posted
All I can say is....if the TSA can steal from airplane passengers..they will also steal from Amtrak passengers when Amtrak gets the full impact of TSA inspections.
Makes me wonder if, for sleeping car people, we will be able to get key cards for our rooms. It would be one way to keep some baggage and personal items safe.
Speaking of safety, another bit of news which is disturbing:
posted
While I guess this says something about my "dimensions", when I last flew three weeks ago, I left my belt in a TSA bin at O'Hare. My trousers fit quite well without it and I was, should anyone else here be familiar with the layout of O'Hare Terminal 1 (United), already past TSA and on the passageway from "B" to "C" Concourse when I noticed its absence. Enough listening to Rhapsody in Blue, about face, and back to TSA. They were waiting for me with the belt and said it wasn't the first time that had happened.
Sorry, "righties" (that seems to me the group who object most to TSA procedures), but I think TSA is a pretty courteous outfit doing a tough job that has kept us safe for the past eleven years.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
This brings up an interesting dilemma that I hadn't thought of until just now. When you are pulled aside for individual questing by TSA (the random checks that they conduct at the gate), how would an AmTraveler answer this question?:
"Has your bag been in your control at all times?"
If you were on a sleeper, the answer is 'no'. You either had your bag downstairs on the luggage rack, or you had your bag in your room while you were at the diner/lounge/restroom/shower.
I suppose the wise answer would be to simply say 'yes', because if you say no, they might not allow that bag on the plane.
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have not flown in several decades so I probably do not have a good grasp on the "TSA" issue(s). When I travel I do so primarily by automobile/suv or, when possible, by train (limited choices). But this latest TSA and Amtrak stealing and substance abuse incidents is cause for concern.
The TSA business was implemented during the Bush administration in response to the 9/11 terrorist attack on the US, killing thousands of innocents.
That has been over ten years ago? How time flies. In that time I don't think that there has been one act of terrorism with the exception of a few lunatics; a US Army medical officer who hated non-muslims, another in the movie theatre for no particular reason (I guess he was mad at his teacher?), etc. But nothing as horrednous as the Twin Towers involving transportation as the means of delivery or application of the mass destruction.
So I have to think that the TSA creation and implimentation is partly responsible for the total prevention of another catastrophic terrorist attack. And maybe Amtrak and TSA employees are more vigilant than we give them credit for? They must be doing something right. If there are some bad apples in the barrel, and there usually are, root them out, and deal with them.
I have no doubt that another major reason, perhaps the main reason, is the excellent work done by our security, intelligence, and clandestine forces who keep tabs on the would be terrotists that would love to blow up the Super Bowl, Sears Tower, Lincoln Tunnel, and an Amtrak train in a critical transportation hub, and so forth.
When one thinks of the millions of air travelers I find it amazing that things work as well as they do. Some compare us unfavorably with the Israeli air security but the magnitude of their passenger movement is tiny when compared to ours.
Of course the TSA is not always what it should be. It is a huge job. And I will say that if a post 9/11 pre TSA incident involving an airliner happened there would have been hell to pay. The media would have gone ballistic demanding why "something" wasn't done. Of course we all know who would have had blame on top of blame heaped upon his head. GW.
And when the TSA was implemented in addition to other intelligence tactics I think that I remember, clearly, the continued outcry by certain political elements along with their friends in the media lambasting Bush for the violation of our privacy and civil rights. And I don't think that they were "righties". How about "lefties"? It just depends whose ox is getting gored.
Of course, people in important positions including transportation personnel, educators, law enforcement among many others need to be held to certain standards for the protection of the public. And the TSA and Amtrak personnel should be held to a high standard also.
So I have to ask, "What is the DOT and Amtrak doing about these problems?" Or perhaps a better question might be, "What is the present administration doing about these serious problems?" These are not new complaints. Why don't the people in charge know about them and why don't they take effective corrective action? Maybe they do and I don't know about it. I know that it is a big job. But, to me, the bottom line is that there has not been another 9/11 thanks to security procedures that were implemented soon after 9/11. They need to be monitored and maintained. It appears CNN did their job.
Posts: 140 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had to fly down to LA (actually, Burbank) on Tuesday. The TSA line at Oakland was normal, but when I came home on Wednesday at Burbank I saw signs that I had never seen before. It said if your birthday is today and you were born in 1937 (or older), you do not have to take off your shoes and you can also keep on a light jacket. I don't know if this is something new, or if it's always been there and maybe I've just never seen it. But i was really surprised to see that. I think it is a GOOD thing, because it was ridiculous watching grandma and grandpa have to struggle with taking off their shoes and getting half-undressed just to walk through a metal detector (or the very creepy machine that sees you naked).
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
As everyone knows, I'm leftish, but I agree with the rightish that TSA is a highly ineffective, security-theater-oriented outfit that is devoted more to its own growth than it is to preventing the bad guys from getting on airplanes and blowing them up.
I suspect those who believe TSA is keeping us safe aren't the ones who have to go through the degrading full-monty searches, complete with junk-patting, every time they fly. (My body is full of stainless steel.)
Fortunately, I almost always fly with my wife, who keeps a weather eye on my camera bag while it goes through the X-ray and when TSA agents want to go through it.
I saw the "over 75, no shoe removal required" signs at security recently. What's to prevent Al Qaeda from recruiting moribund geezers and equipping them with shoe bombs?
Posts: 2236 | From: Evanston, Ill. and Ontonagon, Mich. | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by smitty195: It said if your birthday is today and you were born in 1937 (or older), you do not have to take off your shoes
My 1952 shoes are just as safe as those pre-1938 shoes. GBN's shoes are absolutely safe, too. Come to think of it, I'll wager ALL our RailForum members wear safe (sensible?) shoes. But we are a pretty miniscule cross-section of the flying public, so carry on, I guess. I don't fly much these days; preferring the train if possible. But looks like there will be a Korean Air trip coming up for me in the near future- that 'port at Incheon (Gilbert- ICN) is quite a showplace. Spotless, fast, orderly and was a joy to use, the one time I transited through there, on the way to the PRC. ('07)
Posts: 588 | From: East San Diego County, CA | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you have Global Entry or one of several "Known Traveler" profiles you can now get Fast Check (TSA/CBP uses a "Check Mark" instead of the work check.) accessibility at some airports.
I just added Norm's Global Entry number to two records for trips we are doing in December and May. The space to do so was on the United web site under "Traveler Profile". If an airport offers Fast Check lanes it allows you to enter without removing shoes, belt, light outer garment (coat) and your quart bag can stay in your carryon and your laptop can stay in it's case. Your eligibility should print out on your boarding pass.
I have my postponed Global Entry interview two weeks from tomorrow and plan to add my number as soon as I get it.
Posts: 2160 | From: Santa Barbara, CA, USA | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Henry, how is someone over 75 going to bend over and light his shoes??? In an airline seat or bathroom? Not gonna happen...
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And while we are talking shoes, we had ONE shoe bomber and hundreds of millions of innocent people seriously inconvenienced while trying to fly somewhere.
My thoughts are if someone tried to set fire to his shoe or light a fuse, kill him, with extreme prejudice. And, as the killer of a potential shoe bomber, you should receive free airline flights for the next 10 years, courtesy of our government, for saving the lives of innocent Americans.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the new Travel Channel show about MIA there was a teaser for this week's episode. Yep, a person trying to go through security with a knife concealed in his shoe.
I've found it to be a pretty good show and plan to watch again on Tuesday night. I do find the Airport Manager a bit annoying, though.
As for the shoe tying, Mike, most airports, including IAH, now have pretty decent "Reassembly" areas. That said, I'm looking forward to the time when 1941 appears on that sign.
When I've been sent for secondary screening (Doesn't happen with the full body scanner -- they can see both artificial hips!) they have ALWAYS asked if I was traveling alone. If the answer is yes, they go get my trays and take them to the secondary area. Very little chance for tampering.
To be honest, I think there is actually a greater chance of your bag being tampered with by airline personnel rather than the TSA.
A friend, a crew member traveling in uniform, had to gate check his bag at the aircraft door in Houston. It didn't appear at baggage claim at Newark and when it did appear four days later it had been emptied, including a computer, uniform pieces and a camera. It never left the custody of, then, Continental Airlines.
Frank in dark and cool SBA
Posts: 2160 | From: Santa Barbara, CA, USA | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sbalax: On the new Travel Channel show about MIA there was a teaser for this week's episode. Yep, a person trying to go through security with a knife concealed in his shoe.
I've been watching this too. A little too dramatic and dressed up for my liking, people that are ever-so-helpful in front of the cameras, but that appears to be the way "docudramas" are presented these days. Far too long spent on a car that rolled over that had very little to do with airport operations except for the fact it was on an approach road to the airport.
I've also been watching re-runs of Airline, filmed in 2004/2006. How different the airline world was then, with check-in to gate under 10 minutes and airside non-flying visitors.
If anybody complains about security procedurs, try flying from the Philippines. A bag scan before you even enter the terminal, the regular x-ray from the check-in area to the gates, and then - in the case of T2 at Manila - a third, ineffective, fingertip search while you're already airside, with just a flimsy Tensa barrier separating those "screened" and those not. To add insult to injury, you can stock up on that bottle of water as you're "airside" yet get it taken from you at that final checkpoint because it's not sterile. Apparently if I poured it from the sealed bottle into my own container it would have been okay. Angry arguments with the supervisor, pointing out that the 5-month old baby needs it for formula feed, barely resulted in him very reluctantly giving way and allowing one bottle through. I took both anyway, further exposing the ridiculousness of the situation. And then promptly left the DSLR camera behind, but thankfully realised when boarding the plane and it was still at the checkpoint.
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Are you sure about "airside non-flying visitors" in 2004-06? That seems late to us. We think the requirement to have a valid boarding pass or other airline issued credential (putting unaccompanied minor on flight, etc.) came shortly after 9/11 when the security lanes became too crowded to handle the non-flying public. That was when the airside concessions took a huge hit, too.
Frank in sunny and warm SBA
Posts: 2160 | From: Santa Barbara, CA, USA | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Are you sure about "airside non-flying visitors" in 2004-06? That seems late to us. We think the requirement to have a valid boarding pass or other airline issued credential (putting unaccompanied minor on flight, etc.) came shortly after 9/11 when the security lanes became too crowded to handle the non-flying public. That was when the airside concessions took a huge hit, too.
Frank in sunny and warm SBA
I admit it sounds wrong. But a couple of times on the episodes dated in the mid 2000s show a non-flying passenger meeting relatives etc at the gate. I guess for the sake of TV they may have made an exception.
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm betting that's what it was. They do make exceptions in special cases. They had that one on MIA where the young woman was meeting her boyfriend coming in from deployment. You used to be able to get a pass to go to the Presidents Club even if you weren't flying. I'm not sure if you can still do that.
Frank in sunny and warm SBA
Posts: 2160 | From: Santa Barbara, CA, USA | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I still see many non-flying people at gates meeting or seeing passengers off -- it can be done, and is done quite often, especially if you have the right credentials or know the right people.
Posts: 2428 | From: Grayling, MI | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Yesterday a friend was about to leave for O'Hare to fly home. I told her about recent news reports about theft from baggage at airports. She dismissed that with "Naw, I've never had a problem." This, of course, was the usual fallacious extrapolation from personal experience to the general.
Last night she called. Her bag had been rifled sometime between the time she surrendered her luggage at the airport and the time she picked it up at her destination.
All her black bras and panties (expensive, too) were stolen.
Nothing else.
Posts: 2236 | From: Evanston, Ill. and Ontonagon, Mich. | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is one more reason that I have not checked any baggage with an airline since 1985 (cruise; when you needed all the paraphernalia for the contrived merriment that I understand nowadays is no longer needed except on some of those Ultra-First Class Love Tubs):
An airline baggage handler who was convicted of trafficking millions of dollars’ worth of drugs in the bellies of commercial jets was sentenced to life in prison on Tuesday, putting an emphatic stamp on a case that revealed rampant theft and corruption by some airline employees.
The baggage handler....who spent many years working for American Airlines at Kennedy International Airport, led a ring of airline employees in Barbados and New York who used their specialized knowledge of planes to stow cocaine behind panels, beyond the detection of swarming customs agents, sometimes filling spaces in ways that could have put passengers’ lives in danger
On my airplane trips (two this year one, KORD-KHPN-KORD for three nights and the other, KORD-KRIC-KORD, two), I seem to make do with an over the shoulder flight bag that fits nicely under the seat - even a puddle jumper's seat.
Finally, I think the airlines are missing out on what is their REAL premium offering - the overhead racks. They ought to charge for the use of those racks (pass 'em out as a "perk" if they choose for those with "precious metal" standing), but in its place allow one free checked bag. Also on that note, I "picked up" on a little "racket" that passengers play - at least on puddle jumpers. Knowledgeable passengers know that they will not be able to handle aboard the bag they are wheeling (whatever happened to my "if you can't CARRY it, don't bring it"), they leave it by the ramp, have it checked there for free, then reclaim it at the ramp on arrival. Neat little game if I may say.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Spirit and Alliant airlines have already started charging for carryons. Spirit in particular charges $100. Ouch.
Posts: 2236 | From: Evanston, Ill. and Ontonagon, Mich. | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Henry Kisor: Spirit and Alliant airlines have already started charging for carryons. Spirit in particular charges $100. Ouch.
Should note that's for a carry-on "purchased" at the gate - cheaper options apply at check-in or online. Still, thanks for the heads up as that's an airline off my list for what I call "price to simply exist" structuring.
As for checking bags, if you take two Delta round trips per year then an AMEX Delta Skymiles card starts saving you money ("First bag free") by the end of that second trip ($25 per bag per leg; card fee $95 per year). Plus you get loyalty points thrown in. Other cards and other airlines are, of course, available with similar offerings.
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Mayo, isn't there an airline over there that wants a Euro from you to use the potty? If that be the case, then I'd say that is the epitome of of your noted "price to simply exist" structuring.
As you note, the overhead racks are sort of a "perk" for the "precious metal" folk. They get to board the aircraft first; hence, first come first served.
But if the airlines were to adopt a "first checked bag free" policy, they would do away with those farebeaters I noted who do interfere, especially if there is a jetway (some puddle jumpers do use them) with a timely exit from the aircraft - and there would be enough space for the carry ons - be they pay or comped.
Finally, in all honesty I have to ask as I have not been on a "real plane" since 2010; is the situation I noted only confined to puddle jumpers or does it also occur with real planes (B7X7, A3XX) as well?
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
This video, although rude, is a sly dig at Ryanair, the low-cost, high-fee-slapping Irish carrier.
Posts: 2236 | From: Evanston, Ill. and Ontonagon, Mich. | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
(complete with subtitles if the performers are of "too much brough").
I think all of this bears out the title of this topic; no wonder travel writers are starting to hold that if the journey in the USA is 500 miles or less, just use "surface transportation" and put "all this mullarkey' in the rearview mirror.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Mr. Mayo, isn't there an airline over there that wants a Euro from you to use the potty?
Not in California, no.
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: If that be the case, then I'd say that is the epitome of of your noted "price to simply exist" structuring.
No, because usage of the bathroom is not mandatory.
A better example would be fees to check-in (whether at airport or online) as you have no choice whatsoever in the matter - or not fly. RyanAir, the airline that suggested paying for toilets, has not yet done so but I wouldn't put it past them. They do, however, charge you to check-in. The same airline also suggested "stand-up seats" - but you have to remember they say a lot just to attract attention to themselves. I flew with them in their early days; never in the last decade or so.
Fees to take any kind of baggage on-board, whether checked or carry-on, is also a "price to simply exist". You could theoretically fly without any baggage whatsoever - but who does that?
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Finally, in all honesty I have to ask as I have not been on a "real plane" since 2010; is the situation I noted only confined to puddle jumpers or does it also occur with real planes (B7X7, A3XX) as well?
I've only had to gate-check what would otherwise be a larger carry-on on ERJs. Never on a 707 or A318 upwards. Frankly, what some people get away with as a carry-on is ridiculous - I don't think I've ever seen the size limits enforced airside - and at check-in they rarely noticeably check.
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, GBN, for the link. That video is fecking better.
"Mullarkey," by the way, is an accepted alternate spelling of "malarkey." Consider yourself uncorrected.
Posts: 2236 | From: Evanston, Ill. and Ontonagon, Mich. | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Henry Kisor: "Mullarkey," by the way, is an accepted alternate spelling of "malarkey." Consider yourself uncorrected.
It's not in Dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster, Collins (American or worldwide), or the Cambridge dictionaries. Each suggests "Malarkey" as the correct spelling. Only the lack of "e" is offered as an alternative spelling.
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geoff Mayo: The same airline also suggested "stand-up seats" - but you have to remember they say a lot just to attract attention to themselves. I flew with them in their early days; never in the last decade or so.
Here is what Mr. Mayo's "favourite airline" has in mind:
I suppose for a real short flight something like Dublin-Belfast; whatever, it wouldn't be the end of the world. Dublin-Prague, if they even have such a route, "uh-uh".
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Although "mullarkey" is cited as an alternative spelling of "malarkey" in the Oxford Dictionary of Modern Slang, the word's not in my WNI III or Random House, Mr. Mayo. Point therefore granted.
Maybe it's in the OED, though. Sooner or later everything is.
Be sure to continue to leap upon our misspellings, misuses and misconceptions, won't you? We are badly in need of improvement.
Posts: 2236 | From: Evanston, Ill. and Ontonagon, Mich. | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Henry Kisor: Maybe it's in the OED, though. Sooner or later everything is.
The online version seems to be a subscription service and I don't have a hard copy unfortunately.
quote:Originally posted by Henry Kisor: Be sure to continue to leap upon our misspellings, misuses and misconceptions, won't you? We are badly in need of improvement.
Apparently it was an American word anyway! It took me by surprise admittedly. But according to that US escapee, Bill Bryson, a lot of American spellings are those of Olde English - the American English spellings have generally stayed the same over the last couple of centuries whereas British English has moved on. One wonders whether "your" and "there" will become a single common spelling for "you're", "their", "they're" etc as they are virtually de facto standards (for want of a better word) already.
This article is an amusing read, though I make no comment on its veracity.
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
