Special “passenger advocates” tasked with assisting those with disabilities during security screening could be an airport staple soon, if one lawmaker has his way.
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said he plans to introduce legislation this week to require the Transportation Security Administration to appoint passenger advocates at every U.S. airport that could be requested by travelers with special needs as needed.
Schumer asked the TSA to institute passenger advocates in December after a number of complaints by older passengers and those with various special needs. However, the agency has not acted on the proposal, prompting Schumer to take a legislative route, he said.
“Passengers need an on-site point of contact who they can bring grievances to and who can advocate on their behalf when they feel they are being treated unfairly or inappropriately,” Schumer said.
Previously, TSA officials have declined to comment on the idea of offering passenger advocates, but said they have “customer service representatives at most major airports.”
What’s more, the agency recently implemented a toll-free hotline to assist passengers with disabilities.
A new phone number could make your next trip to the airport go a little bit smoother.
The Transportation Security Administration has a new toll-free hotline specifically for airline passengers with disabilities and special medical needs.
Comments
we should sedate him too without his consent and then to go even futhur require be law all passengers must be sedated before a flight because us hoomans can't control their emotions . Isn't that basically what TSA has done with screenings on a different level?
We are all criminals so we must be screened from each other?
National Guard folks. Trained as needed several weeks per year, and at least one weekend a month. I don't know what happened yesterday. I do have a good sense of what happened on the flight into Detroit on Christmas.Someone I work with professionally, a very
close personal friend, was on that flight.Two schmucks arguing over a movie is not a cause to use force. A (insert expletive here) terrorist actively working to bring down an aircraft is a cause to use force.What saved that plane was one passenger using force.
I can't believe that anyone would be against this. Do I want combat-trained frequent fliers handling this? Until the TSA gets a clue, tears down their security theatre, and starts paying for air marshals on every flight yeah I want people on the flight who
are highly motivated not to allow some idiot to bring it crashing down. The fellow who saved all these lives was not combat trained as far as I know. He was simply an observant individual who reacted as everyone should have.The question is, what would you
do if faced in a similar situation? Would you (not you Peter specifically, but people in general) resort to the application of force to protect yourself? If the answer is no, then ask yourself if you would also hinder the application of force which may bring
benefit to you by protecting you as well as others. Some folks are put off by any application of any force in any situation. I am not one of those. A terrorist risks their life in order to take one or more lives (not their own, or not just their own). The
application of lethal force to prevent them from achieving any part of their aims is IMO a valid response to their threat, and in fact provides a significant deterrent. If the soft targets are not soft More to the point, I'll answer your quote with a paraphrase
of Heinlein. He pointed out that those who insist that violence achieves no aims better ask the residents of Carthage whether or not their view has any validity. It is possible to do what I indicate, with accountability, training people to recognize, assess,
and manage a situation. If a situation calls for the application of force, non-lethal or lethal, in order to protect human lives, yes, these folks should be able to act. We train our National Guard for missions like this, we can train frequent travelers for
stuff like this. In the past (though possibly not today) most pilots are ex-air force/navy/marine fliers. It seems that we can have a simple command and control structure in flight, under the command of the pilot.Should we also not train amateurs in CPR, as
they are not doctors, but gifted bystanders? Failure to perform CPR or the Heimlich maneuver correctly could lead to death. I'd argue the opposite, that even doing something partially wrong is often better than no action what-so-ever. This is a metaphor for
the TSA's current security.But, as noted, such ideas wouldn't be looked at, in part, because they are non-theatrical.
National Guard folks. Trained as needed several weeks per year, and at least one weekend a month. I don't know what happened yesterday. I do have a good sense of what happened on the flight into Detroit on Christmas.Someone I work with professionally, a very
close personal friend, was on that flight.Two schmucks arguing over a movie is not a cause to use force. A (insert expletive here) terrorist actively working to bring down an aircraft is a cause to use force.What saved that plane was one passenger using force.
I can't believe that anyone would be against this. Do I want combat-trained frequent fliers handling this? Until the TSA gets a clue, tears down their security theatre, and starts paying for air marshals on every flight yeah I want people on the flight who
are highly motivated not to allow some idiot to bring it crashing down. The fellow who saved all these lives was not combat trained as far as I know. He was simply an observant individual who reacted as everyone should have.The question is, what would you
do if faced in a similar situation? Would you (not you Peter specifically, but people in general) resort to the application of force to protect yourself? If the answer is no, then ask yourself if you would also hinder the application of force which may bring
benefit to you by protecting you as well as others. Some folks are put off by any application of any force in any situation. I am not one of those. A terrorist risks their life in order to take one or more lives (not their own, or not just their own). The
application of lethal force to prevent them from achieving any part of their aims is IMO a valid response to their threat, and in fact provides a significant deterrent. If the soft targets are not soft More to the point, I'll answer your quote with a paraphrase
of Heinlein. He pointed out that those who insist that violence achieves no aims better ask the residents of Carthage whether or not their view has any validity. It is possible to do what I indicate, with accountability, training people to recognize, assess,
and manage a situation. If a situation calls for the application of force, non-lethal or lethal, in order to protect human lives, yes, these folks should be able to act. We train our National Guard for missions like this, we can train frequent travelers for
stuff like this. In the past (though possibly not today) most pilots are ex-air force/navy/marine fliers. It seems that we can have a simple command and control structure in flight, under the command of the pilot.Should we also not train amateurs in CPR, as
they are not doctors, but gifted bystanders? Failure to perform CPR or the Heimlich maneuver correctly could lead to death. I'd argue the opposite, that even doing something partially wrong is often better than no action what-so-ever. This is a metaphor for
the TSA's current security.But, as noted, such ideas wouldn't be looked at, in part, because they are non-theatrical.
point in your lives.Didn't you hear about empathy, human factor etc etc. For example I always help my neighbours to carry bags from the store etc. if I would follow your logic I could tell them hey, it's your fault, why didn't you plan ahead and made more
children in your life they could've help you to carry those bags . I also always give seat to anyone older than 55-60 years on public transportation same goes here, if you follow that logic they should have made better plan either by better organizing their
lives not to depend on public transportation or something like that. You know how they say: A lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my parte2€a6 I know this is not good analogy since in those situations it ISN't my JOB to help those
people, but voluntary action, but nevertheless, my point is even if he did show up late, given the circumstances they've could be enough human to sort this thing in his favor no one would loose anything in that case, and Wayne would catch his flight. Just
by arguing with him, sending him back in queue, lying that he didn't know those people in the row etc. etc. would be enough for him to catch his flight (like he said he missed actual flight for 2 minutes).I just can't understand how can you be so heartless
and cold to say it's your fault, don't blame it on others . It's entirely obvious that practically all people Wayne encountered on airport acted like a$$holes, I just can't understand how anyone in their right mind can defend them. To me this is not much different
than syinag to person whose child got hit by a car sorry to break it to you, but you obviously did poor job in instructing your child how to behave in traffic .Well, like I said, we can only hope for great misery for people who're making Wayne into villain
here (I can't believe how Need an Advil turned this story upside down everything would be swell, only if Wayne wasn't such rude person, and went on molesting poor honest, fellow compatriot-loving airport stuff