Today was the day...(The Michael Roberts/ExpressJet Story)
Oct 16, 2010, 5:48 pm
#46
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
(b) Fact: everyone on this board who declines a WBI scan knows that they are doing so in the full knowledge that they will be subjected to a "thorough" manual pat-down. The logical conclusion is that they are providing their consent to such pat down.
Should this not be the case, then they should be staying at home and writing furiously to their elected representatives to have the rules changed.
What on earth does this have to do with the discussion? If you've got a complaint about the fact that airline employees are subjected to screening like everyone else, go write a thread about it.
This is about something completely different. It's unfortunate that you don't realise this simple point.
Let's continue the discussion once you grasp what it's about. Currently, you do not.
All who think I don't have a grasp of what this discussion is about, raise your hands.
Hmmm, only you and TSORon.
All who think star_world doesn't have a grasp of what this discussion is about, raise your hands.
Well, well -- it's everyone else.
That's nice - again, you should start a thread complaining about it.
Oct 16, 2010, 5:53 pm
#47
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: BOS .. but soon SFO
Programs: UA PLAT, TK GLD, Hilton Diamond, IC PLAT, SPG GLD, Marriott GLD
Posts: 1,528
wow, I am digging the emotions in this thread.
I think deep down we all believe the TSA is a joke and wastes our time and money.
Some people go down the "can i?" path and will adhere to anything anyone in an authoritative position states...
Others go down the "why can't I?" path are serve as checks and balance measures for shoddy rules and regulations.
In the end, if it doesn't work and/or if you can't justify the actions, then you shouldn't be enforcing said action. The people draw the line, the customers keep the planes in the air and the airports functioning, not the other way around.
Maybe it is time we all mustered up some guts and stood up to make a difference on how our skies are handled... this guy put his career on the line for it... ^^^
I think deep down we all believe the TSA is a joke and wastes our time and money.
Some people go down the "can i?" path and will adhere to anything anyone in an authoritative position states...
Others go down the "why can't I?" path are serve as checks and balance measures for shoddy rules and regulations.
In the end, if it doesn't work and/or if you can't justify the actions, then you shouldn't be enforcing said action. The people draw the line, the customers keep the planes in the air and the airports functioning, not the other way around.
Maybe it is time we all mustered up some guts and stood up to make a difference on how our skies are handled... this guy put his career on the line for it... ^^^
Oct 16, 2010, 5:59 pm
#48
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: ORD / DUB / LHR
Programs: UA 1K MM; BA Silver; Marriott Plat
Posts: 8,243
...assuming people are writing about what they actually think here - a reasonable assumption.
That's what you consider a "logical" conclusion? Some states give condemned prisoners a choice between a firing squad and the gas chamber. Do you think someone who turns down the gas chamber is "consenting" to a firing squad? I suppose you've never heard the term, "lesser of two evils"?
Being a "lawyer" you are indeed good at deflecting points by throwing back a scattering of unrelated babble. But what do you think?
I presented a way out in my post above - if you don't consent to this manual pat-down which you know you will have applied to you by declining the WBI, you choose to stay at home and fight the system. To put the OP's complaint in your terms it's like the condemned prisoner waltzing out of his cell saying "you know what Joe, I'm actually not going with either option, now out of my way while I go home.
What do you think?
Love the arrogant, assumptive attitude. I understand perfectly, don't you worry about that ^
Evidently you and TSORon learned to read at the same school. I don't have a complaint about the fact that airline employees are subject to screening like everyone else. I have a complaint that pilots are subject to screening like everyone else because it is the perfect illustration of the stupidity of the security theater to which we are all subject.
That contribution to the thread should be framed for posterity. Add this one to the framed collection.
Please read more closely ^
Oct 16, 2010, 7:01 pm
#49
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,126
I honestly should be surprised at the responses that the OP has received here, but I am not.
Surprised because the majority of individuals who have responded have in the past stated that airline employee’s should not receive special treatment at the checkpoint and should be forced to undergo the same screening as everyone else who boards a commercial aircraft. Most have also demanded that airport employees need to undergo the same screening despite the fact that they do not board commercial aircraft for the purpose of transport.
The reason I am not is because this is the “Have my Cake and Eat it Too” crowd. The color of their story changes with any wind that they think is going to make TSA look bad, and it does not matter if it contradicts any statements they have made in the past. It’s the “now” story that matters. Some have done it in this very thread.
OP, I’m sorry that your story ended up as it has, but you were fully aware at the time that checkpoint screening is a mandatory part of your job. If this is too much of a burden to bear then may I suggest that you switch to a private carrier, or a GA contract carrier.
As for the rest, well I can hear the replies now without you ever putting fingers to keyboard. “It’s the AIT that we object to in this thread, what we said in the past has no relevance to AIT”, or “Our position is not contradictory, your just not looking at it right.” Or statements similar. Sorry, your records on this is clear, and every single one of you have just changed with the wind. Not an unexpected outcome honestly, its not the first time.
Surprised because the majority of individuals who have responded have in the past stated that airline employee’s should not receive special treatment at the checkpoint and should be forced to undergo the same screening as everyone else who boards a commercial aircraft. Most have also demanded that airport employees need to undergo the same screening despite the fact that they do not board commercial aircraft for the purpose of transport.
The reason I am not is because this is the “Have my Cake and Eat it Too” crowd. The color of their story changes with any wind that they think is going to make TSA look bad, and it does not matter if it contradicts any statements they have made in the past. It’s the “now” story that matters. Some have done it in this very thread.
OP, I’m sorry that your story ended up as it has, but you were fully aware at the time that checkpoint screening is a mandatory part of your job. If this is too much of a burden to bear then may I suggest that you switch to a private carrier, or a GA contract carrier.
As for the rest, well I can hear the replies now without you ever putting fingers to keyboard. “It’s the AIT that we object to in this thread, what we said in the past has no relevance to AIT”, or “Our position is not contradictory, your just not looking at it right.” Or statements similar. Sorry, your records on this is clear, and every single one of you have just changed with the wind. Not an unexpected outcome honestly, its not the first time.
I suggest that the wind does not have to change direction to make TSA look bad, TSA does that all by itself.
Oct 16, 2010, 7:11 pm
#50
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 11
Thank you for your civil courage.
The OP has my full support. One or two posters in this thread are obviously TSA employed, TSA hired, or TSA invested. Otherwise their blind promotion of the crazy TSA "security" policies is inexplicable. If you accept this kind of nonsense in airports, then there is NOTHING that will stop this from speading to railway stations, bus terminals, schools, malls, and, eventually, homes. (Welcome to 1984.) This needs to be stopped while we still can.
Oct 16, 2010, 7:23 pm
#51
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 145
Although I am a TSA employee and fully support the use of the AIT and enhanced security measures, I do applaud Mr. Roberts. He stood up for what he believes in at much personal cost to himself. It takes much courage to risk one's employment over a moral issue. You don't have to share his philosophical beliefs in order to admire his willingness to suffer the consequences for following a path he believes is right.
I think that this case may provide a good test case for the use of the AIT. I don't know if the judicial system is the best route to fight the AIT. But many of you believe that the program is an unconstitutional intrusion on individual rights. The courts are the ultimate decider of constitutionality, so this may be the way to test that theory. Mr. Roberts has standing because he was denied entry into his workplace because of his refusal to submit to a pat down. The court would be in the position of either allowing TSA to continue the AIT/enhanced pat down program or to rule it unconstitutional.
I would enjoy following the arguments and the decision rendered by the courts. This case is complicated and I don't think it is as much of a slam dunk as many here probably do. And the courts may rule on a tangent. But that is the risk with the judicial route.
One suggestion is to get a good lawyer immediately. He will probably advise you to stop writing and talking about the case. You may be fired for being AWOL from work which you would be able to tie directly to TSA. However if I were the airline I would fire you for authoring another post in this thread encouraging people not to fly to protest the AIT. Although you certainly have freedom of speech, I think that your employer certainly has a reasonable expectation that you will not advocate a boycott of it's product.
Castro
I think that this case may provide a good test case for the use of the AIT. I don't know if the judicial system is the best route to fight the AIT. But many of you believe that the program is an unconstitutional intrusion on individual rights. The courts are the ultimate decider of constitutionality, so this may be the way to test that theory. Mr. Roberts has standing because he was denied entry into his workplace because of his refusal to submit to a pat down. The court would be in the position of either allowing TSA to continue the AIT/enhanced pat down program or to rule it unconstitutional.
I would enjoy following the arguments and the decision rendered by the courts. This case is complicated and I don't think it is as much of a slam dunk as many here probably do. And the courts may rule on a tangent. But that is the risk with the judicial route.
One suggestion is to get a good lawyer immediately. He will probably advise you to stop writing and talking about the case. You may be fired for being AWOL from work which you would be able to tie directly to TSA. However if I were the airline I would fire you for authoring another post in this thread encouraging people not to fly to protest the AIT. Although you certainly have freedom of speech, I think that your employer certainly has a reasonable expectation that you will not advocate a boycott of it's product.
Castro
Oct 16, 2010, 7:25 pm
#52
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,126
So at the end of the day what have you accomplished?
You got your "good job" and applause here and yet you might have managed to destroy a career. At the end of the month no one will remember what you did. No one will be buying your dinner or making any bill payments on your behalf. You have become a paper hero and that is sad.
I understand your point. But was it worth it? That is how the judgement is passed at the end of the day.
No one is exempt from being picked for the AIT machine. Since your career consists of an exploitable avenue from a security standpoint, you should know that.
You got your "good job" and applause here and yet you might have managed to destroy a career. At the end of the month no one will remember what you did. No one will be buying your dinner or making any bill payments on your behalf. You have become a paper hero and that is sad.
I understand your point. But was it worth it? That is how the judgement is passed at the end of the day.
No one is exempt from being picked for the AIT machine. Since your career consists of an exploitable avenue from a security standpoint, you should know that.
edit to add: Are TSA employees screened via AIT Strip Search Machines when going on duty?
Seems there is some unfinished business to be taken care of.
Should have said NO ONE IS EXEMPT FROM BEING PICKED FOR THE AIT. My bad.
.
I dont remember the name of the movie about the fake pilot. Two things come to mind.
1. He SAYS that he is who he is.
2. A uniform is all anyone has to go by and those and the ID that is with it can be fraudulently obtained or stolen. Hence the AIT referral.
.
I dont remember the name of the movie about the fake pilot. Two things come to mind.
1. He SAYS that he is who he is.
2. A uniform is all anyone has to go by and those and the ID that is with it can be fraudulently obtained or stolen. Hence the AIT referral.
As far as number two, didn't the professional TSA Travel Document Checker verify this persons ID is in possession of the right person and that the ID is in fact valid?
Or is this another area that TSA cannot perform correctly?
Last edited by Kiwi Flyer; Oct 23, 2010 at 2:36 am Reason: merge consecutive posts
Oct 16, 2010, 8:28 pm
#53
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: PDX
Programs: AA LT PLT (3.6+ MM), UA 1K LT Gold, Hilton LT Diamond, Bonvoy Gold.
Posts: 1,662
I honestly should be surprised at the responses that the OP has received here, but I am not.
Surprised because the majority of individuals who have responded have in the past stated that airline employee’s should not receive special treatment at the checkpoint and should be forced to undergo the same screening as everyone else who boards a commercial aircraft. Most have also demanded that airport employees need to undergo the same screening despite the fact that they do not board commercial aircraft for the purpose of transport.
The reason I am not is because this is the “Have my Cake and Eat it Too” crowd. The color of their story changes with any wind that they think is going to make TSA look bad, and it does not matter if it contradicts any statements they have made in the past. It’s the “now” story that matters. Some have done it in this very thread.
OP, I’m sorry that your story ended up as it has, but you were fully aware at the time that checkpoint screening is a mandatory part of your job. If this is too much of a burden to bear then may I suggest that you switch to a private carrier, or a GA contract carrier.
As for the rest, well I can hear the replies now without you ever putting fingers to keyboard. “It’s the AIT that we object to in this thread, what we said in the past has no relevance to AIT”, or “Our position is not contradictory, your just not looking at it right.” Or statements similar. Sorry, your records on this is clear, and every single one of you have just changed with the wind. Not an unexpected outcome honestly, its not the first time.
Surprised because the majority of individuals who have responded have in the past stated that airline employee’s should not receive special treatment at the checkpoint and should be forced to undergo the same screening as everyone else who boards a commercial aircraft. Most have also demanded that airport employees need to undergo the same screening despite the fact that they do not board commercial aircraft for the purpose of transport.
The reason I am not is because this is the “Have my Cake and Eat it Too” crowd. The color of their story changes with any wind that they think is going to make TSA look bad, and it does not matter if it contradicts any statements they have made in the past. It’s the “now” story that matters. Some have done it in this very thread.
OP, I’m sorry that your story ended up as it has, but you were fully aware at the time that checkpoint screening is a mandatory part of your job. If this is too much of a burden to bear then may I suggest that you switch to a private carrier, or a GA contract carrier.
As for the rest, well I can hear the replies now without you ever putting fingers to keyboard. “It’s the AIT that we object to in this thread, what we said in the past has no relevance to AIT”, or “Our position is not contradictory, your just not looking at it right.” Or statements similar. Sorry, your records on this is clear, and every single one of you have just changed with the wind. Not an unexpected outcome honestly, its not the first time.
Oct 16, 2010, 8:44 pm
#54
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Southern AZ
Programs: Bellanca Turbo Viking, AA Gold/Plat
Posts: 54
So - you walk up to AIT - and refuse. That's ok. I support that.
You then are told you need to be frisked - which is standard procedure if you refuse AIT. This is the new rule. You refused - and thusly were refused access to the secure area.
Thoughts:
1. The AIT is something I will refuse whenever it is the option - I really don't care if they see my junk - I care about the radiation. So I'll support you there.
2. Refusing that screening means not the old fashioned metal detector if you alarm it you get a search - the rule is you get a pat down.
3. If you intend to bring a lawsuit that the AIT/frisk process is unconstitutional - then you shall lose. No appellate court nor the USSC will rule that the TSA bureaucrats do not have the ability to set the security rules anyhow they want so long as there is the remotest tie in to security - no one wants to be seen as 'anti-security.'
4. The only argument that might work - and it would take some heavy legal support - is that Congress lacks the power to regulate security as part of regulating interstate transportation by air since it is not an enumerated power in the Constitution. I fear that horse and buggy left the station in the 1800's when they started hiring guards for the Pony Express and the railroads.
If you KNEW the pat down rule - refused - and missed your work day and get fired - thats the choice you made that day. Good luck in another career since no airline will ever hire you.
You then are told you need to be frisked - which is standard procedure if you refuse AIT. This is the new rule. You refused - and thusly were refused access to the secure area.
Thoughts:
1. The AIT is something I will refuse whenever it is the option - I really don't care if they see my junk - I care about the radiation. So I'll support you there.
2. Refusing that screening means not the old fashioned metal detector if you alarm it you get a search - the rule is you get a pat down.
3. If you intend to bring a lawsuit that the AIT/frisk process is unconstitutional - then you shall lose. No appellate court nor the USSC will rule that the TSA bureaucrats do not have the ability to set the security rules anyhow they want so long as there is the remotest tie in to security - no one wants to be seen as 'anti-security.'
4. The only argument that might work - and it would take some heavy legal support - is that Congress lacks the power to regulate security as part of regulating interstate transportation by air since it is not an enumerated power in the Constitution. I fear that horse and buggy left the station in the 1800's when they started hiring guards for the Pony Express and the railroads.
If you KNEW the pat down rule - refused - and missed your work day and get fired - thats the choice you made that day. Good luck in another career since no airline will ever hire you.
Oct 16, 2010, 10:20 pm
#55
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
3. If you intend to bring a lawsuit that the AIT/frisk process is unconstitutional - then you shall lose. No appellate court nor the USSC will rule that the TSA bureaucrats do not have the ability to set the security rules anyhow they want so long as there is the remotest tie in to security - no one wants to be seen as 'anti-security.'
Oct 16, 2010, 10:23 pm
#56
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
If you intend to bring a lawsuit that the AIT/frisk process is unconstitutional - then you shall lose. No appellate court nor the USSC will rule that the TSA bureaucrats do not have the ability to set the security rules anyhow they want so long as there is the remotest tie in to security - no one wants to be seen as 'anti-security.'
This case is much more interesting than the passenger situation. The courts have been unclear as to whether somebody has the right to travel by air, but it's universally recognized that people have a right to enter their workplace. And it's hard to make the case that there's a compelling governmental interest in thoroughly screening somebody who legitimately has access to the flight deck of an aircraft.
Has the issue of whether it's legal to require consenting to an administrative search as a condition of employment ever been litigated? It seems to me one could argue that it consists of tortious interference in the contract between the pilot and the airline.
Last edited by Kiwi Flyer; Oct 23, 2010 at 2:35 am Reason: merge consecutive posts
Oct 16, 2010, 10:36 pm
#57
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,110
The danger of "new rules"
So - you walk up to AIT - and refuse. That's ok. I support that.
You then are told you need to be frisked - which is standard procedure if you refuse AIT. This is the new rule. You refused - and thusly were refused access to the secure area.
Thoughts:
1. The AIT is something I will refuse whenever it is the option - I really don't care if they see my junk - I care about the radiation. So I'll support you there.
2. Refusing that screening means not the old fashioned metal detector if you alarm it you get a search - the rule is you get a pat down.
3. If you intend to bring a lawsuit that the AIT/frisk process is unconstitutional - then you shall lose. No appellate court nor the USSC will rule that the TSA bureaucrats do not have the ability to set the security rules anyhow they want so long as there is the remotest tie in to security - no one wants to be seen as 'anti-security.'
4. The only argument that might work - and it would take some heavy legal support - is that Congress lacks the power to regulate security as part of regulating interstate transportation by air since it is not an enumerated power in the Constitution. I fear that horse and buggy left the station in the 1800's when they started hiring guards for the Pony Express and the railroads.
If you KNEW the pat down rule - refused - and missed your work day and get fired - thats the choice you made that day. Good luck in another career since no airline will ever hire you.
You then are told you need to be frisked - which is standard procedure if you refuse AIT. This is the new rule. You refused - and thusly were refused access to the secure area.
Thoughts:
1. The AIT is something I will refuse whenever it is the option - I really don't care if they see my junk - I care about the radiation. So I'll support you there.
2. Refusing that screening means not the old fashioned metal detector if you alarm it you get a search - the rule is you get a pat down.
3. If you intend to bring a lawsuit that the AIT/frisk process is unconstitutional - then you shall lose. No appellate court nor the USSC will rule that the TSA bureaucrats do not have the ability to set the security rules anyhow they want so long as there is the remotest tie in to security - no one wants to be seen as 'anti-security.'
4. The only argument that might work - and it would take some heavy legal support - is that Congress lacks the power to regulate security as part of regulating interstate transportation by air since it is not an enumerated power in the Constitution. I fear that horse and buggy left the station in the 1800's when they started hiring guards for the Pony Express and the railroads.
If you KNEW the pat down rule - refused - and missed your work day and get fired - thats the choice you made that day. Good luck in another career since no airline will ever hire you.
I used to work in a big skyscraper, the kind that was a nice juicy target for terrorists. What's to stop the building owners or various security entities (NYPD, etc.) from "deciding" that all employees should have to go through AIT to work there? What then? Should I just go get a new job? Think that would be okay?
Oct 16, 2010, 10:43 pm
#58
Join Date: Jul 2006
Programs: United
Posts: 2,710
Oct 17, 2010, 1:50 am
#60
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: SJC, SFO, YYC
Programs: AA-EXP, AA-0.41MM, UA-Gold, Ex UA-1K (2006 thru 2015), PMUA-0.95MM, COUA-1.5MM-lite, AF-Silver
Posts: 13,437
So why should the rules apply to pilots who don't guns?
Anyway, every pilot should get a license to carry a gun in the cockpit, even if they don't actually bring one.