# How to handle the TSA? Take Amtrak!



## CHamilton (Apr 9, 2012)

How Can I Best Handle the TSA’s Creepy Tactics When Traveling? [Ask Lifehacker]

http://lifehacker.com/5900260/how-can-stop-worrying-about-the-tsas-creepy-tactics-when-traveling



> Consider Alternate Transportation Methods
> If you really can't shake the TSA, customs, or security checkpoint jitters, you may want to consider alternate means of transport entirely. If you live in an area where you can take a train to and from your destination, you may want to look into it—it may take longer, but I've found that at least in the Northeast Corridor (here in the US) Amtrak train tickets (even in business class!) are comparable to plane tickets if not cheaper depending on when you want to travel. If you pack light, you don't have to worry about checking luggage, the rides are comfortable, the trains often have Wi-Fi (and if they don't, it's not like you have to turn your gear off on a train), well-stocked (if not pricey) cafe cars, plenty of clean bathrooms, and if you're riding business class, you can stretch out and relax. Plus, all of the intense screening you're used to in airports? None of that in most train stations.



Most of us will smile at this description, but I wonder how much of Amtrak's record ridership is made up of people avoiding the TSA.


----------



## the_traveler (Apr 9, 2012)

And let's keep it that way!






I don't fly unless I absolutely have to be there yesterday!



(And even then I debate it!)


----------



## Shortline (Apr 9, 2012)

CHamilton said:


> How Can I Best Handle the TSA's Creepy Tactics When Traveling? [Ask Lifehacker]
> 
> http://lifehacker.co...-when-traveling
> 
> ...


Been working for drug mules for years! Wonder for how much longer though....only going to take 1 incident with a bomb or some clown boarding with enough ammunition to clear the train front to rear before the game is over-Something serious like that would be the end of LD trains in the US.

And, frankly, I don't get the up in arms agains TSA thing. Sure, they're mostly for show, but I think they have been marginally effective for some things-I know they can find pocket knives, they've got about a dozen of mine now.....besides, I go through security at airports 6-10 times a month all across the US, it's no big deal. As a Frequent Flier, I do get the express line, but the actual process is not that tough. No different than entering the FRA building/Courthouse/DOT offices.


----------



## Tumbleweed (Apr 9, 2012)

CHamilton said:


> Most of us will smile at this description, but I wonder how much of Amtrak's record ridership is made up of people avoiding the TSA.


I will have to say that avoiding the TSA hassle has somewhat of an effect on why I prefer to take the train, but certainly not the only reason or the most significant one....


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Apr 9, 2012)

Shortline said:


> I don't get the up in arms agains TSA thing...


&


Shortline said:


> As a Frequent Flier, I do get the express line...


Looks like you already answered a big part of your own question.

There's also the way some of us were raised, what with our deep respect for civil rights and liberties and all.

And then there are the folks who would rather everyone just grinned and _bared it_ like they do.


----------



## PRR 60 (Apr 9, 2012)

Texas Sunset said:


> Shortline said:
> 
> 
> > I don't get the up in arms agains TSA thing...
> ...


It is also possible that *Shortline* was raised with the same "deep respect for civil rights and liberties" as you, and just happens to disagree with you on this point.


----------



## Phil S (Apr 9, 2012)

It's not just TSA, their long lines, and ridiculous rules. I have come to hate the airports, and the airplanes, and a large portion of the flight attendants, and those silly on-board rules that are at best randomly enforced. Most of all the airlines are not dependable. My last trip I arrived a full day late - vety minor weather delay caused me to miss connection. No space on other flights that day. Trains (with sleeper) are fun and relaxing. I love the scenery (well, most of it). I find interesting knowledgeable people to talk with (including most of the SCAs). And I feel like I've actually travelled, not just been catapaulted across the country in a cigar tube. OTOH, I have seen some beautiful scenery on flights, especially trans-polar, had on occasion geat crews and good food (in Business class). But the airport/airline screw-ups way outnumber the good flights.


----------



## ParrotRob (Apr 9, 2012)

Shortline said:


> CHamilton said:
> 
> 
> > How Can I Best Handle the TSA's Creepy Tactics When Traveling? [Ask Lifehacker]
> ...


Thank you, someone else who actually feels the way I do. Yeah, they are mostly show, but I, too, go through airports ALL THE TIME, and I've never once been hassled or felt violated in any way by the TSA. The people who complain about them would have no problems if they just took a few minutes to familiarize themselves with the rules and then follow them.


----------



## ParrotRob (Apr 9, 2012)

Texas Sunset said:


> Shortline said:
> 
> 
> > I don't get the up in arms agains TSA thing...
> ...


150+ flights in the last year, and I've never had to "bare" anything 

Oh, and a TSA agent has never laid a finger on my person except to help me out of a wheelchair when I had a broken leg.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 9, 2012)

I do not want to be faced with the possibility of having to let a stranger look under my clothes (regardless of whether it is virtually) and/or have a stranger touch me in very private areas on my body just so I can travel about my own country. Therefore, the TSA is THE reason why Amtrak has been receiving all my business. I'm not treated like a criminal when I travel by train.....yet anyway. The miniscule threat of terrorism is not worth me giving up my dignity or sacrificing my morals and values. A lot of people in this day and time don't understand that, and that's fine.

Even if the TSA madness at the airports ends (not likely seeing how some powerful folks are making lots of money off all this), I'd still travel by train from time to time.


----------



## AGRtraveler (Apr 10, 2012)

Delta may be ready when you are, but by golly so is Amtrak and you can leave your shoes on.


----------



## Shawn Ryu (Apr 10, 2012)

Even without TSa theres still awful airline services


----------



## cirdan (Apr 10, 2012)

I only fly when there's genuinely no reasonable train alternative.

There's really nothing attractive about flying.

I've flown in business class a couple of times (on business) and even that isn't genuinely much better. Okay I get access to some lounges with free drinks but that doesn't really excite me. I'd rather be on a train and moving than sitting in a lounge waiting for something to happen.


----------



## jis (Apr 10, 2012)

ParrotRob said:


> Texas Sunset said:
> 
> 
> > Shortline said:
> ...


Likewise. I love to fly as much as I love to ride trains. I fly over 100,000 miles each year and am yet to have a problem with TSA. Things actually just got better due to the trusted traveler program, so now no need to take off shoes and take computers out of bag at airports and airlines that are participants in the program.

Frankly I find the charm of flying high above the clouds, seeing beautiful sunrises, sunsets, cloud formations, stars in daylight and even places that I could never otherwise get to, far below (e.g. the North Pole, the Hindu Kush in Afghanistan etc. etc.), is quite fascinating, at least to me. I'd never give up the chance to experience those just because of a simple security check here and there. Trains have their own charm that are different from flying and worth it in and of themselves, not as an either/or proposition relative to flying IMHO.

However, I do respect the opinions of those who do not like to fly for whatever reason and would urge them to not fly. because generally happier people as co-passengers are better than grumbling folks. What can I say? 

Of course everyone to their own poisons I suppose


----------



## JoeBas (Apr 10, 2012)

CHamilton said:


> Most of us will smile at this description, but I wonder how much of Amtrak's record ridership is made up of people avoiding the TSA.


I can assure you that it's a significant factor for a NUMBER of Long Distance travelers, based on conversations in the diner...



ParrotRob said:


> Thank you, someone else who actually feels the way I do. Yeah, they are mostly show, but I, too, go through airports ALL THE TIME, and I've never once been hassled or felt violated in any way by the TSA.


Well bully for you. What about those of us who have?



ParrotRob said:


> The people who complain about them would have no problems if they just took a few minutes to familiarize themselves with the rules and then follow them.


Yeah, because the rules are SOOOOOOO consistent... must be the victim's fault!


----------



## reefgeek (Apr 10, 2012)

I've never had too much inconvenience from the TSA, just don't like the lines.

Besides, I have to go from NJ to Dallas periodically and my boss thinks that three days is too much travel time when there's direct flights. Go figure. :giggle:


----------



## JayPea (Apr 10, 2012)

While I would rather take the train, for the kind of Amtrak trips I take, because of time restraints, I have to fly one direction and take Amtrak the other. I really don't mind flying. The only time I have had a problem with TSA was one time in Spokane, when an agent singled me (and my backpack) out for a thorough inspection. That in itself wasn't so bad, but the inspection took so long that I was in danger of missing my flight. And when I tried to point that out to the agent, she got rather nasty. When I finally got done, I ran up to my gate area amd got there just as my flight was being called. Other than that, no problems. I guess for me, the most annoying aspect of flying is being told how stupid I am for flying, how dumb I am for "letting TSA invade my civil rights" and how I'm a "sheeple", and how being "subservient to the government" is only making easier "for them to control us". I totally respect the opinions and actions who choose not to fly. And I understand people who have had a much harder time with TSA than I have. I wouldn't dream of telling anyone what they should and shouldn't do with regards to flying based on MY experiences. Likewise, no one should tell me what to do or what not to do based on THEIRS.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Apr 10, 2012)

PRR 60 said:


> Texas Sunset said:
> 
> 
> > Shortline said:
> ...


I'd welcome a serious defender of civil rights explaining how the TSA is not a loss of our civil liberties or an end-run around a hundred years of search-seizure-charge precedent. Let's hear it...



ParrotRob said:


> 150+ flights in the last year, and I've never had to "bare" anything Oh, and a TSA agent has never laid a finger on my person except to help me out of a wheelchair when I had a broken leg.


Do you have an actual position on the matter, or are you just here to tell us that until it happens to you it's not important?


----------



## OlympianHiawatha (Apr 10, 2012)

The TSA is bad enough but the games most of the airlines now play with all the extra vigorish they charge for bags, boarding passes, flight changes and such have kept me out of the air for several years. And despite being a fan of airline history, I do not miss flying one bit.


----------



## bmorechris (Apr 10, 2012)

Texas Sunset said:


> I'd welcome a serious defender of civil rights explaining how the TSA is not a loss of our civil liberties or an end-run around a hundred years of search-seizure-charge precedent. Let's hear it...


When you fly (or travel Amtrak for that matter) you enter into a contract with a private entity. By purchasing that ticket, whether you like it or not, you agree to their contract of carriage. This is the pertinent rule from United's contract of carriage:



> RULE 20 SCREENING OF PASSENGERS AND BAGGAGE
> 
> Passengers and/or their baggage are subject to security screening, including but not limited to, security profiling, physical pat-downs and inspections, x-ray screening, manual bag searches, questioning of Passengers, and use of electronic or other detectors or screening or security devices, in the sole discretion of the government, airport or UA, and with or without the Passenger‘s presence, consent or knowledge. Neither UA nor its employees or agents is liable for any damage, loss, delay (including refusal to transport), confiscation of property, injury or other harm relating to or arising out of security screening or Passenger's failure to submit to or comply with such security screening.


No one is forcing you to fly, so any civil liberties or illegal search argument can immediately be thrown out the window. You could always fly general aviation, no security there


----------



## jis (Apr 10, 2012)

JayPea said:


> I guess for me, the most annoying aspect of flying is being told how stupid I am for flying, how dumb I am for "letting TSA invade my civil rights" and how I'm a "sheeple", and how being "subservient to the government" is only making easier "for them to control us". I totally respect the opinions and actions who choose not to fly. And I understand people who have had a much harder time with TSA than I have. I wouldn't dream of telling anyone what they should and shouldn't do with regards to flying based on MY experiences. Likewise, no one should tell me what to do or what not to do based on THEIRS.


I am with you 100% on that. It's another one of the minor annoyances in life like the TSA. I just ignore such advisers with a smile, since they have no clue what they speak of as far as my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is concerned, even though they may have somehow convinced themselves that they have the inside track on truth on these matters. 

Incidentally, I have similar disdain for those that try to explain to me why riding trains is stupid too, and trust me there are at least as many of those around too.

Incidentally also, this is not to say that there aren't a few inherent problems with the operation of DHS, CBP, TSA and even NSA and a host of other alphabet soup. But that is hardly going to keep me from doing things that I like to do. If you had to refrain from doing things that are affected by their activities then you'd have to just stay in your home with windows shuttered with no telephone, internet or electricity, and you'd be lucky if you can find untainted food.  Not for me.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Apr 10, 2012)

bmorechris said:


> No one is forcing you to fly, so any civil liberties or illegal search argument can immediately be thrown out the window. You could always fly general aviation, no security there.


So are you saying that if the loss of these liberties is *legal* under American law then it's simply not a loss at all? As a practical matter most Americans cannot replace commercial flying with general aviation flying. Likewise, many jobs that I may be hired for consider routine travel on commercial flights to be a requirement of continued employment. If the TSA confuses me with any of the tens-of-thousands of folks on their no-fly list from who knows where, who do I talk to about having my information corrected or my name removed? So far as I can tell the TSA does not seem to have much in the way of independent oversight. Like any true boondoggle, in many ways the TSA are their own judge and jury. Although some people apparently luck out and eventually find some sort of workable resolution not everyone has the means or connections to do so.

As a practical matter how do you retain a job that requires you to travel on a regular basis if the TSA has fingered you for abuse? How do you correct it? How do you reach Europe or Asia in anything resembling a reasonable time without access to a commercial flight? Even if you're traveling domestically we now have stop-and-search processing on arteries as large and important as I-10. That didn't use to bother as much me until I saw how little we truly understand about what inspection dogs are actually picking up on when they alert. In short, I simply do not agree we're not in the process of losing our civil liberties simply because the powers that be have found a fully legal method for taking them away.



jis said:


> I am with you 100% on that. It's another one of the minor annoyances in life like the TSA. *I just ignore such advisers with a smile*...


Oh really? Did you already forget the following post earlier in the thread?



jis said:


> I do respect the opinions of those who do not like to fly for whatever reason and would *urge them to not fly*...Incidentally, I have similar disdain for those that try to explain to me why riding trains is stupid too, and trust me there are at least as many of those around too.


Urging people to run away from issues they see as a problem would seem to be a weird way to show them respect for their opinion. Actually, it would seem to be the opposite of showing respect. Which is pretty much what "disdain" means. I guess the truth comes out in the end eh?

Some folks don't see a given issue as a problem. Fair enough. Some folks see a given issue as a problem they'd like resolved. Best of luck to them. Still other folks see an issue as problem they'd rather run away from. So be it. And then there are folks who don't see a given issue as a problem but still go _out of their way_ to urge those who do see it as a problem to run away from it. That would be you Jis. That's not respect. That's hypocrisy.


----------



## Ozark Southern (Apr 10, 2012)

OlympianHiawatha said:


> The TSA is bad enough but the games most of the airlines now play with all the extra vigorish they charge for bags, boarding passes, flight changes and such have kept me out of the air for several years. And despite being a fan of airline history, I do not miss flying one bit.


This is a lot more why I prefer Amtrak. Sure, the TSA are irritating, and they obviously do little is anything to actually make us safer, but in the end, they're not really all that bad. We were converted to Amtrak when we had to take a trip when my wife was 9 mos. pregnant. She couldn't fly, and we didn't really want to drive 9 hours. Despite having taken two corridor trains with Horizon equipment and no diner, only the cafe car, the quality of service was excellent considering what they had to work with. We were so impressed we've stopped driving any place that Amtrak goes. I also haven't flown since Jan. 2009, but that's mostly because we've had a couple of kids since then and therefore no money for a trip like that.


----------



## Tsuyoshi (Apr 10, 2012)

This is a significant reason why I have avoided flying ever since 2001. Partly just because it's annoying, like the cramped seating, but also partly because it makes me angry to be reminded about the paranoia that has overrun so many areas of American life.

Do you remember what it was like to fly before the paranoia about terrorism took over? Ever since then, I have been searched every single time I've gotten on a plane in the US. And besides the invasive searches, there is the confiscation of harmless objects such as nail clippers, bottles of water, and tubes of toothpaste. Plus we have to take off our shoes, remove our jewelry, and put up with whatever other arbitrary rules the TSA peons happen to come up with on any particular day.

And it's really all for nothing. Think about it. If you want to kill a large number of people, you don't have to crash a plane to do it. There are thousands of other opportunities to do that. So the supposed problem is if someone takes control of a plane and crashes it into something else. But this tactic even failed on the very first day it was tried. They tried to do this three times back in 2001, and the third time failed because the passengers on the third flight heard about the first two, and realized what they had to do. It will never happen again, not because of all the theatric "security" nonsense we have to go through every time we get on a plane, but because regular people would not let someone use a plane as a weapon again.

So it's really all for nothing, and it makes me angry every time I get on a plane.


----------



## dlagrua (Apr 10, 2012)

I have no problem with bomb sniffing dogs at the large Amtrak terminals as they provide a non-intrusive search service. I do have a problem with the Blueshirts putting their hands on me and my family. We are hard working, hopefully decent, law abiding citizens and refuse to be treated like prisoners of war. This is H*tlers Germany all over again only his soldiers wore Brownshirts.

Until the system changes so that government starts respecting the Bill of Rights again, I will not fly.


----------



## bmorechris (Apr 10, 2012)

Texas Sunset said:


> bmorechris said:
> 
> 
> > No one is forcing you to fly, so any civil liberties or illegal search argument can immediately be thrown out the window. You could always fly general aviation, no security there.
> ...


Well its really a matter of choice. I have given up a good amount of my liberties for my job because I weighed the advantages and disadvantages and chose to do so. What I really have an issue with is people using the Bill of Rights to prop up an argument where it isn't a factor. My feeling on it is that, no, the TSA is not a well run agency, but they also have an essentially thankless job. There are roughly 2 million commercial airline boardings per day, and knowing some are connections, say TSA or other security organizations inspect 1 million passengers per day; they are bound to have some issues. And this isn't a secret, but every organization that has ever existed, public or private, has had their fair share of problems. I won't argue that the TSA is a model agency, it is clear they where hastily formed and are not exactly the most efficient organization. I won't contend that their methods are the best. But when it comes down to it, I like to know when I am flying that the person next to me has had some level of inspection before we take off in an aluminum tube traveling nearly the speed of sound 7 miles above the earth.

As for being fingered by the TSA for abuse, do you mean the no fly list? I expect many will take this info with a grain of salt as it comes from the horses mouth, but here is some info about it provided by the TSA. The gist of the document is, they get their list from the FBI, 2500 people are actually on the list, about 10% are US citizens (250 individuals). If you or someone you know falls into this category, I do feel sorry for you/them, because it probably is a hassle, but they do at least provide a link to the Traveler Redress Inquiry Program which is supposed to handle issues with TSA and DHS. If that didn't work, I would suggest getting in touch with your congresscritters, and if you are just throwing up a straw man, well, I don't know what to tell you because you probably have already made up your mind.


----------



## Fuse (Apr 10, 2012)

bmorechris said:


> What I really have an issue with is people using the Bill of Rights to prop up an argument where it isn't a factor.


How is the Bill of Rights not a factor? We have the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures, and the public right of transit through the navigable airspace.

The right to the navigable airspace should not be dependent on waiving one's right to be free of unreasonable searches. A right is a right.

A strip search as a condition of carriage is an unreasonable search. Submitting to the pat-down as per TSA's policies (which are sometimes followed by screeners, sometimes not) is sexual assault.

Taking my first long-distance Amtrak trip this month. The only reason I chose Amtrak is to avoid the TSA grope, because there is NO WAY I am going through those scanner machines.


----------



## Oldsmoboi (Apr 10, 2012)

I take Amtrak to avoid:

1. TSA

2. Paying to check bags/taking just a small rollaboard

3. Being forced to check bags because I need threatening weapons like a screw driver and needle nose pliers at my destination

4. Having my checked bags rummaged through by the TSA (TSA in Pittsburgh is bored... if you depart from there, just assume they are going to rummage through it)

5. Awful delays when connecting to small regional airports (US Airways has a remarkable 5% on time departure rate with me, anything more than 30 minutes late is late)

6. Absurdly long door to door travel times. There are several cities I can *drive* to faster than total travel time for a flight. Pittsburgh - DC is just about a tie.

7. Having my toiletries thrown out because they are in a black plastic bag instead of a clear plastic bag. They did let me keep the empty black plastic bag.

8. Insane Airline pricing (PIT-PHL is $300, but PIT - PHL - EWR is $180)


----------



## Trogdor (Apr 10, 2012)

Fuse said:


> bmorechris said:
> 
> 
> > What I really have an issue with is people using the Bill of Rights to prop up an argument where it isn't a factor.
> ...


Can you tell me which amendment of the bill of rights grants us the public right of transit through the navigable airspace?


----------



## reefgeek (Apr 10, 2012)

dlagrua said:


> 1334086231[/url]' post='359841']I have no problem with bomb sniffing dogs at the large Amtrak terminals as they provide a non-intrusive search service. I do have a problem with the Blueshirts putting their hands on me and my family. We are hard working, hopefully decent, law abiding citizens and refuse to be treated like prisoners of war. This is H*tlers Germany all over again only his soldiers wore Brownshirts.
> 
> Until the system changes so that government starts respecting the Bill of Rights again, I will not fly.


Minus 1000 points for playing the Hitler card. Tacky and excessive. Read a little history before comparing ANY ASPECT of the US to [email protected] Germany. Did somebody beat or murder your family at a TSA checkpoint?


----------



## jis (Apr 10, 2012)

I believe TSA has serious problems with the way they operate, and have campaigned in the past to get those problems addressed. However, it is also true that TSA is not particularly worse than similar outfits in other countries. Unfortunately that piece of pain has become an integral part of flying. Those that can tolerate it, do so and fly. Those that can't are better of not flying for their own sanity probably, though if they still want to fly that is OK too. My mention about "urging" was not meant seriously and I did put in a smiley. Some seem to have a certain lack of sense of humor. Oh well.... it takes one of each kind to make this world. 

I still believe that it is none of anyones business to lecture others about how they should or should not travel or lead their lives in normal course of things, and they are worthy of being ignored. That would include me in situations where I do so too.


----------



## ParrotRob (Apr 10, 2012)

jis said:


> ParrotRob said:
> 
> 
> > Texas Sunset said:
> ...


i feel the exact same way. I also respect the opinions of those who do not like to fly, as well. What I do not respect, though, are those who make outlandish claims of being "strip searched", "violated", "groped", etc as an excuse. If you don't want to/like to fly, no problem. No one is going to gang rape you at security, though, no matter how much you think they are.


----------



## ParrotRob (Apr 10, 2012)

JoeBas said:


> CHamilton said:
> 
> 
> > Most of us will smile at this description, but I wonder how much of Amtrak's record ridership is made up of people avoiding the TSA.
> ...


One would think with so many "victims", one who goes through an airport twice a week on average would see one. I wonder where all these victims are coming from!


----------



## ParrotRob (Apr 10, 2012)

bmorechris said:


> Texas Sunset said:
> 
> 
> > I'd welcome a serious defender of civil rights explaining how the TSA is not a loss of our civil liberties or an end-run around a hundred years of search-seizure-charge precedent. Let's hear it...
> ...


Bingo. Commercial flight is not a "right". It's a voluntary choice, and there ARE alternatives.


----------



## Shortline (Apr 10, 2012)

ParrotRob said:


> 1334105310[/url]' post='359909']
> 
> 
> JoeBas said:
> ...


They must fly on different days than I do. I'm starting to get offended, I bet I've gone through airport security in 15 cities, at least 60 times or so just in the last year, and not one security person has asked to touch me. And I'm not a bad looking guy! Must be something I'm doing wrong.....


----------



## ParrotRob (Apr 10, 2012)

Shortline said:


> ParrotRob said:
> 
> 
> > JoeBas said:
> ...


35 million people fly per month. The TSA handles 900-1500 complaints per month. Even independent watchdogs like the ACLU handle <1000 complaints per month. 0.002%.

So statistically speaking, you'd have to fly one round trip every single day, 365 days a year, for about 53 years to have a chance at getting groped :blink:


----------



## Fuse (Apr 10, 2012)

Trogdor said:


> Fuse said:
> 
> 
> > bmorechris said:
> ...


Sigh. Okay, on the very small chance you're asking seriously, I'll play.

I'm referring to the fourth amendment, regarding unreasonable searches and seizures.

Many find the Bill of Rights germane to a discussion regarding the TSA, but I've not yet encountered someone who can make a reasonable argument for declaring it irrelevant, so I was curious to hear the reasoning behind the statement.

The 49 US Code SS 40103 is the appropriate reference for the public right of transit through navigable airspace.


----------



## JoeBas (Apr 10, 2012)

Well you just met one guys. And I'm not alone.


----------



## ParrotRob (Apr 10, 2012)

Fuse said:


> 1334107473[/url]' post='359924']
> 
> 
> Trogdor said:
> ...


And 49 USC 44901 provides for the screening of passengers and cargo. You can't pick and choose parts of the USC that grant you a privilege and discard those parts that regulate that privilege.


----------



## MattW (Apr 10, 2012)

Fuse said:


> Trogdor said:
> 
> 
> > Fuse said:
> ...


There's also Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, the privileges and immunities clause as well as Corfield v. Coryell, Paul v. Virginia, and the 10th amendment.


----------



## JoeBas (Apr 10, 2012)

People always seem to forget that the constitution is not there to give us rights, it's there to specifically enumerate powers and everything else belongs to the people.

It's not "Show me where it says you can fly", it's. "Show me where it says they can stop me.".


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Apr 10, 2012)

ParrotRob said:


> I also respect the opinions of those who do not like to fly, as well. What I do not respect, though, are those who make outlandish claims of being "strip searched", "violated", "groped", etc as an excuse. If you don't want to/like to fly, no problem. No one is going to gang rape you at security, though, no matter how much you think they are.


Really makes you wonder when someone shows "respect" by bringing up gang rape of all things. Makes you wonder if they even know what respect is. Or gang rape for that matter. Stay classy ParrotBob.

*I'd be happy to video the TSA's repeated fondling of me and others. Unfortunately it's apparently against the law to record anything in the security checking area here in the "land of the free."


----------



## ParrotRob (Apr 10, 2012)

Huh? The privileges and immunities clause simply states that no state can discriminate against people of another state. If the people of California decided to target those from Nevada for increased screening, then maybe you've got yourself a P&I issue. Otherwise it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.


----------



## ParrotRob (Apr 10, 2012)

Texas Sunset said:


> 1334109546[/url]' post='359933']
> 
> 
> ParrotRob said:
> ...


The point is, gang rape is about as likely to occur in a TSA checkpoint as is the "repeated fondling" you reference.

Or were you out sick the day they taught hyperbole?


----------



## JoeBas (Apr 10, 2012)

Is it hyperbole to call a woman sticking her hand so far down my pants she touched Mr. Winkie with her filthy blue glove "fondling"?


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Apr 10, 2012)

ParrotRob said:


> The point is, gang rape is about as likely to occur in a TSA checkpoint as is the "repeated fondling" you reference. Or were you out sick the day they taught hyperbole?


There's nothing hyperbolic about it. I have received highly invasive attention that would be "groping/fondling" in any other situation from the TSA on numerous occasions. Both my mom and my aunt have been searched in a very private way. I know of no legal way to get proof of this since you can't photograph or record anything that happens in the secure area. The fact that you refuse to believe it, and in fact substitute it with "gang rape" doesn't change anything. You think you can sway me by telling me what I saw with my own eyes and felt with my own body didn't happen? You're too clueless for words.


----------



## dlagrua (Apr 10, 2012)

The point that I am making is that the Bill of Rights and rule of law doesn't end at a place of business or on your property. If I decided to open a business and made it a policy to pay below minimum wage I would be prosecuted. Could we justify that illegality by saying "if you don't want to work at my place and acccept that wage then you don't have to"?

A persons civil rights doesn't end at the TSA gate or on an airplane. You are innocent until proven guilty. At the TSA checkpoints, the Blueshirts make the rules and in many cases they are in direct violation of ones constitutional rights, in particular the Forth amendment to the Bill of Rights.

Here we have a system that attacks the innocent and some people actually say its OK and use the logic that you don't have to fly if you don't want to" ? Welcome to the land of the mindless sheep.


----------



## ParrotRob (Apr 10, 2012)

JoeBas said:


> 1334110657[/url]' post='359942']Is it hyperbole to call a woman sticking her hand so far down my pants she touched Mr. Winkie with her filthy blue glove "fondling"?


No, that's called "imagination". Because, for starters, all TSA pat-downs are conducted by members of the same sex. Nice try, though.


----------



## JoeBas (Apr 10, 2012)

Yeah, I imagined it. Total psychosis. That's your respect right there.

When you or someone you love has it happen to you, don't say you didn't know.


----------



## ParrotRob (Apr 10, 2012)

You KNOW when you enter a TSA screening checkpoint tht you have exactly two options:1) consent to screening by the back scatter device, or 2) consent to a manual pat down

THERE ARE NO OTHER CHOICES and this is made very clear to you before you VOLUNTARILY enter the line. THEREFORE, if you CHOOSE to forego the screening, then you have made a conscious decision to be manually searched. There really are no two ways about it. One or the other. You pick.

Now let's talk about the constitutionalists out there. Seriously? "Show me where it says they can stop me?". Show me where it says I have to go no faster than 70 on the interstate, yet they stop me from doing that all the time. Why? Because the legislature of the United States and the States themselves are empowered to make laws, and those laws govern what you can and can not do to to the extent that they are not trumped by the supreme law of the land. So until such time as the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law impeding air travel in the several states" then Congress is free to do just that. Oh, and the Executive branch is free to create a department and appoint a head of it to oversee it all. THAT is what it says in there, go read it.

The constitution also doesn't say I can't kill someone, smoke weed or yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. But that doesn't give me the de facto right to do so. The constitution, in fact, only guarantees a very small number of rights, contrary to popular belief. And your right to fly is not one of them.


----------



## ParrotRob (Apr 10, 2012)

JoeBas said:


> 1334111382[/url]' post='359948']Yeah, I imagined it. Total psychosis. That's your respect right there.
> 
> When you or someone you love has it happen to you, don't say you didn't know.


I'll take those odds.


----------



## PRR 60 (Apr 10, 2012)

Fuse said:


> ...
> 
> I'm referring to the fourth amendment, regarding unreasonable searches and seizures.
> 
> ...


With some serious trepidation, and against my best judgement, here is the reasoning behind the legality of airport security screening and searches. Somehow I know I'll be sorry I didn't just keep my mouth shut and continued watching the Knicks and Bulls.

The Fourth Amendment:



> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


The key word is "unreasonable." Case law has found that airport security checks are not unreasonable and do not violate the Fourth Amendment based on a principle called the _Administrative Search Doctrine_. Basically, airport screening has been found by the courts to be administrative (not criminal) searches “conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme” where the essential administrative purpose is “to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft”. An airport screening search is reasonable if it is no more extensive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, and it is confined in good faith to that purpose.

The screening and searches must be conducted by administrative personnel, not armed police, The screening and searches must not carry the stigma of a criminal investigation, and cannot be for the purpose of discovering evidence of criminal activity. A person must be allowed to avoid screening by electing not to fly, however, that election must take place before the screening begins. Once a person enters the screening process, they cannot back out.

If all those conditions are met, then the courts have determined that the searches are legal and are not "unreasonable" as courts have interpreted the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. If, in the course of the adminstrative search, evidence of a crime is discovered, that evidence is admissible at a criminal trial.

The key case that established this principle was _US v Davis, 482 F.2d 893 (1973)_. Multiple cases have followed this one, and all have been decided in favor of airport security searches not being in violation of the Fourth Amendment. More cases are in process, with the point of argument being the degree to which present airport security meets the "reasonable" requirement of _Davis_. There is no way to know if future courts will change the interpretation of the administrative exceptions to the Fourth Amendment. However, courts are typically not inclined to overturn case law absent significant changes in circumstances or a change in the arguments.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Apr 10, 2012)

ParrotRob said:


> No, that's called "imagination". Because, for starters, all TSA pat-downs are conducted by members of the same sex. Nice try, though.


All my groping sessions were indeed performed by goons of the same sex. However, they were completely unlike any sort of conventional "pat down" you might receive while entering a sporting event or club or a fancy hotel in a rough part of the world. I mean, you would know, right? Oh, wait, you've never had one, have you? You're just "imagining" what it might be like and using that imagination to criticize others.



ParrotRob said:


> You KNOW when you enter a TSA screening checkpoint tht you have exactly two options: 1) consent to screening by the back scatter device, or 2) consent to a manual pat down THERE ARE NO OTHER CHOICES and this is made very clear to you before you VOLUNTARILY enter the line.


You think giving people two equally poor choices makes it incapable of being challenged? I thought this was the land of the free and home of the brave. And yet here we have folks who are furious to the point of SHOUTING just because somebody isn't falling in line behind them. Does your father work for the TSA or something? Because otherwise I don't see what you're so fired up about.


----------



## ParrotRob (Apr 10, 2012)

Texas Sunset said:


> 1334112978[/url]' post='359963']
> 
> 
> ParrotRob said:
> ...


No, my father is disabled, thanks for asking. What I'm fired up about is the rampant exaggeration and outright lying that some people will do to try to make their point. You know as well as I do that that guy a few posts up didn't have his junk pulled by a begloved FEMALE TSA agent. If you want to have civilized discourse and an intelligent debate about the issue, let's go. But let's debate it based on fact, not fabrications and fearmongering.


----------



## ParrotRob (Apr 10, 2012)

Texas Sunset said:


> 1334112978[/url]' post='359963']
> 
> 
> ParrotRob said:
> ...


No, I haven't. I don't like pat-downs, so I choose not to have them. It's that simple.


----------



## Anderson (Apr 10, 2012)

bmorechris said:


> No one is forcing you to fly, so any civil liberties or illegal search argument can immediately be thrown out the window. You could always fly general aviation, no security there


Now _there's_ a thought...though I've got to wonder what _that_ would cost (even if using something like a Cessna for a trip) if I was hell-bent on flying somewhere by non-commercial aviation. Not cheap, I would imagine, but I do wonder.

I'll say that I've _voluntarily_ not flown in a rather long time, to the point that I find flying to be increasingly a strange thing to do and something that I've only considered even in passing for trips that would take more than a week (if not be outright impossible) otherwise...and even in those cases, my inclination tends to come down against taking the trip.


----------



## JoeBas (Apr 10, 2012)

I'm sorry I thought calling other members liars was against the TOS. I'll have to double check that.

Anyway you lose all, ALL credibility yourself when you say TSA "ALWAYS" does ANYTHING the same way. This is the agency that prides itself on consistent inconsistency.

You weren't there so you can drop the "respectful" condescension and I'll consider accepting your apology for calling me a liar.


----------



## Texan Eagle (Apr 10, 2012)

The rate at which any and all topics that have mention of air travel turn into '*TSA is a blood-sucking monster while Amtrak is such an angel'* rants, one such _discussion _should instead be put up on the top as a sticky permanently.


----------



## Anderson (Apr 11, 2012)

Texan Eagle said:


> The rate at which any and all topics that have mention of air travel turn into '*TSA is a blood-sucking monster while Amtrak is such an angel'* rants, one such _discussion _should instead be put up on the top as a sticky permanently.


On the one hand, given the topic, I think this was destined to become such a thread. On the other hand, for good or ill I think that your statement is a reasonable enumeration of the views of most of our readers.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Apr 11, 2012)

Yet the TSA is slowly encroaching on Amtraks Territory.


----------



## gatelouse (Apr 11, 2012)

I have to share an Amtrak TSA story from last summer. I think this was at WAS. True story.

A joint team of Amtrak Police and TSA K-9 units were at the station.

The Amtrak dog and handler diligently and competently scoured a hallway, moving with purpose, knowing where to focus, and generally inspiring a sense of confidence and competence.

The poor TSA handler was practically being pulled along by his dog, which was weaving back and forth along a crowded hallway. This dog appeared to have no sense of purpose or mission. It just looked confused.

That pretty much summed up my opinions of TSA vs. the Amtrak police in a nutshell.


----------



## BobWeaver (Apr 11, 2012)

dlagrua said:


> This is H*tlers Germany all over again only his soldiers wore Brownshirts.


A step too far.



Tsuyoshi said:


> And besides the invasive searches, there is the confiscation of harmless objects such as nail clippers, bottles of water, and tubes of toothpaste. Plus we have to take off our shoes, remove our jewelry, and put up with whatever other arbitrary rules the TSA peons happen to come up with on any particular day.
> 
> And it's really all for nothing.


Box cutters and utility knives with blades less than 4" were allowed/harmless on/before 9/11 and we see how that one turned out. Nail clippers are not prohibited. Oh heavens, you have to take off your shoes and jewelry, and then put them right back on again 30 seconds later. Big deal. When I went to the Masters this past weekend, I had to go through security that was very similar to airport security, minus the shoe removal mandate. Did I or anyone else complain as they emptied everything out of their pockets and walked through a metal detector and, for some, got wanded by security personnel? Nope. But somehow when the TSA does the exact same thing, it's some huge ordeal. A double standard, if you ask me. <_<



jis said:


> I love to fly as much as I love to ride trains. I fly over 100,000 miles each year and am yet to have a problem with TSA. Things actually just got better due to the trusted traveler program, so now no need to take off shoes and take computers out of bag at airports and airlines that are participants in the program.
> 
> Frankly I find the charm of flying high above the clouds, seeing beautiful sunrises, sunsets, cloud formations, stars in daylight and even places that I could never otherwise get to, far below (e.g. the North Pole, the Hindu Kush in Afghanistan etc. etc.), is quite fascinating, at least to me. I'd never give up the chance to experience those just because of a simple security check here and there. Trains have their own charm that are different from flying and worth it in and of themselves, not as an either/or proposition relative to flying IMHO.











Texan Eagle said:


> The rate at which any and all topics that have mention of air travel turn into '*TSA is a blood-sucking monster while Amtrak is such an angel'* rants, one such _discussion _should instead be put up on the top as a sticky permanently.


I agree. Another quality thread on airline travel here at Amtrak Unlimited that has predictably transformed into the whole TSA-gropes-me/air-travel-sucks/Amtrak-does-no-evil rant.

I get it. I get that some people don't like flying, I get that some people don't like the TSA and its policies, and I get that some people don't agree with having to pay for a checked bag. Some people will never be pleased. But that's the way it is, and bitching about it on an Amtrak forum will do nothing to change the current procedures in place. This is the world that air travel exists in now, and bitterness will not magically correct it. I grow very tired of threads like these. There are quality people that work at our airlines who go to work every day with the intent of pleasing their passengers, and most of the crews and pilots fly with great pride. I myself find that the customer service at our major airlines is superior and far more consistent to what I find anywhere in the Amtrak system. I fly through security (no pun intended) and don't make a stink of it, because it is part of the flying experience. Plus, I personally don't have a problem with an automated machine outlining a piece of metal on a generic body image that I may have left on me by accident. By the way, if you boneheads would just take your stuff out of your pockets completely the first time and proceed through the metal detector/scanner as directed, you would be through the process in a matter of seconds and wouldn't really ever have to worry about a pat-down anyway. At the end of the day, the vast majority of TSA screeners in my experience are decent hard working Americans trying to provide for themselves and/or their family who are simply doing their job as they have been told. Placing a blanket negative stereotype on these individuals isn't very fair.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Apr 11, 2012)

BobWeaver said:


> Box cutters and utility knives with blades less than 4" were allowed/harmless on/before 9/11 and we see how that one turned out.


Yeah, we know they're still getting through. Or had you not heard, Bob?



BobWeaver said:


> Nail clippers are not prohibited.


Nail clippers have been prohibited at various times. But I guess if you didn't personally see it then it simply never happened, eh Bob?



BobWeaver said:


> I fly through security (no pun intended) and don't make a stink of it, because it is part of the flying experience.


Dealing with the TSA is no big deal. Got it. Meanwhile, seeing someone dare to criticize the TSA is a huge stink-worthy fiasco. Got it. Thanks for the info Bob.


----------



## ParrotRob (Apr 11, 2012)

Texas Sunset said:


> 1334122161[/url]' post='360003']
> 
> 
> BobWeaver said:
> ...


Condemning the entire TSA because one or two agents may overstep their authority is kind of like condemning the entire teaching industry because one or two teachers go too far with a student. In EVERY industry where one is granted some authority, there will be those that abuse it. That doesn't mean the industry itself is flawed.


----------



## bmorechris (Apr 11, 2012)

I have had 4 TSA patdowns (one at the Aruba preclearance outpost, the rest at domestic airports)thanks to a metal rod in my leg (since removed) before the backscatter/millimeter wave machines were up and running everywhere. Each time it was exactly the same, go through metal detector, it goes off, tell the TSA agent I have a medical implant. Twice it was a woman at the detector so they showed me to the little glass booth, ask me to wait, go get a man. Wait a couple minutes, they apologize for the wait, wand me until they find the rod in my leg, then they say they are going to perform a patdown using the back of their hands, proceeded to have them check arms, front/back/sides of torso, legs up to groin, all professionally and politely. I am guessing this is how 99.9% of the screenings go. Also the exact same screening I get when going to an NFL game. The reason you hear about the bad ones is because they are noteworthy, no one is going online to post about their great TSA experience. And to the people who have had issues at screening locations, get the agents name, contact the TSA/congresscritters/press because there are always going to be bad apples who go on power trips. And to call all TSA agents goons is pretty unfair, I work right next to an airport and see TSA agents all the time getting lunch, etc. They are all pretty normal looking people, and seem pleasant when I have interacted with them.



Texas Sunset said:


> *I'd be happy to video the TSA's repeated fondling of me and others. Unfortunately it's apparently against the law to record anything in the security checking area here in the "land of the free."


That would be because of a local ordinance, not a TSA "law"

"Q. Is it okay to take pictures or videos inside the airport and at a checkpoint?

A. TSA does not prohibit photographs at screening locations; however, local laws, state statutes, or local ordinances may. We recommend contacting your local airport authority in advance to ensure you are familiar with their local procedures. While TSA does not prohibit the public, passengers or press from photographing, videotaping, or filming at screening locations, TSA may ask a photographer to stop if they are interfering with the screening process or taking photos of X-ray monitor screens in a checkpoint. The same guidelines apply to media. Members of the press should contact TSA's Office of Public Affairs, at 571-227-2829, prior to filming or taking photographs at a security checkpoint.

While there is a difference between taking a casual photo and someone conducting surveillance, travelers should not be surprised if TSA or local law enforcement inquires about their actions. This is important to ensure the safety of the traveling public and something our officers may do as part of their security mission."


----------



## dlagrua (Apr 11, 2012)

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

Benjamin Franklin Feb 1775

As for me, I will never give up my freedom or liberty and will resist tyranny to my last breath.


----------



## jis (Apr 11, 2012)

Texan Eagle said:


> The rate at which any and all topics that have mention of air travel turn into '*TSA is a blood-sucking monster while Amtrak is such an angel'* rants, one such _discussion _should instead be put up on the top as a sticky permanently.


Seems like a good idea.

I find it fascinating the length to which people have to go, to justify their preference to travel by Amtrak - must be a painful experience for them to need such lengthy justification.   I do it (travel by trains in general and Amtrak in particular) whenever reasonable opportunities present themselves, simply because I love it and I say it so. Why the need for the TSA hatred reason or the baggage fee reason or whatever? If all those disappeared would these folks just abandon Amtrak and just start flying or would they need to look for other reasons - but never just that they love trains?

On the whole I think this is a very interesting anthropological phenomenon worth a study.


----------



## amamba (Apr 11, 2012)

amtrakwolverine said:


> Yet the TSA is slowly encroaching on Amtraks Territory.


Finally, after three pages, someone after my own heart. I find it interesting that the original topic of this thread was "take amtrak to avoid the TSA."

Meanwhile, starting in 2011, we found TSA agents set up checkpoints in a train station and then screen passengers detraining, I personally saw TSA agents in both CUS and NYP, and the amtrak police swabbed bags for explosives for many weeks in PVD.


----------



## Michigan Mom (Apr 11, 2012)

The TSA harasses airline employees who have access to restricted areas, and have had it for years, FAR more than they harass the traveling public. The way they treat the passengers is generally quite sane, as people here have pointed out. But I will weigh in with,

1) Sometimes you have to fly - no Amtrak to Hawaii, and sometimes, time is of the essence and air travel is simply a necessity for many, many people.

2) It is nice not to have to pay a checked bag fee on Amtrak, no question!

3) Taking the train is indeed, a lot of fun, and an adventure.


----------



## JoeBas (Apr 11, 2012)

BobWeaver said:


> When I went to the Masters this past weekend, I had to go through security that was very similar to airport security, minus the shoe removal mandate. Did I or anyone else complain as they emptied everything out of their pockets and walked through a metal detector and, for some, got wanded by security personnel? Nope. But somehow when the TSA does the exact same thing, it's some huge ordeal. A double standard, if you ask me. <_<


I think if Airport Security returned to Walk Through Metal Detectors, a hand wanding for alarming, and simple pat of the targeted area, as you described above, there would be several orders of magnitude less complaint than there is about the current process.

However, the current process does not even VAGUELY resemble what you described above. Makes me wonder how long it's been since you've flown, or if you're trying to deliberately be disingenuous.



BobWeaver said:


> By the way, if you boneheads would just take your stuff out of your pockets completely the first time and proceed through the metal detector/scanner as directed, you would be through the process in a matter of seconds and wouldn't really ever have to worry about a pat-down anyway.


Again, your experience must be everyone's. There couldn't possibly be anyone out there who, say, for medical reasons, can't just march through the scanner as directed. We're just all idiots or troublemakers.


----------



## JoeBas (Apr 11, 2012)

jis said:


> I find it fascinating the length to which people have to go, to justify their preference to travel by Amtrak - must be a painful experience for them to need such lengthy justification.


I think your view is pretty myopic... I have a fairly wide and fully developed range of interests, and whenever the subject of this abomination of an agency comes up in any of the various fora, my response is the same - registered disgust.


----------



## JoeBas (Apr 11, 2012)

amamba said:


> Meanwhile, starting in 2011, we found TSA agents set up checkpoints in a train station and then screen passengers detraining, I personally saw TSA agents in both CUS and NYP, and the amtrak police swabbed bags for explosives for many weeks in PVD.


There's a bit of a difference here.

1) TSA is a GUEST on Amtrak's property - Chief O'Connor has made that perfectly clear. They defer to Amtrak police at all time, who are properly trained and sworn Law Enforcement Officers, with clearly delineated boundaries and rules governing their behavior, and whom I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with.

2) Amtrak Police were performing the swabbing you mentioned in PVD, and again, under a well regulated department, I don't have a problem with this. There's a WORLD of difference between a simple swab of a bag exterior and what goes on in airports these days.

Some of you seem to be laboring under the delusion that people want there to be NO security at all. What we want is meaningful, useful, non-intrusive security, not the worthless (and dehumanizing to boot) boondoggle of "Security Theater" the airports have now become.


----------



## amamba (Apr 11, 2012)

JoeBas said:


> 2) Amtrak Police were performing the swabbing you mentioned in PVD, and again, under a well regulated department, I don't have a problem with this. There's a WORLD of difference between a simple swab of a bag exterior and what goes on in airports these days.
> 
> Some of you seem to be laboring under the delusion that people want there to be NO security at all. What we want is meaningful, useful, non-intrusive security, not the worthless (and dehumanizing to boot) boondoggle of "Security Theater" the airports have now become.


I actually consider what happened in PVD to be security theater, because they were only swabbing people boarding amtrak trains and not anyone boarding the MBTA trains traveling on the same rails/tracks and to the same destination.

Now maybe they did have a specific threat that they were responding to - I don't know. But it seems to me that if I wanted to bring explosives on a train, and I saw police swabbing people for explosives, I would just wait and take the slower train one platform over that was not being screened.

I don't have a problem with security - but I do have a problem with "security theater."


----------



## jis (Apr 11, 2012)

JoeBas said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > I find it fascinating the length to which people have to go, to justify their preference to travel by Amtrak - must be a painful experience for them to need such lengthy justification.
> ...


I think you misunderstand. I actually do think that the way the TSA operates is an abomination. It is not the individuals necessarily. Most are pretty decent human beings, a few are on power trips like in every walk of life. The general conception and the mode of operation can do with much improvement. I have been on record posting on that subject in this forum in the past.

I was addressing the original topic of the thread which suggested that one should take Amtrak to avoid the TSA. My point was that one should not need TSA as a justification for riding Amtrak. Amtrak is fun to ride and use irrespective of whether TSA stands between one and ones plane ride or not. Just like anything else, everything has its appropriate use. For my purposes Amtrak is great for short to medium distance trips in general and for long trips when on vacation or no other mode is available. For example I seldom use anything but Amtrak on the NEC. OTOH I also seldom use Amtrak when I have to go out to California from NJ, and naturally never use Amtrak to go to London UK. These decisions in my case do not involve TSA in any major way usually. The suitability of the mode given the distances involved and the time available for the trip is a much greater and indeed, primary, consideration.


----------



## JoeBas (Apr 11, 2012)

amamba said:


> I actually consider what happened in PVD to be security theater, because they were only swabbing people boarding amtrak trains and not anyone boarding the MBTA trains traveling on the same rails/tracks and to the same destination.
> 
> Now maybe they did have a specific threat that they were responding to - I don't know. But it seems to me that if I wanted to bring explosives on a train, and I saw police swabbing people for explosives, I would just wait and take the slower train one platform over that was not being screened.
> 
> I don't have a problem with security - but I do have a problem with "security theater."


Well of *COURSE* it was security theater - there really is not much point on doing this kind of thing on a train, when all some evildoing turrwrist would have to do is drive a dump truck onto the ROW in front of an approaching train, but at least it was minimally intrusive security theater.


----------



## JoeBas (Apr 11, 2012)

jis said:


> I think you misunderstand. I actually do think that the way the TSA operates is an abomination. It is not the individuals necessarily. Most are pretty decent human beings, a few are on power trips like in every walk of life. The general conception and the mode of operation can do with much improvement. I have been on record posting on that subject in this forum in the past.


That's all well and good, I just don't understand how a person of conscience can work for an agency which condones the type of behavior that seems much more prevalent by members of the TSA than in any other comparable functioning organization, and look themselves in the mirror each morning.



jis said:


> I was addressing the original topic of the thread which suggested that one should take Amtrak to avoid the TSA. My point was that one should not need TSA as a justification for riding Amtrak. Amtrak is fun to ride and use irrespective of whether TSA stands between one and ones plane ride or not. Just like anything else, everything has its appropriate use. For my purposes Amtrak is great for short to medium distance trips in general and for long trips when on vacation or no other mode is available. For example I seldom use anything but Amtrak on the NEC. OTOH I also seldom use Amtrak when I have to go out to California from NJ, and naturally never use Amtrak to go to London UK. These decisions in my case do not involve TSA in any major way usually. The suitability of the mode given the distances involved and the time available for the trip is a much greater and indeed, primary, consideration.


Notwithstanding your value judgements mentioned above regarding your primary consideration, others will place higher and lower values on various forms of the functionality equation (convenience, price, duration, and yes, TSA is one of the variables). For yourself, whose never had a personal negative experience with the TSA, the magnitude of the security hassle (TSA) variable may be quite low, and overwhelmed by other components of the value equation in favor of flying. However, have an experience like I did, and I bet the calculus of that equation will change just a wee bit.


----------



## Trogdor (Apr 11, 2012)

JoeBas said:


> That's all well and good, I just don't understand how a person of conscience can work for an agency which condones the type of behavior that *seems* much more prevalent by members of the TSA than in any other comparable functioning organization, and look themselves in the mirror each morning.


Key word highlighted.

Is there any actual, statistical evidence that shows that this unspecified type of behavior is more prevalent at the TSA than, say, local police departments, or even the old screeners that were around pre-TSA?


----------



## amamba (Apr 11, 2012)

JoeBas said:


> amamba said:
> 
> 
> > I actually consider what happened in PVD to be security theater, because they were only swabbing people boarding amtrak trains and not anyone boarding the MBTA trains traveling on the same rails/tracks and to the same destination.
> ...


Well my point is I have a problem with what happened in PVD. You seemed to indicate that you thought it was no big deal. I am not sure what your actual position is, but my position is that I didn't see the point of the exercise in PVD, so it seems like a waste of everyone's time and money. Regardless of if you consider it to be "minimally invasive" or not.


----------



## JoeBas (Apr 11, 2012)

Trogdor said:


> JoeBas said:
> 
> 
> > That's all well and good, I just don't understand how a person of conscience can work for an agency which condones the type of behavior that *seems* much more prevalent by members of the TSA than in any other comparable functioning organization, and look themselves in the mirror each morning.
> ...


Look, I'm a scientist; I understand and appreciate the value of "hard data" as much as anyone. However, what you're dealing with here is something which is only anecdotally available, due to a lack of a responsible clearinghouse for competent handling of such complaints. When I had my incident in 2006, I took the time to file a written complaint, and since I had the time to kill actually saw the STSO who took my report drop it into the trash at the checkpoint. When I called him on it and asked for the FSD, the STSO claimed it "Accidentally" fell, and despite assurance of the FSD that it would be looked into, I never heard another word. More "isolated bad apples" at work? You be the judge.

All I know for sure is, ANECDOTALLY, this kind of stuff didn't happen with private screeners. You did not hear stories of private screeners doing ANYTHING CLOSE to the kind of things that TSA agents have been accused (and in some cases, convicted) of doing - and there's a reason for that - the perception of authority was not there before the job was federalized. And I know for damned sure myself that a private screener never laid their hands on me in anything CLOSE to the way that the TSA now sanctionedly lays their hands on people every day.

As to interaction with the local police department, that can be kept to a minimum because there is no FORCED interaction with them. Not so with our friends at TSA - not if you want to fly commercially - it's literally their way or the highway (or the railway, if you're so inclined). At the checkpoint, it's guilty until proven innocent.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Apr 11, 2012)

ParrotRob said:


> Condemning the entire TSA because one or two agents may overstep their authority is kind of like condemning the entire teaching industry because one or two teachers go too far with a student. In EVERY industry where one is granted some authority, there will be those that abuse it. That doesn't mean the industry itself is flawed.


Nothing I've criticized the TSA for appears to be limited to one or two agents going rogue and overstepping their authority. The "teaching industry" gave me (and millions of other Americans) the skills necessary to form a strong position on the TSA, so they at least have that going for them. What has the TSA done for us? Where is the TSA's greatest hits list? Who have they caught that was a serious and imminent threat to a commercial flight and what were the circumstances? What horrible events have they prevented and how did they do it?



Trogdor said:


> Is there any actual, statistical evidence that shows that this unspecified type of behavior is more prevalent at the TSA than, say, local police departments, or even the old screeners that were around pre-TSA?


I honestly couldn't say. Then again I was never that happy with the idea that the police are trusted to self-regulate in the first place. The difference is that all came about long before I ever showed up. The TSA, however, is a fear-driven mistake from my very own era. If the private screeners from the past screwed up you still had options to fix the problem and punish those who wronged you. America's legal system was available to address and hopefully correct any serious misconduct. Now that the screeners are part of a government agency under the opaque umbrella of the DHS it's much harder to even know what's going on, let alone to fix it. There are many claims of theft and abuse by TSA agents. There are also numerous examples of failure to stop prohibited items. Or at least there were before they started scaling back their own readiness testing. Some agents are eventually reprimanded or punished for acting beyond their mandate, but in most cases I've followed they were actually following protocol. Many more cases simply get stuck in limbo thanks to obstructions inherent in DHS protections and government mandated limits on liability. That's not a recipe for liberty. That's a recipe for stooge excrement.


----------



## JoeBas (Apr 11, 2012)

amamba said:


> Well my point is I have a problem with what happened in PVD. You seemed to indicate that you thought it was no big deal. I am not sure what your actual position is, but my position is that I didn't see the point of the exercise in PVD, so it seems like a waste of everyone's time and money. Regardless of if you consider it to be "minimally invasive" or not.


My actual position is that I'm not going to let "perfect" be the enemy of "good". If I had my choice, there would be either bomb sniffing dogs or explosive trace portal technology deployed that would be non-intrusive, that would search everyone using a facility equally, that literally would only flag when something was detected, and if something WAS detected once that detection was resolved with minimal invasiveness the false alarmee sent on their way.

However, dogs have their limitations, and unfortunately ETP detection doesn't seem to yet be robust enough to withstand the rigors of a real-world operating environment. So in its place, I'm willing to settle for the least invasive equivalent, even though it's far less effective than the scheme I devised above. Personally, I think the odds of one of these "random checkpoints" ever finding ANYTHING is less than zero, as any terrorist with half a brain would make a motion like they forgot something, turn around, leave, and come back tomorrow, or drive to the next station down the line. Total checkpoint fail. But there are masses of people out there who require the impression that SOMETHING needs to be done, and if these people must be placated (as apparently they must, or it wouldn't be being done), then it should at least be done with a minimal amount of hassle to those of use who recognize the absurdity and futility of the type of operation they're trying to perform.

The key word to me is, MINIMALLY or least invasive equivalent. This is where the TSA has gone off the rails (not to extend the metaphor).


----------



## MattW (Apr 11, 2012)

JoeBas said:


> *SNIP*
> 
> Some of you seem to be laboring under the delusion that people want there to be NO security at all. What we want is meaningful, useful, non-intrusive security, not the worthless (and dehumanizing to boot) boondoggle of "Security Theater" the airports have now become.


And that's the point that I think a lot of pro-TSA people (not necessarily here) are missing is that very few of us are advocating for 0 security for the planes, we just want it to be reasonable, and to stop lying to us about the reasons. On September 11, 2001, there was no failure in security as the TSA and DHS like to pretend, the box cutters were not prohibited items at the time, and the IDs the terrorists had were valid.

On Monday, I had reason to visit the Atlanta Municipal Courthouse which of course has a security checkpoint. I approached the x-ray machine, removed all my stuff, the APD officer reminded me to take off my belt with its metal buckle in a neutral, but certainly not forceful, not impolite, not shouting tone after which I quickly removed my belt, thanked the officer for my momentary lapse, walked through the metal detector without incident, gathered my things, and apologized to the next officer for taking so long to put my belt back on. Courthouses arguably have greater cause to be concerned about dangerous instruments than airlines. I don't have any statistics, but it's common sense that a person would be more likely to have a beef with the court system and its agents where you can be incarcerated, forced to pay large fines, have your property taken, vs. an airline where you're just trying to get to B from A, yet courthouse security is usually easier than airport security.


----------



## JoeBas (Apr 11, 2012)

MattW said:


> And that's the point that I think a lot of pro-TSA people (not necessarily here) are missing is that very few of us are advocating for 0 security for the planes, we just want it to be reasonable, and to stop lying to us about the reasons. On September 11, 2001, there was no failure in security as the TSA and DHS like to pretend, the box cutters were not prohibited items at the time, and the IDs the terrorists had were valid.


Not only that, but the entire operating environment required to make a plan like that succeed was eliminated by the passengers of Flight 93, before the day of September 11th, 2011 was even done. A plan like this has ZERO chance of success again, because any 4 or 5 guys with boxcutters who tries it would be met with an overwhelming number of passengers who would move heaven and earth to stop them.

Locked cockpit doors and a reversal of the policy to cooperate with hijackers have done more for security on airlines than any amount of checkpoint theater could ever hope to accomplish.


----------



## Ispolkom (Apr 11, 2012)

amamba said:


> JoeBas said:
> 
> 
> > 2) Amtrak Police were performing the swabbing you mentioned in PVD, and again, under a well regulated department, I don't have a problem with this. There's a WORLD of difference between a simple swab of a bag exterior and what goes on in airports these days.
> ...


You're not thinking like a proper bureaucrat. If Amtrak Police, not TSA officers, were swabbing people boarding Amtrak trains, why should they care about MBTA trains? That's not within their remit.

Seriously, though, I'm especially amused by bomb-sniffing dogs (and their macho handlers with Glocks strapped to their thighs, rather than in a belt holster like a normal person) at Chicago Union Station. When the first grade crossing for northbound trains is directly outside the train shed, what's the point?


----------



## VentureForth (Apr 11, 2012)

Remember the TSA VIPER smack down in Savannah last year? Interesting

 had followed...


----------



## ParrotRob (Apr 11, 2012)

Texas Sunset said:


> ParrotRob said:
> 
> 
> > Condemning the entire TSA because one or two agents may overstep their authority is kind of like condemning the entire teaching industry because one or two teachers go too far with a student. In EVERY industry where one is granted some authority, there will be those that abuse it. That doesn't mean the industry itself is flawed.
> ...


Seriously? Do you honestly not see the fallacy in that argument? How do you prove that a deterrent prevented something from happening? You can't prove that any more than you can prove an aspirin a day deters heart attacks. Sure, you can say "I've never had one", but who's to say you wouldn't have anyway? That argument is nonsensical.

Likewise, the opposite argument is, too. One COULD say "well no one's commandeered a commercial airliner and used it to kill 3,000 people since the TSA has been here. But again, who's to say they would have, anyway.

The TSA is not going to "catch" someone bringing a weapon on board because it DETERS it from happening. That's what threat deterrence is all about. I work in an extremely fortified and heavily guarded federal building, and to the best of my knowledge the security screeners there have never "caught" a terrorist, or would-be terrorist. But if the threat deterrence were not there, I'm sure they'd line up to get in.


----------



## BobWeaver (Apr 11, 2012)

Texas Sunset said:


> BobWeaver said:
> 
> 
> > Box cutters and utility knives with blades less than 4" were allowed/harmless on/before 9/11 and we see how that one turned out.
> ...


That wasn't the point I was trying to make. I was trying to say that items that people see as "harmless" may not turn out to be harmless at all, as we found out with the case of box cutters on 9/11.



Texas Sunset said:


> BobWeaver said:
> 
> 
> > Nail clippers are not prohibited.
> ...


Nail clippers have never been prohibited by the TSA.



ParrotRob said:


> Condemning the entire TSA because one or two agents may overstep their authority is kind of like condemning the entire teaching industry because one or two teachers go too far with a student. In EVERY industry where one is granted some authority, there will be those that abuse it. That doesn't mean the industry itself is flawed.


Spot on.



bmorechris said:


> I have had 4 TSA patdowns (one at the Aruba preclearance outpost, the rest at domestic airports)thanks to a metal rod in my leg (since removed) before the backscatter/millimeter wave machines were up and running everywhere. Each time it was exactly the same, go through metal detector, it goes off, tell the TSA agent I have a medical implant. Twice it was a woman at the detector so they showed me to the little glass booth, ask me to wait, go get a man. Wait a couple minutes, they apologize for the wait, wand me until they find the rod in my leg, then they say they are going to perform a patdown using the back of their hands, proceeded to have them check arms, front/back/sides of torso, legs up to groin, all professionally and politely. I am guessing this is how 99.9% of the screenings go. Also the exact same screening I get when going to an NFL game. The reason you hear about the bad ones is because they are noteworthy, no one is going online to post about their great TSA experience. And to the people who have had issues at screening locations, get the agents name, contact the TSA/congresscritters/press because there are always going to be bad apples who go on power trips. And to call all TSA agents goons is pretty unfair, I work right next to an airport and see TSA agents all the time getting lunch, etc. They are all pretty normal looking people, and seem pleasant when I have interacted with them.











JoeBas said:


> BobWeaver said:
> 
> 
> > When I went to the Masters this past weekend, I had to go through security that was very similar to airport security, minus the shoe removal mandate. Did I or anyone else complain as they emptied everything out of their pockets and walked through a metal detector and, for some, got wanded by security personnel? Nope. But somehow when the TSA does the exact same thing, it's some huge ordeal. A double standard, if you ask me. <_<
> ...


The majority of airports (with the exception of course being the more major airports) still use walk through metal detectors, not the advanced imaging scanners. I fly about 6-8 times per year out of all different sized airports. This makes me wonder how long it's been since you've flown.



ParrotRob said:


> The TSA is not going to "catch" someone bringing a weapon on board because it DETERS it from happening.


TSA caught 1200+ firearms and an array of other devices in its checkpoints last year.


----------



## JoeBas (Apr 11, 2012)

BobWeaver said:


> The majority of airports (with the exception of course being the more major airports) still use walk through metal detectors, not the advanced imaging scanners. I fly about 6-8 times per year out of all different sized airports. This makes me wonder how long it's been since you've flown.


Even if this were true (which it's not anymore, given the pace that the scanners have been rolled out to such exotic large destinations as Cedar Rapids, IA, Spokane, WA, Corpus Christi, TX, Ketchikan, Alaska and, ironically enough, Augusta, GA, which you apparently just were), those locations with solely Walk Through Metal Detectors have still done away with the hand held detectors, and resorted to FULL BODY RUBDOWNS for any metal detector alarm, as well as anyone who for medical reasons cannot use them.

Makes ME wonder how long it's been since you paid attention to what you were walking through at security.


----------



## jis (Apr 11, 2012)

BobWeaver said:


> The majority of airports (with the exception of course being the more major airports) still use walk through metal detectors, not the advanced imaging scanners. I fly about 6-8 times per year out of all different sized airports. This makes me wonder how long it's been since you've flown.


Just as a data point.... Newark, which is one of the busier major airports has just a few millimeter wave scanners. Most checkpoints are still metal detectors. Actually I don't see a problem with the millimeter scanners with the updated software that just displays a schematic of the body surface and not the actual body on the image display. The process is quite painless, even for those that have metal implants. You just have to be more careful about emptying out all your pockets, since anything in pocket will appear as an anomaly.

This was the case as of last week.


----------



## PRR 60 (Apr 11, 2012)

JoeBas said:


> BobWeaver said:
> 
> 
> > The majority of airports (with the exception of course being the more major airports) still use walk through metal detectors, not the advanced imaging scanners. I fly about 6-8 times per year out of all different sized airports. This makes me wonder how long it's been since you've flown.
> ...


Not true. Just tripping the detector does not automatically get you the pat-down. Experience from two weeks ago at PHL. Plus, right now, the D-E checkpoint at PHL, with at least five lanes, has no full body scanners (not that it bothers me one way or another).


----------



## JoeBas (Apr 11, 2012)

PRR 60 said:


> Not true. Just tripping the detector does not automatically get you the pat-down. Experience from two weeks ago at PHL. Plus, right now, the D-E checkpoint at PHL, with at least five lanes, has no full body scanners (not that it bothers me one way or another).


So what was the outcome when you tripped the detector?


----------



## PRR 60 (Apr 11, 2012)

JoeBas said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> > Not true. Just tripping the detector does not automatically get you the pat-down. Experience from two weeks ago at PHL. Plus, right now, the D-E checkpoint at PHL, with at least five lanes, has no full body scanners (not that it bothers me one way or another).
> ...


A quick check, a swab here and there, and I was on my way in about two minutes. To be honest, I don't actually think I tripped it. It might have been one of the random checks that the detectors spit out every so often. I haven't tripped a detector in over 12 years, and my pride was seriously injured by this fall from travel grace. So, I'm latching onto the random selection story and sticking to it. My wife was standing to the side trying to stifle laughing out loud while I was getting the once over.

I often see pax head straight through those machines with wearing belts and medallions and you name it. They are typically just sent back to try again while I stand there and fume. I try my level best not to get stuck behind obvious numbskulls, but my success rate is not so great. I sometimes tell the person behind me in line to carefully check the lane I select, and then pick another one. I always pick the wrong lane.

I wasn't aware they did not have the hand wands anymore. I'll be heading through PHL again next week. I'll check it out. If I trip that stinkin' detector again, I give up.


----------



## JoeBas (Apr 11, 2012)

PRR 60 said:


> A quick check, a swab here and there, and I was on my way in about two minutes. To be honest, I don't actually think I tripped it. It might have been one of the random checks that the detectors spit out every so often. I haven't tripped a detector in over 12 years, and my pride was seriously injured by this fall from travel grace. So, I'm latching onto the random selection story and sticking to it. My wife was standing to the side trying to stifle laughing out loud while I was getting the once over.
> 
> I often see pax head straight through those machines with wearing belts and medallions and you name it. They are typically just sent back to try again while I stand there and fume. I try my level best not to get stuck behind obvious numbskulls, but my success rate is not so great. I sometimes tell the person behind me in line to carefully check the lane I select, and then pick another one. I always pick the wrong lane.
> 
> I wasn't aware they did not have the hand wands anymore. I'll be heading through PHL again next week. I'll check it out. If I trip that stinkin' detector again, I give up.


I'll back you up, it sounds like a random. SOP (not that it's always followed by the TSA) would be to re-send you through the Walk-Through Metal Detector, followed by a pat-down (full body) if you alarmed again. However, they do have a "randomizer" light that pops on for an Explosives check, which is what the swabs are, so it sounds like you won a small prize in the travel lottery that day.

But yeah, if you alarm the WTMD twice, you get the full body treatment. Or, if you're like me and unable to participate in the shoe carnival, you get it every time. No more hand wands, those have been warehoused, and no more just checking the area the hand-held alarms on, because there are no more hand-helds.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Apr 11, 2012)

Shortline said:


> They must fly on different days than I do. I'm starting to get offended, I bet I've gone through airport security in 15 cities, at least 60 times or so just in the last year, and not one security person has asked to touch me. And I'm not a bad looking guy! Must be something I'm doing wrong.....


:giggle:


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Apr 11, 2012)

ParrotRob said:


> Seriously? Do you honestly not see the fallacy in that argument? How do you prove that a deterrent prevented something from happening?


I'm interested in looking at any independent data you believe substantiates the necessity for x-rays or groping or the opaque no-fly list. Seriously. The TSA is not an atomic warhead sitting in a hidden silo in the middle of nowhere. The TSA is all over the country in big cities and small towns. Millions of people interact with the TSA every day. Whatever the effectiveness of x-rays and groping, it should not be impossible to quantify. Of course it would be much easier back when aggregate data from threat response testing was still covered under the FOIA. Those days are over thanks to the bungled creation of the DHS and their continued reliance on _security through obscurity_.



ParrotRob said:


> You can't prove that any more than you can prove an aspirin a day deters heart attacks.


Even though it may be impossible to _prove_ (your term, not mine) a specific patient taking a specific pill on a specific date prevented a specific ailment with a specific vector, that does not mean there is no way to form a reasonable conclusion of effectiveness based on a preponderance of the evidence among a sufficiently sized population of patients. So where is the evidence that the TSA needs to bust out the x-ray glasses or grope us in order to do its job? Where is the evidence that people who are on the no-fly list are limited to serious threats with verifiable evidence?



BobWeaver said:


> Texas Sunset said:
> 
> 
> > BobWeaver said:
> ...


You do realize that there was a time _before_ the TSA got around to publishing an exhaustive list of items that were allowed and not allowed, right? Back then there was a lot less clarity on what they were looking for, let alone why. All I can tell you is what I've seen with my very own eyes as an agent removed a pair of toenail clippers and tossed them into a collection bucket. Since then I've made a point of only packing much smaller finger nail clippers and haven't lost any. But I'm a big guy with big hands and it would be nice to have clippers that are more in line with my size. Maybe I'll give it another try on my next flight.


----------



## BobWeaver (Apr 11, 2012)

JoeBas said:


> BobWeaver said:
> 
> 
> > The majority of airports (with the exception of course being the more major airports) still use walk through metal detectors, not the advanced imaging scanners. I fly about 6-8 times per year out of all different sized airports. This makes me wonder how long it's been since you've flown.
> ...


For such a new member here, your tone sure is surprising. I haven't flown through AGS in a couple years. I drove to the Masters, smart guy.

Since a majority by definition is a subset of a group that consists of more than half of its population, yes, it is true that the majority of US airports do not have AIT scanners.

If you trip the detector, they send you back through and verify that you have everything out of your pockets, etc. A second trip will require that you receive the pat-down. The wands have been gone for some time, but the millimeter wave machines enable a TSO to specifically locate any foreign object on a passenger anyway, making the wands somewhat redundant.


----------



## jis (Apr 11, 2012)

BobWeaver said:


> If you trip the detector, they send you back through and verify that you have everything out of your pockets, etc. A second trip will require that you receive the pat-down. The wands have been gone for some time, but the millimeter wave machines enable a TSO to specifically locate any foreign object on a passenger anyway, making the wands somewhat redundant.


In my experience when they detect an anomaly in the mm-scanner they apparently check only the specific point of anomaly and do not give you a full body massage. This specific check of a piece of cardboard inadvertently in my pocket was somewhat revealing to me.


----------



## JoeBas (Apr 11, 2012)

BobWeaver said:


> For such a new member here, your tone sure is surprising. I haven't flown through AGS in a couple years. I drove to the Masters, smart guy.
> 
> Since a majority by definition is a subset of a group that consists of more than half of its population, yes, it is true that the majority of US airports do not have AIT scanners.
> 
> If you trip the detector, they send you back through and verify that you have everything out of your pockets, etc. A second trip will require that you receive the pat-down. The wands have been gone for some time, but the millimeter wave machines enable a TSO to specifically locate any foreign object on a passenger anyway, making the wands somewhat redundant.


I'm sorry, I didn't realize that personality was determined by post count.  And you'll have to forgive me, like any red-blooded American I tend to get a little testy when I'm called a liar.

This would be an interesting exercise, determining if a majority of the commerical airports in the country now have AIT. From a list elsewhere...

*ABQ*

*AGS*

*ALB*

*ATL*

*ATW*

*BGR*

*BDL*

*BIS*

*BNA*

*BOI*

*BOS*

*BRO*

*BUF*

*BWI*

*CAK*

*CSG*

*CLE*

*CLT*

*CID*

*CMH*

*CRP*

*CVG*

*CWA*

*DAL*

*DAY*

*DCA*

*DEN*

*DFW*

*DTW*

*DSM*

*ECP*

*ELP*

*EWR*

*FAR*

*FAT*

*FLL*

*FNT*

*FWA*

*GEG*

*GFK*

*GNV*

*GPT*

*GRB*

*GRR*

*HNL*

*HOU*

*HRL*

*IAD*

*IAH*

*IND*

*ITO*

*JAX*

*JFK*

*JNU*

*KTN*

*LAS*

*LAX*

*LGA*

*LIH*

*LIT*

*LRD*

*MAF*

*MIA*

*MCI*

*MCO*

*MDT*

*MDW*

*MEM*

*MFE*

*MHT*

*MKE*

*MLB*

*MSP*

*MSY*

*OAK*

*OKC*

*OMA*

*ONT*

*ORD*

*PIE*

*PIT*

*PBI*

*PDX*

*PHL*

*PHX*

*PNS*

*PVD*

*PSP*

*PWM*

*RAP*

*RDU*

*ROC*

*RIC*

*RSW*

*SAN*

*SAT*

*SAV*

*SDF*

*SEA*

*SFO*

*SMF*

*SNA*

*SJC*

*SJU*

*SLC*

*SRQ*

*STL*

*SWF*

*TLH*

*TOL*

*TPA*

*TUL*

*US & International Airports receiving AIT soon*

ANC - Supposedly receiving the devices this fall...

BHX - Arriving later this year..

COS - Receiving in 2012. Type unknown.

DAY - Receiving before Thanksgiving, and in use by Christmas

ICN - According to airport information, receiving devices "soon". None installed as of December 2011

ITO - Receiving MMW with ATR

JAN - Supposed to arrive in a few months

MSN - Receiving within one year

OGG - Receiving MMW with ATR

*Domestic airports not using AIT*

ABE -

ACY -

AVL -

BHM -

BTR -

BTV -

BUR -

BZN -

CHA -

CHS -

CLD -

DAL -

DAY -

DUS -

GTR -

HPN -

ICT -

JAN -

LOS -

KOA -

KWT -

LEX -

MBS -

MGM -

MHT -

MEL -

NOR -

NRT -

OKC -

ORF -

PER -

PHF -

PUQ -

PVG -

SAV -

SBA -

SBP -

SCL -

SYR -

TUS -

TVC -

List "A seems much bigger than list "B", so I guess that I'd call that a "Majority"... though this is not independently verified, but from a collaborative wiki project.

And again, your comments assume that everyone is ready, willing and able to go through the scanner as prescribed by the TSA... which is again not necessarily the case.


----------



## jis (Apr 11, 2012)

I believe that a majority of US airports has at least one scanner installed somewhere. I am not sure that a majority of all security check positions have scanners yet though. Is that sort of information available somewhere?


----------



## JoeBas (Apr 11, 2012)

jis said:


> I believe that a majority of US airports has at least one scanner installed somewhere. I am not sure that a majority of all security check positions have scanners yet though. Is that sort of information available somewhere?


The wiki I lifted that from had extraneous details about which checkpoints did, but not information about how many total or what percentage, etc.

That would really get hair-splitty, too, since some checkpoints are equipped with both and use one or the other depending on load factors/line length/etc. Not to mention daily fluctuations in checkpoints open vs. closed, etc. Thing to keep in mind is that it's all going one way - TOWARD AIT - as no checkpoints are going from AIT to Metal Detector, but the roll-out of AIT continues.


----------



## Trogdor (Apr 11, 2012)

JoeBas said:


> List "A seems much bigger than list "B", so I guess that I'd call that a "Majority"... though this is not independently verified, but from a collaborative wiki project.


The list is not a complete list of all US airports with commercial service. I don't know how many are not on there, but I can think of at least three off the top of my head.


----------



## jis (Apr 11, 2012)

JoeBas said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > I believe that a majority of US airports has at least one scanner installed somewhere. I am not sure that a majority of all security check positions have scanners yet though. Is that sort of information available somewhere?
> ...


I was just curious. Not trying to split hair. At EWR Terminal C for example quite often they use just the metal detectors even though each checkpoint has at least one scanner installed. For me either one works fine. I have not gotten a full service massage in a while - like a few years now I wish United and EWR would get the trusted traveler program up and running sooner rather than later at EWR. I qualify in two ways for it.


----------



## JoeBas (Apr 11, 2012)

Trogdor said:


> JoeBas said:
> 
> 
> > List "A seems much bigger than list "B", so I guess that I'd call that a "Majority"... though this is not independently verified, but from a collaborative wiki project.
> ...


Well, as the disclaimer said, this was simply a wiki I lifted from a site where this is a prominent discussion, I can give no claim to the thoroughness of the info.

And as illustrated by the tiny nature of some of the airports, just because an airport isn't on there doesn't mean it doesn't have AIT installed.

The point does seem to be wandering a bit, though, which is that as long as Amtrak remains a venue which is 100% free of both TSA Rubdowns and Scanners, those who prefer to avoid those things will continue to factor that into their decision matrix.

I personally think there's no small correlation between the record ridership being seen on Amtrak, and the airport/airline situation in this country. Again, anecdotal, based on the conversations I've had on board and the fact that while the number of people riding the rails grows, the airlines have cut and cut and cut flights to keep load factors up. And when cross-cut with the "Why does Amtrak cost more than flying" thread, you've got to wonder why some people are paying more AND taking longer AND putting up with Oh-Dark-Thirty arrivals/departures to get where they're going. I can assure you that TSA and the airline situation in general is a part of it.


----------



## BobWeaver (Apr 11, 2012)

Trogdor said:


> JoeBas said:
> 
> 
> > List "A seems much bigger than list "B", so I guess that I'd call that a "Majority"... though this is not independently verified, but from a collaborative wiki project.
> ...


That is not anywhere close to a complete list. The primary airports in the US and its territories number 381, and there are a 121 non-primary commercial service airports. That list of current airports with the AIT machines and those slated to receive them is a mere 121. No majority by any means.



JoeBas said:


> The airlines have cut and cut and cut flights to keep load factors up.


No. The airlines have cut capacity recently to deal with high fuel costs and to keep revenues afloat. High load factors do not necessarily correspond to high revenues.


----------



## JoeBas (Apr 11, 2012)

BobWeaver said:


> That is not anywhere close to a complete list. The primary airports in the US and its territories number 381, and there are a 121 non-primary commercial service airports. That list of current airports with the AIT machines and those slated to receive them is a mere 121. No majority by any means.


Like I said, the list may not be complete, but it's the most extensive I've been able to find. And again, just because an airport isn't there doesn't mean that it's AIT-free, or even has regularly scheduled commercial service.

You have to admit that the vast, vast, vast majority of air passengers are passing through airports that have AIT. C'mon.



BobWeaver said:


> JoeBas said:
> 
> 
> > The airlines have cut and cut and cut flights to keep load factors up.
> ...


I never said they did correspond to high revenues. I said they've cut capacity, and that the outcome of this has been relatively high load factors on fewer flights, meaning still a net reduction in the number of travelers despite planes that remain fairly full. Of course fuel costs factor in pretty large on this, and that's what I was getting to - they're cutting flights to keep from flying empty planes and wasting fuel.


----------



## BobWeaver (Apr 11, 2012)

JoeBas said:


> You have to admit that the vast, vast, vast majority of air passengers are passing through airports that have AIT.


True statement. Upwards of 90% when I ran the numbers.


----------



## Anderson (Apr 11, 2012)

BobWeaver said:


> JoeBas said:
> 
> 
> > You have to admit that the vast, vast, vast majority of air passengers are passing through airports that have AIT.
> ...


This makes sense, number-wise, to me...I think if you take something like the top 20 airports in the US, you get about half of the boardings and alightings between them, while you have probably 100-150 with <100,000/year (and a substantial chunk with <50,000 a year).

By the way, I'd assume that the list you gave was a list of those above a certain ridership cutoff...and I believe that the "B" airports are generally smaller than the "A" airports (PHF has less traffic than RIC IIRC, though I can't recall where ORF is on the ridership list...I think it's still ahead of PHF [and about to get _much_ further ahead], but I haven't seen the comparative numbers in quite a while.


----------



## dlagrua (Apr 16, 2012)

I find the unreasonable search of innocent people by the TSA Blueshirts a deplorable depravation of ones civil and constitutional rights. I won't fly because of it. I refuse to be humiliated, degraded and lowered to the level of an animal for doing nothing wrong. However I do find the sniffing dogs at the rail terminals acceptable as it's not unreasonable and not intrusive. I like dogs far better than the human garbage at the airports that gropes grandmothers and cripples.


----------



## jis (Apr 16, 2012)

BobWeaver said:


> JoeBas said:
> 
> 
> > You have to admit that the vast, vast, vast majority of air passengers are passing through airports that have AIT.
> ...


But that does not imply that a vast majority of passengers are actually going through an AIT checkpoint, since many airports that have AIT also have many more magnetometer equipped security lanes than they have AIT equipped ones.


----------



## BobWeaver (Apr 16, 2012)

jis said:


> BobWeaver said:
> 
> 
> > JoeBas said:
> ...


I wasn't trying to imply that. Your point is valid.


----------



## Upper berth (Apr 16, 2012)

My bride and I each have two metal joints and I keep up with how other such people are treated by the TSA. Until there's a massive injection of common sense there, we're 100% train riders. The slogan says Delta is ready when you are, but so is Amtrak- and you can leave your shoes on.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Apr 16, 2012)

Upper berth said:


> My bride and I each have two metal joints and I keep up with how other such people are treated by the TSA. Until there's a massive injection of common sense there, we're 100% train riders. The slogan says Delta is ready when you are, but so is Amtrak- and you can leave your shoes on.


What's to stop those same bogus tactics from following you to the train some day? If Amtrak is ready when I am, then how come I need to be ready at 2:45AM? :lol:


----------



## Peter KG6LSE (Apr 16, 2012)

jis said:


> BobWeaver said:
> 
> 
> > The majority of airports (with the exception of course being the more major airports) still use walk through metal detectors, not the advanced imaging scanners. I fly about 6-8 times per year out of all different sized airports. This makes me wonder how long it's been since you've flown.
> ...


mm wave is FAR more safe then Xrays ........ I am OK with it !!!

and ban me if you must but I was sexuality assaulted when I was young ... Lets just say I have a VERY hard time with pat-downs ..


----------



## Phil S (Apr 16, 2012)

It's not just TSA that drove me back to Amtrak, at least domestically. It's the whole airline/airport cluster%$%#. Long lines at check-in unless you fly first class, and even then it can take forever as scanners break down and printers don't work. Then, ignoring the TSA idiocy, you get to walk miles to get to your departure gate, then sit and listen to TV screens blaring the so-called news from our mainstream media (my personal definition of obscenity). Then the boarding process - enough said. Next you get to sit with someone's seatback in your face. You get a window seat because you'd rather look at the geology and geography than some stupid movie. But the window is so scratched you can't see a thing. In addition, the lead FA has just spent 15 minutes reading advertisements to the entire plane, with the volume cranked up even louder than it was for the safety video.Eventually you land, early because the schedules have been padded out so much. But there's no gate open so you sit for a half-hour. Then there's no one available to work the jetway. Another 10 minutes. But the airlines record this as "on time" or "early" based on wheels-down, rather than last pax off the plane. Next you discover your connecting flight has been cancelled. After much pushy interrogation, you discover it's because of mechanical problems with the plane, no replacement available. You check out the service counter to try to get rebooked but there's a hundred foot line (200 if you count feet). So being an experienced traveler, you keep asking people working gates until you get a number to call for help. On hold for 10 minutes, but at least you can sit an read a book while you wait. They book you on a flight the following day, and give you a number to call to get cut-rate hotel room. One day later you arrive at your destination. Need I go on? Three flights ago, flying first class. I had the lead flight attendant put her arms around me and cry her head off -- "how do you think we feel?" was the gist of her response to what I thought was a very simple question.

Oh yeah, another 1/2 hr to 45 minutes waiting for the wheelie bag to show up, a bag that I just roll right onto the sleeper.

Yes, I'm not surprised Amtrak ridership is increasing, despite all the problems. Railfares in some case are actually lower than airline. It takes at worst no more time for trips up to say 200 miles. It's fun, especially if you're traveling with kids and have raised them so they're well behaved. You can wander around all you want. Employees actually enjoy their jobs. So, no, it's not just TSA.

Just one person's take on this but echoed in a lot of what I hear from other people. Rant over. Thanks for listening.


----------



## PRR 60 (Apr 16, 2012)

phil-s said:


> ...But there's no gate open so you sit for a half-hour. Then there's no one available to work the jetway. Another 10 minutes. But the airlines record this as "on time" or "early" based on wheels-down, rather than last pax off the plane.
> 
> ...


One correction. The official arrival time for on-time determination is at the gate, door open.


----------



## ParrotRob (Apr 17, 2012)

phil-s said:


> 1334630623[/url]' post='361442']It's not just TSA that drove me back to Amtrak, at least domestically. It's the whole airline/airport cluster%$%#. Long lines at check-in unless you fly first class, and even then it can take forever as scanners break down and printers don't work. Then, ignoring the TSA idiocy, you get to walk miles to get to your departure gate, then sit and listen to TV screens blaring the so-called news from our mainstream media (my personal definition of obscenity). Then the boarding process - enough said. Next you get to sit with someone's seatback in your face. You get a window seat because you'd rather look at the geology and geography than some stupid movie. But the window is so scratched you can't see a thing. In addition, the lead FA has just spent 15 minutes reading advertisements to the entire plane, with the volume cranked up even louder than it was for the safety video.Eventually you land, early because the schedules have been padded out so much. But there's no gate open so you sit for a half-hour. Then there's no one available to work the jetway. Another 10 minutes. But the airlines record this as "on time" or "early" based on wheels-down, rather than last pax off the plane. Next you discover your connecting flight has been cancelled. After much pushy interrogation, you discover it's because of mechanical problems with the plane, no replacement available. You check out the service counter to try to get rebooked but there's a hundred foot line (200 if you count feet). So being an experienced traveler, you keep asking people working gates until you get a number to call for help. On hold for 10 minutes, but at least you can sit an read a book while you wait. They book you on a flight the following day, and give you a number to call to get cut-rate hotel room. One day later you arrive at your destination. Need I go on? Three flights ago, flying first class. I had the lead flight attendant put her arms around me and cry her head off -- "how do you think we feel?" was the gist of her response to what I thought was a very simple question.
> 
> Oh yeah, another 1/2 hr to 45 minutes waiting for the wheelie bag to show up, a bag that I just roll right onto the sleeper.
> 
> ...


Seriously? For me it's usually more like this. Choose a window seat in the back of the plane nd check in a day head of time like you're supposed to. Avoid the check in lines altogether by dropping your bag at the curb because you've already per-paid bag fees (or are flying southwest) and go straight to the security line. Sail through, because you've responsibly packed, and you're at the get 15 minutes later. Kill the time away from annoying people and tv's by sitting at an empty gate or in a br reading a nice book. Get on the pone early because you're in the back and checked in ahead of time next to your window that is every bit as clean as an Amtrak coach. Enjoy on time performance that exceeds those of trains (check it). Six hours later you're on the other side of the country, no problem, all because you're a smart traveller. But then again, maybe you're not.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 17, 2012)

That blame the victim crap is getting real old, Rob.

Being a smart traveller helps, but it can't prevent all of the hassles.

The fact that you've been lucky (or others have been unlucky, whichever way you want to look at it), doesn't change the fact that it's a bad experience for some folks.


----------



## ParrotRob (Apr 17, 2012)

Ryan said:


> 1334660179[/url]' post='361479']That blame the victim crap is getting real old, Rob.
> 
> Being a smart traveller helps, but it can't prevent all of the hassles.
> 
> The fact that you've been lucky (or others have been unlucky, whichever way you want to look at it), doesn't change the fact that it's a bad experience for some folks.


No, Ryan, what's getting really old is diatribes like the one above where "Phil" tries to make this sound typical of flying. You and I both know that's bulls*** and is in no way typical of a normal flying experience by an even HALFWAY savvy traveller. Yes, I know he likes to travel by train, we ALL do, that's why we're here. But don't make up utter nonsense or complain about non-existent problems to try to make a point. I mean really - if you're trying to make the "train versus plane" argument, choosing things like on time performance, missed connections and dirty windows is hardly the way to do it, now is it?

Edit: and anyone who complains about airline service counters should try checking a bag at Union Station WAS and let us know how that works out for ya.


----------



## ParrotRob (Apr 17, 2012)

All I'm saying, Ryan, is be honest. If you want to compare, then compare a TYPICAL Amtrak experience to a TYPICAL airline experience. No, the airline experience is not perfect, but every single day THESE boards are littered with complaints about attendants, trains that are HOURS late, trains hitting vehicles, running over pedestrians, day-long layovers in NYP or CHI, filthy bathrooms, smoking attendants, the list goes on and on. Are any of these "typical" of the Amtrak experience? Probably not, but neither is Phil's representation of flying.


----------



## OBS (Apr 17, 2012)

ParrotRob said:


> All I'm saying, Ryan, is be honest. If you want to compare, then compare a TYPICAL Amtrak experience to a TYPICAL airline experience. No, the airline experience is not perfect, but every single day THESE boards are littered with complaints about attendants, trains that are HOURS late, trains hitting vehicles, running over pedestrians, day-long layovers in NYP or CHI, filthy bathrooms, smoking attendants, the list goes on and on. Are any of these "typical" of the Amtrak experience? Probably not, but neither is Phil's representation of flying.



I would be willing to bet if you go to Frequent flyer boards, you will find them "littered with complaints" that are equivalent to what we read here...


----------



## Phil S (Apr 17, 2012)

The couple of times I tried checking bag at curbside, it got lost so I stopped doing it. In any case, on about half my flights I have to go to the counter because I need the bag transfered to a commuter flight, else I'd never make the connection. (And the commuter airline ticket costs about 25% more if you buy it through the long-haul airline, which is the only way to get it into the reservation record.) Turned out that wasn't true this last time as the commuter flight departed over an hour late  I do pack quite carefully for TSA, because I have medicines I need to carry, some of which are liquids and I'm allergic to perfumed shampoo and so need to carry a fair bit with me, because it's hard to find in most small towns or 3rd world countries. That game alone is enough to get me onto a train. Occasionally there's a 1st class line for security but I haven't seen one now in over a year. Lines can take up to a half hour, especially if you don't know the airport well and thus don't know the tricks for avoiding the really backed up check-points.

As for the airport noise level, you and I must live on different planets, or maybe my ears just work better than yours.

I pretty much fly first class (non-refundable so it's really pretty cheap) so I get to board even before you. But unless you stand in line before they even call the flight, you have to push your way through a mass of people, none of whom appreciate being asked to step out of the way or shoved.

As for the flight itself, you didn't address the issue of screaming ads and movie previews, and seat backs in your face. (And that's in first class.) And I suspect you don't even interact with the flight attendants who hate their jobs because you're hiding in a window seat at tthe back of the plane and can go 4 hrs between bathroom breaks and stretching.

As for delays and cancellations, here's the summary for the year ending with Feb 2012 http://www.transtats.bts.gov/OT_Delay/OT_DelayCause1.asp?pn=1 . No way to tell how many of those delays resulted in missed connections. Maybe you're just luckier than I am, or maybe you can walk faster. Or maybe you're able to take only non-stops.

Someone else pointed out that the delay stats are actually based on gate to gate. Ok, though that still sounds like it doesn't account for time spent waiting for a jetway. I do get especially annoyed by the announcements by the flight crew that "Gee folks, we landed 5 minutes early." Then 3/4 hour later you finally start to deplane.

As for my just being a dumber traveler than you, I doubt it. I suspect you live a life in which getting across the country in 10 hrs (counting airport time) is important to you. I don't. And I'm finding more and more people whose expectations and experiences match mine, not yours.

I hope you continue to enjoy air travel but I suspect that in another year or two your attitude will pretty much match mine.


----------



## ParrotRob (Apr 17, 2012)

OBS said:


> 1334662525[/url]' post='361487']
> 
> 
> ParrotRob said:
> ...


That doesn't make them any more accurate. I get it, your bag got lost once. Big deal, not typical. Your flight was late. Also not typical. The fact is, the reason people complain is BECAUSE they are atypical experiences. I mean let's face it, if air travel was really as bad as Phil's diatribe, then no one would do it, there would be a vast network of high speed intercity rail, and the airlines would be out of business except maybe long haul transoceanic flight. Yet hundreds of millions of people do it every year - even on routes where a train is faster AND cheaper than flying.

Just because you like one thing more does not make the other thing suck. That's a childish argument.


----------



## ParrotRob (Apr 17, 2012)

phil-s said:


> The couple of times I tried checking bag at curbside, it got lost so I stopped doing it. In any case, on about half my flights I have to go to the counter because I need the bag transfered to a commuter flight, else I'd never make the connection. (And the commuter airline ticket costs about 25% more if you buy it through the long-haul airline, which is the only way to get it into the reservation record.) Turned out that wasn't true this last time as the commuter flight departed over an hour late  I do pack quite carefully for TSA, because I have medicines I need to carry, some of which are liquids and I'm allergic to perfumed shampoo and so need to carry a fair bit with me, because it's hard to find in most small towns or 3rd world countries. That game alone is enough to get me onto a train. Occasionally there's a 1st class line for security but I haven't seen one now in over a year. Lines can take up to a half hour, especially if you don't know the airport well and thus don't know the tricks for avoiding the really backed up check-points.
> 
> As for the airport noise level, you and I must live on different planets, or maybe my ears just work better than yours.
> 
> ...


1) If you've lost bags a "couple of times" I strongly suggest you play the lottery, really. WIth odds like that, you're obviously blessed.

2) The curbside baggage handlers have the exact same baggage check capabilities as the counter, and that includes commuter flights, and even transfer between airlines. No need to go to the counter.

3) Not sure what airline you're flying, but the only ads I am subjected to on the plane are the ones in the in-flight magazine and SOMETIMES the one at the beginning of the flight welcoming the frequent fliers and imploring those who aren't to beccome one and get the MasterCard or whatever. Not what I'd call "screaming ads".

4) Someone else did not point out that time is measured gate-to-gate. If you read the post, you'd see it said "DOOR OPEN". I don't know of any airlines that open the door while waiting for a jetway to pad on time performance. If you're waiting for a jetway, it's late.

Finally, no, getting across the country in 10 hours is not important to me. Having honest, truthful debate, however, is. I've flown probably 5 million miles in the last 15 years or so, and I've had a misdirected bag exactly TWICE, and have missed connections resulting in next-day arrival exactly ONCE. It's just not as prevalent as you pretend it is, or else you're doing something really, really wrong.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 17, 2012)

ParrotRob said:


> No, Ryan, what's getting really old is diatribes like the one above where "Phil" tries to make this sound typical of flying. You and I both know that's bulls*** and is in no way typical of a normal flying experience by an even HALFWAY savvy traveller. Yes, I know he likes to travel by train, we ALL do, that's why we're here. But don't make up utter nonsense or complain about non-existent problems to try to make a point. I mean really - if you're trying to make the "train versus plane" argument, choosing things like on time performance, missed connections and dirty windows is hardly the way to do it, now is it?
> 
> Edit: and anyone who complains about airline service counters should try checking a bag at Union Station WAS and let us know how that works out for ya.


Pretending that those experiences don't exist because you haven't personally had them destroys your credibility. Are all flights like the ones described above? Of course not. But saying that they are "non-existant" is just as wrong.

I've checked a bag at WAS on more than one occasion, and it's worked out just fine for me, thanks. I guess by your logic, any problems you've had doing so are a product of you not being a smart traveler.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 17, 2012)

ParrotRob said:


> All I'm saying, Ryan, is be honest. If you want to compare, then compare a TYPICAL Amtrak experience to a TYPICAL airline experience.


Sure, lets do that. I'm going to Atlanta next month, and taking Amtrak.

The TYPICAL airline experience is that I would have to arrive at BWI about 90 minutes before my flight departs. When I arrive at the airport, I'll have already printed my boarding pass, but I'll still have to stand in line to check my bags. Then I have to do stand in another line to go through security. When I get to the front of the line, I'll have to take my shoes off, empty my pockets, take my belt off, take my computer out of my bag, put all my stuff into bins and send them down the chute, go through a scanner of some type and then put everything back together at the other side. Assuming everything goes at it should, I'm at the gate with about an hour to kill before the flight leaves.

Instead, I'll take the train to WAS. I'll arrive 30-40 minutes before the train is scheduled to leave. Since I'm in a bedroom, I'll go straight to the Club Acela. Since I have room for my bags in the bedroom, I won't have to mess with the baggage counter. I'll grab a free drink and relax for about 20 minutes or so. Then the train will be called, and we'll go down to the train. I've never had to take anything out of my bags, partially disrobe, go through a scanner or any type. Looks like the TYPICAL Amtrak experience is head and shoulder better than the TYPICAL Amtrak experience to me.


----------



## ParrotRob (Apr 17, 2012)

Thanks for proving my point of ridiculous exaggeration. "Partially disrobing"? Seriously, Ryan? Taking your shoes off is disrobing? PS - unless you are a rodeo cowboy or a wrestling champion you won't set off any detector at BWI with your belt buckle. Leave it on. But even if you do, I wouldn't call that disrobing.

And by the way, you can't compare your bedroom to airline coach. If you buy a first class ticket on the plane, like the train, you too would get free drinks on the plane 

Buy a coach ticket and tell me how that Club Acela and free drink works out for ya.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 17, 2012)

That really wouldn't change the experience all that much. You sit it a different waiting area and don't get a free soda. Big deal.

I'm not going to play word games with you about "partially disrobing". It is what it is.

Try making an argument on the actual substance of my post.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Apr 17, 2012)

I don't think ParrotBob can be reasoned with on a subject such as this. Whatever he has seen firsthand is all he will accept from anyone else. If he hasn't been groped then _nobody_ has been groped. If he hasn't been intimately searched then _nobody_ has been intimately searched. If he hasn't been delayed or mistreated then _nobody_ has been delayed or mistreated. And if they were then it was their own damn fault and they deserved it. The man simply can't see past his own experiences.


----------



## jebr (Apr 17, 2012)

Ryan said:


> That really wouldn't change the experience all that much. You sit it a different waiting area and don't get a free soda. Big deal.
> 
> I'm not going to play word games with you about "partially disrobing". It is what it is.
> 
> Try making an argument on the actual substance of my post.


You may also need to stand in a line to check your bags, as there's less room in coach to carry them on. But yes, I'd have to agree that the experience is much as you described the second time. Here's how it is for me:

Amtrak: Check status of the train before leaving home. Since I know it's always a little bit late, I leave my house a bit later than normal. Park right next to the station and rail line for free. Go into the station, hit up the Quik Trak machine with no line, print my tickets in less than a minute. A conductor may come around to take my ticket, otherwise wait with everyone else for the train to arrive. If I wanted to bring someone to wait with me, I could, and they could stay with me until I board. If I'm hungry, I can bring my own food with me that I purchased on the way to the station, or grab a pop for 50 cents out of the vending machine (this station doesn't have a food vending machine.) When it arrives, wait for them to call my destination, walk over to the coach that they're directing me to, walk in, put my large baggage in the baggage rack downstairs, and walk up to the upper level and take my seat. I sit in relatively comfortable and non-cramped coach seats and can walk around at my leisure, use my smartphone as long as there's signal, or watch a movie on my laptop. When I arrive, I go downstairs, grab any luggage I brought on board, and leave the train. If I'm meeting someone there, they can either wait trainside or inside the station, and I see them within a couple minutes of leaving. We take another minute or two, walk out to the parking lot (where they parked for free), put my baggage in the car, and leave.

Airline (specifically, MSP): Arrive two hours early. Either park offsite so that I only have to spend $10-12/day on parking, or park onsite (but still far away) and pay $18/day. Or take transit in from Fridley if my trip is less than seven days and the 852 or Northstar (888) is timed with my flight (in which parking is free, but I'm looking at a minimum of 45 minutes to an hour to get to the airport). Check in either at a machine or the ticket counter. If I have checked baggage, they'll weigh it, put a sticker on it, and maybe even take it. Otherwise, I have to bring it over to the checked baggage checkpoint. Next, I walk up to the TSA counter, show them my ID and ticket, and they put me through. At this point, if I have anyone with me who's not flying out that day, I have to say goodbye to them here. It'd kinda suck if the plane was delayed and I had no one else traveling with me, but luckily this only happens about 20% of the time. (Note that this isn't a problem with the train, as even if it's delayed, my non-traveling friend can wait with me until the train arrives.) After this, I go through the screening checkpoint, where I take off my shoes, my belt, clear out my pockets, and hopefully remember to take out all of my electronics from my bag. I walk through either a metal detector or one of the new scanners that may or may not take a scan of me in the nude. Assuming I didn't forget to take out my chargers (and thus need to have my bag screened again, as it looks suspicious), I put everything back on, grab my bags, and get my bearings to find my gate. Hopefully it's down the concourse in front of me. If not, I have a hike ahead of me. At any rate, I make it to my gate with about an hour to kill. I go and buy myself some food, which is priced about twice as much as it is outside the terminal. I go back, sit there for a half hour, and wait for them to call my flight. When they call my flight, I wait for them to call my boarding number, and get on the plane. I try to squeeze my bag into the baggage bin above me, despite the skinny aisles. I take my seat, which is cramped and skinnier than a train seat. We get into the air, and I can turn my devices on while we're higher up, but still can't surf the web on my smartphone without paying $8 for their wifi. When I land, I can finally text someone that I have arrived, which often is only a 30-minute window before I'm ready to leave. We pull up to our gate in about 10 minutes, wait for the people in front of me to get off, grab my luggage, try to slide it down the aisle, and get off the plane. If I checked a bag, I walk down to the baggage check and wait 15-30 minutes for my luggage to appear. If not, I walk out of security, probably into baggage check anyways, and am outside of security. At this point, I can meet up with someone I'm waiting for. Either way, we either walk to the short-term parking ramp (where they had to pay to park) or to the transit station to get on the light rail to the nearby park-and-ride (a 10 minute walk for both). The light rail is another 5-10 minutes, after which we leave.

If nothing else, note how much longer the airline part is versus the train part. This is a fairly typical experience, especially out west, and it makes clear why train travel is usually less stressful, even if it does take longer.


----------



## Phil S (Apr 17, 2012)

ParrotRob said:


> phil-s said:
> 
> 
> > The couple of times I tried checking bag at curbside, it got lost so I stopped doing it. In any case, on about half my flights I have to go to the counter because I need the bag transfered to a commuter flight, else I'd never make the connection. (And the commuter airline ticket costs about 25% more if you buy it through the long-haul airline, which is the only way to get it into the reservation record.) Turned out that wasn't true this last time as the commuter flight departed over an hour late  I do pack quite carefully for TSA, because I have medicines I need to carry, some of which are liquids and I'm allergic to perfumed shampoo and so need to carry a fair bit with me, because it's hard to find in most small towns or 3rd world countries. That game alone is enough to get me onto a train. Occasionally there's a 1st class line for security but I haven't seen one now in over a year. Lines can take up to a half hour, especially if you don't know the airport well and thus don't know the tricks for avoiding the really backed up check-points.
> ...



Rob (Parrot?) -- I'm trying to debate with you truthfully but I don't think you listen very well. I've never had a bag lost completely but I've had bags not show up when I did many times, once twice in a row. Two years ago, flying RDU to CDG, my RDU/Newark CO flight was way delayed, they put me on another one, took me off that, then put me back on the original flight, but not in the window seat I had orignally requested two months earlier. My bags showed up two days later and had to be transfered on to Mareseilles. Last trip USAir stranded me overnight in Charlotte, then my commuter flight was delayed almost two hours out of SJU. Did you look at the statistics I showed you? They tell the actual story. What they don't tell is the 4 successive USAir employees in Charlotte who gave me completely contradictory (and as it turned out equally incorrect) information about how to deal with the missed connection.

As for the screaming ads, that was Delta SJU/ATLlast Novemeber. The ads were for a Delta Am EX card. The text was read out loud by the lead flight attendant at an even louder level than the movie preview. Then she walked up and down the aisle asking each of us personally if we would be willing to sign up. Nobody was interested. Only after that did she serve us drinks. I've only flown the 2 USAir flights since then and they didn't have the screaming ads. So maybe it's just Delta and maybe they only did it for a short while because people like me let them know what we thought of it.

On my connecting flight, ATL/RDU, again in business class, there were no screaming ads. After we landed I talked with the lead FA, mentioned about the ads out of SJU and asked how come we had not had to undergo that experience. She choked up and then told me "Because I decided that if I went through with all that, on this very short flight, I'd never have time to even serve you guys a drink. But if corporate ever finds out I did this I'll lose my job." I wrote to Delta (mentioning only the SJU flight) who apologized and credited me with 5000 miles in my mileage account. BFD. It's gotten so hard to use the miles I don't even bother putting my mileage number on the tickets I buy.

Maybe I am indeed doing something wrong. Maybe you can explain what that is instead of telling me these things aren't happening.

Oh yeah, the curbside baggage check-in. There is none in SJU but there is at RDU. Next time I'll try that, though I doubt that the guys there have supervsiory priviledges, which is what it took to check my bag all the way through from RDU including the separately ticketed Cape Air flight. But hey, I once checked bags Palau/Manilla/Tokyo/Hawaii/LAX/JFK and they farrived just fine. Ticket agent in Palau (Air MIke) said he'd never tried interlining in Manilla but that, why not, it should work.

Cheers, Phil.


----------



## JoeBas (Apr 17, 2012)

The simple fact of the matter is, as shown here and by talking to people on the train, Rob *IS* being affected by the TSA's behavior (Real or even "imagined" as he says  ), because some people, whether or not he thinks we're rational or "sane", *ARE* choosing Amtrak over the Airlines, with a significant factor in that choice being the behavior (Real or even "imagined" as he says  ) of the TSA.

And many of us making that choice are people of means, who have both the leisure time and disposable income to make that choice.

And many of those people, because they are people of means with both leisure time and disposable income, are taking Roomettes and Bedrooms in the process.

Which means that when Rob DOES take the train (that is to say, when he's not looking down his nose at us from 30,000 feet), he's paying higher buckets than he would otherwise, were the TSA not a factor.


----------



## amamba (Apr 17, 2012)

Rob, the last time I flew was from SEA - PVD, connecting through Detroit. This was about one year ago. I checked the status of the lights before I headed to SEA-TAC, all looked good. I faithfully checked in 24 hours prior online.

I did have a bag to drop to be checked, so I got into the bag drop line inside the airport. The line was long, so a staff member for Delta instructed me to go out to the curb and drop my bag there. I wait in line there for 20 minutes and then the bag drop guy tells me that my flight has been delayed and I will miss my connection so I need to be rebooked.

I go back inside to wait in a line that is moving painfully slow with only one window open. There is a woman traveling with a beautiful airedale (sp?) terrier dog that is taking a very, very long time. I look up the delta website and discover that if I can be rebooked through a different city I can make it to providence, otherwise, I will get stuck in Detroit or in Seattle until the following day.

By the time I make it to hte front of the line, that flight has long departed. I beg for them to rebook me to Boston which they finally agree, so I can get out that day. Good thing I was traveling alone, without a car in the parking garage, and my husband was gracious enough to pick me up in Boston. They would only give me a standby seat for ATL - BOS but luckily when I got to ATL they gave me a seat or I would have been stuck in Atlanta for the night.

Also, after I got rebooked I had one hour to make it to my gate prior to departure in SEA. It took me 40 minutes waiting in the security line and then I had to SPRINT to my gate. I finally made it with literally minutes to spare before they closed the door to the plane.

I don't fly that often, but my experience as listed above seems to be typical for me. This is why I would rather take the train. I have only flown twice in two years, the time before the trip mentioned above I was in the Dominican Republic and the North East got destroyed by a blizzard and I am almost got stranded in the DR.

Maybe I am just unlucky, but my personal experience is that the aforementioned experiences are stressful. I am sure most people who fly have at least one similar experience to me. The biggest issue now with missed connections is that the flights are running so full, so if there is a problem with your flight, you can end up stuck for days. If I hadn't cut my trip in the DR short to get a jump on the storm, I would have been stranded for two days according to the airline.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Apr 17, 2012)

amamba said:


> If I hadn't cut my trip in the DR short to get a jump on the storm, I would have been stranded for two days according to the airline.


Being stuck in the Dominican Republic (vs being in a blizzard in the NE) was bad? j/k


----------



## amamba (Apr 17, 2012)

AmtrakBlue said:


> amamba said:
> 
> 
> > If I hadn't cut my trip in the DR short to get a jump on the storm, I would have been stranded for two days according to the airline.
> ...


Unfortunately I had to get back for a big work event!


----------



## CHamilton (Apr 17, 2012)

Amtrak posts on Facebook:



> Today we were honored with a Gold Standard security award from the Transportation Security Administration. We are proud of the dedicated security program we have built here at Amtrak to protect our passengers and the communities that we serve. Check out https://pass.amtrak.com/ to see how you can assist Amtrak Police in protecting America's Railroad.


So the TSA likes what Amtrak is doing, even though Amtrak doesn't do any of the invasive things that the TSA itself does? Huh?


----------



## JayPea (Apr 17, 2012)

Roughly speaking, there are about 300 million people in the US. If every one of those 300 million people had experienced exactly what I have in flying over the years, there would be 300 million opinions about the flying experience. For the most part, it's been smooth and painless for me. Most of my flying is done out of Spokane, by no means a major airport but not small either (1 point something or other million passengers annually). In order to get anywhere in a timely manner from Spokane, I always take early morning flights (as in 6:30 AM or so). The check-in lines at the counter for luggage are never very long, and I always print out my boarding pass early. A few minutes in the line for the TSA circus, and I'm good to go. Incidentally, the only hint of any hassles I've had with TSA is in Spokane. Never a problem at all when, for example, I've flown out of Sea-Tac, Portland, LAX, or Indianapolis, to name a few major airports. In Spokane or, for that matter, any other airport, I've never found the TVs to be annoying. Usually I don't pay attention to the television anyway, as I'm busy poring over USA Today and bitching about our crappy Northwest weather, bitching about the crappy Mariners, bitching about our crappy economy, and bitching about the latest celebrity doing something stupid. :lol: :lol: :lol:

I always fly coach, and almost always fly Southwest or Alaska/Horizon, which is usually hassle - free. I've never heard any movie previews or ads at all. As for the flight attendant's annoncements, I find Amtrak's droning on and on and on more annoying. I always get a window seat and have never seen an airplane window so scratched you couldn't see out. I don't remember if I've ever been on a flight where there were no gates nor jetways available. The wait to get off the plane can be a minor pain, because I usually sit in the middle of the plane, if not further back, and because I don't like airplane restrooms, I always have to use a restroom the second I get off the plane. And the urgency with which I have to go is in direct proportion to the length of the wait to get off. :lol:

I suppose over 45 years of flying, I've accumulated nearly 1 million miles of air miles. And in all that, never have I lost luggage. Twice that I can recall my luggage missed the flight I was on, but the first time, airport officials called us the next day to say it had arrived, and we went back to the Spokane airport to pick it up. The second time, again it had missed the flight we were on, and this time airport personnel delivered it right to my mom's house in the middle of the night, no mean feat since Mom lives in a tiny town, an hour from Spokane, near the intersection of The Ends of the Earth, The Middle of The Nowhere, and You Can't Get Here From There. :lol: We found it on the front porch after sitting there during the night in a rainstorm 

The single worst experience I've had was on a trip back to Spokane with my mom and nephew from Illinois. We were about half an hour late leaving Bloomington, no problem except we were to make a brief stopover in Moline before flying on to Minneapolis, where we were to make a connection to Spokane, and our layover in Minneapolis was only 35 minutes. I don't know what caused the delay, but when we saw the flight attendant walking out of the cockpit just before we finally took off from Bloomington, my mom's and my dirty, warped minds took over. :lol: As my uncle said later, that's why they call it the cockpit. :lol: :lol: At any rate, we missed our connection in Minneapolis, and our only alternative was to take a flght to Seattle, then make a connecting flight to Spokane. Problem was it was late and there were no same - day flights from. Seattle to Spokane. So we spent the night sleeping on tne floor in Seattle, next to a man who spent all night grinding his teeth in his sleep.  We were flying Northwerst :lol: and their personnel all the way along were rude, uncaring, and could have cared less about our plight. They must have graduated from the same charm school some of Amtrak's employees did. 

The point of this rambling, incoherent spiel :lol: is this: my experience in flying is unique to me and I have no business using my experiences to make a one size fits 'em all judgement on anyone else as to whether flying is good or bad. My experience with flying looks to be closer to Rob's than Phil's, but I know others have had far worse experiences than I have. As I said once before, I'd rather take Amtrak, but find it necessary to fly. And the most annoying aspect of flying is being told how dumb I am for doing so. Mindless sheep, indeed! :angry: :angry:


----------



## ParrotRob (Apr 17, 2012)

Jay, you're not allowed to say you've had no trouble, because clearly if one person HAS had a problem, everyone has and the whole industry is flawed. If you try to explain that 95% of flights are totally uneventful, well then, "there's just no reasoning with you!"


----------



## AlanB (Apr 17, 2012)

I think that this topic needs a time out; people are getting a bit too personal here.


----------

