5 ms·

The solution• to these kinds of problems is integration. If some people have their wants and needs meet and their complaints addressed far more often than the r

The solution• to these kinds of problems is integration. If some people have their wants and needs meet and their complaints addressed far more often than the rest of us, then the only way for the system to get better for everyone is if those people are mixed in with the rest of us and don’t just get to opt out and use a better system just for them. •Also in this case abolish the TSA. Useless make work security theater.

marssaxman 4y ago
I agree completely, and this is why I refuse to get precheck.
- Schiendelman 4y ago
  Hey, haven't talked to you in years! Great to see your handle. :) I did eventually get precheck but I agree with the theory. I just can't inconvenience myself that much 40+ times a year.
  - marssaxman 4y ago
    Oh hey! Good to see you. Still in Seattle, or did you move on? I certainly wouldn't judge anyone for using precheck; it's probably the practical choice. I have simply chosen to be (politely) obstinate about TSA procedures as a form of protest; a little bit of monkeywrenching by doing it all the hard way.
    - Schiendelman 4y ago
      I am indeed still in Seattle; I moved to Cupertino for a year but came back to the climate I'm used to. :) I totally appreciate what you're doing! I wish there were a way to make it painful for the TSA.
dave78 4y ago
CLEAR and PreCheck are small potatoes. What I want is to require everyone who flies to go through the TSA line, including anyone flying private. Don't allow congresspeople to bypass the TSA (which I believe they're allowed to do). If the people in charge of the government and the multimillionaires and billionaires who control them had to go through that, I bet there'd be a lot more interest in fixing things. I want to see the President of the United States stand in a crappy TSA line like the rest of us each time he boards his VC25.
- scarby2 4y ago
  > including anyone flying private Why? The point of TSA in theory is to prevent you from taking a weapon onto a plane. If you are flying on your own plane or one you lease what benefit is there in going through TSA? The whole point was to stop people hijacking or destroying a plane. If you've got the money to fly private you could just rent the plane for a day and fly it yourself. Plus i don't think there's been a single case of people hijacking a private jet... > Don't allow congresspeople to bypass the TSA the only people in commercial airports who can skip TSA AFIAK is diplomats, and that would be based under international law exempting them from search by another nation
  - iudqnolq 4y ago
    > the only people in commercial airports who can skip TSA AFIAK is diplomats This depends on how you define "in commercial airports". Many commercial airports have a special VIP section, which I would call "in" that airport.
  - Nullabillity 4y ago
    > If you are flying on your own plane or one you lease what benefit is there in going through TSA? To make them experience the system that they're imposing on everyone else.
    - dave78 4y ago
      Yes, exactly. That and I'm a firm believer that laws in our country should apply to everyone regardless of status. I think it's unconscionable that our leaders have no qualms about passing laws that the rest of us have to follow and then promptly exempting themselves from those laws.
rocket_surgeron 4y ago
>Also in this case abolish the TSA. People fail to realize that TSA is just the nationalization and standardization of the system in place pre-9/11. It wasn't new or unprecedented. Instead of a Wackenhut (now G4S) contractor making $17k scanning bags it became a government employee making $21k. You are remembering a past that never existed if you think things used to be better. Things are better now, unless you are 90 years old remembering the 1960s. A spate of communist hijackings of airplanes led to bag and bodily inspections in the early 70s. Here's security officers hand-inspecting every single carry-on (and frisking every single passenger) in 1973: https://imgur.com/a/n2HRbtE https://imgur.com/a/n2HRbtE Here's the film Airplane 2 lampooning airport security in 1982: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCkagYixpuc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCkagYixpuc I started flying internationally constantly for work after Lockerbie. For years I had to remove and power on every single electronic device I carried (and I carried, for the time, many) to demonstrate no components had been replaced by explosives. Not only in the US but also Europe and Asia. Today is better than any time in the past, again, unless you're on death's door remembering flying in the 1950s and 1960s. Put your bags on the conveyer, walk through the scanner, done. Based on my observations the people who have problems with this are those unfamiliar with the procedures needed (like removing the Mr. T-style amount of jewelry they're wearing) to make things move smoothly. Much better and faster than staff with nylon rods poking around in every bag and frisking every person.
- tdeck 4y ago
  Not sure about international flights but I remember airport security in the 90s. You put your bag in an x-ray machine and walked through a metal detector. If it beeped they wanded you. It was like entering an important museum and was much quicker and less dehumanizing than the modern process. There wasn't this BS with liquids or removing your shoes and the people running the process had less power over you because they weren't wannabe cops working for the federal government. Most people back then weren't carrying electronics so rhey probably didn't get flagged the way you did.
  - rocket_surgeron 4y ago
    > There wasn't this BS with liquids or removing your shoes and the people running the process had less power over you because they weren't wannabe cops working for the federal government. This illustrates the misunderstandings about the TSA. The TSA didn't make up the liquids rule. The British did and then they promulgated those rules up through the ICAO (international civil aviation organization). The TSA implemented the rule because the US is a member of the ICAO, as did many other countries. If the TSA didn't exist, the FAA or DOT would have implemented the liquid rule instead and a private security contractor would be throwing away water bottles instead of "wannabe cops working for the federal government". Same with shoes. https://www.icao.int/Security/SFP/LAGS_STEBS/Documents/A%20history%20of%20LAGs%20and%20STEBs.pdf https://www.icao.int/Security/SFP/LAGS_STEBS/Documents/A%20h... The TSA can't even change anything if they try. They only implement rules as directed by Congress, the FAA, and the ICAO. They tried to unban knives because their analysis showed that knives posed no threat to aircraft, but were overruled by Congress. https://www.cnn.com/2013/06/05/travel/tsa-knives/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2013/06/05/travel/tsa-knives/index.html

marssaxman 4y ago

I agree completely, and this is why I refuse to get precheck.

Schiendelman 4y ago
Hey, haven't talked to you in years! Great to see your handle. :) I did eventually get precheck but I agree with the theory. I just can't inconvenience myself that much 40+ times a year.
- marssaxman 4y ago
  Oh hey! Good to see you. Still in Seattle, or did you move on? I certainly wouldn't judge anyone for using precheck; it's probably the practical choice. I have simply chosen to be (politely) obstinate about TSA procedures as a form of protest; a little bit of monkeywrenching by doing it all the hard way.
  - Schiendelman 4y ago
    I am indeed still in Seattle; I moved to Cupertino for a year but came back to the climate I'm used to. :) I totally appreciate what you're doing! I wish there were a way to make it painful for the TSA.

dave78 4y ago

CLEAR and PreCheck are small potatoes. What I want is to require everyone who flies to go through the TSA line, including anyone flying private. Don't allow congresspeople to bypass the TSA (which I believe they're allowed to do). If the people in charge of the government and the multimillionaires and billionaires who control them had to go through that, I bet there'd be a lot more interest in fixing things. I want to see the President of the United States stand in a crappy TSA line like the rest of us each time he boards his VC25.

scarby2 4y ago
> including anyone flying private Why? The point of TSA in theory is to prevent you from taking a weapon onto a plane. If you are flying on your own plane or one you lease what benefit is there in going through TSA? The whole point was to stop people hijacking or destroying a plane. If you've got the money to fly private you could just rent the plane for a day and fly it yourself. Plus i don't think there's been a single case of people hijacking a private jet... > Don't allow congresspeople to bypass the TSA the only people in commercial airports who can skip TSA AFIAK is diplomats, and that would be based under international law exempting them from search by another nation
- iudqnolq 4y ago
  > the only people in commercial airports who can skip TSA AFIAK is diplomats This depends on how you define "in commercial airports". Many commercial airports have a special VIP section, which I would call "in" that airport.
- Nullabillity 4y ago
  > If you are flying on your own plane or one you lease what benefit is there in going through TSA? To make them experience the system that they're imposing on everyone else.
  - dave78 4y ago
    Yes, exactly. That and I'm a firm believer that laws in our country should apply to everyone regardless of status. I think it's unconscionable that our leaders have no qualms about passing laws that the rest of us have to follow and then promptly exempting themselves from those laws.

rocket_surgeron 4y ago

>Also in this case abolish the TSA. People fail to realize that TSA is just the nationalization and standardization of the system in place pre-9/11. It wasn't new or unprecedented. Instead of a Wackenhut (now G4S) contractor making $17k scanning bags it became a government employee making $21k. You are remembering a past that never existed if you think things used to be better. Things are better now, unless you are 90 years old remembering the 1960s. A spate of communist hijackings of airplanes led to bag and bodily inspections in the early 70s. Here's security officers hand-inspecting every single carry-on (and frisking every single passenger) in 1973: https://imgur.com/a/n2HRbtE https://imgur.com/a/n2HRbtE Here's the film Airplane 2 lampooning airport security in 1982: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCkagYixpuc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCkagYixpuc I started flying internationally constantly for work after Lockerbie. For years I had to remove and power on every single electronic device I carried (and I carried, for the time, many) to demonstrate no components had been replaced by explosives. Not only in the US but also Europe and Asia. Today is better than any time in the past, again, unless you're on death's door remembering flying in the 1950s and 1960s. Put your bags on the conveyer, walk through the scanner, done. Based on my observations the people who have problems with this are those unfamiliar with the procedures needed (like removing the Mr. T-style amount of jewelry they're wearing) to make things move smoothly. Much better and faster than staff with nylon rods poking around in every bag and frisking every person.

tdeck 4y ago
Not sure about international flights but I remember airport security in the 90s. You put your bag in an x-ray machine and walked through a metal detector. If it beeped they wanded you. It was like entering an important museum and was much quicker and less dehumanizing than the modern process. There wasn't this BS with liquids or removing your shoes and the people running the process had less power over you because they weren't wannabe cops working for the federal government. Most people back then weren't carrying electronics so rhey probably didn't get flagged the way you did.
- rocket_surgeron 4y ago
  > There wasn't this BS with liquids or removing your shoes and the people running the process had less power over you because they weren't wannabe cops working for the federal government. This illustrates the misunderstandings about the TSA. The TSA didn't make up the liquids rule. The British did and then they promulgated those rules up through the ICAO (international civil aviation organization). The TSA implemented the rule because the US is a member of the ICAO, as did many other countries. If the TSA didn't exist, the FAA or DOT would have implemented the liquid rule instead and a private security contractor would be throwing away water bottles instead of "wannabe cops working for the federal government". Same with shoes. https://www.icao.int/Security/SFP/LAGS_STEBS/Documents/A%20history%20of%20LAGs%20and%20STEBs.pdf https://www.icao.int/Security/SFP/LAGS_STEBS/Documents/A%20h... The TSA can't even change anything if they try. They only implement rules as directed by Congress, the FAA, and the ICAO. They tried to unban knives because their analysis showed that knives posed no threat to aircraft, but were overruled by Congress. https://www.cnn.com/2013/06/05/travel/tsa-knives/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2013/06/05/travel/tsa-knives/index.html