Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Safety/Security > Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate
Reload this Page >

Today was the day...(The Michael Roberts/ExpressJet Story)

Today was the day...(The Michael Roberts/ExpressJet Story)

Old Oct 17, 2010, 3:57 pm
  #91  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 39
Originally Posted by Global_Hi_Flyer
+1. Will your union support you in this?
Thanks, I needed a good belly laugh to lighten the mood.

ALPA is a political lobby that supports ALPA. They've had this static page up on their web site for a long time now, and every once in a while they put out an email to remind us that they're working diligently on this very important issue that we would be helpless to deal with apart from them.

I am making them aware of the situation, but I have zero expectations of any meaningful response.

Originally Posted by star_world
What is accomplished by having a pilot (or any airline employee for that matter) pass through a WBI device is irrelevant. It doesn't give that "pilot" a free pass to choose not to if he feels like it.
But I did exercise my right to choose not to pass through the scanner. Are you suggesting we should be made to go through it by force?

BIG THANKS to all for the encouraging replies. My in-boxes are stuffed, so be patient if you've emailed me or left a voice mail or text, but by all means still feel free to contact me.

Several have asked how they might help/support me in this. Folks, this is about something much bigger than me or my career or you and your air travel privileges. Let's remember that our children are going to have to live in whatever world we leave them in. Let's resolve now - this week - to leave them with an honorable legacy, and to honor our own forebears who sacrificed far more than their careers or convenience for the cause of liberty.

I apologize for the copy and paste replies to so many of your emails - I wish I could respond in a more personal way to everyone. But here's what I have to say to every one of you:

I didn't refuse the TSA's abuse because I thought it would change the way they do business - I did it because I didn't want them to put their hands on me! But if we are going to stop this tyrannical assault on our essential freedoms and national identity, then we must stop looking to our labor unions, our congressmen, the media, some .org, or or anyone else to fight our battles for us. We must say our own "no" whenever we are confronted with such decisions, just like Rosa Parks and so many others whose conscientious resolve simply would not allow them to bow to the idolatrous altar of totalitarianism. Risk is inherent in life, and freedom has a cost. But that cost only compounds when we defer it in favor of our immediate comfort and convenience.

I hope you'll join me in refusing to be a part of this present madness by doing exactly what I've done. And remember that money talks. There may be little value in writing your congressman - he's probably in bed with big business and not too worried about what you think. But the airlines are big business, and when their source of revenue speaks, they will listen. So flood their in-boxes. Chances are, the human beings behind the corporation receiving your message will agree that these measures are outrageous.

Tell them you're not okay with being abused for the privilege of purchasing their services.

Tell them you are eager to fly again when this invasive threat has been contained.

Tell them to bring their full weight to bear in lobbying for the rights and liberty of their customers.

And please help others to recognize what's happening out there. Many people still show up to the airport without any clue as to what they're in for. Even worse, I'm afraid the sort of despotism that is advancing upon the air transportation system may soon spill out into the streets if we don't wake up and stop giving away our rights and freedom. We must resist - actively, not just passively - those who are actively advancing against our way of life.

Thanks again, everyone.

-m.
SpatialD is offline  
Old Oct 17, 2010, 4:09 pm
  #92  
Moderator: Midwest, Las Vegas & Dining Buzz
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 17,965
Originally Posted by SpatialD
Thanks, I needed a good belly laugh to lighten the mood.

...

Thanks again, everyone.

-m.
Boy do I like this guy! ^ ^ ^
iluv2fly is offline  
Old Oct 17, 2010, 4:15 pm
  #93  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: RDU
Programs: OnePass
Posts: 772
Originally Posted by SpatialD
*SNIP*

Thanks again, everyone.

-m.
No, sir, thank you for your patriotism and your principles.

Your actions lead me to believe that there's still hope for the rest of us. I understand your actions come at great personal sacrifice to you AND your career, something that I for one don't take lightly. I can honestly say I'm not sure I could do what you did when presented with that situation.

I sincerely hope that this leads to real change. I'm not holding my breath, but I am hopeful.

Thank you again. I wish nothing but success for you in the battles that are to come.
mikemey is offline  
Old Oct 17, 2010, 4:26 pm
  #94  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,004
Originally Posted by mikemey
No, sir, thank you for your patriotism and your principles.

Your actions lead me to believe that there's still hope for the rest of us. I understand your actions come at great personal sacrifice to you AND your career, something that I for one don't take lightly. I can honestly say I'm not sure I could do what you did when presented with that situation.

I sincerely hope that this leads to real change. I'm not holding my breath, but I am hopeful.

Thank you again. I wish nothing but success for you in the battles that are to come.
I would also like to thank the OP, and Patriot is very much the right word.

Last edited by IslandBased; Oct 17, 2010 at 4:40 pm
IslandBased is offline  
Old Oct 17, 2010, 4:41 pm
  #95  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
Originally Posted by Global_Hi_Flyer
Let's see. He is a pilot. He can crash the plane. So what exactly is accomplished by sending him through the strip-search machine?
I really hate to be the one to defend TSA here (gasp!), but there is something accomplished here.

Yes, a pilot can crash his own aircraft, so there's nothing gained regarding the security of his flights. But the pilot could also be carrying contraband (knowingly or unknowingly; willingly or unwillingly) through the checkpoint which could be passed on to a third party inside the sterile area, thereby presenting a threat to some other flight.

Remember: part of the reason for the multi-hour debacle at EWR last year was that after Wrong Way Corrigan entered the sterile area through the exit, he was left unobserved for a long period of time. They fairly quickly figured out that he'd left the area, but didn't know if he'd done Something Dangerous(TM) in the meantime ... leading them to dump the whole terminal and search the place from stem to stern.

If you don't physically screen everyone who enters the sterile area, every time --- including TSOs, vendors, pilots, maintenance workers, and custodians --- then you have a built-in mechanism to introduce "contraband" (however you want to define it) into the secure area. Of course, TSA already declines to physically screen most of those I've named.

Either screen everybody, or don't bother screening anybody.
jkhuggins is offline  
Old Oct 17, 2010, 4:53 pm
  #96  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Programs: WN Nothing and spending the half million points from too many flights, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,043
Originally Posted by jkhuggins
I really hate to be the one to defend TSA here (gasp!), but there is something accomplished here.

Yes, a pilot can crash his own aircraft, so there's nothing gained regarding the security of his flights. But the pilot could also be carrying contraband (knowingly or unknowingly; willingly or unwillingly) through the checkpoint which could be passed on to a third party inside the sterile area, thereby presenting a threat to some other flight.

Remember: part of the reason for the multi-hour debacle at EWR last year was that after Wrong Way Corrigan entered the sterile area through the exit, he was left unobserved for a long period of time. They fairly quickly figured out that he'd left the area, but didn't know if he'd done Something Dangerous(TM) in the meantime ... leading them to dump the whole terminal and search the place from stem to stern.

If you don't physically screen everyone who enters the sterile area, every time --- including TSOs, vendors, pilots, maintenance workers, and custodians --- then you have a built-in mechanism to introduce "contraband" (however you want to define it) into the secure area. Of course, TSA already declines to physically screen most of those I've named.

Either screen everybody, or don't bother screening anybody.

Yep, screen 'em all, or don't screen. It is the only logical consistency.



Sorry, I could not help laughing at myself. I just asked that the TSA do something logical and consistent. I don't care who you are, that's funny.
InkUnderNails is offline  
Old Oct 17, 2010, 4:58 pm
  #97  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,010
Originally Posted by eyecue
He presents himself as being a pilot. There is a big difference. We are not going to follow him and see if he actually is going to fly. TSA has no way to tell if he is authentic. Therefore the AIT gets used. There was a pilot in DEN that brought something through while he was using his uniform because he could.
Your Professional Travel Document/ID Checker must know if a pilots airline credentials are bona fide, correct?

Originally Posted by jkhuggins
I really hate to be the one to defend TSA here (gasp!), but there is something accomplished here.

Yes, a pilot can crash his own aircraft, so there's nothing gained regarding the security of his flights. But the pilot could also be carrying contraband (knowingly or unknowingly; willingly or unwillingly) through the checkpoint which could be passed on to a third party inside the sterile area, thereby presenting a threat to some other flight.

Remember: part of the reason for the multi-hour debacle at EWR last year was that after Wrong Way Corrigan entered the sterile area through the exit, he was left unobserved for a long period of time. They fairly quickly figured out that he'd left the area, but didn't know if he'd done Something Dangerous(TM) in the meantime ... leading them to dump the whole terminal and search the place from stem to stern.

If you don't physically screen everyone who enters the sterile area, every time --- including TSOs, vendors, pilots, maintenance workers, and custodians --- then you have a built-in mechanism to introduce "contraband" (however you want to define it) into the secure area. Of course, TSA already declines to physically screen most of those I've named.

Either screen everybody, or don't bother screening anybody.
A couple of points.

Would the pilot be unaware of contraband directly on his person?

If TSA neglects to screen everyone, as you pointed out, then why is it important to screen anyone else?

Last edited by Kiwi Flyer; Oct 23, 2010 at 2:33 am Reason: merge consecutive posts
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Oct 17, 2010, 5:06 pm
  #98  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Programs: United
Posts: 2,710
Originally Posted by star_world
This nonsense about the OP being a "patriot" is absolutely farcical, and indeed an absolute dishonour to those who actually are. The OP just made a big error of judgement - hardly worthy of any praise, is it?
Did Rosa Parks make an error in judgment or was she a patriot?

Originally Posted by eyecue
They have to go through it or the pat down if they opt out.
Are you sure? Because the SOP says that they are exempt from Secondary Screening.

Last edited by Kiwi Flyer; Oct 23, 2010 at 2:32 am Reason: merge consecutive posts
Combat Medic is offline  
Old Oct 17, 2010, 5:17 pm
  #99  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: ORD / DUB / LHR
Programs: UA 1K MM; BA Silver; Marriott Plat
Posts: 8,243
Originally Posted by SpatialD
But I did exercise my right to choose not to pass through the scanner. Are you suggesting we should be made to go through it by force?
Absolutely not - I addressed that point in detail above. I'm suggesting that you stay at home and lobby for the rules to be changed if you don't like them. At the end of the day in your original post you chose to assume the rules didn't apply to you, got strongly rebuked, and went home anyway. My option would have been significantly more productive

Originally Posted by SpatialD
I didn't refuse the TSA's abuse because I thought it would change the way they do business - I did it because I didn't want them to put their hands on me!
That's a perfectly good reason to have stayed at home. You have the choice whether to show up and go through the procedures just like everyone else, or go home and complain about it. Easy.

Originally Posted by Combat Medic
Did Rosa Parks make an error in judgment or was she a patriot?
You need a stronger grasp of history (and ability to make analogies), I'm afraid.

How would you all respond if the OP told us that he was Canadian? "Yeah, what a patriot!!! - hey, wait a minute..."

The use of that word, in the context of this thread is absolutely sickening. Not surprising in the least though.
star_world is offline  
Old Oct 17, 2010, 5:41 pm
  #100  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Programs: United
Posts: 2,710
Originally Posted by star_world
You need a stronger grasp of history (and ability to make analogies), I'm afraid.

How would you all respond if the OP told us that he was Canadian? "Yeah, what a patriot!!! - hey, wait a minute..."

The use of that word, in the context of this thread is absolutely sickening. Not surprising in the least though.
OK, let us explore this then.

Rosa Parks saw a government sanctioned activity that she knew in her heart was wrong.
Michael Roberts saw a government sanctioned activity that he knew in her heart was wrong.

Rosa Parks took peaceful actions against the above activity.
Michael Roberts took peaceful actions against the above activity.

Rosa Parks knew and accepted the repercussions of her actions.
Michael Roberts knew and accepted the repercussions of his actions.

So....where's the disconnect here?
Combat Medic is offline  
Old Oct 17, 2010, 5:43 pm
  #101  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
Originally Posted by jkhuggins
Yes, a pilot can crash his own aircraft, so there's nothing gained regarding the security of his flights. But the pilot could also be carrying contraband (knowingly or unknowingly; willingly or unwillingly) through the checkpoint which could be passed on to a third party inside the sterile area, thereby presenting a threat to some other flight.

[...]

If you don't physically screen everyone who enters the sterile area, every time --- including TSOs, vendors, pilots, maintenance workers, and custodians --- then you have a built-in mechanism to introduce "contraband" (however you want to define it) into the secure area. Of course, TSA already declines to physically screen most of those I've named.

Either screen everybody, or don't bother screening anybody.
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
A couple of points.

Would the pilot be unaware of contraband directly on his person?
Depends on what you mean by "directly on his person". Someone sews a knife into the lining of a pilot's jacket, or hides a wad of explosive gel in the lining of a pilot's hat. It gets a little trickier if you want to talk about clothing layers being worn directly, but it's not impossible. (Keep in mind that we're talking about events as rare as ... well, as a terrorist incident aboard an aircraft, which is pretty darn rare ...)

Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
If TSA neglects to screen everyone, as you pointed out, then why is it important to screen anyone else?
I'm in agreement with you on that one. As I said: screen everybody, or don't bother with screening at all.
jkhuggins is offline  
Old Oct 17, 2010, 6:28 pm
  #102  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: SW Rapid Rewards, Hilton Honors, Marriott, Avis First
Posts: 4,831
Originally Posted by star_world
How would you all respond if the OP told us that he was Canadian? "Yeah, what a patriot!!! - hey, wait a minute..."
He is an American citizen at an American airport.

Your attempts to deflect the issue is desperate.

The use of that word, in the context of this thread is absolutely sickening. Not surprising in the least though.
Perhaps you may wish to consult a dictionary:

patriot
   
1. a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion.

2. a person who regards himself or herself as a defender, esp. of individual rights, against presumed interference by the federal government.

3. ( initial capital letter ) Military . a U.S. Army antiaircraft missile with a range of 37 mi. (60 km) and a 200-lb. (90 kg) warhead, launched from a tracked vehicle with radar and computer guidance and fire control.
The word seems pretty applicable here.
PhoenixRev is offline  
Old Oct 17, 2010, 7:15 pm
  #103  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicago, USA
Programs: UA 1MM Gold AA Gold NW Silver Marriott Plat. SPG Plat. Hilton Gold Hertz 5 Star
Posts: 3,215
<snip>

Last edited by chichow; Oct 17, 2010 at 7:16 pm Reason: not worth it
chichow is offline  
Old Oct 17, 2010, 7:21 pm
  #104  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Colorado
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,745
Originally Posted by Combat Medic
Are you sure? Because the SOP says that they are exempt from Secondary Screening.
Not the new one........

Originally Posted by PhoenixRev
He is an American citizen at an American airport.

Your attempts to deflect the issue is desperate.



Perhaps you may wish to consult a dictionary:

Quote:
patriot
   
1. a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion.

2. a person who regards himself or herself as a defender, esp. of individual rights, against presumed interference by the federal government.

3. ( initial capital letter ) Military . a U.S. Army antiaircraft missile with a range of 37 mi. (60 km) and a 200-lb. (90 kg) warhead, launched from a tracked vehicle with radar and computer guidance and fire control.


The word seems pretty applicable here.
So TSA is the first definition and since it is first that means that it trumps the others.

Last edited by Kiwi Flyer; Oct 23, 2010 at 2:28 am Reason: merge consecutive posts
eyecue is offline  
Old Oct 17, 2010, 7:37 pm
  #105  
Original Member
 
Join Date: May 1998
Location: PDX
Programs: TSA Refusenik charter member
Posts: 15,978
Originally Posted by eyecue
So TSA is the first definition and since it is first that means that it trumps the others.
If only Sense and Reference worked like that.
essxjay is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.