Glenn Jacobs wrote the following message to Delta regarding his travel plans, and got the standard response (scroll down to see their response):
I am writing to express my concern over the TSA's body
scanners and new pat down protocols. Since the creation of the TSA, I
have avoided flying whenever possible. Unfortunately, due to the nature
of my business, this is not often possible. However, the TSA has now
gone beyond the pale. While I must still fly for business, I will not
allow my family to be subjected to this sort of treatment, so flying for
pleasure is out. In addition, I am actively encouraging everyone I know
to avoid flying as much as possible. Delta runs a great business, and I
have always felt like a valued customer when on flying on it. However,
there are many frequent travelers who feel the same way that I do. The
TSA has not only failed to make us safer, it has become the bane of our
traveling experience.
Delta's response:
Dear Mr. Jacobs,
Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding the new security
requirements implemented by the TSA. On behalf of everyone at Delta Air
Lines, I sincerely apologize for your disappointment in these changes.
Please know, these procedures are conducted by the Transportation
Security Administration (TSA) and are required by federal law. Be
assured we will continue to work with the TSA to minimize the
inconvenience to our passengers while at the same time maintaining
passenger security.
You may access the TSA web site, www.tsa.gov/public/, to obtain
additional information regarding security checks, TSA employee issues,
or with questions regarding missing or damaged items at a security check
point. For passengers without internet access, you may call or write
the TSA as follows.
Telephone: 1-866-289-9673
Write to: Transportation Security Administration
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 22202-4220
Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to address your security
concerns. As a valued Gold Medallion member your continued loyalty is
appreciated and we thank you for trusting your business to us. Be
assured, we will make every attempt to serve you well; we are focused on
the future and look forward to our continued business relationship.
Sincerely,
Lisa Frank
Coordinator, Customer Care
Delta Air Lines/KLM Royal Dutch Airlines
Lisa Frank is either ignorant or walking a fine line about the truth. There is no "Federal Law" that requires airports to contract with TSA. In fact it has just come out that the law was specifically written to allow the airports to opt out of direct TSA participation.
ReplyDeleteThe problem that still exists however, is that a privately contracted security firm would still be expected to follow the letter of TSA regs. Ron Paul is attempting to eliminate that obstacle with HR 6416, the "American Traveler Dignity Act".
This is better than nothing, but a much simpler and expeditious solution (and more effective too) would be to simply abolish the TSA with all the trimmings. Done; Gone; Kaput; Eliminated. 80 Billion back into the economy, and private security firms creating jobs like Bernanke prints money....and with a very real incentive to hire reliable and moral individuals who would provide a superior service that didn't offend and drive away customers. After all, the airlines are the only one in the equation with a vested interest in both protecting their investment, as well as their bread and butter...their passengers. A bureaucrat's only interest is in (A)-Money(votes), and (B)-Control.
Again, abolish the TSA entirely, and let the individual carriers provide their own security at what ever level they deem proper.
This would not only result in better security, but a much more pleasant experience for those who chose to fly.
The airlines will not listen till we hit them in the pocketbook. We cannot fly if we expect any change to come about.
ReplyDeleteThe existence of the TSA is not only immoral and expensive, not only non-responsive to customer desires regarding the balance between safety and convenience, it is unconstitutional. The federal gubment got involved in regulating the air routes in 1924, by making certain "lighted air routes" for the USPS and (unconstitutionally) restricting all commercial flights along those routes. Then FDR began handing cash out (unconstitutionally) for municipal airports (something other politicians imitated)... The graft and sloth has grown apace.
ReplyDeletePrivate air carriers and private airports should be able to contract with PRIVATE security firms and to allow for weapons on their flights if they want them -- and if the consumers want them. Insurance liabilities would spur the private carriers to be secure, while, at the same time, providing for customer satisfaction. No such paradigm exists in the one-size-fits-all gubment world or theft through taxation, and bureaucratic management.
Thank you. I'll step off my soap box now! Good work, Glenn!
You would expect Delta to make the business decision to lobby it's airports (which are not under Delta control - but yes they have considerable clout) to stop using TSA? You would expect private security to immediatly ramp up to a level of security that would protect our flights? You would expect private security to come up with something that is a. effective, b. generally less intrusive/radioactive AND c. cheap enough to make the masses happy??
ReplyDeleteI am not one to recite 'remember 9/11'.. but this isn't a 'hypothetical' threat. Terrorists DID hijack planes and kill Americans. Would these procedures have stopped them? No.. since at the time box cutters were considered ok. But do these procedures make it alot harder to hijack or bomb a plane.. probably.
I fly 125k miles/year. I am happy to submit to these procedures if it lowers the odds of terrorism. It sucks, but don't blame Delta/TSA. Blame the terrorists. Blame religion (the root cause of all of this).
As much harm as religion does, it's not the root cause people having their privacy undermined and their person violated. It's the years and years of total disrespect of people's customs and property by a a group of people ruled by power grabbery.
ReplyDeleteI would rather be groped than blown up at 30,000 feet or flown into a building. Blame the root..terrorist..it's the times we live in. In this day and age you are going to have to deal with this kind of stuff because of the types of people in the world today. Quit whining or don't fly. Hey Gard are you required to pull your head out of Glenns' ass for the pat down when he flys or are you allowed to ride his coattails like usual?
ReplyDelete@Anon - how do you feel about your mother getting groped?
ReplyDeleteBetter than her dying from someone blowing her up at 30,000 feet! Wouldn't you say?
ReplyDeleteI've seen the same scans on the internet that you all have. From the neck down you can tell if its a man or woman but from the neck up there is no way to personally identify the traveler. That being the case I'm with the group that thinks the scanners are a good idea.
ReplyDelete@Anons
ReplyDeleteRe: Groping mom - The chances of being blown up are extremely small, so I just don't see getting groped on a regular basis to be a good trade-off. If you think the chances of being blown up were that great, wouldn't it just be best if you and your mom avoided flying rather than inflicting your perversion on the rest of us?
Re: face being blurred - I don't follow this logic. I don't walk around naked with a bag on my head. On the contrary, I prefer to show my face while wearing clothes on my body. Why do I give up the right to wear clothes (regardless of whether my face is showing) just because I buy a plane ticket?
You're not giving up the right to wear clothes. You're being required to comply with the same security procedures that all the other passengers are. You have a choice of which method you prefer. If you prefer neither than you have a right to take a bus to your destination instead.
ReplyDeleteFirst you're the one who brought my mom into it (real classy)..second why don't you go tell the families of the 9/11 victims that chances ar slim. Third, I shouldn't have to fear a hijacking because you have some weird hang up on being touched. If you want to take your chances that someone on that plane isn't a threat to the flight that's fine but don't make me take that chance. More people in this country feel as I do..so why don't YOU catch the next Greyhound.
ReplyDelete@Anon - I was not trying to be smart with asking about your mom. Not knowing your sex, if you're married, or if you had kids, I was trying to choose someone that you would definitely relate to. I did not mean to offend your mom, just (trying) to point out that there are other people out there who may be offended by these measures, and, in fact, you might love one of them. In addition to not wanting a stranger to grope me, I also am terrified of a stranger groping my daughter. Thought maybe you'd have some compassion if we talked about someone you love being violated. I hardly think this is a weird hang-up. That's just absurd on its face.
ReplyDeleteLook, there's no way we can protect ourselves from every danger in life. There's no way we can know with certainty that there will never be another airplane hijacking even with these privacy violations. So your argument is just unconvincing.
The point is that I *can't* take a chance as you suggested. If only I could fly on "We Respect Your Privacy Air" and you could fly on "We Value Security Over Privacy Air" - I'd be totally okay with that. But, as long as the feds are in charge of security, that will never happen. Can we agree, then, that abolishing the TSA is in both of our best interests so that we can have freedom of choice regarding privacy versus security?
"wouldn't it just be best if you and your mom avoided flying rather than inflicting your perversion on the rest of us?" That's not trying to be offensive or disrespectful? Who are you kidding?
ReplyDeleteNo, we can't always protect ourselves from every danger but the ones we can- we need to. It's the times we live in and it is only going to get worse. Would you like to know if a child molester moves in next door? Well I would like to know if the person that is to be seated on the same plane as me is locked and loaded.That's my right. You seem to only have compassion for yourself. I bet alot of people didn't think a teenager was going to try and kill a bunch of people at a Christmas tree lighting over the weekend, but he was. Good thing someone was looking out for that. You never know..but lets take that chance so YOU don't feel violated. It's not just about you.. the majority of the country is not as offended by this as you seem to be. This is the way things are and are going to be because the world we live in is not all shits and giggles so you need to get over it or ride the bus.
Taking the bus will shortly no longer be an option. Those of you that are very happy to give the government open access to your naked body have caused Pistole's head to grow to the point that he now wants to implement the TSA for buses and trains as well. If you don't fight these people at the start, they will run all over you. Also, if you go to auto.aol.com, there is an article about trucks the government have purchased that have the same radiation heavy technology that the machines in the airports use for the purposes of scanning your car.
ReplyDeleteSo, if you want to fly, gotta be scanned or groped.
Want to take a bus? Gotta be scanned or gropped.
Want to take a train? Gotta be scanned or gropped.
Want to drive? You gotta be scanned or have your car searched.
Ben Franklin once said that those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve nether. It's people like you that are forcing all of us to live in a police state. Maybe, when you are forced to submit to a nakedizer scan and urologist, proctologist and/or gynecologist just to come out of your house, maybe you will realize just how stupid you sound.
What a wonderful utopia to live in to think if we all just get along and respect each others rights everything will be ok..aaaawww
ReplyDeleteBen Franklin isn't here anymore nor are the times he lived in. It's not 1776 anymore or will it ever be..it's new age hippies like you who are self centered and only worried about yourselves -that you're willing to put thousands of lives at risk ..how STUPID is that? You sound like some bratty kid throwing a fit. "Maybe, when you are forced to submit to a nakedizer scan and urologist, proctologist and/or gynecologist just to come out of your house" ..oookkkkaayyy..you're an idiot. Ignorance like yours gets people killed.
ReplyDeleteGlen's letter is excellent. To me, the regular encounter with real government terrorists at airports is far more alarming than any of the theoretical amateurs that are supposed to keep us in perpetual fear. One lesson from 9/11 that seems to have been the most quickly forgotten is that of Flight 93. Fortunately, those passengers were tipped off about the failures of the US government to protect two of America's largest office buildings and the headquarters of it's own so-called Department of Defense! Government provides only excuses and promises to get it right the next time -- provided, of course, that it receives increased funding! Having one's fleet of aircraft blown up is bad for business, but so is feeling up one's customers or exposing them to potentially harmful xrays. That practically guarantees the persuit of a better solution for airlines, their customers, stockholders and insurers. Just like with education, package delivery, consumer electronics, or anything else worthwhile, only private initiative will provide optimum results. Given market competition, consumers are empowered to choose their own airlines based on risk and other concerns. We should remember that, since the TSA is a one-size-fits-all monopoly, those who might desire airlines that offer more invasive full-on cavity probes or high-def 3D nude imagery, are being deprived of their choices as well!
ReplyDeleteWe got people for this and against it. It's obvious what the people for it want done. So those that are against it ..what do you suggest be done to insure security and safety at our airports? Or should people just fly at their own risk?
ReplyDelete@Anon - You and Jeff were probably composing your comments at the same time, but his solution of airlines providing their own security is one that I've advanced myself in posts on this site.
ReplyDeleteHere's my 2 cents..I think the TSA is appauling. I watched them make a woman break into tears over the Thanksgiving weekend because they basically called her out in front of everyone because of her fake boob (not Pam Anderson fake but the kind you put in your bra when you've had a breast removed)I was embarrased for her and wanted to say something but my better half told me to please keep my mouth shut for we would surely be contained if I started running my mouth.
ReplyDeleteBut what I want to say is that the people who are for this..if you want to educate them and sway them to the other side you can't do it by putting them on the defensive. (by making them feel stupid about how they feel or attacking them about how they see this issue)you might as well beat your head against the wall. They will not become open minded to anything when they feel attacked or ridiculed. Just sayin..
@Anon - Your argument is based on the assumption that these new security procedures actually ARE making us safer. A quick google search and I can find multiple ways to get explosive materials through the scan machine and the new pat downs. The theater of security is stupid, ineffective, inefficient and lulls the majority of people into a false sense of security. If you really want enhanced security, get more bomb sniffing dogs. They're tough to beat, are likely cheaper, and you have the added bonus of not terrorizing and destroying the dignity of a (once) proud country.
ReplyDeleteQuite true, K and KM. Further, that old saying about military generals "fighting the last war" applies to the TSA and its endless efforts to fight previous terror attacks. Much of the shock we all experienced on 9/11 had to do with a method of attack that few had anticipated. Since then, travelers have themselves been on high alert, so why would a terrorist want to face that kind of resistance when there are doubtless thousands of other targets that are virtually unattended?
ReplyDeleteOf course, if the US Gov really wanted to protect us against terrorists, they would stop destroying the lives and property of innocents in foreign countries. For every death, there are scores of friends and family members who don't exactly feel good will towards their killers, especially when they are foreign occupiers. Would you?
We are being groomed for WAR when hitlery clinton is elected. War with Iran, unjustified for isreal.
ReplyDelete