Considering driving instead of flying because of TSA

[Sadiebird]

I have a trip to WDW planned for May 2011. I've already purchased my flights, but I'm seriously considering requesting a refund based on all the stories I've been reading about the invasive security procedures being used by the TSA. I don't have a problem going through a metal detector or having my bag searched. I don't even have a problem with a standard pat down. But I do have a problem with being strip searched by a machine. And if I choose to opt out of that, I also have a problem with a pat down that involves touching my private areas. I don't want to subject myself or my 5 year old son to these things so that we can get on a plane and fly to Disney World. I'd rather drive 17 hours in a car. My husband has convinced me to wait until closer to our trip to get a refund on the plane tickets, just in case the TSA decides to back down on their procedures. I'm just wondering if anyone else is feeling this way. I can't believe this is the direction our country is heading.

 

[Mouse Man]

Sorry but now we went from complaining with TSA checks which I feel the new scan or pat down just pushed me away all together from flying to going to the extreme and living in fear that mumbai happens,. Sounds like you already let the terrorist win. Your living in fear now and giving up all your rights that our for fathers faught and died for from King George. Security is one thing, but taking it to the extreme is another. If you like flying then fly. I like to drive and have done the Journey with and with out kids and had a wonderful vacation. Far as our car they are newer and always maintained. The years we felt any concerns driving them to FLA from South Jersey we rented a car for two weeks. Cost was reasonble and affordable. Plus we have triple AAA on all our cars and always feel covered and secure in the case of any unforseen road side breakdowns occur. We always have the car well checked before our road trips and never had any mechanical issues on the road.

 

[Mukta]

I heard about this on the news today and immediately thought of all of you and this thread.
http://wdbo.com/localnews/2010/11/sanford-airport-to-opt-out-of.html

WDBO Local News
Sanford Airport to opt out of TSA screening

By
Marva Hinton
@ November 19, 2010 10:25 AM
Reporter: Ken Tyndall

The backlash continues over those new TSA screening measures, and now one Central Florida airport has decided to go with a private security screening firm.

Orlando Sanford International Airport has decided to opt out from TSA screening.
"All of our due diligence shows it's the way to go," said Larry Dale, the director of the Sanford Airport Authority. "You're going to get better service at a better price and more accountability and better customer service."
Dale says he will be sending a letter requesting to opt out from TSA screening, and instead the airport will choose one of the five approved private screening companies to take over.
Congressman John Mica, who's expected to lead the powerful Transportation Committee next year, says the TSA is crying out for reform.
"I think TSA is overstepping its bounds," said Mica.
Dale says, if all goes as planned, the private security firm could take over in about 12 months.
The TSA points out that even if an airport decides to use a private firm for security, the screeners still must follow TSA guidelines. That would include using enhanced pat-downs and the full-body scanners if they are installed at the airport.

 

[Goofycanuck]

I can get 5 qts of fully sythetic oil and a filter for 21.99. Where is that 100 dollar mark coming from? The local Valvolines here only charge 28.99 for a standard oil change. Not to be picky here but that's a little crazy on your end.

Not crazy at all here in Southern Ontario. Luckily I'm supplied with a company vehicle on a regular maintenance schedule. Every 10 000km, 5 litres of synthetic oil, filter and an air filter run me a minimum of $100.

 

[RonAnnArbor]

For all those that don't consider the TSA Security Screenings a big deal, would you object to empowering Police Officers with the right to search your car, your purse, your trunk each time they setup a DUI roadblock or a Driver's License check?

Where do YOU live??? They already do that. The Detroit/Windsor crossing stops every 1000th car or so for a complete check, patdown of drivers, and full check of the entire interior of the car.

I don't know where YOU live, but in both Ohio and MI where I frequently drive a car, DUI checkpoints have you open all your doors and your trunk, and they actually shine a flashlight over the entire interior and trunk of your car.

When you walk into Joe Louis Arena for a redwings game, you are going through TWO metal detectors on your way in, and a patdown if you set off either of the metal detectors.

Please.


Your ignorant if you think safety measures aren't implemented in other areas.

 

[ABigBrassBand]

Pretty much what has been said before, if you really want to go through the hassle of driving, then go ahead, but the airport tends to be quicker, no matter what the hassle. I don't care about them screening me nude, but I don't think it's necessary either.

 

[MaryJaneP]

I heard about this on the news today and immediately thought of all of you and this thread.
http://wdbo.com/localnews/2010/11/sanford-airport-to-opt-out-of.html

So Sanford can opt out of having TSA perform the procedure but the security firm they hire, to be in place in 12 months, still has to compy with TSA screeening procedures. Sounds MUCH better (sarcasm)!

 

[Wilt Dasney]

So Sanford can opt out of having TSA perform the procedure but the security firm they hire, to be in place in 12 months, still has to compy with TSA screeening procedures. Sounds MUCH better (sarcasm)!

If the firm is there on a for-hire basis (and competes with 4 others for the job), there might at least be more of a focus on customer service than with the TSA.

Granted, this won't comfort people whose problem is with the procedures themselves, but there have been a lot of complaints in this thread about TSA agents just not being very friendly or sensitive.

 

[Main Street USA]

I went through one of the new scanners in London. I got to see the imagery from it, and very impressive it was. If we could get everyone through one of these they could give almost 100% guarantee of nothing getting on a plane on a person's body. Would certainly make for safer skies.

Agreed, and If you've really seen what they're looking at with that scan, I can't believe anyone would feel like you're being seen "naked." Even if it's more than you want a person to see, that person will never see YOU. They see the outline from a separate room. They CAN'T see you in person at all. Period.

 

[Maerj]

I've seen what the scanners show and its too much.

In a recent news article, it said:

The TSA, however, could calm the controversy through technology. It is testing a new body scanner that produces stick-figure images instead of pictures of the traveler's naked body.

Here is the full article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101120/ap_on_bi_ge/us_airport_security_pilots

 

[Phonedave]

I can get 5 qts of fully sythetic oil and a filter for 21.99. Where is that 100 dollar mark coming from? The local Valvolines here only charge 28.99 for a standard oil change. Not to be picky here but that's a little crazy on your end.

yes, leasing and long distance is a nightmare.

Oil change and a mechanic to give your car a once over

$60 an hour and 90 minutes book rate to do a diagnostic + a $20 oil change

Thats where I get $100 from

And a once over is not the "free 11 point inspection garbage that come with your oil change" It is a real inspection.



Really, did you miss it somehow in this? You even quoted it.



Thats the point.

You just said, "I'd suggest, were you to take any sort of long car trip, to get an oil change first and have mechanics give it the once over."

So right there, you need to add +/- $100 on top of the cost of gas. Unless you know a mechanic that will do an oil change and a once over for free. And really, you should do an oil change when you get back too.

And it does not matter if you car has 100 or 10,000 miles on it. Adding on 2,000 miles is adding on 2,000 mile.

And, if anyone is LEASING a vehicle, well you can forget driving to WDW long distance unless you want to pay overmilage fees.


-dave

 

[Phonedave]

For all those that don't consider the TSA Security Screenings a big deal, would you object to empowering Police Officers with the right to search your car, your purse, your trunk each time they setup a DUI roadblock or a Driver's License check? There was a car bomb scare in NYC recently (the dummy that didn't do it right), Oklahoma City, maybe some others that I am not aware of. It is all about security right? Why go through these measures only in the airports? We know terrorists are trying to hit us with car bombs too.

If you are OK with that, what about raiding the neighborhood homes to ensure no one is going to blow you up with a meth lab they have cooking in the kitchecn.

It is all about security right?

What happens when Mumbai happens here? Have weapons checks at all the hotels, mall outlets, etc? It is all about security right?

Since we are going to go off on some wild tangents here, I will give my opinion of what will fix this entire mess.


Are you ready ?



profiling



really

A trained observer can profile a passenger using all the available information - how they paid, where they routed from, where their passport is from, what luggage do they have, etc. and then act accordingly.

But we have this crazy thing about profiling. It cant be that if you look suspicious, they pay more attention to you. Nope, it has to be every 500th person gets tagged because thats "fair".

-dave

 

[loveofamouse]

Im black and I say profile. lol. We all do it. If you're sitting in a parking lot, waiting for your wife or something, and some guy (no matter race) is aimlessly walking around the parking lot with no bags or keys, you'll watch him closer. If he starts heading towards your car coming from the rear, you'll lock your doors and maybe even ready your cell or something that can be used to hit him with. We all do it. There are professionals that are good at it. They can tell by a person's walk if they are carrying extra weight and on what side, they can tell who's overly nervous, they can pick probable people out of crowds.

 

[unkadug]

Since we are going to go off on some wild tangents here, I will give my opinion of what will fix this entire mess.


Are you ready ?



profiling



really

A trained observer can profile a passenger using all the available information - how they paid, where they routed from, where their passport is from, what luggage do they have, etc. and then act accordingly.

But we have this crazy thing about profiling. It cant be that if you look suspicious, they pay more attention to you. Nope, it has to be every 500th person gets tagged because thats "fair".

-dave

Yeah... there was a time when profiling meant that you knew your job, and knew who to target. Now that we are in the ultra politically correct era, even the criminals have the government protecting them against ANYONE trying to pick them out of a crowd as a potential terrorist.

It's bad enough that they think that John Doe from Bumphuc, Arkansas (wife , 2.5 kids, 1.5 cars in the shed, held the same job for 13.62 years, ect...) has a bomb packed up his , but they let terrorists that actually have packed a Coping Machine full of explosives onto an international flight.
What is more important? A little bit of ethnic profiling... or getting your blown up over the Atlantic?

 

[unkadug]

Im black and I say profile. lol. We all do it. If you're sitting in a parking lot, waiting for your wife or something, and some guy (no matter race) is aimlessly walking around the parking lot with no bags or keys, you'll watch him closer. If he starts heading towards your car coming from the rear, you'll lock your doors and maybe even ready your cell or something that can be used to hit him with. We all do it. There are professionals that are good at it. They can tell by a person's walk if they are carrying extra weight and on what side, they can tell who's overly nervous, they can pick probable people out of crowds.

But that is profiling and, as such, is illegal.

Thank the Democrats...If they pull out one rag head from the line then they must pull out 10 law abiding citizens just so that they don't look like they are profiling.

Why must we continue to protect those that wish us harm?

 

[Monty]

I always lover the arguments against profiling passengers. "It's discrimination!"... Well d'uh! When you discriminate you identify differences between two or more things or people, that's what discrimination really means. :shrug:

If you single out every person of colour to the exclusion of all Caucasians, that's legitimately not acceptable, but if you highlight persons of Arabic decent for further scrutiny that's common sense. It doesn't mean you're only screening them, it means you're paying more attention to them. An Arabic businessman in an Armani suit is less likely to be a terrorist than a young Arabic male that's nervous and sweating more than is warranted by conditions. Similarly, a white male that's nervous and sweating might legitimately be further scrutinised.

Some of those "freedoms" you cling to so fervently are going to get you all killed....

 

[unkadug]

I always lover the arguments against profiling passengers. "It's discrimination!"... Well d'uh! When you discriminate you identify differences between two or more things or people, that's what discrimination really means. :shrug:

If you single out every person of colour to the exclusion of all Caucasians, that's legitimately not acceptable, but if you highlight persons of Arabic decent for further scrutiny that's common sense. It doesn't mean you're only screening them, it means you're paying more attention to them. An Arabic businessman in an Armani suit is less likely to be a terrorist than a young Arabic male that's nervous and sweating more than is warranted by conditions. Similarly, a white male that's nervous and sweating might legitimately be further scrutinised.

Some of those "freedoms" you cling to so fervently are going to get you all killed....

But the Democrats won't allow discrimination/profiling, as it is politically unacceptable. The ASPCA, NCAA, NAACP, PETA, MSNBC, ad naseum would be cutting their contributions to their next campaign fund. It's much more important to protect those that might do us harm than to upset the political agenda of foreign terrorist regimens.

 

[rodserling27]

But the Democrats won't allow discrimination/profiling, as it is politically unacceptable. The ASPCA, NCAA, NAACP, PETA, MSNBC, ad naseum would be cutting their contributions to their next campaign fund. It's much more important to protect those that might do us harm than to upset the political agenda of foreign terrorist regimens.

Ding ding ding!!! We have a winner!
You hit the nail on the head.

 

[loveofamouse]

But the Democrats won't allow discrimination/profiling, as it is politically unacceptable. The ASPCA, NCAA, NAACP, PETA, MSNBC, ad naseum would be cutting their contributions to their next campaign fund. It's much more important to protect those that might do us harm than to upset the political agenda of foreign terrorist regimens.

Excuse me. Please don't generalize that all democrats are against it. I am a democrat and I'm for at, as are many democratic friends of mine. Ive heard Republicans yell against profiling as well.

And those groups do have some grounds to be against it. Unfortunately, although it would be a great security measure, many don't profile fairly. Instead of looking for an arabic or caucasian walking with a heavy bag, sweating, and looking around nervously, they'll pull out the guy that has dark skin (but is Indian, not arabic) with his family showing absolutely no signs of being up to anything. So the reason it had to be stopped was simply because so many people were doing it wrong, it caused problems and political backlash. While I agree that profiling would be best, it does need to be done right. I have personally been the victim of "profiling" and assumptions just because I am black. This becomes a huge joke between DH and I as he's white lol So we see both sides of it.

 

[rsoxguy]

I'm no expert on these matters, but I would stop this guy as he was boarding a plane and ask him if he had declared his weapons at customs. Call me prejudiced if you will, but profiling terrorists seems to work at Israeli airports.

 

[unkadug]

Excuse me. Please don't generalize that all democrats are against it. I am a democrat and I'm for at, as are many democratic friends of mine. Ive heard Republicans yell against profiling as well.

And those groups do have some grounds to be against it. Unfortunately, although it would be a great security measure, many don't profile fairly. Instead of looking for an arabic or caucasian walking with a heavy bag, sweating, and looking around nervously, they'll pull out the guy that has dark skin (but is Indian, not arabic) with his family showing absolutely no signs of being up to anything. So the reason it had to be stopped was simply because so many people were doing it wrong, it caused problems and political backlash. While I agree that profiling would be best, it does need to be done right. I have personally been the victim of "profiling" and assumptions just because I am black. This becomes a huge joke between DH and I as he's white lol So we see both sides of it.

I apologize for the gross generalization, perhaps I should have just said "politicians."