get your local airport to opt-out of the TSA

[rhaig 0]

That's right, your airport can opt out of the TSA all together.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Amid-airport-anger_-GOP-takes-aim-at-screening-1576602-108259869.html

Quote

Did you know that the nation's airports are not required to have Transportation Security Administration screeners checking passengers at security checkpoints? The 2001 law creating the TSA gave airports the right to opt out of the TSA program in favor of private screeners after a two-year period. Now, with the TSA engulfed in controversy and hated by millions of weary and sometimes humiliated travelers, Rep. John Mica, the Republican who will soon be chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, is reminding airports that they have a choice.

--
Rob

[diablopilot 2]

Awesome! :-) Now we need a couple airports to sack up and take on the liability and expense.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[JohnnyMarko 1]

Who will these private screeners be?

[quade 3]

Never going to happen.

Prior to the TSA, screeners were paid for by the airlines that used the airport. With the invention of the TSA by the 43rd Administration, airlines were relieved of that financial burden.

Good luck on getting them to pay for it now.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rhaig 0]

well gee... before the TSA, airports ran their own security. How about whoever they decide to hire.

The point is that they won't be part of the TSA.

--
Rob

[rhaig 0]

you know, you may be right, but one thing is for sure. I don't think I've ever seen a better example of "slippery slope" than the operations of the TSA.

--
Rob

[skyrider 0]

Quote

Never going to happen.

Prior to the TSA, screeners were paid for by the airlines that used the airport. With the invention of the TSA by the 43rd Administration, airlines were relieved of that financial burden.

Good luck on getting them to pay for it now.

No shit....

[quade 3]

Quote

you know, you may be right, but one thing is for sure. I don't think I've ever seen a better example of "slippery slope" than the operations of the TSA.

Expand that to "Department of Homeland Security" and you've got a sale.

The problem wasn't the need for a bigger bureaucracy and scare tactics. The problem was inefficient communication.

The creation of the DHS was a bad idea from the get go because it put people in charge of things they knew nothing about. The little fiefdoms were easier to control. One got out of hand and you could knock it down a peg, but with the DHS, that's simply impossible.

With airport security the responsibility of the airlines, it ran efficiently because they were paying for it. With the government cheese of corporate welfare relieving them of that, it's simply gotten out of control and good luck fixing it now.

Thank you 43rd Administration!

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[winsor 187]

Quote

Quote

you know, you may be right, but one thing is for sure. I don't think I've ever seen a better example of "slippery slope" than the operations of the TSA.

Expand that to "Department of Homeland Security" and you've got a sale.

The problem wasn't the need for a bigger bureaucracy and scare tactics. The problem was inefficient communication.

The creation of the DHS was a bad idea from the get go because it put people in charge of things they knew nothing about. The little fiefdoms were easier to control. One got out of hand and you could knock it down a peg, but with the DHS, that's simply impossible.

With airport security the responsibility of the airlines, it ran efficiently because they were paying for it. With the government cheese of corporate welfare reliving them of that, it's simply gotten out of control and good luck fixing it now.

Thank you 43rd Administration!

The "Heimat Sicherheit Amt" harkens to an earlier playbook. Think Godwin.

[quade 3]

Quote

The "Heimat Sicherheit Amt" harkens to an earlier playbook. Think Godwin.

Yeah, I don't know who the F was in charge of nomenclature, but he sure as hell didn't know history. What the F were they thinking?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Never going to happen.

Prior to the TSA, screeners were paid for by the airlines that used the airport. With the invention of the TSA by the 43rd Administration, airlines were relieved of that financial burden.

Good luck on getting them to pay for it now.

well, we the passenger pay for it, in the form of a add-on fee on our tickets. But I suspect that if an airport opts out, that money will still be collected, and still be retained by the TSA, not given to the local airport.

[Coreece 190]

Quote

well, we the passenger pay for it, in the form of a add-on fee on our tickets.

ah'em...it's called the September 11th Security Fee...I guess that makes it sound more urgent and reminds us to be afraid, very afraid...so pay up!

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

Never going to happen.

Prior to the TSA, screeners were paid for by the airlines that used the airport. With the invention of the TSA by the 43rd Administration, airlines were relieved of that financial burden.

Good luck on getting them to pay for it now.

well, we the passenger pay for it, in the form of a add-on fee on our tickets. But I suspect that if an airport opts out, that money will still be collected, and still be retained by the TSA, not given to the local airport.

My guess is this is how it would work as well, which means if an airport opted out it would still need to be paid for and my further guess is they'd have to tack on another fee so you'd be paying for it twice.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

you know, you may be right, but one thing is for sure. I don't think I've ever seen a better example of "slippery slope" than the operations of the TSA.

Expand that to "Department of Homeland Security" and you've got a sale.

deal!

--
Rob

[scruffy 0]

Quote

Good luck on getting them to pay for it now.

From my understanding of Ԥ 44920. Security screening opt-out program when an airport opts out the contractor enters a contract with the federal government for them to foot the bill.

So maybe this is actually viable, especially now that the TSA has unionized.

Peace, love and hoppiness

[roostnureye 2]

you guys need to remember that if an airprot "opts out" of the tsa then they are opting out of any govt grants and funds. most large airports are under control of the feds, if they need to they are legally allowed to close down an airport completly if they deem it nessiscary. i know most large airports depend on govt grants to expand the airport and for daily operations. i gaurentee airports will not opt out of tsa if it means they loose their govt funding

Flock University FWC / ZFlock
B.A.S.E. 1580
Aussie BASE 121

[SRI85 0]

Quote

That's right, your airport can opt out of the TSA all together.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Amid-airport-anger_-GOP-takes-aim-at-screening-1576602-108259869.html

Quote

Did you know that the nation's airports are not required to have Transportation Security Administration screeners checking passengers at security checkpoints? The 2001 law creating the TSA gave airports the right to opt out of the TSA program in favor of private screeners after a two-year period. Now, with the TSA engulfed in controversy and hated by millions of weary and sometimes humiliated travelers, Rep. John Mica, the Republican who will soon be chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, is reminding airports that they have a choice.

TSA has done a damm good job keeping us safe since 9/11. if you dont like it, drive a car. your asking for another attack.

[quade 3]

Quote

TSA has done a damm good job keeping us safe since 9/11. if you dont like it, drive a car. your asking for another attack.

Has it? Can you link news stories where the TSA have captured terrorist that were about to board an airplane that supports your claim?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[SRI85 0]

Quote

Quote

TSA has done a damm good job keeping us safe since 9/11. if you dont like it, drive a car. your asking for another attack.

Has it? Can you link news stories where the TSA have captured terrorist that were about to board an airplane that supports your claim?

my evidence is no succesful attacks since 9/11 on US jetliners. you guys want to take away security measures that keep us safe. stop being little bitches about getting touched by a screener. you dont cry about having your doctor touch you. why? b/c hes a profssional doing a job. so are the TSA. seriously if it is just so bad, then dont fucking fly. I LIKE THESE SAFTEY REGUALATIONS AND SO DO THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS, you are in the minority. we dont need another multi billion whole in the ground with 4000+ lost souls.

oh you expect the media to relay positive stories about the TSA?http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/12hours_tampa.shtm

[quade 3]

Quote

my evidence is no succesful attacks since 9/11 on US jetliners.

Oh no. You have that quite wrong. That's due to my lucky rabbit's foot. Since I got it, there have been no successful attacks, therefore it MUST be working.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[SRI85 0]

Quote

Quote

my evidence is no succesful attacks since 9/11 on US jetliners.

Oh no. You have that quite wrong. That's due to my lucky rabbit's foot. Since I got it, there have been no successful attacks, therefore it MUST be working.

right.....your statment is proof your logic is non existent.

[billvon 2,426]

>TSA has done a damm good job keeping us safe since 9/11. . . .

>my evidence is no succesful attacks since 9/11 on US jetliners.

There were no successful attacks against US jetliners from 1990 to 2000, either. And we had no TSA then.

>I LIKE THESE SAFTEY REGUALATIONS AND SO DO THE MAJORITY OF
>AMERICANS

================
Reuters poll, Nov 12 2010:
Are you less likely to fly because of stepped-up security procedures such as full-body scans and patdowns?

96% Yes - I will make alternate travel plans to avoid intrusive security scans and patdowns

3% No - It is a necessary procedure to ensure terror plots are thwarted
================

Only 3% of Americans seem to agree with you on this.

>you dont cry about having your doctor touch you. why?

Because you do not get threatened with a $10,000 fine if you ask him not to touch you.

[Guest]

This may be a repost: Group successfully stands up to TSA

mh
.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Quote

TSA has done a damm good job keeping us safe since 9/11. if you dont like it, drive a car. your asking for another attack.

Has it? Can you link news stories where the TSA have captured terrorist that were about to board an airplane that supports your claim?

Logical flaw time. The 9/11 terrorists gained control of
the aircraft. They flew the airplanes.

These TSA idiots are frisking the airline pilots for whatever
they think the pilots are going to use to take over the
aircraft.
Newsflash !! They ARE in control of the aircraft.

They don't need nailclippers to take it over.
Ask the TSA if they know where the crash-axe is kept.

Retards.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

TSA has done a damm good job keeping us safe since 9/11. if you dont like it, drive a car. your asking for another attack.

Has it? Can you link news stories where the TSA have captured terrorist that were about to board an airplane that supports your claim?

Logical flaw time. The 9/11 terrorists gained control of
the aircraft. They flew the airplanes.

These TSA idiots are frisking the airline pilots for whatever
they think the pilots are going to use to take over the
aircraft.
Newsflash !! They ARE in control of the aircraft.

They don't need nailclippers to take it over.
Ask the TSA if they know where the crash-axe is kept.

Retards.

I liked the line from the complaining pilot. He let them have his nail clippers. He noted that if he wanted to kill someone he would use the axe on the wall in the cockpit.

--
Rob