>>I understand from your post that you read message#13?
>>
>>The fella that posted the first message is far too stupid to be a pilot :o) I agree with his concerns regarding the scanner, but the manner in which he dealt with the situation leaves me concerned about him being behind the controls of an airplane carrying over 100 passengers.
>
>Pilot or not... what options do the passengers have? Specially those who have paid their tickets before the "policy change". They entered into a contract with the airline under one set of conditions, then are subject to another.

For that situation, they should be given a full refund and alternate transportation if they elect to forgo the full body scanner or pat-down security...

>
>I think the purpose of the whole exercise (over the last years) is for flight to become a privilege once again. It became unduly democratic and available. The rabble should know their place, and it's on the ground.

It's funny you see it that way today. I remember in the 80s flying in and out of airports around the world where the security was everywhere (not to mention outside every restroom and on the roof) and every one of them was carrying an uzi....

It's interesting that the same security measures are not even considered for mass rail transit. Set off a device in the right location underground and it could be equally damaging...