Savvy Traveler

It's over, they lost... now come out and oppose the scanners and gropes!

SpatialD

I absolutely agree. HOWEVER, most likely, in the near term if/when they do exempt crew members, I will return to work. I will continue to pursue the Fourth Amendment case for all of us as American citizens, but just like I tell all my colleagues who call me with words of support and encouragement, at some point, you gotta fight your own battles.

You have to decide for yourselves whether you're going to allow them to violate your basic rights. If I can get into the airport without being abused, I probably need to get back to work so I can keep food on my table. But I would still recommend that you stay home or drive or whatever if they're going to assault you.

See, I really don't care whether I'm flying a full load of passengers around or if it's empty back there, as long as I get paid and I don't have to deal with some government clown putting his hand on my scrotum. Will I be flying my family around on vacation? Hells no - not until this threat is contained. But I'm not going to make my wife and kids suffer what you yourselves are unwilling to suffer in order to win this battle for you.

I say all of that with the utmost respect. You're good people here, and I love you - but not too much. The best possible scenario is if we all stepped up together and shut the whole thing down before the end of the weekend, thus sending the TSA packing for good. I'm doing my part - but I'm just one lowly regional airline FO.

I like the 'TM'. Unfortunately, some of my coworkers have insisted on having a LEO only to be told they're not entitled to have one present, "unless they're planning to cause trouble". I keep waiting for some martial arts champion to lay one of these goons out on the deck when they go for his berries. In self defense, of course.

tom911

Does the "we" you refer to, then, exclude airline employees that post on FT? I can see why they have a different point of view (no flying, no income). Would you rather have them stay at home and not have a check coming in?

baliktad

The "we" refers to those of us who abhor the gross restrictions of our civil liberties the TSA has placed upon the flying public, regardless of occupation or employer. If we ever expect to effect a change in policy, we are virtually certain to fail if we allow the TSA to make special exceptions for squeaky wheels. The heart of the matter is that the general public is too large a group, too unorganized, too complacent, and too uninformed to ever make a coordinated stand against the TSA. The TSA (at the uppermost levels, anyway) understands this, which leads to this ever-increasing ratcheting of security theater at our expense.

I don't wish to deprive anyone of a salary, but I care even more about not depriving American citizens the rights guaranteed them in the 4th amendment. While I can only control my own actions, I applaud anyone who is willing to put their very livelihood at stake in defense of those rights.

RoadVeteran

+1000^

I do NOT support assaulting a smurf/clerk, and I do not support the bull**it notion as some of the TSA people on this forum have said that they are "only following orders", however if some smurf/clerk grabs someones crotch and the victim responds by bouncing the smurf/clerk across the floor to the other side of the airport, I say the smurf would be getting what they so richly deserve for assualting this person to begin with.

When the inevitable charges are filed against the victim who defended themselves against the smurf's sexual assault I would hope that the large majority of members in this forum respond by making large contributions to the victims legal fund, I know I will be among the first to write a check.

Maybe the smurf gets sentenced to a prison term for sexual assault and has to register as a sexual offender when they are released, but thats a dream we can only hope for.

doober

Are you saying that your employer has not terminated your employment? If so, that is WONDERFUL news!

Tom M.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...the-tsa/65746/

American Airlines Pilots in Revolt Against the TSA

There is absolutely no denying that the enhanced pat-down is a demeaning experience. In my view, it is unacceptable to submit to one in public while wearing the uniform of a professional airline pilot. I recommend that all pilots insist that such screening is performed in an out-of-view area to protect their privacy and dignity.

Boggie Dog

It is demeaning to everyone, pilot and passenger.

DevilDog438

And, as many others have said on these forums lately, should be done in public to educate others on the level of invasiveness and violation that TSA has deemed appropriate for an administrative search.

Tom M.

I'm guessing TSO's will be unofficially told not to select flight crews for the AIT.

username_unknown

Great News! Hopefully, we will continue to see more and more push back...

doober

Here's a general e-mail address for Allied Pilots Association:

[email protected]

It would be my suggestion that we each write to the APA and support the actions of the association's president but point out that private pat downs won't have any impact on the general flying public.

DevilDog438

Thanks for that information...email has been sent. However, I am willing to bet that the response will be something along the lines of "we have to protect our membership, the general public be damned."

N965VJ

Here's what they stated:

While transiting the security checkpoint, consider the following:

• Screeners do not establish screening protocols, but are required to accomplish them in the interest of ensuring optimal security.
• Screening areas/checkpoints are equipped with cameras to record screening activities.

Kinda sounds like they don't want FAs to blow their stack at hapless screening clerks.


Then there's this:

• Become familiar with advanced imaging technology (AIT) – that is, full-body scanners – and the pro's and con's of their use. Visit the TSA website at HERE to learn more. THIS ARTICLE from the Seattle Times offers additional information on their increased use nationwide.
• Use the AIT when directed to do so by a TSA officer.

The whole post does not seem to be well thought out or particularly informative. They link to a Seattle Times story that is not a puff piece and states early on anyone can opt-out, but then tell their membership to comply with what the screener tells them to do. The good news is that AFA representation was just voted down at DL.

Meanwhile, at AFA National:

Flight attendants want TSA to implement CrewPass

11-4-2010

The Association of Flight Attendants-CWA (AFA-CWA) today once again called for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to fully implement CrewPass, an identification credential for aviation workers that promotes expedited screening of those who most frequently must pass through airport security.

"TSA has devoted many resources to enhancing aviation security but, as recently announced screening procedures take effect, it is flight attendants who are adversely affected by lengthy airport security lines," said Patricia Friend, AFA-CWA International President. "Flight attendants are subject to extensive background checks so there is no reasonable explanation why this highly vetted group of aviation employees continues to be exposed to lengthy airport security lines which may affect their ability to report to the aircraft on time. AFA-CWA supports a multi-layered aviation security system and we urge the TSA to continue work on improving airport security screening effectiveness."

With all the union blathering over the years about CrewPass, mostly from ALPA, the only airline to agree to pay for it has been AS from what I can tell, and there is nothing about AS FAs being able to utilize it.

SpatialD

I agree with all of this, and I really haven't thought this part of the issue through as thoroughly as I need to. But in general, once my rights and liberty are no longer being decimated, my next priority is my family's welfare, then your rights and liberty.

Now, if I were the only person on the planet in a position to defend your rights and liberty, I might look at that a little differently. But if you all aren't willing to suffer and sacrifice for your own interests, well, you see where I'm going with that...

I'm saying my employer hasn't figured out a bulletproof way to terminate my employment. What's bulletproof is the truth, and as long as I keep telling it, they keep bashing their heads against a brick wall.

Now, here's some news: A CAL 777 FO I've been in contact with just called to tell me she pulled a 'Michael' today.

Stay tuned...