Don't they want you safe.... Well we do
 

American Airlines Flight Attendant Union Opposes Republican's Airline Security Bill - Asks for More Specific Safety Procedures

Cites Exclusion of Critical Security Measures

Dallas, Ft. Worth, TX (October 30) - The Association of Professional Flight Attendants (APFA), the union representing more than 23,000 American Airlines flight attendants, has announced its opposition to the Republican version of the Aviation Security Bill (HR 3150).

"Our objectives are clear: to ensure the safety of our fellow crewmembers and the traveling public," said APFA President John
Ward. "We support the federalization of airport security screening personnel and 100 percent screening of all checked baggage as well as explicit language regarding the further implementation of safety and
security measures. These critical measures are conspicuously absent in Bill HR 3150."

"Consistency in security procedures is crucial when it comes to confidence in airline travel. Flight attendants experience first hand the inconsistencies in security checkpoints and screening apparatus in the nation's airports on a daily basis. By federalizing the security screeners rather than maintaining the current practice of hiring private companies with minimum wage employees, the government will show that it is taking this issue seriously, and will accordingly engender a higher level of confidence in air travel."

"We encourage our nation's legislators to join us in the fight against terrorism by taking all precautions necessary and available to make our skies as safe as possible. We strongly endorse the
passage of bills HR 3110 or HR 3165 which include the necessary security provisions to accomplish these objectives."

American Airlines flight attendants and pilots were among the first casualties in the terrorist attacks of September 11, events that forced the nation to take a closer look at the airline industry's security practices.

I heard on the news that whey will vote on this tomorrow.. Call or e-mail your Senator, if you belive in this.

........

Passengers experience first hand the inconsistencies of in-flight security procedures based upon the level or personal paranioa of crew members. Decide what needs to be done and be consistent about it. If its not safe to take off based upon the on-ground procedures, don't. If it is safe, don't make up new rules for each flight.

And pilots, FAs and ground crews - yes, I know you are just trying to protect us. However, you are not increasing our confidence with each change in rules.

Sorry to rant.

I agree we need consistency -- both on the ground AND in the air...and it is a total team effort, from the screeners at the airport to what the flight crew tells the passengers and expects from the passengers.

And let's stop hiding behing "FAA requirements" when we all know it is the flight crew that is putting a procedure in place.

There are good points being made here.

For example, I took 2 flights this weekend in F - both on 757's. On one flight the Captain stated we were not allowed to use F bathroom. (I was in F).
On the other flight, the FA said we could use the bathroom in F except when she was giving the pilot and copilot their breakfasts.

With all due respect, I really don't think it would have made a difference on 9/11 whether the F bathrooms were open or not.

Freeupgrade,

I agree with you. I have been on 12 flights since 9/11 and everyone one of them has had a different standard. FC lav cannot be used. FC lav can be used but do not stand in aisle waiting to use. FC lav can be used no restrictions. Seems like each crew is making their own rules.

I also agree that use of the FC lav had nothing to do with the tragic events of 9/11. Seems to me that we continue to treat the symptons not the cause.

Plus, since AA has announced the completion of reinforced cockpit doors, use of the FC lavs should no longer be an issue.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by AA since 85:
[B] Passengers experience first hand the inconsistencies of in-flight security procedures based upon the level or personal paranioa of crew members. Decide what needs to be done and be consistent about it. If its not safe to take off based upon the on-ground procedures, don't. If it is safe, don't make up new rules for each flight.

You've hit the nail on the head. The problems you've encountered are the result of having no consistent rules from the top. Being a crewmember these days is like being a member of a band of roving vigilantes. AA put out some vague directives and the statement that they would back us up if we had to take desperate measures (read kill someone trying to take over plane) to ensure the safety of our aircraft (most important) and the people on it.

It is strictly up to the crew how the rules are going down. The curtains open is an AA directive. Everything else is the crew. I'd rather be a part of the vigilant, possibly paranoid crew, than the lax " never going to happen again so don't worry about anything" crew.

AA needs to come out with a cohesive, comprehensive plan. The federal government needs to get off their a** and come up with a plan to complement the airlines plans.

[This message has been edited by AAFA (edited 10-31-2001).]

I highly oppose this on the grounds that the FAA has completely failed in their role of being responsible for security. Notwithstanding several GAO and other reports on how cr*ppy security was, they did not do a thing about it.

I am scared sh*tless if these same people are given the security guards monopoly and entrenched bureaucracy (anything federal has all sort of rules on how you hire, how you fire or not fire, etc. etc.) to do the job they were unable to do in the past. The one good thing about the current system is that the companies that failed in their job are paying for it and that McEmployes are replaced; you can't do that if they federalize things.

To state that federalization will magically cure any of the inconsistencies present under federal oversight is completely naive; does anyone think that police is consistent in applying the law?

Washington is missing the entire point of what needs to be fixed -- the outright failure of the FAA at doing their job. Enough pork barreling (by government or unions) -- we need RESULTS.

I have to say, I completely oppose the notion of federalizing the screening processs. I can't think of any country which has done so and succeeded. The European model of private screeners under strict government control seems to work much better.

All that's needed is for the penalties to be levied in a more serious fashion. If a breach occurs, the screening company is fined $25,000 and each airline which pays the firm is fined $100,000. Per incident. Maybe make the scale sliding, so the second incident is twice as much.

Then have 30-40 federal inspectors doing red-cell work full time trying to get past security. Either they'd self fund their group (and show a profit) or else they'd be able to show very convincingly that the security system has improved.

Federalizing the screeners would be disasterous.

2 many miles I agree. The Gov't has traditionally raised the costs, performed less effieciently and created un-needed bureaucracy for everything it gets involved it (military is possible exception)

------------------
I Love New York

You know, we don't accept that we would be safer if we replaced the FBI with private McAgents, or State Police with McTroopers. Why whould we believe that MORE McAirportAgents will be any more effective than they are now? For those that claim we should "unleash the power of the marketplace" to make us safe -- realize that what we have now IS the product of the "marketplace." That even the strongest opponents of federalizing airport screeners agree that we need serious federal intervention in the "free market" suggests that the market doesn't work at all in this particular area. Safety is never guaranteed when you simply go with the lowest bidder.

And for those who make the simplistic claim that airport security in Europe and Israel is private and work fine, you should probably realize that it's much more complicated. Perimeter security in Israel is private, but screeners are public employees. Some countries in Europe use public employees, some use private. I think it's about time we have actual law enforcement perform airport security duties, rather than poorly trained low-bid contractors.

I'll accept Dubya's logic on this matter the moment he proposes that we privatize the Secret Service.

[This message has been edited by robinhood (edited 10-31-2001).]

The last thing we need are federal employees manning the screening positions. Unions and government jobs are two areas where it's basically impossible to fire people who don't perform well.

Look at the airlines - how many nasty old FAs do you see? Complain all you want, these people have seniority in the union and will never get fired, never not get a promotion/raise, etc..

Private screeners with strict government supervision, a dedicated team of people trying to beat security and stiff fines. Money is what capitalism is all about, and if security firms want to use poor quality staff, that's OK. When the government security team breaches security and the security firm gets hit with a $100,000 fine for each incident - then these profit minded firms might improve their act.

But thinking that just federalizing the screening process is going to do anything - that's just stupid. Besides all of the huge lawsuits that will get the government in, it will still be the same schmucks doing a shotty job.

d

By that logic we should have only Federally employed flight attendants (after all, their primary function is safety, no?) with all the charm and effectiveness of Post Office Service Counter employees.

And by YOUR logic, the activities of the FBI ought to be farmed out to Huntleigh Security Co at the rate of $7 an hour. If you think the marketplace works in providing airport security, what do you suggest we do? The unfettered marketplace solution is the status quo. And look where that's gotten us.

Airport screeners should not be federal employees. An FBI agent and someone who looks at an X-ray monitor are two totally different jobs.