Terrorists Evolve. Threats Evolve. Security Must Stay Ahead. You Play A Part.

4.28.2008

Checkpoint Evolution Up and Running at BWI: Even More Changes Announced to Reduce Hassle to Passengers

In February, Secretary Chertoff told an editorial board that he had directed TSA to do a sixty-day, no-holds-barred review of what we do at the passenger checkpoint to see if we can weed out things that used to be needed but perhaps today could be stream-lined. This effort ties in with our longer term effort to update our security measures -- to go on offense rather than just wait behind the magnetometer and try to find prohibited items. Today at Baltimore-Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport (BWI), those efforts come together. And, starting today, they become reality.

Here are the ‘greatest hits’ that are in the works:

Airlines may now allow kiosk/at-home printing of boarding passes for almost everyone. Secretary Chertoff challenged TSA to reduce the hassle thousands of passengers have every day when they can’t print a boarding pass online or at an airline kiosk. They have problems not because they pose a threat to aviation, but because their names are the same or similar to someone whose name is really on a watch list and does pose a threat.

Think of it this way: for every actual person on the watch list, there are thousands of people – who don’t pose a threat – but whose name is close enough that they are flagged in the system and not allowed to print their boarding pass. These passengers must go to the ticket counter to resolve the issue by showing photo identification, and it’s a huge inconvenience to them. Many of these ordinary travelers feel that they have been watch-listed, which would make anyone mad.


TSA has asked airlines to create a secure system to accept passengers’ dates of birth, first at the ticket counter and subsequently in their frequent flier or other secure database. Passengers will be encouraged, but not required, to provide airlines with limited identifying information like their date of birth. If they do so once, the airline can clear them on future flights and they will be able to print their boarding passes at home or at the kiosk.

Better ID verification.

A key to an accurate watch-list process is making sure that people are who they say they are. TSA officers already are using more sophisticated methods to validate a traveler’s identity. In addition, TSA is today outlining the types of ID that will get you through security faster. Essentially, driver’s licenses with photos and passports are what we are looking for. If you left your wallet in a cab, or for some reason do not have the right ID, we will work with you, but it will take longer.

Make the physical layout work for us.

BWI’s “B” Checkpoint has a different look today – it’s the first place to rollout the Checkpoint Evolution elements. We’ve integrated all the elements to work together and get us a calmer checkpoint environment that benefits our active security measures like behavior observation. Easier divesting and bin loading, better light and less noise are examples of things that help security and also lessen hassle for passengers.

We’re excited about these initiatives, because they will improve the passenger’s experience with TSA, but more importantly, they will help our security officers carry out their critical mission. If you fly through BWI, be sure to come back to the blog and let us know what you think.

Click here for more information.

Kip Hawley

Labels: ,

106 Comments:

Anonymous txrus said...

Instead of relying on the airlines & passengers to fix the hopelessly mucked-up 'no fly list' (which currently stands at something like 900K & growing, I believe), why not just scrap it & start over? A good first step would be the inclusion of the 'really bad people' which, by TSA's own admission, are currently excluded from the present 'no fly list' for 'security reasons'. Might also want to take the dead people off, btw.

Should I also point out the fallacy of having a 'no fly list' when those on it have not been arrested, tried, or convicted?

P.S. Still waiting for those frontal MMW pictures, too!

April 28, 2008 10:52 AM

 
OpenID frijole said...

First, let me say that I love this. I really enjoy having a peek into the inner workings of what is always portrayed as such a mysterious and negative service, and seeing that you guys really are working on making it better for everyone is really reassuring (more reassuring than the typical security theater that it seems the TSA is moving away from).

That said, there seems to me to be a fundamental disconnect between the ideology of the TSA and that of the freedoms that make America what it is. Specifically, things like this:
"Passengers will be encouraged, but not required, to provide airlines with limited identifying information like their date of birth. If they do so once, the airline can clear them on future flights and they will be able to print their boarding passes at home or at the kiosk."

Its been established by the Supreme Court that photo ID is not required to travel. As I understand it now, the policy is that non-ID travelers get additional screening. I don't find this that unreasonable, but I have to wonder how far its going to go that people wishing to exercise their right to travel without providing identification are inconvenienced and effectively discriminated against.

April 28, 2008 11:23 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So if I understand the TSA/DHS correctly they want me to share more PII with private firms so I increase my risks of having that PII disclosed to untrusted parties or used for non-security related purposes. Thanks I'll just continue to game the worthless 'you can't check-in online' list with a perfectly legal variation of my name, :-)

April 28, 2008 11:40 AM

 
Anonymous winstonsmith said...

Cleaning up the no-fly list (actually eliminating it and concentrating on getting warrants through the courts to enlist the airlines' help to track people the government is actually interested in tracking) would be a good first step.

The rest of it though is just the soft music and light show that we have already spent so many keystrokes excoriating a few weeks ago. We have read over and over again what needs to happen at the checkpoints to make security truly less of a hassle. Some of my favorites (not all inclusive of course):

1) Get rid of the ridiculous rules that don't make anyone safer (shoes, 3-1-1).

2) Enforce the rules that make sense in an even handed and consistent way across airports.

3) Hire the best and brightest at the checkpoints (i.e. require a bachelors degree or higher or equivalent actual security -- not mall rent-a-cop -- experience), compensate them as the best and brightest. Train them in customer service and security. Allow them to unionize.

4) Recognize that only 1 in 100000 or fewer people they come in contact with is actually a threat to aviation and while they need to be alert for that one, they need to recognize that the people coming through the checkpoint are passengers and not suspects.

5) Eliminate the strip search machine where it has been deployed and deploy no further strip search machines.

April 28, 2008 11:44 AM

 
Blogger Andy said...

Thanks for clarifying on the ID policies on the website. However, there are still a few things that aren't clear to me:

1) Why don't you just state that although ID is recommended to get through security faster, you CAN fly without ID?

2) How about military ID's, university/college ID's, and federal ID's? What if I have a federal ID, yet it doesn't have my gender/date of birth information, but the picture matches the name and it is from a federal organization/agency?

3) When you claim that if we have the wrong ID, or forgot our wallet in the cab, you'd work with us, but that it'd take longer, what exactly do you mean?

April 28, 2008 12:02 PM

 
Blogger Phil said...

Kip Hawley wrote:

"A key to an accurate watch-list process is making sure that people are who they say they are."

What is the purpose of this watch-list process? Is it to determine which people should be thoroughly screened for dangerous items and which should be allowed to board planes without a thorough screening? Is it to restrict some people's ability to travel?

In the United States, people have a right to travel without interference or monitoring by government.

Based on Congressional Testimony from Fall of 2007 that the United States' "terrorist watch list" was growing by 20,000 names per month, best estimates are that over 900,000 names have been blacklisted. If these people are believed to have committed crimes, then we should arrest them and put them before a judge or jury. If they are not reasonably suspected of having committed crimes, then we should leave them alone.

Hawley continued:

"TSA officers already are using more sophisticated methods to validate a traveler’s identity."

Please provide details. "Trust us" doesn't cut it. Additionally, please reveal the cost of these methods and explain how we will judge their efficacy, and how they contribute to the TSA's goal of improving transportation security.

"In addition, TSA is today outlining the types of ID that will get you through security faster. Essentially, driver’s licenses with photos and passports are what we are looking for. If you left your wallet in a cab, or for some reason do not have the right ID, we will work with you, but it will take longer."

In other words, if travelers do not present ID, they will be thoroughly screened. Those who do present ID will be allowed to pass through airport security checkpoints with an abbreviated screening.

Clearly, anyone who wishes to carry something dangerous onto a flight -- something that will not be detected by the abbreviated, x-ray-only bag check -- should present ID. If his name is blacklisted, then he should either get a false ID or steal someone else's identity and get a real ID in the other person's name.

Mr. Hawley: Even assuming that government agents can consistently and accurately determine travelers' names, how can identification of someone possibly help determine whether he is carrying something that would pose a danger to others if he carried it aboard a flight?

April 28, 2008 12:10 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Winstonsmith.. You do not know real security. What you ask for the public is not ready for. Go to Israel and go through their security checkpoints. Then ask yourself, am I ready for this? The TSA does comfortable security compared to some countries.

1. They are a threat so catch up on your research.

2. This is a problem I agree. The rules need to be consistent and TSO's that do not enforce them correctly need to be reprimanded.

3. People that do not have degrees can still learn can't they? If you are taught the correct way and the management keeps enforcement on policies then everything would be ok.

4. I think this is something that could be fixed. Maybe every TSO should be trained as a BDO and have the knowledge of observing behaviors.

5. I think the MMW technology is a good thing and people need to get use to seeing it at checkpoints.

GOOD JOB TSA but you still have things to fix. Better training is needed or aleast more advanced training to every TSO.

April 28, 2008 12:12 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I stood in the "new" security line for over an hour this morning at BWI. First of all, it probably isn't the smartest thing to start any new procedure on a Monday morning. Also, in order to accurately measure the success of the new process, wouldn't it have made sense to open all of the lanes instead of having very long lines. Better planning is definitely a necessity when you are trying new processes. Hopefully the other airports will implement new processes in a much better way.

April 28, 2008 12:17 PM

 
Anonymous Marsha said...

@winstonsmith

TSAs rules are in place for a purpose. The shoe rule and the 311 do add an element of safety.

TSA makes a strong effort to hire good honest working people. Having a degree does guarantee integrity or make a person better at performing this job. Many of the people I work with have degrees, are retirees, military veterans or are working thru college.

I hate people who like to spit out statistics. Where did you get your numbers? Or did they just pop out of your head.

It's not a strip search machine. The machine does not remove your clothes. The machine looks for hidden items that might be below your clothes. I have been thru the WBI. It is painless, quick, easy and only takes a moment.

April 28, 2008 12:51 PM

 
Anonymous Eric said...

How exactly do these changes reduce checkpoint hassles? I see one that reduces a few online printing hassles, and one that will increase checkpoint hassles by reducing the number of "valid" IDs. Not what I expected from the grand 60-day review.

April 28, 2008 12:56 PM

 
Anonymous marsha said...

edited:forgot the word "not"

TSA makes a strong effort to hire good honest working people. Having a degree does "not" guarantee integrity or make a person better at performing this job. Many of the people I work with have degrees, are retirees, military veterans or are working thru college.

April 28, 2008 1:04 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Marsha - do you not realize that an x-ray machine CANNOT screen for explosives in a shoe? Of all of the security measures, x-raying shoes is the most pointless one.

April 28, 2008 1:20 PM

 
Blogger Chance said...

Instead of relying on the airlines & passengers to fix the hopelessly mucked-up 'no fly list' (which currently stands at something like 900K & growing, I believe), why not just scrap it & start over?

Though related, the No Fly List is not synnonymous with the terrorism watchlist. They are not one and the same, are not even close to the same size, and TSA does not control or maintain that database. If we were to "start over", the no fly list would end up being substantially the same as the current list.

Here is the link for the TSC, which maintains the U.S. governments consolidated terror watchlist:http://www.fbi.gov/terrorinfo/counterrorism/tsc.htm

Here is the link to a little more info on the no fly list: http://www.tsa.gov/approach/secure_flight.shtm

- Chance EoS blog team.

April 28, 2008 1:24 PM

 
Blogger Chance said...

Sorry, let me try to place that link again. http://www.fbi.gov/terrorinfo/counterrorism/tsc.htm

If this link doesn't work, just google "terrorist screening center".

Chance

April 28, 2008 1:25 PM

 
Anonymous Sandi said...

Aw, where did the puppies go? I so very much liked the cute TSA puppies! And now I can't find them on your webpage!!

I have a suggestion!!! Maybe your cute behaviour detection officers can use some lovable TSA kittens to discover the heartless terrorists!!!! And America would love you for it!!!!!

April 28, 2008 1:30 PM

 
Blogger Phil said...

Andy wrote:

"Thanks for clarifying on the ID policies on the website. However, there are still a few things that aren't clear to me:

"1) Why don't you just state that although ID is recommended to get through security faster, you CAN fly without ID?"


Good question, Andy.

I'd also like to know why although ID is not required of passengers on U.S. domestic flights, some airports, including Kansas City International, display TSA signs that state that passengers must present photo identification. After I filed a complaint with TSA about this situation, Jeanne Oliver, Associate Director, TSA Office of the Executive Secretariat, wrote to me in response, confirming the lack of ID requirement, but providing no indication that the signs would be corrected.

See also: “Although airport security tells passengers they must show ID to board planes, they really don’t,” Scott Canon and Mike Rice, Kansas City Star, April 9, 2008

April 28, 2008 1:33 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The machine looks for hidden items that might be below your clothes. I have been thru the WBI. It is painless, quick, easy and only takes a moment.

April 28, 2008 12:51 PM


Marsha, removing ones garments is quick easy and only takes a moment also but I think you would hesitate to do so to clear airport security.

The MMW WBI reveals a persons intimate details, and is very much like a strip search. This is a complete invasion of a persons privacy and should only be used as a last resort if at all. AS far as being harmless please provide your proof.

If the MMW WBI was as ok as TSA says it is then we would see frontal images from one of these machines.

Proof is in the pudding, TSA will not show the images because they know what the outcome will be when the degree of privacy invasion is known by travelers.

April 28, 2008 1:42 PM

 
Blogger Dunstan said...

marsha said...
"TSA makes a strong effort to hire good honest working people. Having a degree does "not" guarantee integrity or make a person better at performing this job. Many of the people I work with have degrees, are retirees, military veterans or are working thru college."

Toss in some business travelers, children and housewives, and it sounds like a cross section of the 2 million people treated like criminals and suspected of terrorism on a daily basis, doesn't it.

April 28, 2008 1:45 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Better ID verification.

A key to an accurate watch-list process is making sure that people are who they say they are. TSA officers already are using more sophisticated methods to validate a traveler’s identity. In addition, TSA is today outlining the types of ID that will get you through security faster. Essentially, driver’s licenses with photos and passports are what we are looking for. If you left your wallet in a cab, or for some reason do not have the right ID, we will work with you, but it will take longer."

Why don't you come out and tell the truth? The ID requirement is all about instilling fear and a method of controlling the citizens. (the same reason, by the way, that you're issuing tin-badges to the screeners).

After all, the government loses ability to control if their agents don't know who people are.

Heck, even the security agencies admit that many of the "bad guys" aren't even ON the list.

Control. Pure and simple. Shred the Constitution while your at it.

Oh, by the way, it's pretty disingenuous to hold out BWI as an example. It has the rudest, most disrespecting, and abusive screeners of any airport in the US. And TSA airport management that refuses to even acknowledge complaints, much less act on them. Replacing management with CUSTOMER ORIENTED folks will be a good start to making BWI a better place.

April 28, 2008 1:45 PM

 
Anonymous winstonsmith said...

Marsha, let me go through your post point by point:

TSAs rules are in place for a purpose. The shoe rule and the 311 do add an element of safety.

So far there has been no credible evidence brought to the public's attention by the TSA or by any reputable scientific body that says that the 3-1-1 rule has done anything to make anyone any safer. The people who are on trial in London are on trial for conspiring to try to pull off this plot, not for actually succeeding in doing it. 3-1-1 was an overreaction on the part of TSA for what was perceived at the time to be a threat, which has since been discredited (it has been shown conclusively that it would not have been possible actually to do what the people in London were thinking of doing). It is for the TSA to show us that the threat is real through sources that are universally accepted as objective and trustworthy (TSA "scientists" working behind closed doors are not a credible source). Similarly with shoes, when the people at TSA can show us a credible and ongoing threat, we can take them seriously. Until then, they're asking us to take them at their word, and the TSA's word is not worth much these days.

TSA makes a strong effort to hire good honest working people. Having a degree does guarantee integrity or make a person better at performing this job. Many of the people I work with have degrees, are retirees, military veterans or are working thru college.

Marsha, I think you have missed the point of this entirely. TSO compensation is not high, certainly not commensurate with the compensation an educated or experienced career-oriented person in our country would expect to receive. You brought it out yourself that many of the people you work with are retired (not career oriented), students who are getting their education (not career oriented), military veterans (possibly career oriented). What I'm suggesting here is not that there are not smart, experienced or educated people among the ranks of the TSOs. I'm suggesting that if the TSA is really interested in security that it seeks out the best and the brightest it can find either by virtue of education or actual experience and develop them as career people. Currently the TSA hires part time hourly people for as little as it can and requires no more than a high school diploma and a clean criminal background check. A few weeks back one of the blog regulars posted a link to the TSA employee satisfaction survey that suggested that gave the TSA very less than stellar marks when it came to the way it treats its front-line people in terms of pay, advancement, training, environment -- all of the things that make a person want to develop and hang around. Perhaps you are one of the people who is satisfied with your TSA position. If so, terrific, but that view is not shared by many of your colleagues. href="http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/results.shtm"The survey is available on the TSA website for your viewing pleasure.

I hate people who like to spit out statistics. Where did you get your numbers? Or did they just pop out of your head.

Ok, you got me there. the 1 in 100000 figure is not a bonafide statistic. However that TSA has not caught a single individual with terrorist intent in its entire existence is a documentable fact. That TSA all too frequently misses prohibited items in unchecked baggage is not exactly news to anyone -- including the TSA. If the TSA is claiming extraordinary results, it is up to the TSA to provide extraordinary proof of those results. So far there has been none.

It's not a strip search machine. The machine does not remove your clothes. The machine looks for hidden items that might be below your clothes. I have been thru the WBI. It is painless, quick, easy and only takes a moment.

And whoever was looking at the mmw image got a good look at your nude form. That's a virtual strip search. Sorry Marcia, no other way to spin that. The fact that the person does not physically have to disrobe does not make the strip search any less invasive, nor any more legal (it hasn't been tested yet in the courts, but I'm quite sure this goes way beyond what the original Edwards decision that provided for administrative searches in 1974 had in mind).

April 28, 2008 1:59 PM

 
Anonymous marsha said...

@ anonymous

It's a blurry image of the human form. The screener doesn't even see you. I fail to see the invasion of privacy.

April 28, 2008 2:27 PM

 
Anonymous winstonsmith said...

Mr/Ms. Anonymous... you are suggesting that I am not ready for the US to follow the US Constitution? Let's look at what you said:

Winstonsmith.. You do not know real security. What you ask for the public is not ready for. Go to Israel and go through their security checkpoints. Then ask yourself, am I ready for this? The TSA does comfortable security compared to some countries.

The 5th amendment to the constitution says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The no-fly list could be construed as such a limitation on liberty. If the government feels the need to look into your private affairs (including your travel arrangements) it needs to obtain a warrant from the court to do so. If it does not there is something very wrong going on (and alas, I fear that may well be the case in this day and age, but that is a can of worms I'm not going to open here). I have traveled all over the world and experienced security in different countries both pre and post 9/11. In no country that I have been in outside than the United States has security been so poorly managed. I have heard much of Israeli security (although I have not experienced it personally) and from what I understand it is based on things that actually make the planes secure and not on the silly security theater one finds oneself confronted by at our checkpoints. So yes, I personally am ready. I'm not sure what countries you refer to, perhaps you can enlighten us.

1. They (shoes and liquids) are a threat so catch up on your research.

I have, and I have yet to find anything credible that would indicate to me that there are any threats posed by liquids and gels and such. Now perhaps you have done some additional research of which I'm not aware. Would you care to post it and educate all of us? I do not trust the TSA to tell us the truth as so far its track record has been extraordinarily bad. If some independent scientific body were to come out and give a stamp of approval to the 3-1-1 policy I might take it a little more seriously. Until then, however, it is an inconvenient rule that I live with and can't wait to see go away. Same with shoes. Show me independent proof that there is an ongoing and credible threat and you'll have a convert in me. Until then, you'll have a compliant, if disgruntled frequent traveler.

2. This is a problem I agree. The rules need to be consistent and TSO's that do not enforce them correctly need to be reprimanded.

At least we can agree on something.

3. People that do not have degrees can still learn can't they? If you are taught the correct way and the management keeps enforcement on policies then everything would be ok.

You are absolutely correct. A degree is not necessarily a sign of intelligence. My point in making this statement is that the TSA is not recruiting career oriented people. It is treating the TSO position as a revolving door job. There are some very good people who take that job and some hang around, but quite a few don't. And with TSA's pay scale, there is some truth to the saying that "you get what you pay for." (reminds me of a post by a TSO who says he cleared 90k some time back... makes me wonder just how much OT the poor guy had to work -- did he ever see the outside of an airport?)

4. I think this is something that could be fixed. Maybe every TSO should be trained as a BDO and have the knowledge of observing behaviors.

You may have something there. Perhaps there could be some elementary BDO training incorporated into basic TSO training. I have a feeling, however, that what the BDOs do is highly specialized and requires training that goes far beyond what the TSA is likely to provide to the average TSO. I actually support the BDO program though. It is one of the very few good ideas the TSA has come up with and implemented.

5. I think the MMW technology is a good thing and people need to get use to seeing it at checkpoints.

You and I can agree to disagree on this one. You think it's a good thing. I think it's an unconstitutional invasion of privacy. I'm quite confident that as people become aware of the nature of the MMW that the debate on its use in this country is just beginning and if you think that the comments on this forum have been divisive and ugly, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

April 28, 2008 2:28 PM

 
Anonymous Alan said...

It looks like Secretary Chertoff wants people to have the permission of the federal government in order to travel.

This is starting to look like East Germany before the wall came down.

April 28, 2008 2:46 PM

 
Anonymous Sandi said...

I suppose my suggestion about using cute kittens to help unmask heartless terrorists wasn't respectful enough to keep it from getting ground-up in the delete-o-meter.

If you don't think that that would help your BDOs find evil people, then maybe kittens could help with making the passengers feel less hassled. I suggest that the TSOs that read the TSA signs to passngers would find people less hostile if they held a kitten.

Also: If a potential terrorist can check their status on the no fly list by taking a cheap $69 hop, doesn't it sort of make this layer of security sort of hassle-free?

April 28, 2008 3:13 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

HAve there been any long term scientific studies as to the safety of MMW scans? If so can you post links.

Also until you post frontal images you will continue to be accused of virtually strip searching people. And the longer you wait the most it looks like you really are hiding something.

April 28, 2008 3:43 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, the perpetuation of the ID check still fails to completely miss the point.

Verifying ones' identity does NOTHING to verify ones' intent.

As Bruce Schneier summed up extremely well, "I don't care what the person's name is next to me, I care if they want to do something to the airplane... and even if they do I still don't care what their name is."

TSA forgets that nearly all of the perpetrators of 9/11 were travelling on legitimate state-issued identification.

The ID check is just an airline revenue protection measure that has the added bonus of heightening our climate of fear.

April 28, 2008 5:36 PM

 
Blogger Phil said...

Sandi wrote:

"If a potential terrorist can check their status on the no fly list by taking a cheap $69 hop, doesn't it sort of make this layer of security sort of hassle-free?"

What Sandi described is part of what was described by MIT researchers as "The Carnival Booth Algorithm". In short, potential criminals can probe the system by sending a group of people on innocent trips, observing which ones are subject to additional screening, then send the ones who weren't flagged for additional screening on a terrorist mission.

This is one example of how an ID check is not only ineffective, but also likely to reduce transportation safety.

April 28, 2008 6:06 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I have, and I have yet to find anything credible that would indicate to me that there are any threats posed by liquids and gels and such. Now perhaps you have done some additional research of which I'm not aware."
Look up information on the Bojinka Plot if the recent liquid bomb plot isn't enough for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bojinka
and look up information on Richard Reid:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid_%28terrorist%29
For a guy that talks like he really knows his stuff, you sure haven't educated yourself very well.

April 28, 2008 7:41 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/mwave.shtm
click on it to see what the wave technology images really look like. it looks like an xray. nothing intrusive. it's also an alternative to a pat down.

April 28, 2008 7:52 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"it's also an alternative to a pat down."

If a pat-down is not as effective at detecting weapons as a MMW scan, then why would anyone with ill intent choose the MMW scan? All someone would have to do is wear a back brace packed with explosives, choose the pat-down instead of the scan, then get on the plane without a problem. Without being mandatory, MMW technology only scans innocents.

April 28, 2008 8:34 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Since the only people allowed in the secure area of the airports are those with airport ID or those with a boarding pass, making sure that the person with the boarding pass is the person authorized to travel is a step in security that is necessary. If we weren't checking ID's then why not let everyone come through like pre-911?

April 28, 2008 9:36 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's proclaim a "No ID day".
It's time Americans put their foot down. If everyone on the declared day, refused to show an ID, it would bring travel to a snail's pace crawl. Then just maybe, we can eliminate some of these ridiculous rules, that we blindly have to follow.

April 29, 2008 12:23 AM

 
Anonymous winstonsmith said...

To my Anonymous critic who is an afficionado of wikipedia who states:

"I have, and I have yet to find anything credible that would indicate to me that there are any threats posed by liquids and gels and such. Now perhaps you have done some additional research of which I'm not aware."
Look up information on the Bojinka Plot if the recent liquid bomb plot isn't enough for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bojinka
and look up information on Richard Reid:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid_%28terrorist%29
For a guy that talks like he really knows his stuff, you sure haven't educated yourself very well.


Well, the 'recent' liquid bomb plot has been thoroughly debunked. The people in London are on trial for conspiracy. They never managed to make a bomb, test a bomb, get a bomb to the airport, get it past security, or get it onto a plane and put it together in the airport lavatory and blow a plane out of the sky. If the London bomb plot would have worked it would have been horrible to be sure, but the London bomb plot was doomed from the start. The explosive they were attempting to create TATP is too unstable when wet at the temperatures at which they would necessarily be working. Even if they were able to get the component parts all together in the same place, they would not be able to create enough of the explosive that would stay stable long enough to achieve their desired purpose.

The Bojinka plot was a plot that happened 13 odd years ago. While it is true that a Muslim extremist did manage to get a small bomb on a plane and tragically kill one innocent bystander, the very article you cite states that the extremist group abandoned the plan because the plot was discovered by law enforcement and because the nitroglycerin was too unstable to be relied upon, in fact causing a fire in the apartment where the group was staying in Manila.

So if you're going to cite failed plots as justification for 3-1-1 my friend, you're going to have to do better than this. People plot all kinds of crazy stuff, most of which won't work for various reasons. What I asked for was independent objective scientific corroboration from a non-TSA, non-governmental source, that there was a basis in science for 3-1-1.

Richard Reid poses more of a problem. He had an actual bomb. He was trying to light it. Alert passengers and crew subdued him quickly. I certainly can't imagine that today's crews and passengers would be any less vigilant. The TSA will tell us that people have concealed things (blades, drugs, knives) in their shoes, yet there has not been a documented case before Reid or since of anyone attempting to detonate a shoe bomb.

Similarly there has not been a documented case of an individual removing something from his or her shoe and using it to attempt to hijack a plane. Finally, there is in fact some controversy as to whether x-raying shoes would reveal the presence of explosives to begin with. Again, I'll leave it to a non-TSA, non-governmental independent source to advise whether one can, in fact, detect the presence of explosives in a shoe through an x-ray.

So I'll give you maybe 1/2 credit on Reid, and that only because it really happened once in over 75 years of commercial aviation. Again, however, I asked for an ongoing threat to justify TSA's ongoing actions. In the same way that the people who were in the planning and testing phases for Bojinka gave up because of the logistical impediments inherent to their plan, today's terrorist might see an airliner as an attractive target, but a highly impractical one. A terrorist seeks to draw attention to a cause and can only do it if his action is successful. The TSA is not really capable of preventing bad people from getting on a plane (don't talk to me about id checks, the 9/11 hijackers had valid ID). The people on the plane, however, are no longer likely to sit by passively if someone were to try something.

If a terrorist were, however, determined to attack a plane, it would be likely that the terrorist would choose to go through a US Airport because the TSA has been shown time and time again to be easy to circumvent.

So you suggest that I haven't done my homework. I disagree. I have done my homework. I have come to a conclusion that is the polar opposite to the conclusion you seem to have drawn. I place my faith in history, science and fact. You appear to put your faith in the government and what it chooses to tell you. I feel far more comfortable with my approach.

April 29, 2008 1:36 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's what I'm also wondering:

*Will this change the procedure (e.g: someone doesn't bring ID, the TSA will write down a form with that person's personal information) or will this result in longer delays if someone forgot/refuse to show their ID--or will the procedure of telling them to go to the SSSS line without writing any forms remain the same?

*How can TSA know if someone's 17 or 18? At that age, it's hard to tell, and a 18-year old can pass as a teenager at times - and some 14 year old's can pass as a 21-year old. It depends.

*Will TSA now check each ID and refuse to "approve" the ID if they don't have any one of the following requirements? (For example, if the ID has everything except the gender info)

*UNIVERSITY ID's - what's the scoop?

For once, I'd appreciate a straight answer for EACH question... please.

April 29, 2008 4:30 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We are still waiting for front and back images of millimeter wave and backscatter scans of actual persons (men and women).

Please post these pictures!! We cannot make an informed decision with only a MMW back picture of a man.

The pictures I saw on the web (only parameter I have) show more than I want seen, so unless you post yours, I'll keep my decision to skip the scan. I'll probably be screamed at for my decision, but I am used to that already...

Also, about the list of "dangerous" names: get rid of it. It makes no sense, and has created a horrible life for us innocent persons on it (I have no clue how).

April 29, 2008 4:32 AM

 
Anonymous Sandra said...

Re: Bojinka

If the liquids threat was so terribly serious, why was the liquids ban not instituted until 11 years after after that event?


Re: MMW

Anonymous said at 7:52 p.m. (probably the same Anonymous as refereced Bojinka above)

"...images really look like. it looks like an xray. nothing intrusive."

If the MMW is not intrusive, then why is the TSA absolutely refusing to provide us with a frontal image?

I know the answer to that: because they know that when people realize that they will be seen essentially naked in the image, there will be whole scale rebellion.

April 29, 2008 7:06 AM

 
Blogger Dunstan said...

"Look up information on the Bojinka Plot if the recent liquid bomb plot isn't enough for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bojinka
and look up information on Richard Reid:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid_%28terrorist%29
For a guy that talks like he really knows his stuff, you sure haven't educated yourself very well."

Wikipedia is a collective effort and anyone can add to an article. It is more a compilation of fact, opinion, and gossip that a factual account of events. It is not a resource that is reliable.

April 29, 2008 7:53 AM

 
Blogger Dunstan said...

A thought for the day

"The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who Is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost invariably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And if he is not romantic personally, he is apt to spread discontent among those who are."

H.L. Mencken

April 29, 2008 9:58 AM

 
Anonymous Justin Newman said...

Based on the ID standards described, a FIPS 201-compliant Personal Identity Verification card, issued on the basis of a successful NACI, would not be acceptable. Why is the TSA refusing to honor this universal identifier of federal employees with a higher level of vetting than any state drivers license?

With the convergence of CAC and PIV, how is a military ID acceptable and a PIV card not?

-jbn

April 29, 2008 10:23 AM

 
Blogger Phil said...

Someone anonymously wrote:

"Since the only people allowed in the secure area of the airports are those with airport ID or those with a boarding pass, making sure that the person with the boarding pass is the person authorized to travel is a step in security that is necessary."

This person seems to assume that making sure that every passenger who holds a boarding pass is "authorized to travel" is necessary for ensuring transportation safety. I don't care what, if any, authorization someone sitting next to me on a flight has, as long as he's not carrying anything that presents a danger to me and other passengers.

But let's consider what is meant by "authorized to travel":

From the perspective of an airline, someone holding a valid boarding pass is authorized to travel -- that's what a boarding pass indicates. And since boarding passes contain no biometric identification, it's safe to assume that they are transferable. So regardless of who purchased a ticket and exchanged it for a boarding pass, the holder of that boarding pass has an airline-provided document that indicates that he may board.

From the perspective of the United States government (at least to the degree that it is operating in a manner consistent with our Constitution), everyone is authorized to travel. People in the United States are guaranteed the right to travel.

Travel is necessary in order to exercise our right to assemble and our right to associate. We couldn't do either if our movement was restricted. A restriction on travel would also affect our right to free speech -- if you couldn't travel, you could say whatever you wanted, but you'd mostly be talking to yourself.

Of course, sometimes there is good reason to stop a person from going about his business. When this is warranted -- such as would be the case if someone was reasonably suspected of having committed a crime -- we rely on our police to place that person under arrest and bring him before a judge who will determine what should happen to him. In order to restrict a person's movement for an extended period of time, we can put him in prison or place him on probation.

Most, if not all, people on the United States government's blacklists (the "terrorist watch list", "no-fly list", etc.) are not terrorists, or criminals of any sort. If they were, we'd go arrest them and put them on trial. At best, they are suspects. At worst, they are people who someone with the power to add names to the blacklist decided should not be allowed to travel freely.

It seems to me that the degree to which an airport ID check has any effect will be proportional to the degree to which it is used to restrict people's freedom to travel without interference or monitoring by our government. Thus, it is either ineffective or unconstitutional.

"If we weren't checking ID's then why not let everyone come through like pre-911?"

Letting everyone through airport security checkpoints would slow down the system. It seems reasonable that if we had sufficient resources to do so, we could let anyone who has been screened for dangerous items through airport security, regardless of whether an airline has authorized him to board a flight.

April 29, 2008 11:38 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

winstonsmith:
are you seriously saying that the government should wait until a plot succeeds before doing anything to prevent it from happening again and that just because the Bojinka killed "only one" person that it was not a problem or even slightly successful?
and it is possible to detect a shoe bomb on an xray. bomb materials have very distinct characteristics. being the well-read, informed person that you are, i'm amazed you didn't already know that.
just out of curiosity: are you one of those guys that holds up the rest of us yelling at and hassling TSA?

April 29, 2008 11:49 AM

 
Anonymous Dave X the first said...

Re Winston: Hear Hear!

Even if some terrorists do happen to get a bomb onto a plane, it is simply not credible that they could leverage it into a 9/11-style hijacking. If the terrorists were to use the bomb, they wouldn't be able to fly the plane. If the passengers and aircrew were susceptible to a mere bomb threat, then the terrorists could use a completely undetectable fake bomb. If terrorists really want to kill people with explosives and depress air travel, they'd probably do better with a claymore at a checkpoint. It makes sense that TSA would hype fantasy threats to justify its existence, and that's what lots of TSAs scenarios look like if 'you do your homework'.

Flying is safer than driving, and when the inconveniences and fears cause people to drive rather than fly, more people die:
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/March05/Sept11driving.pdf. Also TSA screening costs lives.

TSA is probably responsible for killing more people by causing them to drive than they could hope to save through screening.

April 29, 2008 11:59 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you want safety health information and/or an example of the images from MMW scanner and backscatter scans:
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/privacy/privacy_pia_tsa_wbi.pdf

April 29, 2008 12:28 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think everything TSA is doing is a positive step in the right directions. These new machines are quick and easy and will help keep everyone safe. Have you people forgotten 911!! Thousands of americans died and you complain about taking your shoes off and not taking your gaint bottle of hair gel through TSA checkpoints. I think we have it very easy compared to other countries, in Russia you walk through the metal detector and even if you clear it you get padded down and every officer has an M5 machine gun with them. Would you rather have that? TSA is working very hard to keep us safe and they have to deal with people complaining as well. Here is a true fact there hasn't been anything bad stuff happening since TSA started. RIGHT?
Good Job TSA

April 29, 2008 1:00 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Since the only people allowed in the secure area of the airports are those with airport ID or those with a boarding pass, making sure that the person with the boarding pass is the person authorized to travel is a step in security that is necessary. If we weren't checking ID's then why not let everyone come through like pre-911?



An excellent point... the simple answer is we should let them through. If they're screened to enter then what's the big deal?

Think these things through, and you'll find that an argument like this one just falls flat on its face when considering the interest of security.

That being said, everyone who goes through gets MWW'd.. no pat downs.

A) it's far less intrusive
B) one does not lose the freedom of movement and lose the balance of power that come from a true strip search.

Big deal, someone sees under your clothes... boohoo... get over it.. I'd much rather be analyzed than poked and prodded any day, and as an added bonus it's the ONLY proposed change to anything that makes ANY improvements in security.

April 29, 2008 1:49 PM

 
Blogger Ayn R. Key said...

Dear Blog Team,

In the near future, when REAL ID is implemented, the TSA has determined that the only valid IDs for flying are IDs that conform to federal REAL ID requirements. Several states have announced that they are either delaying or outright denying the REAL ID requirements for their drivers licenses. What plans does the TSA have to give additional screening to 100% of the travelers from those states? Have additional personnel requirements and additional space requirements already been analyzed? Given that one of those states is California, with several major national and international hubs, do you think that the insistance on REAL ID instead of a regular drivers license is overly onerous a burden?

To those commenters who are going to say "of course you need ID to fly" or something similar, please google "REAL ID" and find out what my question is about.

April 29, 2008 3:22 PM

 
Anonymous winstonsmith said...

To my Anonymous detractor who comments:

winstonsmith:
are you seriously saying that the government should wait until a plot succeeds before doing anything to prevent it from happening again and that just because the Bojinka killed "only one" person that it was not a problem or even slightly successful?
and it is possible to detect a shoe bomb on an xray. bomb materials have very distinct characteristics. being the well-read, informed person that you are, i'm amazed you didn't already know that.
just out of curiosity: are you one of those guys that holds up the rest of us yelling at and hassling TSA?


You are clearly misreading my statement if you think that I do not believe that we ought to be proactive in our approach to combating real threats to our transportation infrastructure. As long as individuals think that they can effect real change through spectacular displays of violence against innocents it is the duty of decent people to do what is possible to prevent that from happening.

What I would point out to you is that the most nefarious terrorist plots are never discovered at the airport. The terrorists responsible for the death of the Japanese man in the Bojinka incident were testing out the mechanics of a larger plot, both to see if their devices would work and probing the vulnerabilities of airport security as it was in 1994 in the Philippines. Airport security detected nothing. It was on the ground investigation that uncovered the actual details of the larger plot. Similarly with London, those hapless fools were caught before they even got started by alert people alerting the proper authorities and are on trial for conspiracy. Airport security had nothing to do with that either.

On 9/11, the hijackers went through airport security. They had valid government issued ID. According to testimony given by Condoleeza Rice to the 9/11 Commission there was an intelligence report issued that suggested approximately a month before 9/11 that there was a suspected terror plot brewing in which airliners would be used as flying bombs but the report was disregarded.

The TSA, for all its hype, has yet to catch anyone trying to commit a bona fide act of terrorism. Defenders of the TSA will try to tell us that the enhancements in airport security have a deterrent effect on would-be terrorists. I find these claims to be without merit given the TSA's track record of missing things at the checkpoints. On the masthead of this blog TSA proudly proclaims "Terrorists Evolve. Threats Evolve. Security Must Stay Ahead. You Play A Part" to which they really ought to add "Because We're Always at least 5 Steps Behind."

So no my Anonymous detractor, I don't want to see terror plots succeed before we do anything about them. On the other hand, I don't want to see my tax dollars spent on ineffective security theater that does little if anything to increase my safety, but definitely infringes upon my civil liberties, your civil liberties, and those of every person to go through a checkpoint, whether or not you are selected for additional screening.

Finally, to answer your last presumptuous and somewhat rude question, no, I don't hold up the line by yelling at TSOs. I fly twice a week in my job and almost never get selected for additional screening. I follow the 3-1-1 rule. I follow the shoe rule. I even take my belt off to go through the scanner. I am polite to the TSOs, so long as they are polite to me, and rarely say anything to them. I don't carry anything I ought not carry and I never have a problem. In fact I even sometimes help little old ladies get their bags up on the inspection tables because they remind me of my grandmother when I have time.

I am a prolific writer here not because I have problems myself getting through the TSA screening process, but because I am a civil libertarian. I view the TSA as a highly ineffective and very visible symbol of a government that has in a knee jerk fear reaction to a terrible and desperate act gone out of control beyond my wildest nightmares with the full support of a public that has been anesthetized by American Idol and dumbed down by Fox News.

April 29, 2008 5:24 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To anonymous who posted: "Big deal, someone sees under your clothes... boohoo... get over it.. I'd much rather be analyzed than poked and prodded any day, and as an added bonus it's the ONLY proposed change to anything that makes ANY improvements in security.

You are obviously not a young woman with a body that attracts men's interest. I am, and I do not want an unknown, unmonitored (Bob has already informed us they will not be filmed) person looking under my closed in a faraway undisclosed location.

April 29, 2008 5:58 PM

 
Blogger Jim Huggins said...

Phil:

From the perspective of the United States government (at least to the degree that it is operating in a manner consistent with our Constitution), everyone is authorized to travel. People in the United States are guaranteed the right to travel.

Here's a question which nags at me.

I agree that the constitution guarantees the right to travel. But no constitutional guarantee is unconditional and absolute.

I have a right to travel. But that doesn't mean that I can walk up to a ticket counter and demand a free ticket on a flight of my choosing. Denying me that ticket is not a denial of my right to travel; it's a recognition of the rights of the air carrier to choose how, when, and with whom it chooses to transact business.

Similarly, I may have a right to travel ... but if I refuse to comply with the rules that govern air travel, I can be refused the opportunity to travel by air. I can still drive, or take the bus, or walk. My right to travel has not been denied. Granted, I've been severely inconvenienced, but that's not the same thing.

I'm not sure that a constitutional "right to travel" equates with a
"right to fly". But I'm open to arguments.

April 29, 2008 8:26 PM

 
Anonymous Abelard said...

Have you people forgotten 911!!

No, I haven't, but apparently you have because:

1) The 9/11 hijackers didn't blow up a plane with liquids in bottles holding more than 3 oz.

2) The 9/11 hijackers didn't blow up a plane with a "shoe bomb."

3) The 9/11 hijackers all had valid, state-issued ID's.

4) The 9/11 hijackers on the planes that crashed on 9/11 were able to take control of the cockpits because those doors were not secure. The 3-1-1 Rule, shoe bombs and IDs - real or fraudulent - would have had no bearing on that.

If you wish to surrender your civil and Constitutional rights in order to feel like you are somehow safer, then by all means, please do so.

The rest of us, however, will continue to question the TSA as we see fit.

April 29, 2008 8:55 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"To those commenters who are going to say "of course you need ID to fly" or something similar, please google "REAL ID" and find out what my question is about."
the states weigh in:
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-993...?tag=nefd.lede

April 29, 2008 11:14 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What's in your bottle?

http://www.abc15.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=08fe8a99-aadd-4eec-8107-cea969b4a67b

April 30, 2008 1:16 AM

 
Anonymous Greg from homebizseo said...

I do not mind the hassle If we can stop another 9/11 from taking place. Scores of people were killed and everyone seem to forget why we have guidelines in place at airports I am in the "Make Money Online" business and I just want to be safe when traveling. Security should be at high levels and not compromised.


Regards, Greg

April 30, 2008 1:56 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If someone misses their plane because of TSA slowness on the special "bad guys line" (on an ordinary day, not under any special alert, and yes, it happens) who pays for the replacement flight?

The airlines can say "It's not our fault," the TSA can say "Just doing our job," and you're stuck buying a $2000 same-day replacement ticket (which, by the way, puts you back on the bad-guys line if you need to do another security check).

April 30, 2008 6:44 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear blog team,

This is just one more reminder that we are still waiting for the front and rear images of men and women as seen during the screening process using backscatter and millimeter wave scans.

If you are not going to show us these images (as seems to be the case considering how many of these requests have gone unanswered), please let us know why you will not post them.

April 30, 2008 7:28 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have safety concerns about the TSA work force.

Is it true that there is a high rate of TSOs with cancer working at TSA.

If so what is TSA doing to address this issue?

April 30, 2008 10:40 AM

 
Anonymous winstonsmith said...

To my Anonymous detractor who said:

winstonsmith:
are you seriously saying that the government should wait until a plot succeeds before doing anything to prevent it from happening again and that just because the Bojinka killed "only one" person that it was not a problem or even slightly successful?
and it is possible to detect a shoe bomb on an xray. bomb materials have very distinct characteristics. being the well-read, informed person that you are, i'm amazed you didn't already know that.
just out of curiosity: are you one of those guys that holds up the rest of us yelling at and hassling TSA?


I put together a fairly extensive answer to your question yesterday that for some reason has not been posted here (it's happened before, once in a while the TSA moderators really don't like what I have to say and don't post my comments (even though they don't violate the comments policy -- censorship much?) I'll not repeat everything I said yesterday (mostly for lack of time).

Suffice it to say that I'm all for intelligent application of investigation and police work (to defeat terror plots. I am not convinced that the TSA checkpoints qualify in this regard, being little better than an only sometimes effective "hail mary" play to try to keep some bad things off of planes.

What I asked for in my original post was an independent verification from trustworthy sources that there is merit to the 3-1-1 rule. I also asked for independent verification from trustworthy sources that there is merit to this whole x-ray the shoes rule. To me independent verification would come from a non-government (US or any other) affiliated testing agency not working under government (US or any other) contract with full access to all information that the government has about what they have found (even if the lab were required to keep the actual government information secret). If the results from these independent lab tests come back stating that there is merit to 3-1-1 and/or shoe x-raying then you have an instant convert in me. Unless or until that happens though, you have the TSA, an agency whose credibility is dubious at best, and which operates behind a cloak of secrecy (SSI anyone?) assuming that we will take it at its word when it says "trust us." It does not work that way for me.

The people who bring up Bojinka and London forget (conveniently?) that those plots were defeated not by airport security (not in 1994, not in 2006) but by the investigatory agencies of the countries in which the plots were hatched. Solid intelligence work is what defeats terrorists, not airport security theater. What I have asked for is for the TSA effectively to come across with the extraordinary proof for its extraordinary claims that the abrogations of our constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties in the name of "security" are actually making us any safer. I haven't seen it.

Finally, to your somewhat presumptuous thinking that I am one of those people who cause problems in airport checkpoint lines by yelling at TSOs, I'm sorry to disappoint you. I fly twice a week for work. I don't even get stopped. I follow the rules -- even the ones I don't agree with (3-1-1, shoes), I take my belt off and put it in the bin, and I even help out people in line who are near me if they are clearly mobility impaired to lift their bags onto the tables. I'm not rude to the TSOs (unless they're rude to me -- generally our communication is silent and limited to a wave and a point to the retrieve your bags area) and fly right through. I can't remember the last time I got stopped for secondary screening -- I think it happened once a few years ago. I follow the rules because they are the rules, not because I agree with them. I am working within the system to do what I can to change them. That's the way the system is supposed to work. Speaking out here is just part of the process.

If you don't like or agree with what I have to say, I invite you to debate me on any point. I'll be happy to back up anything I say with research (that does not come from wikipedia) but I'll expect nothing less from you. I am resolute in my positions but I'm not so inflexible that I cannot be swayed by evidence from credible sources.

Or you can simply ignore me and move on. That is freedom.

April 30, 2008 10:47 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the person who commented on the "tin badges" being given out to TSA Officers...

Just for the record, the badges are not some cheaply-made products...they're made by a little company called Blackinton. Maybe you've heard of them? They only specialize in making the majority of law enforcement, EMS, Fire and other civil service badges. The badges are made of the same metal material as any other federal badge, and their design is a cross between one or two badges in use by other federal agencies.

My point is that TSA is doing a decent job in working to boost the morale of their officers. The point of the badges, along with the new uniforms, is to improve the overall look of TSA Officers.The badge is not worn by the TSO until they are dressed in the new uniform, and TSA is not "handing them out". TSA has put a good deal of funding into, and training material in conjunction with the new uniforms, and they look sharp. The blue shirts, black vests, dark blue striped pants and Blackinton federal badges with Hi-Glo finish are a great combination.

If everyone wants the TSA to be more passenger-friendly and professional, this IS the first step. A professional look will make the TSOs both look and act more professional. At the same time, it will improve the image of TSOs in the eyes of the public. I know some of you will laugh at that, but its true: a more professional image will look good in the eyes of the average passenger. Regardless of what anyone will say on here, I can tell you first-hand that the uniform change has had positive results. If military servicemen are impressed, then I'm pretty confident that its a step in the right direction in regards to looks.

April 30, 2008 11:48 AM

 
Anonymous winstonsmith said...

Hmmm.. I said earlier...

I put together a fairly extensive answer to your question yes