Bu web site tanımlama bilgileri kullanmaktadır. Bu web siteyi kullanarak ve bu sitede gezinerek, bunu kabul etmiş olursunuz.
Kapat
FlightAware uçuş takibinin reklamlarla desteklendiğini biliyor muydunuz?
FlightAware.com'dan gelen reklamlara izin vererek FlightAware'in ücretsiz kalmasını sağlamamıza yardım edebilirsiniz. harika bir deneyim sunmak adına reklamlarımızı anlamlı ve öne çıkmayacak şekilde tutmak için yoğun şekilde çalışıyoruz. FlightAware'deki whitelist adsreklamları güvenilir olarak görmek hızlı ve kolaydır, veya lütfen premium hesaplarımıza geçmeyi düşünün.
Kapat
Back to Squawk list
  • 22

Reimagine TSA to protect travelers

eklendi
 
We should consider what to do about the excruciatingly long security screening lines at airports around the country that have resulted in thousands of passengers missing their flights. Travelers have every right to be frustrated and angry at yet another government failure. (www.usatoday.com) Daha Fazlası...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


MikeMohle
Mike Mohle 8
Step 1, get rid of the union. Step 2, Government agencies are always whining about "funding" and cutback of resources (your money). Every traveler pays a "TSA" fee on every ticket so there should be no funding concerns at any time. Step 3. Fire those executives and managers in the TSA that cannot get their jobs done, and rescind their pensions--that will get their attention.

Reducing the cost of PreCheck is a ridiculous idea as well. I paid the $85 and it WAS well worth it. If everyone including vacationers with 19 kids are in the line, it will be slower overall for everyone.

TSA, IRS targeting (remember the smirking Koskinen being questioned by Congress), and VA Hospital, government services are a joke overall and not getting better by any measure.
30west
30west 9
Mike, there is a $5.60 Security Fee imposed on each flight segment domestic and international. Knowing the way the government treats revenue, I believe the Security Fee revenue goes into the overall TSA Operating Budget and not earmarked for airport security. It supports the bloated admin tail of the Agency, other costs and then the crumbs go to airport security. New leadership and consequences for underperformance by any TSA employee need to be implemented.

I agree, don't lower the cost of PreCheck to travelers. It will lead to the program being much less efficient.
mattwestuk
Matt West 6
Well said. $85 dollars for 5 years is peanuts. Heck, you can't even get any airlines "Preferred" treatment for anything close to that. Even if someone only flies once a year, it's still money well spent. I think the problem is apathy on the part of most Americans - they don't want to have to go get fingerprinted (and I'm sure the conspiracy nuts think it's a plan to track all of our movements)!
pnschi
pnschi 3
Right. Because if there's A) Management, and B) a Union, and C) a problem, then the problem must be due to the existence of the union! And you haven't been so thoroughly immersed in propaganda for 35 years that you can't think anymore...
canuck44
canuck44 0
The union is not going anywhere without a change in government for the union dues in part end up in the coffers of the party in power...money laundering if you like. Privatization essentially removes employees and union from that relationship by ending employment.
cybdiver
Rob Peter 2
Look at it this way, think how awkward the TSA agent feels having to check you. Imagine how they would feel if they didn't and something got through. We want to be safe but we don't want to be inconvenienced? Next time the TSA agent has to inspect you, put yourself in their shoes. Now pretend you have to deal with you whinny self. Get over yourself people. These people are serving the nation. Blaming them is like blaming the soldiers that were sent to Viet-Nam. Cooperate and support these folks who have a hard enough job to do trying to keep you safe.
MargaretRivers
(1) It's not that travellers don't want to spend $25 to check in a bag (big airlines usually don't charge that), but that the passengers don't want to wait 30 minutes for their bags after arriving! Perhaps the airlines should hire enough baggages handlers such that the bags are there and waiting for the passengers by the time the passengers get to the baggage carousel. Speed that up, and then no one will want to deal with carrying a bag onboard. (2) much, much longer tables are needed before the x-ray machine at TSA to allow passengers more time to pull out their liquid baggies and computers etc. This is a cheap fix. (3) Families with kids, babies... and less abled person, and those with special scanning needs or questions need a separate line to avoid holding up everyone else. (4) Assign boarding priority according to who has the least luggage then those with most luggage might end up having to gate-check their bag anyway.
pilot62
Scott Campbell 2
"I cannot imagine having enough conceit and arrogance"
5-24-16 "Peter F Hartman Esq" well played sir :D
arfdog
mags stumpp 2
Here is a fundamental question: Why does TSA need to know traveler identities? We flip out when we learn that government collets metadata on phone calls, but nobody complains when TSA knwos everywhere we've flown. Screening (arguably) makes us safer. However, knowing traveler identies doesn't. I don't care if I'm sitting next to an ISIS guy on the plane as long as I'm confident he's not packing a weapon. ID enforcement just allows airlines to price discriminate by preventing ticket resale. Better to use agency resources checking bagage rather than uselessly scanning id's.
Bernie20910
Bernie20910 2
Not knowing traveler identity would render the No Fly list useless. While the List has its problems, it does work.
iflyfsx
iflyfsx 2
In what imaginary universe? It's full of errors that you are not allowed to challenge. That's not just a "problem," that's unconstitutional. In the meantime, several "terrorists" that WERE on the list, were also allowed to board airplanes. WTF?
Bernie20910
Bernie20910 2
My wife is one of the people who work with The List on a daily basis. Yes, there have been people on it who shouldn't have been, and yes, failures happen when it isn't consulted, but by and large it does work to keep people off commercial aircraft who might pose a genuine risk.
iflyfsx
iflyfsx 0
It's not supposed to work "by and large." It either keeps "terrorists" out, or it doesn't. And we know it doesn't. It does keep some 3 year-olds from flying, though, because there's no cumulative IQ in the entire tsa to figure out a 3 year-old can't be a "terrorist."
Bernie20910
Bernie20910 2
Well, if you don't use it, how is it supposed to keep them out? The ones that you cite were ON the list but no one bothered to check it. No system is ever going to be 100% flawless, absolutely perfect, but you'd do away with anything that isn't? Should we also do away with ATC, since it's not 100% perfect either, and has about the same failure rate, if not worse?
sixtycg
Steve Cook 2
Nice strawman, but ATC has been there since the beginning as an integral part of a larger system. Security screening is, and always has been, a fear-based kluge. It's theater for the simple-minded.

The No-Fly list has been abused since the beginning. Bush political enemies were placed on the No-Fly list.

This article has some very solid suggestions of how to fix the system, while making it more effective: http://www.askthepilot.com/tsa-summer-meltdown/
FlightAwareJaye
Jaye Deete 1
Hey Bernie: Please give us a CREDIBLE online reference that we can check when making statements like the Bush statement you "cite".
FlightAwareJaye
Jaye Deete 1
Oops, meant to say "Steve". Mea Culpa
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 2
Wouldn't it be lovely if there were such a thing as "perfect".
iflyfsx
iflyfsx 0
Don't know, don't care. It has nothing to do with the topic.
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 1
Only to do with your post.
FlightAwareJaye
Jaye Deete 1
Please, please, don't use "that's unconstitutional". The phrase has come to mean "I don't like it." Almost nobody gets it right. If you MUST, then cite which part you are referring to (and don't stretch the logic absurdly. Above, I assume "that's unconstitutional" refers to "unreasonable searches"; but, of course, terrorism is a very REASONABLE reason to search!!
iflyfsx
iflyfsx 0
We are not talking about searches. We are talking about the government violating your rights with secret lists that you can't challenge. Read the VI Amendment. I'm not going to quote it.
FlightAwareJaye
Jaye Deete 1
OK, I will, but I don't see the relevance unless you really stretch the English. Article VI deals with TRIALS!

Article [VI] (Amendment 6 - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions)
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
iflyfsx
iflyfsx -1
Guess what? The Constitution and the Bill of Rights set the PRINCIPLES for every other law. What the VI Amendment says is, the government has to provide PUBLIC evidence if they want to infringe on your rights, and you have the right to challenge that evidence. The principle is relevant BEFORE you get to a criminal trial, because if it ever did go to trial, the government would clearly lose.
Bernie20910
Bernie20910 1
Are you reading the same Sixth Amendment the rest of us are?
iflyfsx
iflyfsx -1
There's only one. I don't know what you are reading.
jdriskell
James Driskell 2
Until the situation improves, GET IN LINE EARLY!
Ruger9X19
Ruger9X19 1
Well it is a start. http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/tsa-security-chief-fired-amid-growing-fury-over-delays/
rallypoint
Arnold Fishman 1
This may be slightly off topic but it needs to be discussed. Long lines--couldnt we also say that this is all about providing the appropriate motivation to get more people to enroll in TSA Pre? Guess what, in Chicago, i walk past the TSA office regularly and there have been excruiating long lines of people waiting outside a 20 story downtown office building during different parts of the day...the people are being forced to wait outside to enroll in TSA Pre. Follow the $$$ trail. The long lines equals big bucks. Not to mention this, but its also getting lots and lots of law abiding citizens to give their fingerprints to the government.
Fractology
Rick Rump 1
Last time I flew with my dad and brother we all got pre-check (I was an early pre-check adopter). So I am not too up on how this "family of four" for $340 works as it seems anecdotally that only one family member needs it (if all have the same last name).
Though it could also be that my dad is an ex airline employee and is already in the system and as am I as a federal employee who knows.
But pre-check has been worth the price, its just a shame that it is a tax on travelers who want to get out of the security theatre BS.
Ruger9X19
Ruger9X19 1
Federal employees were allowed to bring spouses and children (under 14 If I remember correctly) with them until about 6 months ago. Now, supposedly spouses have to pay or go through regular screening. I'll see if I can find the press release.

[This poster has been suspended.]

davidrbarnes
David Barnes 1
You mean like the 9/11 tax already added to tickets? Tax money that's being re-appropriated by congress? So yes, us passengers/fliers do think that we should get what we already pay for. When we buy our tickets, we are taxpayers, and expect that tax money to do the intended job.
pilot62
Scott Campbell 1
HA HA left seat for you I'm sure, but you may need to hand that over
scott537
I don't care how awkard he feels, he is there to find bad
people and bad things. My point is if we can start
looking at high threat individuals first instead of grandma
we would find more real threats. Your thoughts?
cybdiver
Rob Peter 1
Why is grandma any less dangerous? Do you remember the story at the end of the original Rambo movie about the shoe shine boy? It's a true story.
They those evil people will use anyone as a delivery device even grandma.
FlightAwareJaye
Jaye Deete 1
Hmmm. Old terrorists? There are a few in Iran, of course. But blowing yourself up is a young man's game (and gals, alas). And, happily, self-limiting. Kinda like an old, bold pilot !
scott537
Thank You, Perhaps someone will listen (not)
Lets quit looking at those that don't need looking at.
I travel a lot and I would willingly submit to all
the same requirements as the airport police who move thru
security with no look at all (with weapons)
Or allow me acess to known crewmember as a
professional pilot not in uniform.
cybdiver
Rob Peter 1
I have a solution for that.
cybdiver
Rob Peter 1
I blame the travelers for not being ready when they reach the front of the line. The TSA has videos, signs and people telling you to get rid of your liquids, and weapons. People should do a little self screening before entering the line. Orange jump suits for everyone with plastic zippers and flip flops. Get dress on the other side of security.
rmchambers
rmchambers 1
That article doesn't address the main problem is that the TSA like many other government agencies is lethargic and unable to move out of its own way. Any bag you submit to the airlines has the potential to have things stolen from it so it's not just the fees that make people carry-on it's that they don't trust the safety and security of their belongings once they hit the conveyor belt.

Becoming a trusted traveler shouldn't cost anything. All it winds up being is an extra cost to fly in the hopes you can bypass the BS screening cattle lines somewhat. If loads of people signed up for Pre then there'd be long lines at those places too.
Bernie20910
Bernie20910 1
Easy way to ensure your checked bag is not pilfered is to travel with a firearm in there. Then YOU lock it and YOU have the key and if TSA or anyone wants to check it you must be present.
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 1
Unless, of course, the person rifling through luggage doesn't care about rules, (which clearly he / she doesn't) and actually would love to score a firearm.
Bernie20910
Bernie20910 1
Well, unless they break off the lock, and we're not talking about a wimpy little "TSA approved" lock here, that's not happening. I'm also sure we have a few folks here who will tell you what kind of panic takes place when a bag with a firearm goes missing.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
Almost all of the alphabets have become so inefficient as to be near useless. Will not change without a shakeup at the top. One could even argue that DHS/TSA was not needed in the first place.

[This poster has been suspended.]

davidrbarnes
David Barnes 6
TSA security, in the form of the 9/11 tax, is paid for by the passengers using the service. Meanwhile congress is re-appropriating 15% of the revenues to other line items in the budget.

Long story short, it is paid for by the people directly touching the service.

But clearly, you are unfamiliar with this system, but instead felt the need for the validation of seeing your words in print.
ADXbear
ADXbear 1
Drive yourself, save the aggravation....it's just to painful
canuck44
canuck44 0
We are subjected to this from the same people who want the government to run a single payer health care system. Demonstrably those airports which dumped the TSA and went private do not seem to be having the same problems and probably doing it with fewer people, less cost and customer service.
bilweeler
It's not that simple.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-tsa-privatization-getting-around-20160522-column.html
mattwestuk
Matt West -1
During my Air Force years, I found it staggering how hard the unions made it to deal with government employees. We couldn't move a coffee pot without their approval (that's not sarcasm). When DoD Healthcare facilities went smoke free, they had to add an additional sign stating that Union employees were exempt...all Active Duty, Contractors, and Non-Union employees had to leave the campus, but not Unionized ones because we were affecting their terms on contract!
Peterpaw
Peter Williams 0
HI THERE
1,CONGRESS HAS TAKEN $1,500,000,000, ($1.5 BILLION DOLLARS)

Guess why the TSA is short of money, the congress has raided the funding TSA to the extent of about 20% funds earmarked TSA funds

2. TSA is designed to protect airplanes, NOT passengers. Anyone who
waits to get a ticket or check a bag should fear all those suitcases that have not been examined

3. TSA is the poor stepchild of the government

4. TSA IS NOT PROACTIVE
a. we take off our shoes because of a FAILED bomber
b. We are limited to our liquids because of a FAILED bomber
If either of these bombers had succeeded, we would still keep our shoe
AND, we would still be able to bring our quart of Pepsi on board

PETER
scott537
Please do not compare our military to TSA. No slam to TSA but there is no comparison. Again, my point is to have
A process to examine/confirm individuals
who pose little or no threat, ie: undergo
the same background checks as police.
cybdiver
Rob Peter 1
Join the police force. They will give you a uniform and badge if you can pass the exams.
I guess you would say you have to earn it.
The TSA is a front line operation. I would say for 15 bucks an hour they take a great risk. No they don't go into battle like a soldier but if you think of the people they have to deal with they are not far off.
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 1
Mea culpa to all, ahead of time but this is just way too much to resist:

Rob Peter to Pay Paul??? Too funny.
cybdiver
Rob Peter 1
Your not the first and won't be the last but hey it's Friday.
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 1
Figured as much but, hey, I'm weak.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
And with your clocks set ahead it is cocktail time.
209flyboy
209flyboy -1
A new airport screening unit will arrived at various airports to confront terrorists who hide concealed explosives. It is a large reinforced container placed at the security check station with an entrance door at one end and an exit door at the other. There will be a large sign posted at the containers entrance that states ‘If you are carrying any kind of explosive, it will ignite while you are in this container’

When the terrorist enters the container, the reinforced door is tightly closed behind them and screening begins. The unit will cause any explosive device to detonate while the person is being screened within the container. A trap door will open in the floor to deposit the body below then shut. The next person will step in.

So, if you hear a large muffled

'KABOOM!!!

coming from a container at the security station, the next announcement heard will be “Attention standby passengers, we now have a seat available on flight .....…”

What’s not to like?
iflyfsx
iflyfsx -1
As long as stupid people are willing to give up their rights (and everyone else's rights) for a stupid illusion of "security," the government is going to keep "failing."

95% FAILURE RATE, and your outrage is about the lines?
yr2012
matt jensen -5
Step 1: Fire the tsa
Step 2: Hire all available retired leo's and part timers
Step 3: Allow no unions
Step 4: Let the feebs run the airfields past the loading gates
Step 5: If none of the first four steps works out in three years, put USA/ANG in place just like they do in foreign countries
marcuccione
marcuccione 1
I don't want people who are not capable (feebs as you call them) to handle themselves around aircraft. Last thing we need is someone in a mower who causes an accident because they weren't paying attention.
yr2012
matt jensen 0
The feebs currently run the airfields. They are qualified.
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 1
Okay, I'll ask - what's a "feeb"?
yr2012
matt jensen 1
Feeb
noun
An agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; g-man: the agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, whom they call ''Feebs''

Mainly anyone in Federal Service (ie FAA, CAA) not just the fbi. Therefore a mower cannot be considered one, because they work for a private service.
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 1
Thanks, Matt.

[This poster has been suspended.]

pilot62
Scott Campbell 9
Again your dementia is leaking sir, you've said this repeatedly (translation, I don't pay other people to ride around in other people's airplanes). You pay sir even if your in the right seat, and if you NEVER fly commercially then why the hell would you respond about something that doesn't affect your life ? Further this isn't "LAW ENFORCEMENT" rather the scanning of luggage and people.
When you act like your above "Flyers" as you've stated, it not only makes you seem sophomoric. But confirms your inability to understand, that those of us who are also PILOTS !, also fly in the back. And in-fact often pay nothing to fly the world in FIRST. And scores of these "flyers" are professionals, even Lawyers who "RIDE" as passengers. Have someone re-read your comments that isn't related to you and ask if there is anything condescending or obnoxious about them, because as far as I'm concerned, (and to many here) you are "SIR HARTMAN -ESQ"
pilot62
Scott Campbell 1
Your ticket will be pulled
davidrbarnes
David Barnes 1
Can his internet access be pull concurrently?
paultrubits
paul trubits 4
The government provides you law enforcement in all levels of your personal and professional life and that is one reason you pay taxes. Why are you wasting your and everybody else's time with this nonsense. You know better: You are a lawyer and you know the law.

[This poster has been suspended.]

davidrbarnes
David Barnes 2
Mr. Hartmann, regardless of how many times you post this convoluted thinking, these are facts to consider:
1. If you buy a plane ticket, you are "a user of privately owned airplane transportation service businesses". Commonly called a "passenger".
2. The security used for airline transportation is presently defined by a government agency, provided almost exclusively by the TSA.
3. The option for airlines "to buy their own security" is very limited. The government has federalized that task.
4. The cost of TSA is paid for by the passengers on each ticket purchased in the form of the 9/11 security fees.
mattwestuk
Matt West 4
Someone may have posted it here already, but I might have missed it. The Airlines also have themselves partly to blame. When you charge $25 a bag (for the 1st) people balk. I do go trhough PreChk so I avoid most of it, but I cannot count the times I have seen a family of 4, 5, or even 6 trying to get their carry on allowance through security. Invariably, someone "forgets" they have a Costco sized container of Shampoo in their bag then all heck breaks loose.

Most European airports don't suffer from this because most Flag carriers do not charge for the first checked bag. I'm serious, I did a domestic with BA recently and we not only got through security fast, they loaded an A321 in 10 minutes flat because no one was fighting for overhead space.

It's not all the governments fault here, the Airlines have pushed back on any attempts to reduce carry on restrictions (yes I can get multiple references if you need them). Everybody knew this was going to happen...
Ruger9X19
Ruger9X19 1
Crap, I think I have to agree with one of your posts.
The only caveat would be ensuring the safety of those who have not chosen to participate in the activity. If well managed that should require only a relatively small amount of existing law enforcement funding.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
Sorry bout that Ruger. Is Ruger a reference to one of my favorite firearms?
Ruger9X19
Ruger9X19 2
The Ruger was my first handgun and while I don't use the 9mm much anymore (S&W 10mm is now my daily carry) it still holds a special place in my memory.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 0
Love the Smiths too. Some years ago I got a FNH 5.7 that I really luv.
Bernie20910
Bernie20910 1
It's "flier", not "flyer". Yes, I know what you're going to say, that your phone autocorrects it that way. Except sometimes it doesn't, as in your comment before this, and if it really did autocorrect it that way it would be because it was told to.
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 1
Hate to say this, but ... "Outside the U.S., there is no difference between flyer and flier. They are interchangeable, though flyer is about twice as common as flier. American writers tend to use flyer for small handbills and flier for people and things that fly. This distinction does not run deep, though, and the two spellings are very often used interchangeably even in the U.S., so it’s safe to say that neither is correct or incorrect for any sense of the word."
Bernie20910
Bernie20910 1
One, flyer, has two possible meanings, the most popular of which has nothing to do with flying, while the other, flier, has only the single meaning, at least to us Americans. It is only common sense to use the one more associated with flying when in a conversation about flying.
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 1
One, speaking for the dictionary ... whoops ... while the other, my more literal usage rather than site-specific. Peace.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
There is a fee added to every ticket. Perhaps not enough. Security should be paid for by users. Security should be profiling instead of mindlessly searching everyone. The $85 fee for prescreening is ok but they should also have lines for those with no carry on baggage for the overhead bin. There is lots they could do but PC and and bureaucrats are brick walls.
The basic air infrastructure is part of the overall transportation system from which everyone benefits and as such the 50% of the population that pay taxes have to pay up.

[This poster has been suspended.]

WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
I do not disagree. The airlines should pay for security and add whatever to the ticket price. I do not utilize TSA for flights in my little plane and I prefer for my income tax not go to TSA. Some airports are opting out of TSA and hiring private. Good. While we're at it, the whole DHS is not needed IMHO.

[This poster has been suspended.]

davidrbarnes
David Barnes 3
Alas, Mr. Hartmann, the TSA is NOT a private business. It is a division of the Department of Homeland Security, a department with cabinet level leadership. Last I checked, that's quite public, and one in which all who use commercial air travel have a right to be heard. Our democracy, in case you forgot, is our government, and that includes our right, via the First Amendment, to critique and criticize.

I can like the service provided by the airlines all I want, but between my car and the door to the airplane, our government, in the form of the TSA, is quite literally standing in the way. This is the fundamental issue here. There are significant restrictions preventing airports and/or the airlines from hiring "whatever private security is appropriate" simply because of the juggernaut known as the TSA.

But clearly, you are unfamiliar with this system, but instead felt the need for the validation of seeing your words in print.

[This poster has been suspended.]

davidrbarnes
David Barnes 1
Except that your friends who are crew most likely have "Known Crewmember" privilege which imparts express security with minimal screening requirements, especially as compared to those flying as paid passengers. Their perception of TSA is quite different from those of us who trudge through the lines several times a month.

Unfortunately, not buying the service (not flying), is not much of an option if one wants to (efficiently) visit the west coast from Atlanta. I can fly to San Francisco in around 5 hours, or be just approaching Memphis in my car. Rail is just as, if not more, inefficient.

I do note that at least two major airlines are working with TSA to attempt to improve the passenger screening experience. Here in Atlanta, Delta has invested in new checkpoint rennovations which are expected to up throughput by 20%. American has announced other investments, the details of which I'm not as familiar with.

The unfortunate part is that the airlines are now bearing the brunt of TSAs efforts, which further increases the costs on the user.

[This poster has been suspended.]

davidrbarnes
David Barnes 1
The emphasis here would be on higher quality. Right now, TSA has the much maligned backronym of "Thousands Standing Around". If we reduce the standing around, would the higher per person cost really result in a higher per passenger cost? That's outside of my area of expertise.

That said, we're paying for a service we're barely getting. We pay for it in our ticket taxes, which gives each of us who pay for a ticket the right, if not the duty, to question the value received.

Let me note this: My tax dollars pay for your small airport, just as much as they do for ATL. I believe that makes you a bit of a socialist in that you're taking the money generated by the big airports and letting it be invested in yours.

[This poster has been suspended.]

davidrbarnes
David Barnes 2
Do you ever land any any airports for which you do not personally pay?

[This poster has been suspended.]

AWAAlum
AWAAlum 3
Public streets, highways, interstates - etc ... are all paid for with our tax dollars. You really believe they're free? Thanks. Appreciate the laugh.
FlightAwareJaye
Jaye Deete 1
VOTE WITH YOUR FEET? How many miles do you get on your feet when traveling trans-Atlantic? Eh, bunky?
Nae, vote with your VOTE.
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 2
Of course it's a possibility I'm reading all of these posts incorrectly, but, I don't believe they're disgruntled about the airlines so much as with boarding security issues. Also, it is my humble opinion, if I'm paying the asked for fee, I surely do have the "right" to be provided with air transportation that complies with my needs. That is - exactly - what I' paying for.

Giriş

Hesabınız yok mu? Kişiselleştirilmiş özellikler, uçuş uyarıları ve daha fazlası için şimdi (ücretsiz) üye olun!