TSA New Procedure Poll

[Mrs Mungo]

eternalknot-I'm moving the radiation part of the discussion to the thread dedicated to the topic. There's no point in having it in two threads. Just so you know I'm not ignoring you. :)

[Tea Time]

The military and other federal agencies have worked tirelessly in killing and capturing terrorists as well as foiling terrorist plots. Part of the trouble? For the most part, the American people are more interested in Lindsey Lohan than Afghanistan. I would bet greater than 75% of adult Americans couldn't locate Afghanistan on a map.

:iagree:

 

There is nothing on earth that will make us 100% safe from those who intend us harm.

:iagree:

Not only that, but shifting people from airlines to roads will likely cause more fatalities making us less safe. Another reason why I am puzzled by the intense push to move forward a measure that will cause more ground travel.

 

Do you know how many foreign fighters are regularly captured or killed on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan? I absolutely, positively believe that giving them a place to fight our soldiers (v. attacking our citizens on our ground) has been an effective strategy. Does that mean it or any other strategy is 100% effective? Of course not.

:iagree:

You bet.

 

What is your definition of failure? Has there been another successful terrorist attack or not?

NOT

Which is why I have argued that these measures seem irrational to me unless there is something that we do not know, which is also something I have argued on other threads.

 

Do you (or anyone else) honestly believe the government works that quickly? Everything I've read says that the government put this in the works in 2006. It takes a lot of planning and discussion before it can even get to that point.

I don't know. The shoe thing was pretty reactionary. Of course the technology has been developing for a long time, but the decision to deploy that technology has happened now. Why?

 

Mejane made a comment in her post that appears to be unhappy about the strategy of having our military "guarding other countries." I was pointing out that our strategy was to fight the terrorism front on its ground instead of ours, not exactly to "guard other countries." I think it has been effective. I do not think that we need to bring back our military troops just to guard airports; I want them to fight terrorism where it is most effective to do so, don't you? But if this administration wants us to believe that this heightened security at airports is really needed, perhaps I am missing something. I would like to know what it is.

 

Or perhaps it is simply that it seems perfectly normal to them that the peasantry should be "handled" this way, and this administration underestimated the negative reaction this would bring. But I am just speculating here.

 

How can we have our military patrolling our airports (or borders) when they're all overseas guarding other countries? :tongue_smilie: Really, don't get me started...

 

Not trying to get you started, honest! :001_smile:

 

But, here's the thing. If we have to move the front line from where we thought it was best to fight (overseas) to here, in order to be safe, that might mean we are losing the battle. I am sad that, after all this time, we have not been so effective over there that we are safe from fear over here. That was the idea of meeting the enemy where they were. If that failed, or if it is failing now, maybe that should be addressed as well. These measures definitely give me the feeling that our national security has degraded somehow. Unless, of course, it really is a reaction to only the underwear bomber. Then it just seems irrational. So which is it?

 

The entire POINT of fighting over there was so that we would not have to incorporate these kind of measures over here, not just that we would avoid more deaths. Saving our way of life is about more than just total fatalities, isn't it? Or have we forgotten that?

[pqr]

For the most part, the American people are more interested in Lindsey Lohan than Afghanistan. I would bet greater than 75% of adult Americans couldn't locate Afghanistan on a map.

 

 

 

That is one of the scariest things about the American population.

 

The dumbing down of people in PS has resulted in huge swathes of the population who are geographical and historical morons.

[eternalknot]

eternalknot-I'm moving the radiation part of the discussion to the thread dedicated to the topic. There's no point in having it in two threads. Just so you know I'm not ignoring you. :)

 

:001_smile: Okay. I can't keep these danged threads straight anymore LOL.

[Mrs Mungo]

Mejane made a comment in her post that appears to be unhappy about the strategy of having our military "guarding other countries." I was pointing out that our strategy was to fight the terrorism front on its ground instead of ours, not exactly to "guard other countries." I think it has been effective. I do not think that we need to bring back our military troops just to guard airports; I want them to fight terrorism where it is most effective to do so, don't you? But if this administration wants us to believe that this heightened security at airports is really needed, perhaps I am missing something. I would like to know what it is.

 

Or perhaps it is simply that it seems perfectly normal to them that the peasantry should be "handled" this way, and this administration underestimated the negative reaction this would bring. But I am just speculating here.

 

I don't think "this administration" is suddenly to blame for all this. Airline travel regs have been consistently revved up for ten years now. I imagine the TSA is employing the technology now, because now is when they have the machines ready, as planned for the last 4 or 5 years. In 2000 we entered Germany from EGYPT without going through passport control, there wasn't anyone at the counter. Travel regs were practical a joke before 9/11/2001. They needed tightening to some degree.

 

The entire POINT of fighting over there was so that we would not have to incorporate these kind of measures over here, not just that we would avoid more deaths. Saving our way of life is about more than just total fatalities, isn't it? Or have we forgotten that?

 

I don't disagree with this point. I think the body scans will just lead to people hiding things in other places. I said in my initial post that I think we've hit the realm of diminishing returns. It's a lot of money, a lot of invasion and a not necessarily a lot of bang for our buck, IMO. But, this administration didn't plan it. LOTS of things carry forward in DoD, Homeland Security and other government agencies.

 

That is one of the scariest things about the American population.

 

The dumbing down of people in PS has resulted in huge swathes of the population who are geographical and historical morons.

 

:iagree:History is one of the main reasons we homeschool.

[Tea Time]

I don't think "this administration" is suddenly to blame for all this. Airline travel regs have been consistently revved up for ten years now. I imagine the TSA is employing the technology now, because now is when they have the machines ready, as planned for the last 4 or 5 years. In 2000 we entered Germany from EGYPT without going through passport control, there wasn't anyone at the counter. Travel regs were practical a joke before 9/11/2001. They needed tightening to some degree.

I don't disagree with with this, and I did not say "this administration" was "to blame for everything." I am asking why "this administration" is deploying the technology, because I am not as convinced as you are that it is not a reactionary move. From the article you posted:

 

On CBS's "Face The Nation," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who isn't subject to the screening, said she understands "how difficult it is and how offensive it must be for the people who are going through it." Isn't that nice of her?

 

But terrorists are "getting more creative about what they do to hide explosives in, you know, crazy things like underwear," she said. "So, clearly, there is a need."

It is not that clear to me. Why, as I have argued on other threads, should we increase traffic fatalities with these measures? From an economics (not the money kind) point of view, it is illogical unless there is a pure net benefit of saved lives (not political rear end covering), and I cannot see that. I need more than this platitude, I need them to crunch numbers for me. It sounds reactionary to me, and others have also expressed that sentiment on several of these threads.

 

I don't disagree with this point. I think the body scans will just lead to people hiding things in other places. I said in my initial post that I think we've hit the realm of diminishing returns. It's a lot of money, a lot of invasion and a not necessarily a lot of bang for our buck, IMO. But, this administration didn't plan it. LOTS of things carry forward in DoD, Homeland Security and other government agencies.

:iagree:

Maybe "this administration" did not plan it, but they can stop it. Will they? You need not go to so much trouble defending "this administration" from me. It is their job to defend their policies and convince the American people of the need. They are working on that, and I am listening. I do not plan to Opt Out. But, I am paying close attention, because "this administration" has already passed the point of diminishing returns regarding forcing things on the American people that they do not want. That is true, not because I said so, because the recent election said so. So I am waiting to see if "this administration" can respond to the American people instead of just telling us, "We understand your frustrations, but it is for your own good, get used to it." I don't know though. Also from the article you posted:

 

"They are so far down the road in buying all the equipment that they're too embarrassed to reverse course," he said.

 

:iagree:History is one of the main reasons we homeschool.

:iagree: And so is economics.

Edited November 23, 2010 by Tea Time

[Mejane]

 

 

Mejane made a comment in her post that appears to be unhappy about the strategy of having our military "guarding other countries." I was pointing out that our strategy was to fight the terrorism front on its ground instead of ours, not exactly to "guard other countries." I think it has been effective.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just to be clear... I was not talking about bringing home our troops in the middle east right now (as much as I wish that were possible.) I do think they have made progress in keeping the terrorists in check. What I'm talking about is having an ongoing military presence in 150 (?) countries all over the world. I believe many of those troops should be here guarding, if not our airports, then certainly our borders.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I don't think "this administration" is suddenly to blame for all this. Airline travel regs have been consistently revved up for ten years now. I imagine the TSA is employing the technology now, because now is when they have the machines ready, as planned for the last 4 or 5 years. In 2000 we entered Germany from EGYPT without going through passport control, there wasn't anyone at the counter. Travel regs were practical a joke before 9/11/2001. They needed tightening to some degree.

 

 

 

I don't disagree with this point. I think the body scans will just lead to people hiding things in other places. I said in my initial post that I think we've hit the realm of diminishing returns. It's a lot of money, a lot of invasion and a not necessarily a lot of bang for our buck, IMO. But, this administration didn't plan it. LOTS of things carry forward in DoD, Homeland Security and other government agencies.

 

 

 

:iagree:History is one of the main reasons we homeschool.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

[Tea Time]

Just to be clear... I was not talking about bringing home our troops in the middle east right now (as much as I wish that were possible.) I do think they have made progress in keeping the terrorists in check. What I'm talking about is having an ongoing military presence in 150 (?) countries all over the world. I believe many of those troops should be here guarding, if not our airports, then certainly our borders.

 

:iagree:

 

Thanks Mejane, for the clarification. I couldn't agree more!

[FaithManor]

And my point was only to the National Guard. Not regular armed forces. The guard, by design, is supposed to be on domestic soil doing security here. We should be using them at the airports, the borders, etc. Our sheriffs and local police departments in the border states desperately need help and no help is there. We need truly trained security officers at airports that have the right kind of training and instead we the jobs is given to "just anyone" with no background in terrorism, counter terrorism, criminality, psychology etc. These are all classes that many of the National Guardsmen who are currently trained in security, have taken and been tested on.

 

I am not for bringing home the troops though I am not inclined to be believe we need to have a military presence in 150 countries. But, we need to fight terror at it's home front. Our guardsmen should not be a part of that equation and should be home protecting us and securing our home soil.

 

Faith

[lionfamily1999]

Just an FYI, TSA now believes they have the right to fine people that walk away from the security pat downs.

 

Link to article/video

 

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) says it can fine individuals up to $11,000 for walking away from the airport security process. But will it? People in government say the fine is mostly a deterrent so that terrorists cannot back out of a security check once it starts.

 

ETA, the terrorists in this case, must be all those disgusted fliers that decide it's not worth it.

[AuntieM]

 

And FWIW, airport security have highly trained dogs to sniff out any body cavity irregularities.

 

To many people have forgotten about 911....

 

Again, I have not heard anyone come up with a better solution? I am open to hearing them.

 

Um.... If there are highly trained dogs available, why do we need radiation spewing scanners and handsy TSA agents? Methinks you have answered your own question.

 

I had a brother flying AA out of Boston on September 11. I find it insulting that you think we've forgotten it. The fact of the matter is that my memory of the United States Constitution is just as strong.

[FaithManor]

I haven't forgotten. Two of my former music professors, very near and dear to my heart, we on the second plane that hit the World Trade Center. DON'T HINT TO ME THAT I'VE FORGOTTEN! I WILL NEVER FORGET!

 

That doesn't mean that I think these new procedures aren't a total loss of liberty, sick and twisted or that I believe they will keep us safe.'

 

Faith

[Perry]

Or a judge to rule on the constitutionality of the new procedures. Where's the ACLU when you need them??? What we need is a lawsuit.

Looks like they are getting involved.

 

http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/tsa-pat-down-search-abuse

 

Technology and Liberty

 

TSA Pat-Down Search Abuse

 

November 17, 2010

At many airports around the U.S., the Transportation Security Administration is now using full body scanner machines and also much more invasive pat-down searches. While passengers are supposed to be told that they have a right to opt out of the body scanners, in some cases, TSA employees are not giving them any other option.

If you do not want your body to be scanned by a machine that uses x-rays to create a naked outline of your body, you may insist on your right to opt out of the full body scanners. But, you may then be subjected to an invasive pat-down of your body at the hands of TSA screeners. The TSA has recently changed its guidelines and these pat-downs are now much more invasive. Screeners are now authorized to use the front of their hands and to touch areas around breasts and groins. Passengers being screened are supposed to be given privacy during these more invasive pat-downs and the searches are supposed to be done by screeners of the same sex. Opting for the pat-down will take more time.

The ACLU is interested in obtaining information about the conduct of these searches. If you are denied the right to opt out of the body scanner machines or believe you have suffered from rough, rude, and humiliating manhandling and groping of breasts and crotch areas, sexual comments, and a lack of privacy, please contact us by using the complaint form linked below.

 

 

REPORT YOUR EXPERIENCE

File a complaint with the ACLU

 

 

 

 

 

The ACLU is assessing possible responses to this policy. In doing so, it is extremely helpful for us to gain a sense of the kinds of abuses that are taking place. If you have experienced a problem with the full body scanners or pat-down searches at airport security, you can help us end these problems by reporting your story.

 

LINKS

> ACLU letter to TSA on Abusive Airport Pat-Downs

> TSA guidelines on pat-down searches

 

 

 

[Testimony]

In Europe, the Middle East, and other continents, they have always had pat downs and x-rays long before we did. The USA has only been doing this for 9years. The rest of the world has been doing this for years. I remember when I travelled to London 15 years ago, I went through three different medal detectors and if the thing rung, someone was getting patted down. We, Americans, are spoiled. Our rights are being violated.:w00t: But is it OK for people to hide drugs in a baby's diaper? It is the same thing a person can hide a bomb in their underwear. You never know.

 

Blessings,

Karen

http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/testimony

[kmacnchs]

I am TOTALLY against it for modesty reasons - unless you are my dh or a Dr, you are NOT seeing me naked! I don't even let bra people measure me!

 

My dh says he's fine with it for him but NO WAY for our children - hello pedophiles!!!

[Tea Time]

Looks like they are getting involved.

 

http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/tsa-pat-down-search-abuse

 

The only problem I see with this is it is also kind of reactionary unless the end goal is to stop the procedures somehow. IF there are abuses is not really the point. The system is fundamentally invasive and problematic despite whether or not abuses take place (and they will). It should be rejected on the face of it, flat out, because it doesn't have a net balance benefit to make up for the wholesale loss of freedom and other disruptions to our way of life, and because resources allocated to this cannot be allocated to something that might actually work. It is an expensive, false sense of security.

 

This makes it look like the measures are perfectly okay as long as they are done "correctly," but there is no correctly. This approach will create a situation where many abuses are never reported, while a few win some kind of legal lottery and get compensated. The lawyers will sure benefit though, won't they?

 

Testimony said: In Europe, the Middle East, and other continents, they have always had pat downs and x-rays long before we did. The USA has only been doing this for 9years. The rest of the world has been doing this for years. I remember when I travelled to London 15 years ago, I went through three different medal detectors and if the thing rung, someone was getting patted down. We, Americans, are spoiled. Our rights are being violated. But is it OK for people to hide drugs in a baby's diaper? It is the same thing a person can hide a bomb in their underwear. You never know.

 

Blessings,

Karen

 

Europe and the middle east are a mess. Why, exactly, should be always copy what they are doing? Besides, My dd and I were in Europe this year and it did not seem to me that their security was any more significant than ours has been for the last 10 years. I don't even recall having to remove my shoes on the way back, but I will have to ask my traveling companions about that. Also, I will double check that with dd since she did more air travel than I did. I do not think she or anyone she saw was x-rayed or patted down though, because she never complained, and she just called me last night fretting about having to do it here tomorrow. This argument is more of the same old, "It is for your own good, just suck it up, okay?" Is that the only argument out there?

 

As for the middle east, it is okay with you if we become more like that? Really?

 

We are not spoiled by freedom. Let the rest of the world give it away, I refuse to do so willingly.

[Harriet Vane]

The only problem I see with this is it is also kind of reactionary unless the end goal is to stop the procedures somehow. IF there are abuses is not really the point. The system is fundamentally invasive and problematic despite whether or not abuses take place (and they will). It should be rejected on the face of it, flat out, because it doesn't have a net balance benefit to make up for the wholesale loss of freedom and other disruptions to our way of life, and because resources allocated to this cannot be allocated to something that might actually work. It is an expensive, false sense of security.

 

This makes it look like the measures are perfectly okay as long as they are done "correctly," but there is no correctly. This approach will create a situation where many abuses are never reported, while a few win some kind of legal lottery and get compensated. The lawyers will sure benefit though, won't they?

...

 

We are not spoiled by freedom. Let the rest of the world give it away, I refuse to do so willingly.

 

:iagree: Well said. Thank you.

[MBM]

I think this saying from my son's writing book is pertinent to the discussion:

 

"In a free country, there is much clamor with little suffering. In a despotic state, there is little complaint with much grievance."

 

--Lazare Carnot

Having meantioned that, I don't know what the perfect solution is or whether we'll have one.

[secular_mom]

LOL, I don't like the procedures but it won't change how much we fly- we don't fly. But if I 'had' to fly for some reason I would suck it up and deal with it.

[MBM]

LOL, I don't like the procedures but it won't change how much we fly- we don't fly. But if I 'had' to fly for some reason I would suck it up and deal with it.

 

After we land on Oahu, I'm going to go suck up a mai-tai. A big one! :D

[Parrothead]

 

We are not spoiled by freedom. Let the rest of the world give it away, I refuse to do so willingly.

You need to put that in your sig line. Bolded and in red.

[secular_mom]

After we land on Oahu, I'm going to go suck up a mai-tai. A big one! :D

That'll help you recover! Good plan. ;)

[RanchGirl]

In Europe, the Middle East, and other continents, they have always had pat downs and x-rays long before we did. The USA has only been doing this for 9years. The rest of the world has been doing this for years. I remember when I travelled to London 15 years ago, I went through three different medal detectors and if the thing rung, someone was getting patted down. We, Americans, are spoiled. Our rights are being violated.:w00t: But is it OK for people to hide drugs in a baby's diaper? It is the same thing a person can hide a bomb in their underwear. You never know.

 

a) a metal detector is not the same as a backspatter xray, which is new technology. No one is complaining about metal detectors or having luggage xrayed. A backspatter xray produces a naked body image which is viewed and saved. It also produces is a dangerous level of radiation aimed directly at your skin. There are no studies showing any level of safety in backspatter xrays. http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2010/05/17/concern.pdf

 

b) I completely agree with Tea Time -- freedom is not spoiling us. Our liberty must be protected at all costs, even if it means giving up a little bit of security (or in this case, false security, see below). Allowing this kind of personal invasion without reasonable cause is giving the government way too much power, power they are not allowed in the Constitution.

 

c) Neither the enhanced pat downs nor the new xray machines produce even a false security. Neither would detect what the "underwear bomber" was carrying: http://wewontfly.com/millimeter-wave-scanners-didnt-work. So what exactly is the point of endangering and accosting Americans like this?

 

For those suggesting this is the only measure to improve security, let me reiterate, this does not appear to be a helpful measure. Same with scanning shoes -- it's degrading and ridiculous. One can only assume it was merely another step toward conditioning us to be compliant enough to allow naked body scans. What's next???

 

Things that I believe would actually help: locking the cockpit doors (done) and putting our money into intelligence, profiling, and air marshals on every flight.

[Hannah C.]

I will be going to a friend's wedding in May, with a little baby. Dh and I were planning on looking up plane tickets, because the flight will be less than an hour vs a five-plus hour drive. However, now that these new regulations are in place, I *really* would prefer to avoid flying altogether.

 

It's the pat-downs that creep me out - I am *NOT* *NOT* *NOT* okay with what I've heard described!!! The scanning machines are worrisome, yes, but as I fly rarely they would not affect *me* personally very much, even if they are unsafe. For those who fly all the time, I don't think it's the best option because they may or may not be as safe as they're supposed to be.

[RanchGirl]

And my point was only to the National Guard. Not regular armed forces. The guard, by design, is supposed to be on domestic soil doing security here. We should be using them at the airports, the borders, etc. Our sheriffs and local police departments in the border states desperately need help and no help is there. We need truly trained security officers at airports that have the right kind of training and instead we the jobs is given to "just anyone" with no background in terrorism, counter terrorism, criminality, psychology etc. These are all classes that many of the National Guardsmen who are currently trained in security, have taken and been tested on.

 

I am not for bringing home the troops though I am not inclined to be believe we need to have a military presence in 150 countries. But, we need to fight terror at it's home front. Our guardsmen should not be a part of that equation and should be home protecting us and securing our home soil.

 

Faith

 

:iagree:I totally agree, I think we should be putting more money into border security (especially the Southern border which is practically a warzone), undercover intelligence, and using the National Guard as it was intended.

[RanchGirl]

"This time the defendant, Sam Wolanyk says he was asked to pass through the 3-D x-ray machine. When Wolanyk refused,"-from the link above from the examiner...

 

Uh this dork refused to comply and then took his pants off. Seriously you question why he was arrested???? It amuses the heck out of me to see the inherent contradiction between seeing yourself as law abiding and respectful of authority yet in the oddest situations you root for the iconoclast. I do not understand this attitude at all.

 

He opted out of the scanner. Then they wanted to do the pat down, but he didn't want that, so he removed his clothing, and had bicycle shorts on underneath. If the pat down was just to make sure he wasn't carrying any contraband, then you would think that removing the pants and shirt and wearing skin tight bike shorts would eliminate the need for the 'pat down' (a rather benign name for being assaulted IMO) because then everything is visible.

 

That's basically what the xray machines are doing -- putting us all on display au natural. I think this "dork" has a point -- let's just all go through security in the buff and cut out the radiation.

 

Having the bike shorts on under his pants indicates to me that he had this planned. A little protest to drive a point home maybe.

 

If I was forced to fly for a family emergency, I would absolutely refuse the xrays and I would have the kids wear bike shorts in hopes that they would thus not need to be molested. In anything other than an urgent family emergency, we will fly or take the train.

[Harriet Vane]

a) a metal detector is not the same as a backspatter xray, which is new technology. No one is complaining about metal detectors or having luggage xrayed. A backspatter xray produces a naked body image which is viewed and saved. It also produces is a dangerous level of radiation aimed directly at your skin. There are no studies showing any level of safety in backspatter xrays. http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2010/05/17/concern.pdf

 

b) I completely agree with Tea Time -- freedom is not spoiling us. Our liberty must be protected at all costs, even if it means giving up a little bit of security (or in this case, false security, see below). Allowing this kind of personal invasion without reasonable cause is giving the government way too much power, power they are not allowed in the Constitution.

 

c) Neither the enhanced pat downs nor the new xray machines produce even a false security. Neither would detect what the "underwear bomber" was carrying: http://wewontfly.com/millimeter-wave-scanners-didnt-work. So what exactly is the point of endangering and accosting Americans like this?

 

For those suggesting this is the only measure to improve security, let me reiterate, this does not appear to be a helpful measure. Same with scanning shoes -- it's degrading and ridiculous. One can only assume it was merely another step toward conditioning us to be compliant enough to allow naked body scans. What's next???

 

Things that I believe would actually help: locking the cockpit doors (done) and putting our money into intelligence, profiling, and air marshals on every flight.

:iagree:

[ColoradoMom]

I was not happy about flying before these new procedures and now I am just not going to do it. I LOVE road trips and I get a good long look at our beautiful country when I do them. The airline industry can dry up and rot for all I care - before they only treated you like cattle - now they treat you like criminal cattle.

 

I'm done and I'm happy about it! :D

[Tea Time]

You need to put that in your sig line. Bolded and in red.

Thank you. I'll have to do that.

 

He opted out of the scanner. Then they wanted to do the pat down, but he didn't want that, so he removed his clothing, and had bicycle shorts on underneath. If the pat down was just to make sure he wasn't carrying any contraband, then you would think that removing the pants and shirt and wearing skin tight bike shorts would eliminate the need for the 'pat down' (a rather benign name for being assaulted IMO) because then everything is visible.

 

That's basically what the xray machines are doing -- putting us all on display au natural. I think this "dork" has a point -- let's just all go through security in the buff and cut out the radiation.

 

Having the bike shorts on under his pants indicates to me that he had this planned. A little protest to drive a point home maybe.

 

If I was forced to fly for a family emergency, I would absolutely refuse the xrays and I would have the kids wear bike shorts in hopes that they would thus not need to be molested. In anything other than an urgent family emergency, we will fly or take the train.

The video of the little boy who had his shirt pulled off is a similar idea. I think the little boy was resisting being touched, so his father removed his shirt so the TSA agents could SEE he did not have anything under it and not have to touch him. We teach our kids not to allow strangers to touch them, after all. Some will say this is like a doctor visit, but I don't think so. What does the little boy learn about authority?

 

I was not happy about flying before these new procedures and now I am just not going to do it. I LOVE road trips and I get a good long look at our beautiful country when I do them. The airline industry can dry up and rot for all I care - before they only treated you like cattle - now they treat you like criminal cattle.

 

I'm done and I'm happy about it! :D

Unfortunately there are a lot of nice people working for the airlines who will rot along with them. And there are other unintended consequences. The environment has been deteriorating for a long time, and if they keep going in this direction well trained pilots (such as those coming from the military) will make other choices. They will have to take what they can get where pilots are concerned if things get even worse. There is more than one way to reduce the safety of flying. ;)

[PineFarmMom]

nm

Edited November 24, 2010 by Texas T