Brave security agents prevent woman from hijacking aircraft with her NIPPLES (RO)

The BBQ Pit
181

[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
Not as bad as you might think, at least if you aren’t flying on El Al.
[/QUOTE]

Slight hijack: The wife has spent some time in Israel, because of a project she was in charge of, and she flew round-trip from Bangkok to Jerusalem a couple of times on El-Al. Man, are they thorough! No bad experiences, but in Bangkok, at least at the old airport, El-Al had a separate area set up, and each passenger had to go through a security interview. The wife got a little extra attention, because she was married to a foreigner and we had friends in Malaysia, a Muslim country. But she was treated courteously. I don’t blame El-Al at all for being so cautious!

182

[QUOTE=Siam Sam]
Okay, then their predecessors. Maybe I’m mistaken, but I thought we were talking about the security-screening personnel. I looked a bit scruffy in 1986 at the time I was flying out of DFW, and the security guy screening my bag insisted something suspicious was showing up on screen. He kept pointing to the screen saying, “See? It’s right there! RIGHT THERE!” But there was nothing at all visible I could see. I said look, let’s just open 'er up and take everything out, then he said never mind and let me go. :confused: I’m convinced to this day he was just screwing with me because of how I looked.

Are we not talking about the security-screening personnel?
[/QUOTE]

The security screening personel pre-TSA are (generally) different people than the ones post-TSA. My understanding is that when the TSA took over, there were mass layoffs and a new certification and training regimen was instituted.

But yes, in both cases, what you’ve got are security screeners at the airport. I was just emphasizing that when I and others have referred to “TSAs” the term has referred specifically to the guys who took over airport security post 2001.

-FrL-

183

[QUOTE=Frylock]
The security screening personel pre-TSA are (generally) different people than the ones post-TSA. My understanding is that when the TSA took over, there were mass layoffs and a new certification and training regimen was instituted.

But yes, in both cases, what you’ve got are security screeners at the airport. I was just emphasizing that when I and others have referred to “TSAs” the term has referred specifically to the guys who took over airport security post 2001.

-FrL-
[/QUOTE]

And don’t forget that in the past security screeners were hired by the individual airports in question. TSA is a federal body, part of Dept of Homeland Security, and has broader law-enforcement powers than the screeners used to.

So basically you’ve got minimum-wage earners, with significant power over the travelling public, who are no more competent or better trained than the minimum-wage earners (with no power) who they replaced, all being run by a bureaucracy with nearly as much power as the IRS and just as little oversight and with apparently institutional incompetence, cronyism, and a cover-up / self-aggrandizing agenda. Hell, they couldn’t even manage to criminal-records screen a bunch of these thugs; how in hell could they possibly know if TSA screeners are actually part of some sleeper cell of terrorist fanatics?

184

To correct some misconceptions and clarify some of your points:

[QUOTE=GomiBoy]

So basically you’ve got minimum-wage earners,

[/quote]

I wish minimum wage were around 15.50 w/ full medical and dental benefits.

Pre-TSA, screeners generally had 10 hours of instruction followed by on-the-job training for, IIRC, a month or so. Post-TSA, screeners have five 10-hour days of training in a row, followed by a one year probationary period, and are constantly being retrained and recertified.

And I can’t think of any power a TSA screener has that an old-fashioned airport security screener didn’t have. Both, I think, had the power to screen, search, refuse entrance, and when appropriate, refer you to law enforcement.

Could be, could be.

Have you seen anything indicating how well the records screenings have been going since the beginning of 2003?

-FrL-

185

[QUOTE=Frylock]
The security screening personel pre-TSA are (generally) different people than the ones post-TSA. My understanding is that when the TSA took over, there were mass layoffs and a new certification and training regimen was instituted.

But yes, in both cases, what you’ve got are security screeners at the airport. I was just emphasizing that when I and others have referred to “TSAs” the term has referred specifically to the guys who took over airport security post 2001.

-FrL-
[/QUOTE]

I see. Thanks. I really wasn’t aware there was that much of a change. Figured regulations had been tightened up after 9/11, but was not aware of a whole new crew. With the old crowd, I know there were constant complaints about the work being low-paid drudgery that was not conducive to really trying very hard and so a lot of stuff got through as a result.

186

[QUOTE=Frylock]
To correct some misconceptions and clarify some of your points:

I wish minimum wage were around 15.50 w/ full medical and dental benefits.

Pre-TSA, screeners generally had 10 hours of instruction followed by on-the-job training for, IIRC, a month or so. Post-TSA, screeners have five 10-hour days of training in a row, followed by a one year probationary period, and are constantly being retrained and recertified.

And I can’t think of any power a TSA screener has that an old-fashioned airport security screener didn’t have. Both, I think, had the power to screen, search, refuse entrance, and when appropriate, refer you to law enforcement.

Could be, could be.

Have you seen anything indicating how well the records screenings have been going since the beginning of 2003?

-FrL-
[/QUOTE]

Argue with a TSA screener and you’re almost automatically arrested; argue with an old-style screener and you’d miss your flight.

And the TSA has the right, apparently without just cause or without warrant, of searching everything you own and taking anything they see fit as long as it’s under the banner of ‘security’ which has proven to not only be ineffective, but proven to be prone to abuse of authority and theft.

And I don’t care how well it’s been going since 2003; they fucked it up in the beginning, and since have attempted to claim success from every failure.

Hence why the knee-jerk reaction of more-guards = more security is patently false, without appropriate training and vetting processes which clearly are ineffective and incompetent.

187

I went in and out through Ben-Gurion in late 2004/early 2005 and didn’t have any hassles. The Israeli official at JFK in New York irritated me a little when she asked me why I wasn’t just going to Lebanon and made me recite Jewish prayers to back up my claim that I was going there for religious/cultural heritage reasons, but she was just doing her job, and the fact that I bumbled that Hannukah one didn’t make the process any more difficult.

One guy got strip-searched on the way there and on the way back, but he was a dick and he totally deserved it. If anything, the most irritating part of the whole process was going through US Customs on the way back.

I would sum the whole thing up much like this:

So Alessan, in the end, El-Al security is much less of a PITA than US security, and they have a much better track record. Don’t work harder, work smarter. JME.

FTR, I don’t think it’s so obvious that you’ve never gone through Ben-Gurion as a foreigner. I, for one, always thought you were an American or British expatriate.

188

[QUOTE=Hostile Dialect]
FTR, I don’t think it’s so obvious that you’ve never gone through Ben-Gurion as a foreigner. I, for one, always thought you were an American or British expatriate.
[/QUOTE]

Um, I wasn’t sure if that was addressed to me. If so, I AM an American expat. I’ve never been to Israel; that was my Thai wife who has.

EDIT: Never mind. I see now you were using an excerpt from my post to make a point to someone else. :smack:

189

nevermind