Isn’t the real answer here to simply shut down flying altogether? No terrorist threat then!
To avoid bag check fees, travelers are routinely opting to carry on their bags, but the TSA says that the cost is just getting shifted to tax payers, to the tune of $260 million a year. That’s because the more bags that don’t get checked, the more bags the TSA has to inspect by hand at security checkpoints. Now the TSA is looking to get a cut of some of the checked baggage fees the airlines collect.
“My question is, do the taxpayers have to pick up this fee?” said Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano during testimony in Senate Appropriations subcommittee on homeland security. “Or should we be looking at the airlines for some of the profits that they make from these fees to offset the cost the taxpayer?”
The TSA has also been pushing for an increase in the airport security fee travelers currently pay. Currently passengers pay up to a $5 fee each for a one-way ticket
And you know, if they get a piece of the bag check fees, the airlines will just push the cost to travelers in the form of higher fares. The solution is clear: fly naked and bring nothing except for your patriotism.
The TSA should charge the users of the full cost of their services otherwise the non-flying taxpayers do make up the difference. This fee is part of the cost of flying.
then let the free market rule.
Easy Peasy.
Another Progressive Scam intent on making mode of transportation they do not like less palatable.
True progress will happen (same as with trains in 19th century and cars in 20th century) when needles obstructions are removed from flying and it made common and free at any distance. Example: trains in early 19th century were banned from going faster than 10mph (though they could do more easily) because of “safety” issues. By the end of 19th century trains were unobstructed and expanding as they should have. Bringing along explosion of economic progress. Same with cars. Early on it was mandatory that person with a flag runs in front of each and every car… We wouldn’t have modern auto-transport system with that and similar (again “safety” based) BS restrictions. They were lifted and now cars are our transportation and our freedom.
This must happen with air traffic too. It can happen, we just need sane non-ideology driven people in charge. Soon we will.
No problem…high speed trains are acoming to California! Eminent domain will take care of those homes that no one can sell in this shit economy too!
Another government jobs program created during the Cheney administration.
We should all agree this needs to be shut down IMMEDIATELY and replaced with an Israeli style system of heavy profiling.
THEN,.. shrink the enormous GOP supported government jobs program – the Military.
#2–gee dismal==you forgot to mention the HUGE FEDERAL SUPPORT for these new investments in technology.
Ha, ha. A dolt in full feather.
#1. “TSA should charge the users of the full cost of their services”
I agree, but when I get the special treatment, I expect, no demand, a “happy ending” for my money.
Eliminate TSA
Repair Deficit
Problem Solved
# 1 bobbo, “The TSA should charge the users of the full cost of their services”
I must respectfully disagree. The TSA is protecting the USA – not me. I am receiving nothing as an individual for their “service.” Maybe if McCullough gets his wish and they start providing happy endings but even then, shouldn’t I be allowed to submit my laundry bill?
Prior to the TSA, airlines paid security to check us out. After the TSA, those same fees were shifted to the coffers of the Gubmint.
On the other hand, if they maintain the current regs that one carry-on and a computer bag fly for free and that the tourists with their newspaper-wrapped sombreros and six bags of snow-globes and kewpie dolls, then I’m all for it.
#9–Animby==NOW who wants to argue for the exercise of it? Its true the TSA is protecting the USA but that protection comes secondary, or as a result of, primarily protecting the fliers. If no one wanted or did fly, there would be no inspection of fliers.
The logic is inescapable: fliers should pay the entire/whole cost of protecting aviation from getting blown out of the skies/run into buildings.
Not to shows just another in the very long list of average/poor/middle/rich americans paying the bills for what the SUPER RICH primary receive the benefit from.
Why should people who don’t fly pay for the safety of those who do? Why should people who don’t drive pay for the Highway Patrol? Why should people who don’t fish pay for game wardens? And it goes on and on. Those accessing the services should pay for the maintenance of those services. From that general rule we can introduce exceptions and collateral rules for the benefit of society, but this instant example is about perfect for socking it to the air traveler.
The airlines created this problem by inventing baggage fees. If TSA adds an additional fee because of carry-ons, I end up paying double if I check my bag?
I don’t fly and I don’t care.
WOW,,
between the trains and planes, being “PROTECTED” (yes they started doing the trains)
WHO thinks we are being forced to DRIVE CARS??
Would it seem better if they charged fines for actually finding contraband?
#10 Love that Bob –
Now you sound like the old farts who proclaim, :I have no children, why should I pay school taxes?” “I haven;t committed a crime, why should I pay for prisons?” etc.
The TSA exists to protect the system, not the passengers. Why? Because the system is important to the USA. Go to their web page and see the mission statement: “The Transportation Security Administration protects the Nation’s transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce.”( http://tsa.gov/who_we_are/mission.shtm ) Of course, there are several other jokes on tha page, too. Most concerning integrity, honesty and respect.
Maybe sargasso in #14 has the idea right: anyone caught with anything that might endanger the aircraft would be made to pay an on the spot fine and maybe forced to ride in the worst seats (next to a 300lb gaseous old man who survives on a diet of onions and salami and in front of a woman who can’t breathe unless she has the seat reclined all the way, all the time and bathes only in Eau du Airline Toilette..
And if the TSA ever manages to actually apprehend a terrorist they can seize his or her assets and make him work in the luggage throwing section for the rest of his natural life.
But that’s unlikely to ever happen since it seems they can’t even catch their own people slipping guns through the scanners…
Bobby – the TSA is a joke. Napolitano is a joke. They are classic examples of closing the gate after the livestock has fled. I see no reason why I should pay to be pranked. Or groped (without the happy ending).
No the real answer is to eliminate security all together and just tell people to sign a waver that they cannot sue anyone if they die. Its that or bring back the more practical screening which is profiling.
Pay people less, charge them more, make higher profit, expect money to come out of thin air, repeat until system collapses.
How about risk based airline selection? Pay for the security you want. Going to Detroit, whelp, odds are that you are going to die from a shooting on the street not an airline takeover. Trip to Key West, someone might want to be going to Cuba, so let’s pay a bit more.
I haven’t been to an airport, let alone flown anywhere, since 1971, so the only way I can tell who actually DOES fly is by watching CNN. From that, it would appear that fully 50% of the US population is employed in jobs whose sole purpose is to constantly fly to other cities and show colorful pie charts to other guys in neckties. (The other 50% seem to be constantly flying their increasingly annoying children to some fantasy vacation destination where they can watch the minimum-wage locals dress like elves and cartoon characters for their amusement.)
If this is true, then (a) plane crashes should be a cause of rejoicing for Darwinians everywhere, and (b) the irony of piling bogus charges upon them before they take off is so shudderingly delicious that I….
OH! MMMM! OH, YEAH! UH!!…..
Oh. Excuse me.
If the TSA is to kept (which is likely), one way to improve it is to compensate linked to customer satisfaction.
60% Base pay + 40% variable pay where variable pay is linked to both airline and traveler satisfaction surveys. This pay component is common in the high tech sales and marketing field.
I agree that a well functioning society builds infrastructure that enables the society to function. Roads, airways and airwave, defense, interstate things that make the states better.
I also agree that the traveler should pay, directly, a portion of the cost for the security service they use. Maybe 20%.
However, government accounting, being what it is, this will not be a value proposition. The issue is that the value needs to be accounted. We all know that we’ll be charged $50 per item, $100 per person, and they’ll do nothing at all but maybe steal something valuable. They’ll take in billions (?), and may deliver nothing.
If I thought they were realty protecting my life, I’d fork over some cash, anyone would. But no one but the sheep think they are doing a damn thing besides standing there and looking ugly.
What did we do before the airlines?
It seems like we are going to find out again.
In the beginning air travel was very expensive.
So it shall be again.
You can quote me.
There should be two forms of airtravel.
One for the paranoid who need to feel safe, and the other for the non-paranoid who are not worried about their safety.
“That’s because the more bags that don’t get checked, the more bags the TSA has to inspect by hand at security checkpoints.”
Fixed: “That’s because the more bags that don’t get checked, the fewer bags the TSA has to steal from.”
Air travel contributes to global warming, therefore it will be banned for all but the wealthiest.
This is a classic case of adding insult to injury.
History has been made. I almost never agree with anything Bobbo says, but in this case it’s spot on: the users of the service need to bear the brunt of the costs. ‘Pay as you go’ is the Conservative way.
I don’t fly as much as I used to, but I may start flying more in the future, and I dread it. I used to look forward to flying, telling my employers ‘You Buy, I’ll Fly’. Now I have to pay for an extra bag, pay if my one bag is over 50 pounds, pay for the micro lunch if I don’t brown bag it, even pay for a pillow, blanket or headphones on some airlines. I already have to get the equivalent of a chest X-ray or submit to getting my junk groped.
The airlines haven’t been getting it for a while. They relish all these extra little fees they charge the flying public, but keeping track of them for all the various entities is becoming a nightmare.
I just want to pay one price, and not be bombarded with a 10-page detailed line item report of all the fucking fees that are being tacked on. It contributes to the feeling that I’m getting ripped off. I was looking at renting a car the other day, it was $15.95/day. But then you have the airport concession fee, the licence tag recovery fee, state, county, city and special car rental taxes, and a couple others, pushing the price to about double. I put the kibosh on the whole trip because renting the car was almost as much as the plane ticket. That is lost revenue for the airline, the car rental company, the taxing authorities, not to mention whatever dining establishments I would have visited.
The whole travel industry as well as the TSA need to wake up and realize that they’re going in the toilet because they are making it more convenient for people to drive themselves rather than take a plane.
#15–Animby–its a question of emphasis/analysis/degree and I won’t quibble. I’ve posted I am happy to pay school tax even though I have no kiddies in school: I benefited from school and I’m happy to play it forward. Prison is different as we all benefit keeping the bad guys away but I will not we jail too many people for too little offenses. Is it 80% of the population for drug offenses which shouldn’t even be against the law? But our overlords have spoken.
And if you think air travel is so closely connected to the general welfare that it is unfair to tax the individuals who directly benefit from it then I say let DEMOCRACY rule and I will submit to the majority will, wrong headed as you are.
Interestingly, the same issue is current with the mandate to buy health insurance. I think it violates the constitution, the commerce clause cannot mandate people to engage in commerce even though not buying insurance does affect the commerce of that activity. conversely, a tax paid by everyone to cover services to everyone would be constitutional.
I think thats interesting, yes, I do.
Lets see–whole lot of turmoil when Obamacare gets gutted by the Supremes. We will have to suffer the stupidity of the PUKES for another 20 years before universal healthcare is won==unless we the people go Wisconsin on DC.
Wont happen. Too much fuzzy thinking.
#28 Winnie / #29 Bobby :
I think our main disagreement is who is receiving the service/benefit. Do you tip a mugger? I am not benefiting. I know there is just as good a chance the plane will be bombed out of the sky as there was pre-911. The hardened cockpit doors pretty much eliminates the though of flying into the Chrysler Building for an unexpected visit. It certainly is not a service to me to yelled at, forced to undress, radiated, harassed, groped and sneered at by high school dropouts busily pawing through my belongings. They should have a tip box at the exit for that kind of service.
I’m sorry. I still say it is the United States of America that is benefiting from this service and it is the USA that should pay for it.
Bobbo – let democracy rule? Poop. As you yourself have pointed out on this board, we don’t live in a democracy. I think the gubbmint is going to keep getting more and more fascist until finally we do all go Wisconsin. Let’s face it, Dems or Reps don’t matter. The main function of gubbmint is to grab more and more power Constitution be damned!
FWIW, Roberto, I agree with you about health care and prisons. And, WindowsGuy – I understand your frustration with air travel. I travel very frequently – though mostly not in the USA. I anticipate going to the airport like I anticipate a colonoscopy. Yippee…oops!
Bobbo, what’s funny is, I think if Obama had pushed for your plan in the first place, he would have gotten it, especially if he doesn’t pas the stimulus package. It’s a lot easier to spend money if you haven’t already spent $800 billion on top of your predecessor’s $800 billion.
I bought some Delta stock Friday, hoping that they’ll be the first to start charging extra for passenger seat belts. I expect that to be the next big move for the airlines as they continue to explore the limits of what the market will bear. Unfortunately, the TSA will probably seek to tack on an extra seat belt tax as well. It’s hell when government seeks to emulate private enterprise.
The worst part is, I make this prediction only half in jest.