security screening at all (in my opinion). It would be cheaper to have an Air Marshal on every single US flight than have the TSA. What is more secure than the knowledge that there is an armed guard on the plane, but you don't know who it is? Beyond that, pilots have better training now that they know the enemy's most dangerous course of action, and cockpit doors are unbreachable. Sure, someone could sneak a knife on a plane and stab some folks, but I can get on a bus or train and do the same thing. If there is no access to the cockpit what is the difference? Just silly, kneejerk reaction to fear is what birthed the TSA, and now there is no way to get rid of it, ever.

Edited September 7, 2012 by TMF

[xRUSTYx]

We took a flight in early August from BNA to LAX. No issues through BNA.

However, coming back, LAX tested our BABY BOTTLES FILLED WITH WATER. We had our child, with his diaper bag, etc... and they tested the baby bottles FILLED WITH WATER.

It was pretty sad

[Will H]

Well... you do have another option...

Buy your own plane or do not fly..

Either you want to be safe or not.. its your choice

I know it get can aggravating.. And I think some things need to be readdressed .. but all in all..I rather be scanned and probed and be safe than having someoen smuggle something that could kill us all in a plane.

You would rather trade your freedoms and privacy for a feeling of security? That is, imho, exactly what they are counting on.

Edited September 7, 2012 by Will H

[daddyo]

You would rather trade your freedoms and privacy for a feeling of security?

There are those who believe they can have both, when, in reality, it simply doesn't work that way.

[DaveTN]

People saying they won’t fly will have as much impact and people saying they won’t drive because they don’t agree with traffic laws….. Zero impact.

The TSA needs to be put in check. But the airlines have no more control over that than the trucking companies have over the various state agency’s that Police that industry.

Air travel is up. Businesses travel more than ever before, rates are affordable for people that don’t want to spend half the vacation staring at the windshield of a car. There is no point is trying to slow yet another American industry because the Federal Government is putting thugs at the gate.

Yes, I will still fly. But the TSA is a disgrace; they are no more than a government jobs program.

[TMF]

I think the airline industry does suffer to a decent extent on lost passengers. I don't have the option of choosing not to fly, but for regular travel I will always drive if possible. It isn't so much that I'm making a statement about the TSA, but more about convenience. I recently made a 5 hour trip by rental because it was still quicker than flying and with less hassle. That shouldn't be the case but that's the way it is. I don't think I'm alone in that way of thinking, and I believe that there is a significant enough percentage that the airlines are missing out on from folks that just don't want to put up with it, even at discounted prices. Just throwing a number out there based on my own knowledge, but I would put it between 5-10 percent loss of passengers. That equates to a lot of jobs. Maybe the TSA could fill those jobs if we disbanded their silly organization.

[TGO David]

Well... you do have another option...

Buy your own plane or do not fly..

Either you want to be safe or not.. its your choice

I know it get can aggravating.. And I think some things need to be readdressed .. but all in all..I rather be scanned and probed and be safe than having someoen smuggle something that could kill us all in a plane.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. --Benjamin Franklin

[GKar]

I've had two things confiscated by TSA: a pair of 4" curved hemostats and a USA flag pin that was on my jacket lapel. I obviously had plans to grab the pilot by the 'nads with the hemostats and then use the sharp end of the pin to prick him to death...

Having flown both commercial and private a fair amount, two things come to mind: 1) quite frankly, private flight has a much bigger chance of a bad ending than commercial, and 2) how have the Israeli's managed without a TSA (sarcasm here)?

[Guest Razz]

People saying they won’t fly will have as much impact and people saying they won’t drive because they don’t agree with traffic laws….. Zero impact.

The TSA needs to be put in check. But the airlines have no more control over that than the trucking companies have over the various state agency’s that Police that industry.

Zero impact? Maybe.

However, the comparison between the two business models doesn't work. In one, the customer is directly effected by the security. In the other, the consumer is all but unaware. Consumers drive industry.

I agree with (what I think is) your sentiment, though. We need to take an aggressive approach the the end of the TSA and demand that our benevolent government removes it.

[BigK]

Thats why I said .. some things need to change..I can understand why peopel get upset...and yes.. they do go overboard but a scan or a patdown isnt going to kill anyone..

Maybe they have not caught any terrorists.. btu they have caught plenty of people who tried to bring weps ( unsavory peeps) on board.. and what about that shoe bomb dude?

It only takes one time to let someoen slip by with a bomb..one time..

I rather not take that chance....

While I respect your perspective, what the TSA is doing is about 80% for show. It's mostly just a dog and pony show to make it look like they are protecting us. Don't get me wrong, I think they have good intentions. I just don't think they're as serious about stopping terrorism as they say they are.

[daddyo]

Some theories about why people are indifferent about reports of TSA abuses:

http://www.popehat.c...-by-tsa-abuses/

Edited September 7, 2012 by DaddyO

[TMF]

While I respect your perspective, what the TSA is doing is about 80% for show. It's mostly just a dog and pony show to make it look like they are protecting us. Don't get me wrong, I think they have good intentions. I just don't think they're as serious about stopping terrorism as they say they are.

Well I will give them the benefit of the doubt in regards to deterrence factor. The enemy has had to adapt their plans significantly to get around the TSA. However, they don't seem to be able to stay inside the enemy's decision cycle, as each kneejerk policy they've come up with is a result of their weakness being exploited: We have to take our shoes off because someone got explosives on a plane in the sole of their shoe; we can't take liquids through security because of the narrowly foiled plot out of GB; we have body scanners because of the underwear bomber. So, the TSA didn't really stop any of these folks. The best security we've had against terrorist attacks since 9/11 is the fact that the enemy is incredibly incompetent. So, while the TSA serves as a deterrent, it is not effective in stopping the enemy. The solve to this would be putting greater numbers of Air Marshals on flights and simply going back to the pre-9/11 security measures in the terminal.

[Wingshooter]

As an airline pilot, I deal with the checkpoints every time I go to work. I'm not really sure what the answer is to true airline security... profiling rather than political correctness might be a start. I'm not going to mention any details about the current process, except to say it's a pain.

[daddyo]

The solve to this would be putting greater numbers of Air Marshals on flights and simply going back to the pre-9/11 security measures in the terminal.

You and I agree on this.

But I would take it further by saying that the very fact that the TSA has expanded its encroachment on the rights of airline passengers to bus terminals and now to additional checks on drinks after travelers have already cleared their intrusive security procedures seems to suggest that they quietly acknowledge their inability to deter terrorist activity and are simply looking for ways to justify their existence. And if that doesn't do it, don't be surprised when they show up at interstate rest areas and start setting up random checkpoints on state highways, and at malls, movie theaters, etc.

Edited September 7, 2012 by DaddyO

[Wingshooter]

Also, keep letting our lawmakers know that you support the FFDO program when they try to cut it (like obama did earlier this year). It may not help with the TSA's searches, but we need the FFDO program to stay active. 9/11 may have had a very different outcome if this program was in place at that time.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/165371216.html?refer=y

WASHINGTON -- U.S. Rep. Chip Cravaack is challenging the Transportation Security Administration and the White House over potential cuts to a program that arms airline pilots as the last line of defense against hijackers.

As part of its Department of Homeland Security budget, the U.S. House this summer passed a Cravaack amendment that would increase funding for armed-pilot training by $10 million.

The Republican-backed House bill takes aim at the TSA and White House proposal to slash funding by half, a move spurred by one key fact: No pilot has used a gun on an airplane in the decade since Congress approved the program.

During his time as a commercial pilot for Northwest Airlines, Cravaack, R-Minn., says he packed a pistol as a member of the Federal Flight Deck Officer program. As he pushes for a boost in funding, Cravaack has spent the spring and summer telling his colleagues in Congress that trained, armed pilots are a necessary security backstop.

"Ultimately, they are the ones that are going to stop the terrorists," Cravaack told a crowd during a speech at the Heritage Foundation this spring.

The showdown between the Minnesota congressman and the TSA illustrates the tense debate over which federal programs created in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks should stick around.

"It's been a controversial program since it started," said Jeff Price, an aviation security expert and aviation professor at Metropolitan State University of Denver.

As part of the legislation that created the TSA, Congress approved the armed-pilot program less than a year after terrorists hijacked and crashed several commercial airliners. The number of program participants is classified, but Cravaack maintains that armed pilots outnumber federal air marshals and are far less expensive.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

FFDO is the only thing that has ever made sense about the airline security question and the TSA is just another embarrassment from our dear leaders.

The pilot is the captain, literally and figuratively, of the ship. Nothing wrong with Air Marshals, either,

but I wonder if we are just being scared of our shadows, anyway. Airline travel has had the most

competent and safety minded employees to back up that track record of decades of safe flight, that

I don't understand and will most likely never understand why the TSA was ever allowed to come into

existence.

Edited September 7, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[Guest G23FM]

Let's be honest.... The airlines lose minimal, if any, business because of the TSA. Yes, it's a pain in the butt to go through and get checked but that isn't turning any customers away. Like DaveTN said earlier, travel is booming, and the airlines are coming back into the MEGA profit margins, once again, and people, including myself, do not want to spend 6-10 hours staring down the interstate. I'm not one to justify what the TSA does or their procedures or whatever, and yes, privatization would be best and save the US a ton of money, but I belive that we are always, from here on out, going to see, maybe not the TSA, but something close to it, that's just where we are right now. I remember people years ago that said they wouldn't use cell phone because of blah blah blah, and now, almost everyone has one.

On the searches, I don't know if I would call them "invasive" or "intrusive"... All you have to do is remove metal, take off your shoes, and walk through a machine, big deal. If you have a bottle of water, and they want to test it and you feel that it's "violating your __ Amendment rights!" throw it away, they don't care. You're the dummy that paid $5 for a 20 oz bottle of water and then threw it away after drinking one sip. OR, you can chug the whole thing... That will really chap their bottoms...

The bottom line is that, I want to be safe on an aircraft, and while I don't put my whole safety on hand to the TSA, because I'll tackle some dude trying to get into the cockpit, but I would rather have a unified front than nothing at all. It's not going to go away...

If you don't want to fly commercial because of the TSA... Don't fly.. Drive to Florida or California, or, even better, I'm sure you can get a fractional with someone like NetJets or XOJet or someone that you can pay $3000/hr for and they wont even care if you have a bottle of water, whiskey, or urine. Or you can even become a pilot and fly yourself around not have to worry about the TSA or any security for that matter.

However, we DO need to keep the FFDO program, and I will defend this one to my death... This is one of the things that should have been in place, hindsight is 20/20, before 9/11 and I'm not sure why it wasnt. If you don't know what it is, google it... It's a great program....

Two quotes and I'm done...

The road to progress is paved with blood.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

[Guest Springfield1911guy]

I think if asked to test my drink my response would be to chug it, hand them the empty container, then tell them to throw it in the trash when they are done.

I

And then tell them to follow you around for a while so they could check your piss..lol.

[Dolomite`s Breezy]

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. --Benjamin Franklin

So.. according to this qoute.. I dont deserve either? because I think the TSA is there to protect me or someone I love?

Wow..

I

[TMF]

While it may be marginal, there are LOTS of people who drive instead of flying due to the TSA hassle. I know, I'm one of them. I fly all the time for work, which I don't mind too much because I gotta do it, but I have had several occasions where I drove where I would have otherwise flown. Part of that is due to the inability to predict the checkpoint coming in. I thought I had it down to a science at BNA, but I was wrong. So I generally show up 2 hours early to my flight, because I have stood in line down there for at least an hour before. This is on top of the 1 hour drive to get to the airport in the first place. So I've already wasted 3 hours of my time before even getting wheels up. Then with connecting flights and all it usually adds another 2 or 3. So if the drive is 8 hours, I skip the flight and just drive because I can do it at my own convenience in as much time. This isn't revolutionary reasoning. Lots of people do it. I've done it twice so far this year. The fact that there are plenty of full airplanes doesn't mean that there isn't an additional 5-10 percent that would otherwise prefer to fly.

And I realize that taking off your belt and shoes isn't a big deal in the grand scheme, but that's not the point. The bad guys have changed our way of life and we've allowed it to happen. I am not cool with that. There are better ways to address the problem.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The TSA to protect you or your loved one is a

heavy price to pay for an illusion. They haven't

protected anyone so far, and it is more likely

a tool for intimidation than much else.

Americans aren't known for stuffing their kids

with dynamite and sticking them on a plane. If

they were actively pursuing those who do that

sort of thing, it might be plausible, but the ones

being checked aren't the ones who usually do

the harm. If the word wasn't constantly being

accused to be racist, it would be put back in

a respectable lawman's toolkit: profiling.

Feeling good doesn't matter after the latest

new way to kill your loved one is figured out

by the enemy. I doubt the TSA will even blink

if it happens. They'll have an excuse for not

catching the bad guys. It's usually more money.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk