Charge Your Electronics Before Boarding

kbrickley said:
I think they have done a good job trying to balance the needs of travelers with security concerns ...
Click to expand...
The TSA has a $8 BILLION dollar annual budget. Billion.

Now, you might ask, why don't airliners use the same fire resistent aviation fuel as the military has been using for ages now? Its a fuel that makes just as much power, but has additives so that if it spills during an accident, its very unlikely to catch fire. The only reason is cost.

But what if we took 1/4 of the TSA's budget to subsidize the cost differential and required this at least for all of our domestic airports?

Resources aren't infinite, which means each dollar you give the TSA is a dollar that isn't used elsewhere. That is something I think people forget.
 
Tudz said:
They really only have to worry about fantail enthusiasts. When you complain, the NSA looks up your fish purchasing history and you get red flagged if you've purchased an inordinate number of fantails.
Click to expand...

*shifty eyes* What constitutes "inordinate" anyway? A few thousand should be well below their threshold.
 
$8 BIIIILLLIOOON...
TSA.jpg
 
kbrickley said:
If you're willing to pay a small fee and let the government fingerprint you then you can skip most of that (except for the 3.5 ounce liquids) ... TSA Precheck :cool:
Click to expand...
Nope, still get randomly stopped. My mom was pissed as she just had knee surgery and they did their random strip search even though she was preapproved. She told them repeatedly, but they insisted that it doesn't prevent random checks.
 
Ducman69 said:
That's just the thing, there isn't an enormous amount of damage done. The perceived threat of terrorism to the general welfare of our populace is completely divorced from the real danger presented, especially now that precautionary measures have been put in place making aircraft an unlikely future target to be used as missles.

In the last 34 years, we've lost 3,100 Americans to terrorist attacks related to aircraft. In the same period of time, there have been 1,020,028 cases of suicide reported in the US.
Click to expand...

9/11 resulted in a fantastic amount of damage when you count up everything, the lives lost while tragic really are only the tip of the iceberg. The problem with these kinds of attacks if that it only takes one type 9/11 attack to cause all kinds of issues. If another 9/11 style attack or worse every occurs, do you think that airport security would be less stringent or more?

Ducman69 said:
So if the government wants the TSA to save the maximum number of lives, instead of being rude aholes making us miserable and hate flying, they should hire attractive people to give us a hug, complement us, and offer complementary handjobs. That could easily avert 3,100 suicides in a 34 year period... at least!
Click to expand...

Any organizations customer service could probably use improving. I don't do a lot of flying but of course the security measures aren't usually fun. I can't think of too many security measures that are. But someone has to be responsible for who and what gets on planes and just endless amounts of government hate without realistic answers doesn't do anyone any good.
 
kbrickley said:
I think they have done a good job trying to balance the needs of travelers with security concerns ... if we could, we should implement the same level of security that El Al uses (since we are an even bigger target than Israel), but it would be too disruptive given the size of some of our airports ...
Click to expand...

Disagree.
They only concentrate on people they deem possibly suspicious, while going easier on everyone else.
No random searches of little kids or grandmothers unless there is a reason to suspect something.

TSA won’t do this because it’s not politically correct to target specific people, so instead they hassle everyone.


kbrickley said:
Hopefully, the US carriers will resolve part of this anyway as I expect all the major carriers to implement carry on bag fees next year (if they are smart) ... reducing the number of carry on bags will speed up the security process (as well as the boarding process) and the additional fees for carry on and checked bags will help airline profitability ... win-win in my book (as a frequent business traveler) :cool:

Actually a lose-lose in my book. I haven't flown for 5 years, largely because of the TSA and that they had the X-ray scanners at the local airports. Since they retired the x-ray scanners (the same scanners that Europe banned) and have replaced them with the safer radio-wave scanners, we decided to fly on this vacation this year. Depending on how bad the TSA is, we may go back to driving again. An added charge for carry-on bags would also be a big negative for any future air travel.
Click to expand...
 
heatlesssun said:
But someone has to be responsible for who and what gets on planes and just endless amounts of government hate without realistic answers doesn't do anyone any good.
Click to expand...

How about the airlines. You know, the people that own the planes.
 
Ducman69 said:
The TSA has a $8 BILLION dollar annual budget. Billion.

Now, you might ask, why don't airliners use the same fire resistent aviation fuel as the military has been using for ages now? Its a fuel that makes just as much power, but has additives so that if it spills during an accident, its very unlikely to catch fire. The only reason is cost.

But what if we took 1/4 of the TSA's budget to subsidize the cost differential and required this at least for all of our domestic airports?

Resources aren't infinite, which means each dollar you give the TSA is a dollar that isn't used elsewhere. That is something I think people forget.
Click to expand...

Or alternately we could just privatize the airport security completely ... I would be much happier to let the airlines manage the restrictions ... they would definitely establish something like TSA Precheck to preverify frequent travelers ... they could hire one of the many private security companies to run the service (like Pinkerton or Garda) ... and since it would be private they would not be bound by any constitutional restrictions (like the government would) on search and seizure ... I do agree that a private security process would be better and effective ... the fuel idea is good but that doesn't protect against hijacks or bombs on the plane itself
 
Ducman69 said:
Because Al Qaeda aren't sophisticated enough or have enough experience when it comes to making improvised explosive devices...

I have a much easier screening process.

TSA: "Repeat after me; Allah sucks."
A) Person repeats, wave them on.
B) Person doesn't repeat, give canine assisted cavity check.

Foolproof.
Click to expand...

Might work except, that they also believe is perfectly ok to lie to infidels.

How about we give a pass to anyone who has a US Passport, is not on the do-not-fly list, and hasn't visited any of the terrorist countries?
 
heatlesssun said:
9/11 resulted in a fantastic amount of damage when you count up everything, the lives lost while tragic really are only the tip of the iceberg. The problem with these kinds of attacks if that it only takes one type 9/11 attack to cause all kinds of issues. If another 9/11 style attack or worse every occurs, do you think that airport security would be less stringent or more?
Click to expand...
No it didn't. What made 9/11 expensive is that it led to out of control spending, such as on the TSA, and three massively expensive wars that had no clear objectives in place going in, and to date still aren't considered a success.

9/11 was an attack on the American mind, not an unusually high cost in total damages incurred considering the immense size of the United States GDP of $15 trillion, and politicians fanned that flame as much as possible so that they'd have a blank check to spend and increase their powers.

http://vimeo.com/28906855 <--- mmmhmmm
 
TSA Fail.

I like the Israeli method of screening. It is far more effective and to be honest, go cry me a river if you feel you're being profiled.
 
aardvark sandwich said:
How about the airlines. You know, the people that own the planes.
Click to expand...

There's no way the airlines would ever want to take on this responsibility voluntarily, the risks would be enormous. Plus part of the TSA includes law enforcement, The Federal Air Marshal Service.
 
New suicide bomber technique? Pack laptop with explosives wired to battery & on button, TSA demands power on...airport goes BOOM!!!

Thanks TSA. :rolleyes:
 
It's just sad the level of paranoia and fear this country has been reduced to. Cavity search everyone and arm every citizen because if you don't the terrorists win....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
heatlesssun said:
And some are going to hijack, blow up and weaponize planes. Unless you can guarantee that this will NEVER happen, then yes, statists are gonna state.
Click to expand...

these measures don't guarantee what you state either. anything in life is taking a calculated risk. it happened once (four incidents simultaneously to be exact). does that mean we have to forever accept idiotic "security measures"? busses have been used for terrorist attacks before. does that mean we need ridiculous security measures there as well? a bus has the capacity to be filled with enough explosives to demolish a sky scraper. in a free society there is always the risk to be attacked. certainly, you need a base level of security, but while the efforts and cost to establish more security pretty much increases exponentially, it barely adds to security. in fact, the more complex a system the more loop holes are created not to mention the inefficiency.
 
heatlesssun said:
There's no way the airlines would ever want to take on this responsibility voluntarily, the risks would be enormous. Plus part of the TSA includes law enforcement, The Federal Air Marshal Service.
Click to expand...

And I give a shit because?
 
All someone would need to do is get a full size laptop, swap battery for much smaller lithium one, replace hd with a small flash drive that would load win Xp via flash, remove cd drive or any other parts that can be removed then replace with plastic. If someone wants to kill innocent people they will find a way.
 
heatlesssun said:
There's no way the airlines would ever want to take on this responsibility voluntarily, the risks would be enormous. Plus part of the TSA includes law enforcement, The Federal Air Marshal Service.
Click to expand...

Since the airlines could pass on the costs to the passengers I don't think it is too much of an obstacle for them to take it ... they could put armed security agents from whatever 3rd party company they hire on the planes as well (Garda, Pinkerton, etc) ... also, there are fewer constitutional considerations if a 3rd party does the screening instead of the government ... finally they could offer enhancements and streamlined security for frequent travelers that would make this more business friendly than the current system :cool:
 
temujin987 said:
these measures don't guarantee what you state either. anything in life is taking a calculated risk. it happened once (four incidents simultaneously to be exact). does that mean we have to forever accept idiotic "security measures"? busses have been used for terrorist attacks before. does that mean we need ridiculous security measures there as well? a bus has the capacity to be filled with enough explosives to demolish a sky scraper. in a free society there is always the risk to be attacked. certainly, you need a base level of security, but while the efforts and cost to establish more security pretty much increases exponentially, it barely adds to security. in fact, the more complex a system the more loop holes are created not to mention the inefficiency.
Click to expand...

Bottom line, it's a tough, thankless job that someone has to do. Those kinds of tasks are generally easy to improve, but again, no one wants to do it or take responsibility when it hits the fan.
 
I remember YEARS ago.... they used to make people power up their laptops before getting on planes. This isn't anything new is it?
Click to expand...

Not really, they are extending the same policy they have had for years for laptops to other mobile devices.
 
kbrickley said:
Since the airlines could pass on the costs to the passengers I don't think it is too much of an obstacle for them to take it ... they could put armed security agents from whatever 3rd party company they hire on the planes as well (Garda, Pinkerton, etc) ... also, there are fewer constitutional considerations if a 3rd party does the screening instead of the government ... finally they could offer enhancements and streamlined security for frequent travelers that would make this more business friendly than the current system :cool:
Click to expand...

Why would the airlines want to take on voluntarily the enormous amount of risk involved with this job? If another 9/11 were to happen, they'd be the ones holding the bag.
 
Boo-hoo.

The market doesn't care if a company wants responsibility.

What a fucking stupid justification for coercion.
 
I also used to fly a great amount domesticly and overseas and the Country that had the strictest security was Germany. They are the only ones that ever ran my laptop through a sniffer and they have additional security checks for overseas flights at the gates besides the one for the terminal.
 
lcpiper said:
I also used to fly a great amount domesticly and overseas and the Country that had the strictest security was Germany. They are the only ones that ever ran my laptop through a sniffer and they have additional security checks for overseas flights at the gates besides the one for the terminal.
Click to expand...
"Good evening Herr Piper. Do you have anyzing to declare? Any hidden explosives, liquids, sharp objects, jews, etc in your bag?" Am I close? :D
 
Do they only check laptops and things for international flights? I flew to Chicago and back (via Seattle, SLC, Denver) with 2 laptops, 2 phones, and an iPod as carry on. I had to take them out so they could xray them, but they never asked to open them or turn them on...

As long as they are just checking for power, and not checking the contents of the device, I'm good. When they ask to have you log in or want to search data (they won't), then it's too far.
 
This is currently only for international flights inbound through major airports with US destinations.
 
kbrickley said:
Since the airlines could pass on the costs to the passengers I don't think it is too much of an obstacle for them to take it ... they could put armed security agents from whatever 3rd party company they hire on the planes as well (Garda, Pinkerton, etc) ... also, there are fewer constitutional considerations if a 3rd party does the screening instead of the government ... finally they could offer enhancements and streamlined security for frequent travelers that would make this more business friendly than the current system :cool:
Click to expand...
I'd actually support that, as if you're going to pay, you're going to pay one way or another and private industry tends to be more efficient with higher quality staff. The airlines paying for security would certainly be more money concious about getting the best bang for their buck meeting say basic security minimums outlined by law if necessary, and shop around for the best security firm to implement it. Can't be worse than highschool dropout federal employees with unquestionable job security like the government hires to do the job. Last TSA lady I saw was nearly incomprehensible and the two gold teeth were a nice touch... although in her defence, at least she was friendly unlike her statue lazy male coworker that stood there doing an impression of a log.
 
aardvark sandwich said:
LOL
Click to expand...

Yeah, it is hilarious to think that any business would want to take on tons of additional risk for a thankless job. Sure, the flying public would want some sort of security if the government weren't involved. But what would they do all that differently from the TSA? They'd run into the same issues and then have to take all of the blame.
 
QwertyJuan said:
I remember YEARS ago.... they used to make people power up their laptops before getting on planes. This isn't anything new is it?
Click to expand...

It made me chuckle when, flying post-9/11, they would make people remove laptops from their bags and sometimes even power them up.

But I traveled with an entire desktop tower in my carry on and they didn't even open the bag when it went through the scanner :p And it was an ugly home built, with terrible wire management, etc.
 
heatlesssun said:
Yeah, it is hilarious to think that any business would want to take on tons of additional risk for a thankless job. Sure, the flying public would want some sort of security if the government weren't involved. But what would they do all that differently from the TSA? They'd run into the same issues and then have to take all of the blame.
Click to expand...

The dispute is not that companies should want to do this.

It's that you think its better to have a centralized, involuntary, tax payer-funded group perform a service because its 'thankless'.

Fuckin' gee-whiz, why do they have private septic companies? The government should do it.

What is most bewildering is your total pass to industry, and their free-loading responsibility onto tax payers. Here I am, the capitalist, wondering why you are being so generous to companies. Companies should be held liable for their blunders.
 
Yeah I'm not booting up and decrypting the main partition of my phone, laptop, or anything else with any officials present. The safest state of my data is offline and unpowered.
 
Again with the 'want'.

I dont care what they want.

My dollars don't care.
 
Ducman69 said:
Because Al Qaeda aren't sophisticated enough or have enough experience when it comes to making improvised explosive devices...

I have a much easier screening process.

TSA: "Repeat after me; Allah sucks."
A) Person repeats, wave them on.
B) Person doesn't repeat, give canine assisted cavity check.

Foolproof.
Click to expand...

Wasnt it our CIA that trained the Taliban on how to make explosives?

In either way, there is nothing that will work 100%. Perhaps some day the TSA can provide TSA approved travel smocks issued at the security checkpoint, no carry ons, and you would be contained in your own compartment for the ride.
 
aardvark sandwich said:
I dont care what they want.
Click to expand...

What they want, like any business, is to make money and be profitable. So if business isn't profitable, you or anyone else caring or not is irrelevant. Running airport security would be a massive and expensive undertaking for the airline industry. If planes are going to fly, whether or not a person flies, keeping air travel safe is of benefit to everyone. If airlines want the undertaking and they think they can do a better job, so be it. But if they do not want the job and don't think they'd be effective, then what benefit is that to anyone?
 
Sigh.

My opinion is relevant, because they are chasing my dollars.

The TSA has no competition. That is of no benefit to anyone.

We have massive, nation-wide, bipartisan outcries of discontent towards the TSA. The TSA doesn't give a shit, they just ban another article of clothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top