Male.
[QUOTE=Joey P]
I had a friend working at O’Hare. Pumping gas into planes I think. He said he was amazed to find out (when he started working there) that the workers got their own enterence. He said if he wanted to bring in a gun or bomb or whatever it wouldn’t have posed any challenge what so ever.
[/QUOTE]
I once found myself in the bowels of an airport (bagagge handlers area) completely by mistake. I understand it’s still perfectly possible to follow that particular route in that particular airport, going from the street to the bagagge handling area without passing any security checkpoints, needing a key, needing to key in some code… nothing.
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Well, being safely based in Montreal helped.
I read that somewhere.
[/QUOTE]
If it was on the Internet, it must be true.
[QUOTE=OtakuLoki]
Male.
[/QUOTE]
Then perhaps you shouldn’t go around telling us women not to wear underwire bras, not having experienced needing one yourself.
[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
Then perhaps you shouldn’t go around telling us women not to wear underwire bras, not having experienced needing one yourself.
[/QUOTE]
Gah, missed the edit time window!
Seriously, I’m not being nasty-it’s just that basically, some of us need to use underwire. I’ve only worn older bras without around the house-they don’t provide the proper support.
As a large chested woman I can honestly say I must have an underwire bra to have any level of comfort. If someone wants to take my underwire bra from me, especially in a situation like flying on an airplane where comfort is of utmost importance, they will have to tackle me and remove it from me by force. I have worn non-underwire bras before and they do nothing to support the ladies at all. I don’t even really understand their purpose.
[QUOTE=WhyNot]
She’s saying that the “security” measures we go through at airports are a total waste of time and don’t make us more secure in any meaningful sense.
The 9-11 hijackers came here, bought homes and went to flight school in order to learn how to crash airplanes into buildings. You don’t think they’ve got the commitment to their cause to come get a job as a baggage handler for two weeks? Passenger security checks are meaningless because “they” don’t have to be passengers to down planes.
[/QUOTE]
You do have to submit to a background check to be a baggage handler. Hell, you’ve got to submit to a background check to work in the unsecured parts of airports.
[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
Gah, missed the edit time window!
Seriously, I’m not being nasty-it’s just that basically, some of us need to use underwire. I’ve only worn older bras without around the house-they don’t provide the proper support.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not telling you what to wear or not wear.
I’m saying that after several years of a publicly posted policy it seems silly to me to raise a stink about it, now, as if it were some secret policy.
I’m also saying that if that amount of metal is supposed to be investigated by the TSA I can draw two conclusions: The TSA’s ability to reliably detect the amount of metal they claim should be causing a false alarm is sub-par. Which underscores that the so-called additional security added by the TSA’s expanded searches is entirely cosmetic, and simply costs money and time, without actually providing a commensurate improvement in security.