Maybe Congress is Starting to GET IT

Discussion in 'Travel Security' started by FetePerfection, May 12, 2011.  |  Print Topic

  1. FetePerfection
    Original Member

    FetePerfection Silver Member

    Messages:
    454
    Likes Received:
    981
    Status Points:
    700
    http://www.aviationnews.net/?do=headline&news_ID=191845

    "Notably, the House subcommittee draft does not include 76 million requested by the President for 275 additional advanced imaging technology (AIT) scanners nor for the 535 staff requested to operate the equipment. Finally we get some hope congress may be listening."

    Btw, this quote and link came from a friend Elizabeth Conley on Facebook

     
    gobluetwo and AmericanGirl like this.
  2. gobluetwo
    Original Member

    gobluetwo Silver Member

    Messages:
    806
    Likes Received:
    1,012
    Status Points:
    825
    I definitely think it's worth quoting both paragraphs from the link (emphasis added):
     
  3. FetePerfection
    Original Member

    FetePerfection Silver Member

    Messages:
    454
    Likes Received:
    981
    Status Points:
    700
    Well thank you!
     
  4. Captain Oveur
    Original Member

    Captain Oveur Gold Member

    Messages:
    7,243
    Likes Received:
    14,058
    Status Points:
    12,520
    Some might be getting it, like Congressman Chaffetz, but it's going to take a LOT more public humiliation of the TSA (usually done by themselves), winning the hearts and minds of fellow Congresscritters AND overcoming the powerful Lobbyists who are fighting tooth and nail to get machines installed everywhere.

    I hope that eliminating bin Laden is the beginning of a new way of thinking when it comes to airport "security."
     
  5. sunseeker
    Original Member

    sunseeker Silver Member

    Messages:
    230
    Likes Received:
    165
    Status Points:
    375
    I don't think they are cutting for reasons related to TSA misconduct. I think they are just looking for budget cuts in general.
     
  6. Scottrick
    Original Member

    Scottrick Gold Member

    Messages:
    2,586
    Likes Received:
    4,078
    Status Points:
    2,570
    Am I alone in thinking congressmen should be required to fly commercial? Maybe if they didn't get to fly on military aircraft (for gov't purposes) or on corporate jets (thanks to donors) quite so often they would be more aware of what a PITA air travel has become for frequent flyers and would seriously consider how many changes in the last 10 years have actually led to significant improvements in security.
     
    wiredboy and Rlpro like this.
  7. misman
    Original Member

    misman Gold Member

    Messages:
    13,888
    Likes Received:
    49,369
    Status Points:
    16,520
    No, you are not alone, but it is not just the "flying commercial", but also going through the hassle of TSA, etc. I have a friend that was high up in state government. When flying, they were escorted past security through an alternate routing. If Congress is going to "feel the pain", they need to feel it all... and not just having to fly coach.
     
    wiredboy and Rlpro like this.
  8. mikeef
    Original Member

    mikeef Silver Member

    Messages:
    507
    Likes Received:
    837
    Status Points:
    795
    I'm sorry to be the downer, but I'm not ready to get excited about the appropriations bill. I tend to think sunseeker is correct, that they are just looking for things to cut.

    The bigger problem is that we have had so many other occasions where I thought Congress or the public finally "got it," and it always just blew over, with the TSA instituting more and more restrictions. Let's face it: no one wants to be the Congresscritter who attacks the TSA if, God forbid, there is another incident on an airplane (even if it had nothing to do with what the CC complained about).

    I promise, I'm trying to remain optimistic, but I just don't see how the situation improves, at least until the airlines get involved. Right now, there aren't nearly enough people avoiding their airplanes to cause financial problems.

    Mike
     
  9. MikeMpls
    Original Member

    MikeMpls Gold Member

    Messages:
    1,199
    Likes Received:
    3,557
    Status Points:
    1,970
    Everyone from the President on down should be flying commercial. If a seat on BA is good enough for the British PM, it's good enough for our President and certainly good enough for the flunkies they call a cabinet.
     
  10. Captain Oveur
    Original Member

    Captain Oveur Gold Member

    Messages:
    7,243
    Likes Received:
    14,058
    Status Points:
    12,520
    Have you ever been to NYC when the president visits, such as going to the U.N.? I couldn't even fathom what airports and/or airplanes would be like if the president traveled commercial.

    There are much bigger implications. It's not like the president sits back and enjoys a bag of pretzels when he travels on AF1.

    It would be better if the president stayed on AF1. And I'm okay with the vice-president on AF2 as well.
     
  11. mikeef
    Original Member

    mikeef Silver Member

    Messages:
    507
    Likes Received:
    837
    Status Points:
    795
    "That's 32-B Mr. President. I'm sorry you're in a middle seat, but all the aisles and windows were taken up by our elite members."

    Mike
     
  12. mrsmortis
    Original Member

    mrsmortis Silver Member

    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    105
    Status Points:
    335
    I was on a plane once where Bush Senior was sat up front with his flunkies (once he was an ex president of course).

    There weren't any upgrades that day (one of us might upset the president with our liberal opinions). We were delayed in leaving (because they couldn't be expected to sit and wait while the rest of us boarded so they were ushered on after the rest of us) and delayed arriving (because they had to all get off first before we were allowed to take our seat belts off/stand up).

    All in all it was just plain annoying.
     

Share This Page