Flight attendants union upset over new pat-down procedures

[RamboLiberal]

Source: ABC15.com

PHOENIX - A flight attendants union with 2,000 members is upset over what it calls "invasive pat-downs" recently implemented by the TSA.

"We're getting calls daily about peoples' experiences, our members are concerned," said Deborah Volpe, Vice President of the Association of Flight Attendants Local 66.

Volpe confirmed that the union is offering advice to its flight attendants, who mostly work for Tempe-based USAirways, involving the security moves.

According to a union email obtained by ABC15, it tells flight attendants if they opt out of using the body scanner through security and are required to undergo a pat-down to ask the pat-down be conducted in a private area with a witness.

"We don't want them in uniform going through this enhanced screening where their private areas are being touched in public," said Volpe. "They actually make contact with the genital area."



Read more: http://www.abc15.com/dpp/lifestyle/travel/flight-attendants-union-upset-over-new-pat-down-procedures

[kirby]

1. Ok for passengers, but not the flight attendant?

Such a double standard.

[mudderfudder77]

3. I doubt

I doubt they think they are okay for anyone - they say as much - but the unions don't have control over the passengers - they can just work to change the rules for their own members.

[kirby]

4. Where does it say that?

I read the article and the union claims that since flight attendants undergo background checks they should not be subject to pat-down.

[Bill McBlueState]

9. objecting to one thing

doesn't mean you approve of something else. :shrug:

[October]

10. Thank you. /nt

[woo me with science]

29. Pilots are rebelling, too.

http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/major-pilots-unions-rebel-tsa-screening-rules-urge/story?id=12100247

Pilot Rebellion: Pilots Refusing to Use Full Body Scanners or Submit to Patdown

One Pilot Union compares Patdown to 'Sexual Molestation'

By SHARYN ALFONSI and JESSICA HOPPER
Nov. 9, 2010

Two of the largest pilots' unions in the nation are urging commercial pilots to rebel against current airport screening rules.

In late October, the Transport Security Administration implemented more invasive patdown rules. Travelers and pilots were faced with a new dilemma -- have a revealing, full-body scan or what some are calling an X-rated patdown.

Pilots are piping mad over the options, saying the full-body scanners emit dangerous levels of radiation and that the alternative public patdown is disgraceful for a pilot in uniform. Some pilots have said they felt so violated after a patdown, they were unfit to fly.

Last week, the head of Allied Pilots Association, a union representing 11,000 American Airlines pilots, wrote an email to pilots suggesting that they forgo both going through a full-body scanner and submitting to a public patdown. Instead, Captain Dave Bates urged pilots to opt for a private patdown.

...(more at link)

[Sabriel]

42. Hands off the cock pit

And the cockpit, too. Who wants to fly with a rattled pilot? Geeeeez.....

[femrap]

6. Do the scanners use

xrays? I really wouldn't want to be going through those all the time due to health considerations....so you're forced to do the pat-down.

If the airlines can't trust their employees after a background check....who can they trust???

It's all about keeping people in a constant state of fear...remember we have to do this because of the constant threat of terrorism.

I'm sure some TSA are getting off on groping the attendants.

[zipplewrath]

7. Back scatter

These scanners don't work like the X-rays you get at your denist. Those go through you to the film on the other side. These X-rays reflect off of you, just like visible light, and back to the film. In fact, if your clothing is too thick, it won't make it "through" all of it.

FWIW

[Richard D]

8. Some do get absorbed . . .

. . . into the top 1cm of the skin. Herein lies the problem. It's not exposure to the entire body, just the skin. It's considered safe by some (the people doing it and making the machines), but I wouldn't hesitate to guess that if in 10 years or so there's a dramatic increase in skin cancer that those responsible for it won't be held responsible. I do a lot of flying and I'm not sure that will be true in the future unless something about this is changed. I neither want any involuntary exposure to x-rays, nor do I want to be groped by anyone I don't choose to be groped by.

[zipplewrath]

13. I'm not a big fan

I complained about these 10 years ago when I first saw them. But the magnitude of the exposure isn't all that great. You probably get greater exposure to radiation on a polar flight path than from this stuff.

[femrap]

18. If there are no ill effects, I'd prefer

going thru the scanner than being groped.

I wonder if someone makes underwear with a big 'bird/the finger' in the front and 2 on the back!!! And then the women require a couple of 'birds/finger' on their bras as well. Something made of thick material, of course.

Sometimes I think TPTB create people like the 'Xmas Bomber' who try to hide explosives in their underwear. :tinfoilhat: Then an entire new product is developed to counteract this form of 'terror.' The Body Scanner.

Remember the dude who had explosives in his shoes....and he didn't bring a lighter???

And the latest...sending boxes to Jewish synagogues from Yemen??? Why would anyone with a brain put a Jewish address on a package that had a bomb in it??? I guess there are stupid people everywhere...but it really does give me pause. I read reports that no FedEx or other cargo plane had left Yemen during the time in question.

I guess we'll never really know.

[femrap]

31. This is crap....I read up.

They do hurt human beings. I back the attendants and pilots who don't want to be scanned. And this groping is just another way to embarrass people into submission.

Fuck the scanners and the corporate airlines.

[zipplewrath]

32. As compared to what?

The sun "hurts" humans. Oxygen can be poisonous. The magnitude of radiation is low compared to other common sources. No, it's not zero. Probably less of a risk than the flight however.

[femrap]

33. Then you go run thru

those scans on a daily basis as a pilot or attendant.

[boppers]

43. They're already mega-dosing themselves frequently.

Airline crews get more radiation exposure than Uranium miners do.

[avaistheone1]

20. You are exposed to radiation with the body scanners

and it does penetrate your skin and goes somewhat deeper. All radiation exposure is added to your body's cumulative lifetime total, and no one knows what the safe lifetime dosage is for any individual.

I plan on flying when only when absolutely necessary, and then I guess I will have to put up with the Chertoff genitalia grope until we have more sane people running our government.

[femrap]

26. That is what I heard....it affects one's health....

so go with the groping. But wear a dildo if one is a woman....just for shock effect. It actually could be fun to play with the TSA people.

I haven't flown since 1993 and with all the crap now, I just as soon drive or stay home. They've taken the fun out of travel.

[femrap]

30. I just read that each scan takes

42 minutes from your life. I guess there are 2 systems of scanning....the other one can fuck up your DNA.

No wonder the pilots and attendants don't want to use them. And this groping...it's just another step closer to 'subduing and controlling' the sheeple.

I am not flying. Or maybe I could learn to fly and fuck the corporate airlines!!! Just get a 2-seater and get 15 mpg.

We're headed toward despotism.

Whoever said in this thread that these scans don't hurt is working for the other side!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[daleo]

25. Longish microwaves, I think

It is assumed to be safe due to the wavelength employed, though some scientific papers take issue with the claim. There is some evidence that chromosome damage can occur due to resonance effects (for an analogy, consider how an extremely loud noise won't generally shatter a wineglass, but a Beverly Sills high C could).

[femrap]

27. If the gov't says it's OK, I

have doubts. I'd prefer groping but I think I'll provide 'surprises' for the gropers.

[daleo]

36. Either one is humiliating, that's for sure

Imagine what we would have said if the soviets had used naked scanners on their people, back in the cold war.

[femrap]

38. We look more and more

like Old Soviet Union.

[daleo]

41. You've got that right. n/t

[CBGLuthier]

11. You do realize they may fly more than typical passengers

Imagine getting patted down or zapped with a mini dose of radiation every time you go to work.

[kirby]

17. Is the concern safety or convenience?

Regardless of background check, anyone at anytime can carry prohibited items/weapons. If they aren't concerned about that, lets just get rid of the whole security theater. If they are concerned about it, they need to be checked.

[davsand]

28. That union represents Flight Attendants, not passengers.

The union is doing what its dues paying members expect it to do--representing their interests in the workplace. As much as we all can agree this patdown bullshit is wrong, as passengers, that union does not represent us.


:shrug:




Laura

[Dappleganger]

2. So sexual assault is ok as long as there's a witness?

Right, gotchya.

[saigon68]

46. And I thought only Priests and Pedophiles handled GENITALS

[trungpa ricochet]

5. BOYCOTT THE AIRLINES

I live in Europe. I will take a slow boat back to the States if I ever have to go back. NOBODY should put up with this kind of BULLSHIT. EVER. Neither passengers nor crew members. Drive a car. Take the train or the bus if you have to travel. If the idea that this is a violation of human rights doesn't bother the government, then the sudden loss of income for the airlines might.

[apnu]

12. I've been doing that for years.

I fly only when I have no option and only if someone else pays for it.

[im1013]

14. +1,000,000,000!!!

My sentiments exactly!

:banghead:

[nolabear]

16. Not that easy for some of us.

My husband flies for business a LOT, and our families live all the way across the country, so they've got us. I can't imagine that that intimate pat-down isn't going to mean no travelling by air for many disabled, traumatized, developmentally delayed, etc.

I wonder how long before we all have a changing area and a regulation flight suit that we have to wear on the plane.

[KamaAina]

23. It already does for many people with disabilities

I know someone who, being a wheelchair user, has been getting patted down ever since Nineleven. (One hopes that the fact she's quite attractive does not factor into this.) She refuses to fly any more. Which complicates her life considerably, as she lives on Maui. She can't even get up to Honolulu without flying. :(

[Raine]

19. TOTALLY agree

it will be a cold day in hell before I take a plane, I refuse to be treated like a criminal! :mad:

[Angleae]

39. And just what would that accomplish?

The airlines don't like the TSA either but are powerless to do anything about it.

[IDemo]

40. Haven't flown since '98

And that was before all of this crap hit.

[saigon68]

44. good for you

[bemildred]

47. Yeah, twice since Jan 2nd, 2000.

Much better for your mental health.
:thumbsup:

[blackspade]

15. Good for the union on this one.

First the pilots are objecting, and now the flight attendants.
This is good news.
Hopefully this will lead to a change away from the strip-search machines.
Air travel is bad enough without this invasion of privacy.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

21. isnt everybody?

[LisaL]

34. Yea, exactly.

Basically, as far as I can tell, if I want to get on the plane, my choices are: either go through scan that allows somebody to see me naked or be patted which if anyone else did it (and not a security agent) would qualify as groping. Ain't it grand?

[sally cat]

22. Big Sis and the TSA have gone nuts. And this reflects badly on the govt.

[sarcasmo]

24. The over aggressive TSA agents are causing the trouble. Hope the Union stands strong .

[LisaL]

35. Too bad us passengers don't have a union.

[Blasphemer]

37. I don't blame them one bit

Quite frankly, there are agents who will and do take advantage of the new pat-down rules.

[saigon68]

45. They don't like their JUNK handled by double digit IQ Cretins