TSA: Flight Attendants Exempt from screening
Nov 23, 2010 | 12:41 pm
#16
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: North of DFW
Programs: AA PLT, HH Gold, TSA Disparager Gold, going for Platnium
Posts: 1,535
anyone have contact info for the pilots and FA unions so to send them a note that if they want there jobs to stay secure, they better step up to the bat for those that pay there salaries unless they want to watch the airlines go belly up.
Nov 23, 2010 | 12:43 pm
#17
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: ORD/MDW
Programs: BA/AA/AS/B6/WN/ UA/HH/MR and more like 'em but most felicitously & importantly MUCCI
Posts: 19,811
I wouldn't trust the Menzies ground crew at SEA to sort my socks for me. They've been busted again and again for everything from drugs to luggage theft to banging airplanes together. Why do they get a pass while normal passengers don't?
Nov 23, 2010 | 12:51 pm
#19
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: SEA/YVR/BLI
Programs: UA "Lifetime" Gold, AS Titanium, OW Emerald, HH Lifetime Diamond, IC Plat, Marriott Gold, Hertz Gold
Posts: 9,583
"Most passengers fly infrequently..."
Media outlets, including the Monitor, widely reported the pilots deal last week, but fewer have noted that flight attendants will receive the same treatment. Security officials acknowledged in a deal brokered Nov. 19 between unions and the TSA that the people who have unfettered access to the cockpit do not need to undergo invasive screening procedures as part of their daily commute.
It just doesnt make sense we spend our resources doing this intensive security check on workers who are in a safety-sensitive position and who have been screened before they are allowed to get the job," says Patricia Friend, president of the Association of Flight Attendants CWA, which represents more than 50,000 flight attendants at 22 airlines. Many passengers dont realize how much cockpit access flight attendants have, she adds. When a pilot steps out of the cockpit, a flight attendant must be in the cockpit...
Passengers have also complained loudly about the invasive scans, which render a naked image, and the enhanced pat-downs, which require whole-hand rubbing against all parts of the body. Most passengers fly infrequently, however, making checkpoint screenings a rare indignity.
For those who go through checkpoints daily, the risks and indignities are larger. Pilots unions, concerned about the disproportionately high exposure to the scans radiation, urged their members not to walk through the Advanced Imaging Technology scanners, pointing out that there are no long-term studies looking at cumulative effects on pregnant women, those with compromised immune systems, and others.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/20...TSA-body-scans
Nov 23, 2010 | 1:00 pm
#20
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 464
First of all, I agree that pilots should be exempt. However, I do find it HIGHLY amusing that the TSA and there mouth pieces have been arguing passionately for months on why pilots should be screened are now going to have to reverse their position and argue, with just as much passion, why pilots should NOT be screened.
HIGHLY amusing watching this
HIGHLY amusing watching this
Nov 23, 2010 | 1:00 pm
#21
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Marriott or Hilton hot tub with a big drink <glub> Beverage: To-Go Bag DYKWIA:SSSS /rolleyes ☈ Date Night:Costco
Programs: Sea Shell Lounge Platinum, TSA Pre✓ Refusnik Diamond, PWP Gold, FT subset of the subset
Posts: 12,523
Oh, wait a minute.
Nov 23, 2010 | 1:04 pm
#22
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: SEA/YVR/BLI
Programs: UA "Lifetime" Gold, AS Titanium, OW Emerald, HH Lifetime Diamond, IC Plat, Marriott Gold, Hertz Gold
Posts: 9,583
First of all, I agree that pilots should be exempt. However, I do find it HIGHLY amusing that the TSA and there mouth pieces have been arguing passionately for months on why pilots should be screened are now going to have to reverse their position and argue, with just as much passion, why pilots should NOT be screened.
HIGHLY amusing watching this
HIGHLY amusing watching this
What next? Maybe, for a $500 annual fee, frequent fliers can go through a NEXUS-like advance security check (profiling), receive their card and buy their way out of the line. Government are always looking for new sources of revenue.
Nov 23, 2010 | 1:26 pm
#23
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northeast Kansas | Colorado Native
Programs: Amex Gold/Plat, UA *G, Hyatt Globalist, IHG Plat Marriott LT Gold, NEXUS, TSA Disparager Unobtanium
Posts: 22,651
Sad, but true. As far as anybody dressed as an airport employee, remember the guy pretending to be a US marshal?
^
Last edited by FriendlySkies; Nov 23, 2010 at 1:37 pm
Nov 23, 2010 | 1:28 pm
#24
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alexandria, VA, USA NW Platinum Elite Since 1999, United GoldMM, Hyatt Discoverist, SPG Gold, Hilton Diamond, Hertz #1 Gold, IC Ambassador
Posts: 7,451
But... if I'm already signed up and cleared for Global Entry, will I be qualified for "Global Exit"
I'd say the same for the sudden reversal on children under 12.
What next? Maybe, for a $500 annual fee, frequent fliers can go through a NEXUS-like advance security check (profiling), receive their card and buy their way out of the line. Government are always looking for new sources of revenue.
What next? Maybe, for a $500 annual fee, frequent fliers can go through a NEXUS-like advance security check (profiling), receive their card and buy their way out of the line. Government are always looking for new sources of revenue.
Nov 23, 2010 | 1:32 pm
#25
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Location: MSY; 2-time FT Fantasy Football Champ, now in recovery.
Programs: AA lifetime GLD; UA Silver; Marriott LTTE; IHG Plat,
Posts: 14,814
Screening pilots makes little sense, since they can bring down a plane (or worse) without any weapon or explosive. The same is not true for FA's. Allowing FA's to bypass security implies that the TSA believes that their employment/security screening is sufficient to ensure that they are not a threat. Whatever that process is, there's no reason it could not be offered as an option to frequent fliers too.
Nov 23, 2010 | 2:11 pm
#26
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: DTW
Programs: DL 0.22 MM, AA 0.34 MM, PC Plat Amb, Hertz #1 GC 5*
Posts: 7,511
Why not?
Screening pilots makes little sense, since they can bring down a plane (or worse) without any weapon or explosive. The same is not true for FA's. Allowing FA's to bypass security implies that the TSA believes that their employment/security screening is sufficient to ensure that they are not a threat. Whatever that process is, there's no reason it could not be offered as an option to frequent fliers too.
Screening pilots makes little sense, since they can bring down a plane (or worse) without any weapon or explosive. The same is not true for FA's. Allowing FA's to bypass security implies that the TSA believes that their employment/security screening is sufficient to ensure that they are not a threat. Whatever that process is, there's no reason it could not be offered as an option to frequent fliers too.
When flying, I've seen pilots take restroom breaks, and be substituted by an FA (FAA rule about two crew, of any type, on the flight deck?). As some FAs have flight experience, and some are even certified pilots, there's nothing technically stopping that FA from disabling the PIC or SIC, blocking the door, and taking control of the aircraft.
Nov 23, 2010 | 2:20 pm
#27
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Marriott or Hilton hot tub with a big drink <glub> Beverage: To-Go Bag DYKWIA:SSSS /rolleyes ☈ Date Night:Costco
Programs: Sea Shell Lounge Platinum, TSA Pre✓ Refusnik Diamond, PWP Gold, FT subset of the subset
Posts: 12,523
On some aircraft it is physically impossible to open the cockpit door without getting out of the pilots seat. Having a FA go into the cockpit while a pilot takes a lav break prevents the flight controls from being unmanned, even if only for just few moments.
Nov 23, 2010 | 2:25 pm
#28
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 464
Why not?
Screening pilots makes little sense, since they can bring down a plane (or worse) without any weapon or explosive. The same is not true for FA's. Allowing FA's to bypass security implies that the TSA believes that their employment/security screening is sufficient to ensure that they are not a threat. Whatever that process is, there's no reason it could not be offered as an option to frequent fliers too.
Screening pilots makes little sense, since they can bring down a plane (or worse) without any weapon or explosive. The same is not true for FA's. Allowing FA's to bypass security implies that the TSA believes that their employment/security screening is sufficient to ensure that they are not a threat. Whatever that process is, there's no reason it could not be offered as an option to frequent fliers too.
Which route would a terrorist take to infiltrate the plane as staff?
Nov 23, 2010 | 2:34 pm
#29
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: DTW
Programs: DL 0.22 MM, AA 0.34 MM, PC Plat Amb, Hertz #1 GC 5*
Posts: 7,511
It was on a mainline when I've seen this, Most probably a DC9/MD80/MD88/etc. Not sure how that effects the analysis.
Nov 23, 2010 | 2:42 pm
#30
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: DCA
Programs: UA Gold
Posts: 1,650
No need to go that far. Simply find a sympathetic crew member (pilot or FA). Even if they aren't willing to die for the cause, they would be able to pass materials to someone in the secure area who is.