3-1-1 rule...contact lens solution and prescription creams?

[ShedQueen77]

Yep, just read a few days ago that one of our local legislators is proposing CHS use a private firm rather than TSA. I didn't realize until I read the article that it was an option.

 

I did not know this either. Sounds like a good move. I think it's really sad. Most of us are trying to comply with what TSA is asking of us, but we never know what exactly that is. :mad:

[njhorseman]

So, let's see. Your local airport switches from TSA to a private contractor. That contractor, who after all is in business to make as much money as possible turns around and pays screeners even less than the TSA does.

 

Do you think that's going to result in better work done by better trained more motivated employees? Hmmm...a really tough question. :rolleyes:

 

Here in NJ, over the last 35 years the local DMV offices have flip-flopped between being run directly by the state and being run by private contractors, and back again to the state. Do you think anyone noticed that one was better than the other? It was the same people doing the same work...about the only difference was who issued the employees' paychecks.

[Sargent_Schultz]

So, let's see. Your local airport switches from TSA to a private contractor. That contractor, who after all is in business to make as much money as possible turns around and pays screeners even less than the TSA does.

 

Do you think that's going to result in better work done by better trained more motivated employees? Hmmm...a really tough question. :rolleyes:

 

Here in NJ, over the last 35 years the local DMV offices have flip-flopped between being run directly by the state and being run by private contractors, and back again to the state. Do you think anyone noticed that one was better than the other? It was the same people doing the same work...about the only difference was who issued the employees' paychecks.

 

At least for the private contractor, I don't have to pay for the Fed outrageous benefits.

 

The screening itself is a farce - a day late and a few thousand lives short.

[scottbee]

At least for the private contractor, I don't have to pay for the Fed outrageous benefits.

 

The screening itself is a farce - a day late and a few thousand lives short.

 

Let's not forget that the feds weren't doing it when 19 Hijackers did get on board, and since the feds started security I can't remember a Hijacker boarding an airliner in the USA

 

And, it's not just small airports like CHS, add SFO and MCI to the list along with some other biggies that are going after a cheaper solution.

http://www.aero-news.net/news/commair.cfm?ContentBlockID=cb9752b1-a42f-4cef-ad02-05d8fc5f5e13&Dynamic=1

[Sargent_Schultz]

Let's not forget that the feds weren't doing it when 19 Hijackers did get on board, and since the feds started security I can't remember a Hijacker boarding an airliner in the USA

 

And, it's not just small airports like CHS, add SFO and MCI to the list along with some other biggies that are going after a cheaper solution.

http://www.aero-news.net/news/commair.cfm?ContentBlockID=cb9752b1-a42f-4cef-ad02-05d8fc5f5e13&Dynamic=1

 

Plane hijackings used to mean you'd get to smoke a Cuban and then fly back to the US. Those rules have changed forever. Hijackers today would be lucky to escape with their lives whoever is in charge of airport security.

 

The asinine guidelines will still have to be followed, but at least there might be some consistency and accountability.

[waterbug123]

At least for the private contractor, I don't have to pay for the Fed outrageous benefits.

 

The screening itself is a farce - a day late and a few thousand lives short.

 

Agreed. Whether CHS goes to private security or remains with TSA, I don't expect the actual "security" to be any better or any worse than the current security theater. But theoretically, a private contractor who wants to maintain the contract with the local airport authority, will be more motivated that the federal government to provide a decent experience from a customer service standpoint.

[scottbee]

Agreed. Whether CHS goes to private security or remains with TSA, I don't expect the actual "security" to be any better or any worse than the current security theater. But theoretically, a private contractor who wants to maintain the contract with the local airport authority, will be more motivated that the federal government to provide a decent experience from a customer service standpoint.

 

I doubt a private contractor will be more motivated to do anything except increase their bottom line. Which generally means less motivated, lower paid, less educated employees.

[Sargent_Schultz]

I doubt a private contractor will be more motivated to do anything except increase their bottom line. Which generally means less motivated, lower paid, less educated employees.

 

Given that there are millions of unemployed in the US, I think there is a better than average chance of having a pool of college educated individuals motivated to keep any job they can obtain, unlike lazy Federal employees living large on Federal benefits.

[waterbug123]

I doubt a private contractor will be more motivated to do anything except increase their bottom line. Which generally means less motivated, lower paid, less educated employees.

 

Their bottom line won't mean anything if they lose the contract as a result of passenger complaints.

[njf1003]

The last time I flew through MDT (which btw has the nicest TSA staff anywhere!) the person in front of me had a normal nice contact lens solution bottle and they let it through after using one of the test strips.

[Sargent_Schultz]

Their bottom line won't mean anything if they lose the contract as a result of passenger complaints.

 

Capitalism vs extreme Socialism

[scottbee]

Given that there are millions of unemployed in the US, I think there is a better than average chance of having a pool of college educated individuals motivated to keep any job they can obtain, unlike lazy Federal employees living large on Federal benefits.

 

First; I really doubt any company would have a sufficiently short contract that this was an issue of the contract changing with any great regularity.

 

Second; a federal employee has the backing of their employer in cases where a passenger is being unreasonable, whereas a private contractor is more likely to buckle to pressure. I suspect there are way more cases of passengers being completely unreasonable vs those of TSA agents being unreasonable.

 

Third; by paying security staff less (pay+benefits), you're going to end up with less motivated, less trained, less educated and more susceptible to bribe employees.

 

 

The only winners with outsourced security, is going to be the owners of the security companies. Haliburton must be rubbing their hands with glee right about now.

[Sargent_Schultz]

First; I really doubt any company would have a sufficiently short contract that this was an issue of the contract changing with any great regularity.

 

Second; a federal employee has the backing of their employer in cases where a passenger is being unreasonable, whereas a private contractor is more likely to buckle to pressure. I suspect there are way more cases of passengers being completely unreasonable vs those of TSA agents being unreasonable.

 

Third; by paying security staff less (pay+benefits), you're going to end up with less motivated, less trained, less educated and more susceptible to bribe employees.

 

 

The only winners with outsourced security, is going to be the owners of the security companies. Haliburton must be rubbing their hands with glee right about now.

 

You are making a lot of assumptions. Perhaps that is how it works in Canada, eh?

 

When I used to commute to Canada, I was never charged the same duty twice. On several occasions, when told I needed a work permit, I informed them that I was about to miss a connection and was just waved on through. Etc.,etc., etc.

 

More and more functions of the US military are being outsourced to private contractors. The incentive is to do the same or better job, cheaper. The same will be true of the government. It works. Private contractors can't hold a candle to the government when it comes to incompetence and illegal activity.

 

Haliburton would have been under the previous administration and besides, they spun off that division.

[waterbug123]

 

Third; by paying security staff less (pay+benefits), you're going to end up with less motivated, less trained, less educated and more susceptible to bribe employees.

.

 

Or perhaps instead of paying less, a private contractor will pay a good wage but cut costs by employing fewer people. I have been in CHS and counted as many as 19 TSA agents manning a single security line. At least half were standing around doing absolutely nothing. Seems a tad inefficient if you ask me.

[FlyerTalker]

TSA = Thousands Standing Around

[scottbee]

When I used to commute to Canada, I was never charged the same duty twice. On several occasions, when told I needed a work permit, I informed them that I was about to miss a connection and was just waved on through. Etc.,etc., etc.

Wandering a little off topic again? We were talking about airport screening/security; not immigration and customs. And aren't you glad Canada was very accommodating?

 

More and more functions of the US military are being outsourced to private contractors. The incentive is to do the same or better job, cheaper. The same will be true of the government. It works. Private contractors can't hold a candle to the government when it comes to incompetence and illegal activity.

It works? Oh wait, does it only work when you talk about it?

[Sargent_Schultz]

TSA = Thousands Standing Around

 

Exactly. Until I had a number of candles in my carry-on.

 

Then about 1500 of them gathered around the xray machine and pretty much all of them were saying,

 

"I don't know, what the hell is that?"

 

I suggested if they opened the bag and looked they might still have time for another coffee break. They didn't seem to think that would be more efficient. :p

[cindep]

Back on the topic of contact lens solutions ... yes, it is the travel size of the Clear Care product. I was really surprised to read that it could possibly be a problem as we've taken our 3 oz. bottles all over the world. Amazing what you find out!! We normally fly out of CLT, and have never had a problem. I do think most of the time we have travelled it has been with a "fresh" travel bottle that hasn't yet been opened. Very interesting!

[scottbee]

Back on the topic of contact lens solutions ... yes, it is the travel size of the Clear Care product. I was really surprised to read that it could possibly be a problem as we've taken our 3 oz. bottles all over the world. Amazing what you find out!! We normally fly out of CLT, and have never had a problem. I do think most of the time we have travelled it has been with a "fresh" travel bottle that hasn't yet been opened. Very interesting!

 

You wont have a problem with a 3oz bottle as it's less than 100mL, and within the TSA guidelines (which is actually a smidge over 3oz, because they use the same metric standard every else does).

 

While it appears technically that a >3oz bottle should be allowed by TSA rules after a separate check, why cause stress to yourself. Pack a big one, carry a smaller one on board.

[Sargent_Schultz]

Back on the topic of contact lens solutions ... yes, it is the travel size of the Clear Care product. I was really surprised to read that it could possibly be a problem as we've taken our 3 oz. bottles all over the world. Amazing what you find out!! We normally fly out of CLT, and have never had a problem. I do think most of the time we have travelled it has been with a "fresh" travel bottle that hasn't yet been opened. Very interesting!

 

It should not be a problem. Actually a number of 3 oz bottles will fit in a baggy, although not required since it is a basically a medically necessary saline solution. As was demonstrated on the YouTube video, if you want to show the TSA morons their own guideline, they may not allow you to reach into your possessions to retrieve a copy. I'm thinking of marketing a tshirt that will allow you display a subset of whatever they might be most likely to harrass you on along with the number of their supervisor! :D:p:D

[cindep]

I did go to the link on Flyertalk and the people that had their Clear Care taken had 3 oz. travel sizes in their 1 quart bag. It looked like the original post was in 2009, but there were recent entries and updates of people having this happen in December 2010. Interestingly, one of the airports was DEN which is one of the few airports I've ever personally experienced what I considered overly aggressive screening, but that has been several years ago.