The Last Aeroplan Hurrah: United Global First Lounge San Francisco

@Ciaran: No one in this discussion has questioned the merit of CATS/BPSS and manual boarding pass / ID verification.

Of course. It's no mystery that entry checkpoint questions are intended to be BD. And you don't need to work for the TSA to understand that. Read through their briefs, it's crystal clear what is intended.

The problem with the process is that without BDO training, an "Assessor" present and the ability to act on a suspicion, it accomplishes nothing. It's a process that wastes resources and makes the checkpoint's BDO's detection task more difficult. It's a trade of actual security for theater.

If you approve of "telling them your name when it's clearly printed on your ID in front of them" with a lone checkpoint TSO, then you are engaging in a process in which the tools needed to observe and act on your response are not present. And worse, as mentioned before, it produces "emotional noise" in non-threats.

The US is a far larger system than the models that the TSA has borrowed from. The TSA's implementation of BD cites examples such as TLV. But, what works for TLV, doesn't necessarily work here. The ethnic and social profiles here are far more complex and the scale is incomparably large. TLV handled only 13 million passengers in 2011. ATL alone handled 92 million.

The security of American airports requires efficient mechanisms that can scale. Humans just don't cut it at a cost that isn't stifling.

Travelers who point out ("protest") inefficiencies are not dicks. They're intelligent people who take the time to point out when a process is theater instead of actual security.

@LBB Flyer: Yes. Only Master/Expert TSOs receive the training and may operate as BDOs. (2009 TSA Budget)

The inquisitive TSOs at the checkpoint entrance have been and are still performing an unsupported task that consumes time and money. Their questioning generates "emotional noise" in passengers and makes a BDO's observations extra challenging. Any screening element that raises the ambient level of stress or fear makes it less likely that "inordinate levels of stress, fear and/or deception" will be detected by a BDO. So, sans an "Assessor", a checkpoint TSO's questions do little in the way of operative screening.

That said, the TSA is not stupid. It's just a massive bureaucracy that has grown beyond oversight. It's a bureaucracy within a bigger bureaucracy (DHS). Corruption, waste and ineffectiveness are abound.

Lucky should be applauded for having the stomach to point these things out. Any citizen of the US who is critical of what they are paying is doing themselves and others a great service.

@Lucky, Thank you for posting about your experiences with America's security screening apparatus. I look forward to hearing as much as you're willing to tell us so I know what sort of rights we've lost and what sort of new indignities I'll be subjected to.

@Frank: I realize getting photographed and frisked by an airport screener is a highly patriotic and mildly stimulating experience for you, but some of us remember the great nation we used to be, before the scaredy cats and bureaucrats took over and turned us into a nation of fascist sissies.

Lucky,

I'm not a full-on Frank here, and I think that TSA is mostly security theater. However, I do think that the asking-your-name thing is actually a valid and potentially effectual step to increase security, while being no additional invasion of privacy at all (since they already have your ID).

Somebody who's planning on attacking an airliner would reasonably be expected to be carrying a false ID. If they have problems stating the name on their ID or show certain reactions when asked to state their name, it could be a way to suss them out. I would much rather have to state my name than go through the body scanner. Given the litany of abuses that we go through, what with liquids, taking our laptops out of our bags, taking off our shoes, etc., I think that the name thing is practically nothing at all. It's a step that could have reasonably been taken in the pre-9/11 days (and probably nobody would have complained about it). I don't see why the name thing is apparently such an affront to you.

Simon, your numerous references and wishes to me dying or being killed have been noted and I am considering reporting this to the authorities. After all, I do have to provide my email address to post here and know that you could hack this information to find my address.

If you have simply debated the issue without taking it way too far, things would be fine. But as is, you have wished harm upon me simply for having a different point of view, and I am disturbed and threatened enough to where I have to consider whether or not to report this.

Frank, you sound like a shivery old fart that blows dust out the backend at the clap of a hand. Of course there are people in the world who want to kill you. You're unpleasant.

Now, about the TSA. Even if it were 100% effective, it would eliminate only one of the many ways you and a crowd of other milksops could be vapoorized. But, 100% it is not. So, rest assured, an airplane is still on the menu.

Besides, protection from 'terrerrists' should be the least of your worries. If you've been watching the news lately, everyday Americans, Flight Attendants and Pilots are the ones whose genitals need rubbing for our protection.

And, about being cantankerous – it's never excusable. Most especially in the workplace. The cantankerous deserve the boot. And with their time off, they ought to travel to Thailand and unlearn the bitter old queen part.

Lucky is young, bright and successful. His standards are entirely reasonable and his greatest comfort ought to be that the days of those like you are numbered thanks to God's greatest invention – the expiration date.

Instead of publicly revealing your personal inconsistency as you read Lucky's posts and then go on to insult him – just do yourself a favour and go back to bed.

And when you wake up, read the Economist's debate on airport security. You're in the minority:

http://www.economist.com/debate/debates/overview/225

Your care about TSA only because you are inconvenienced by it. You generalize the TSA by the "number" of agents who have been thrown out for example, but I'd love to see proof that this is a higher proportion than - for example - the amount of soldiers discharged for bad conduct. And, by the way, would you rather have the TSA not throw out agents for misconduct? I am glad to see they have high standards.

As Jay said, none of your commentary has included any proposed alternatives, thus I believe I am correct when I say that your only references to TSA have been either A) bashing them in an immature fashion or B) complaining about how they inconvenience you, while - as Jay said - you inconvenience others.

Lucky, I find your consistent complaints about TSA rules and your interactions with their agents to be immature and naive at best; arrogant and petulant more likely. Those of us who recall 9/11 like yesterday understand that these people have a job to do and it is not, as you described it, a "game." They are charged with our safety. I do find they sometimes cross the line, such as the strip-searching of a Marine that I read about, but these instances are extremely rare.

The rules in place are designed to protect us as much as possible because there are those in the world who want to kill us. They will do so by finding their way onto a plane hoping to take advantage of lax security. If you have a problem with the security regulations, then you shouldn't fly all the time.

I also believe you should consider the fact that you are a very young man and a much older person - be they a TSA agent, a flight attendant, a hotel employee, what have you - who spends their life working to put their kids through school might have a reason to be a bit cantankerous at times, especially when you can be as particular and demanding as we all know you can be. You need to realize that having a travel blog doesn't make you king - you remain a kid in your early 20's who considers it a travesty if someone twice your age takes a few minutes too long to refill your glass while you sit in a first class seat that is worth nearly half their annual salary.

Grow up.