A recent health scare on a Chicago airport tarmac last month has heighten awareness about a daily occurrence that typically goes by unnoticed and ignored: the spread of infectious disease by airline travelers.

Last month, a female passenger who had just returned from a visit to Africa had broken out in hives and the condition had gotten progressively worse since leaving the nation of Ghana.  By the time the regional jet had arrived at Midway airport, the local airport fire department had surrounded the plane and the Centers for Disease Control had been notified of the possible contagion situation.  The plane was placed in quarantine as a result, forcing everyone on board to remain until the passenger’s condition had been monitored by medical experts.  There were unconfirmed reports that the affected passenger might have contracted Monkey Pox.

After being observed by the crew and photos of the skin rash reviewed by CDC officials, the crew and passengers were allowed to deplane.  Passengers who experienced the quarantine reported high levels of stress, worry and anxiety about their personal health and safety, but were relieved that the passenger had been cleared and that the authorities had taken the situation serious enough to verify that every person involved were safe.  It appeared that the passenger was reacting to exposure to bed bugs while in Africa.

This entire incident brings up a very interesting topic…one that is rarely discussed: contagion by airline traveler.

Watching movies like “Contagion” or “Outbreak” tend to add to the anxiety one feels when informed that exposure to a possible bacteria or virus.  While there are strains of these diseases that are extremely dangerous and virulent, luckily they are rare and authorities are usually on top of these strains with advisories and advice to protect oneself from contamination.

Still, it gives one pause to be extra vigilant when it comes to one’s personal health, especially when traveling.  There are resources available for any traveler to take advantage of, especially when traveling abroad.

The CDC has an excellent traveler’s advisory website for almost every country you might want to inquire about.  This resource can be found at http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/destinations/list.htm.

It’s also a good idea to schedule a visit to your personal physician to get needed or recommended vaccinations/boosters when traveling abroad, particularly to third world countries, where infection and disease control is minimal or non-existent.  Be mindful that some of these vaccines have short shelf lives and many clinics and medical offices must special order them in advance and may not be readily available on demand.  Check with your state’s health department for further information.

There are other things one can do to reduce your exposure on an airplane.  The most important (and sadly one that is continuously omitted by airline passengers) is washing your hands, especially after using the lavatory facilities.   I don’t recommend using hand sanitizer all the time, but having some with you while traveling has many benefits, especially when access to soap and water is not immediately available.

Another easily available resource is saline mist.  This offers two things to airline travelers.  First, airplane cabins are extremely dry as the air is processed and filtered in the ventilation systems.  Using this product will keep your nasal passages moist and allow your body’s own natural defenses to work more efficiently.  Second, saline solutions allow you to rinse your nasal passages from allergens and other nasty “bugs” that you may have inhaled.  It may sound overly simple, but studies have shown that they are quite beneficial, even on a daily basis.

As a travel professional, I never recommend airline travel if you are under-the-weather.  Airlines do reserve the right to determine whether travelers are “fit-to-fly” and if you are exhibiting signs of illness, they have the right to refuse you access to the cabin.  This policy is not often executed, but be aware that it does exist.  If you must travel and are ill, please do your fellow travelers a huge favor and take along a “surgical mask” – they are easy to obtain at most drug stores.  This will help keep your illness contained and will help lessen others’ anxiety about germs spreading to them.

Before leaving on your next journey beyond the borders of the U.S., check out these other online resources for other information regarding current outbreaks, tracking of infections, and preventative measures:

• Flu Trackers: http://www.flutrackers.com/forum/
• AirCrewHealth.com: http://aircrewhealth.com/Topics/topics.htm
• MedicineNet.com: http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=47044
• The Harvard Medical School: Family Health Guide: http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/update0604c.shtml

Safe (and healthy) travels!

==============================

The Savvy Passenger would love to answer your questions about airline travel, from the vantage point of an airline insider! Send your questions, queries and comments directly to TheSavvyPassenger@gmail.com

He’ll do his best to answer you in an upcoming column. All personal information is strictly private and will not be shared with the general public, unless requested. Feel free to comment on specific articles right here at the bottom of the page! Safe travels, everyone…

Last week, I set out to secure my new credentials as a frequent global traveler.  Knowing now what I do about the program, it was truly worth the effort and the $$$…

Back in July 2011, the U.S. Department of Customs and Border Protection (DCBP) opened the “Global Entry” Trusted Traveler Network to all eligible U.S. citizens, in order to help expedite the clearance process for those citizens of the United States who are willing to submit to an extensive background check, be photographed and fingerprinted and pass a secondary interview process.  These travelers are then issued a privileged process of clearing customs and immigration through specially designated lines and ATM-like kiosks using the passport/photo/fingerprint scans to identify the member and clear them through in a more expeditious manner.

It really wasn’t very difficult to do.  And if you travel outside the United States more than 4 times a year, I’d say that the financial investment is worth your money, and definitely your time.

It begin with, you must create an account online at the DCBP website called GOES (Global Online Enrollment System) at https://goes-app.cbp.dhs.gov/main/goes. If you are already registered with NEXUS or SENTRI, please follow the links on that page for further information on transferring your registration to the GOES system for admittance into the Global Entry program.

Keep in mind that by applying for this service, you will be subjected to a thorough 10-yearbackground check.  You will be asked what countries you visited for business and/or pleasure over the last 10 years and approximate date you were there.  If you hold dual citizenship or have multiple passports, you MUST include all of these documents in your application.  You will be asked to submit payment to the DCBP of $100.00 USD which is NON-REFUNDABLE (be very mindful of this fact: if your application is rejected for an incomplete application, or incorrect information, or for any other reason, you will have to reapply to the program and submit ANOTHER $100.00).  Your application and membership in the program is valid for five (5) years from the date of your acceptance in the program.

Also, be mindful that if you have ever been convicted of a felony here in the U.S. or abroad, have been fined in the past by the U.S. Customs for violations of any type, or have any other discrepancies in your record that would flag the system, your application will be rejected and you will forfeit your application fee.

Once your application and fee has been received, the DCBP will take upwards of four weeks to process your information and perform your background check.  Upon completion of this procedure, you will receive a letter (usually in e-mail form) either congratulating the acceptance of your information or you will be notified of your rejection from the program.  Those who are accepted to the program must then return to the GOES system and schedule an appointment for a one-on-one interview with a DCBP officer.  There are approximately 20-25 locations that you can schedule your appointment.  You must schedule the appointment within 30 days of the date of your acceptance letter or forfeit your application and fee.

During the interview, you will view a video prepared by the DCBP that explains in complete details how the program works and the procedure for using the Global Entry kiosks at the airport.  Afterwards, you will be asked a series of questions regarding your past, your travel, your employment and be asked to review any items on your application that the DCBP officer deems necessary to continue.

Once your interview has been completed to the satisfaction of your DCBP officer, you will be photographed and fingerprinted.  Afterwards, a special sticker is attached to the inside of your passport and you are then instructed on the next steps.  Basically, you will receive a letter in the mail confirming your completion and acceptance into the program.  If you have any specific questions about the program or the procedures, the interview is the best time to ask.

As an added bonus, currently the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has begun the “Trusted Traveler” program at several major airports around the country, and will be rolled out to all airports as the program is fully developed.  Successful applicants of the Global Entry program are currently automatically accepted into this program and you will receive a special credit-card sized card with sensitive electronics built into it (much like your passport) and a protective sleeve to store it in.  This card will grant you access to the special express lines at participating airports to get through security, and allow you the ability to get through the screening process without having to remove your shoes, jackets or separate your laptop from your carry-on luggage, thus expediting getting you to your scheduled flight.

Keep in mind that, as with all security programs, you are ALWAYS subject to secondary search and screening at any time, so while you will save a lot of time and headaches most of the time, there will be times when you are required to these additional searches.  Failure to comply with these requests, or discovery of your violation of any customs or immigration rules or regulations will subject you to fines, and/or imprisonment and most certainly automatic dismissal from the program without the ability to regain entry.

For further information about this program, contact the DCBP at their website at www.cbp.gov or www.dhs.gov.

Image courtesy Broadway Video & NBC

In my personal opinion, Alec Baldwin is a narcissistic blow hard.

There…I said it! And I make no apologies about that opinion.

I have been a casual fan of Baldwin’s work for years. I have enjoyed some of the things he’s done; others, not so much. In the grand scheme of things, I (and I believe all of us) need to remember one important distinction: he’s an actor! He’s not a rocket scientist, nor an important political leader, nor a distinguished medical expert. In the grand scheme of things, he hasn’t done anything that I would consider to be of great value to the sustenance or betterment of the human race.

I am a flight attendant. I have no delusions of grandeur when it comes to my place in society, nor my importance to the public. I do know my place and I understand the responsibilities that my job requires of me. First and foremost, I am a safety professional on board an aircraft. My authority as such stands directly beneath the Captain’s authority aboard the aircraft I am flying on. Since the Captain cannot attend to the activities behind him and the cockpit door, the onus of keeping order and peace falls upon the shoulders of the flight attendants.

In this day and age, the public has become more and more callous towards the flight attendant profession. While the majority of our time is spent smiling, assisting and serving beverages and meals, in the public’s mind, flight attendants are nothing more than the stewardesses they see on the ABC series ‘Pan Am,’ or the ditzy bimbos portrayed in movies like “A View from the Top.” They understand less and less about our primary function – to protect the safety of the plane and the passengers aboard it. During emergencies, it is the flight attendants who coordinate, organize and take charge of evacuations, medical emergencies and other disruptions. Our job is to maintain order. Chaos on board a flight is unacceptable and rarely tolerated.

When things get out of hand at 35,000 feet, because the cockpit door must remain closed and secure in-flight, the highest level of authority (with direction from the Captain) comes from the flight attendants. So physical and verbal abuse is taken at face value and dealt with severely on the ground when the airplane arrives at the airport. Any passenger who cannot control their actions aboard a flight faces real, severe penalties in the form of charges of interfering with a flight crew or a flight attendant, as set forth in Title 49 of the United States Code: “The statute applies to any “individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties.” The statute provides for up to 20 years imprisonment, and further provides for imprisonment for any term of years or life if a dangerous weapon is used. Interference with a flight crew member or attendant is a general intent crime, and does not require a specific intent either to intimidate the flight crew member or attendant or to interfere with the performance of his or her duties.” [1]

Although this incident with Baldwin took place while the aircraft was on the ground, at the gate, the statute still applies. In this case, it has been argued publically that the flight attendant overreacted and that the penalty was too severe for the “crime” Baldwin was accused of. I disagree.

Flight attendants, in general, have a gauge by which we determine a passenger’s level of cooperation. If, while at the gate or on the ground, a passenger is unwilling to comply with a request or direct order from a crew member there, chances are pretty strong that they’d be as unwilling to comply at 35,000 feet, when things are more critical, and access to assistance from law enforcement is minimal, at best.

The fact that Baldwin continues to belittle the flight attendant and minimize his infraction on Twitter and on Saturday Night Live, thus stirring up public resentment toward flight attendants in general is unconscionable. Baldwin is no expert authority on air safety rules and regulations.

So why does the public continue to entertain his tirade? Because in today’s world, we have elevated celebrities to a level that somehow equates to leaders or experts or gurus. We look up to them…people who should be respected, admired and their opinions should carry more weight than the average “Joe.” They have become the equivalent of royalty and we treat them as such. We give them a pass on most everything, from drug abuse and infidelity to even more insidious and serious crimes.

This issue is far from over. The more conditioned the public becomes in disrespecting the direction of flight attendants on board aircraft, the less able we flight attendants will be able to maintain order during flight.

I believe it is time for the FAA and the airlines in general, to step up and clarify to the public the necessity to heed the authority of flight crews while flying. I applaud American Airlines’ decision to publicy defend and uphold the crew members who were involved in this case, and to rebuke and reject Baldwin’s behavior. But most of the time, airline companies more often than not become apologetic and simply reward bad behavior by accomodating the offending party with another flight, upgrades or additional mileage in their accounts. I’ve seen it happen. Thus the public gets the notion that if they act up when they don’t get their way, their perception is that they will get rewarded. This sort of compensation for their lack of cooperation must end.

Until then, there will continue to be more and more public incidents of celebrities and non-celebrities alike being removed from flights for disruptive behavior and the media will continue to make a spectacle of it all. It’s not acceptable, and the public should be outraged at the actor, not the safety professional trying to do their job!

—————————————

[1] United States Attorney’s Manual, U.S. Code, Title 49, Section 9-63.110, http://1.usa.gov/sP1XMk, revised August 1999.

We Americans love to root for the underdog. I suppose it’s because the whole concept of the American Way and the American Dream started out as a small group of underdogs fighting against the status quo of what was then Mother England, and for all intents and purposes, the odds were against the rebel-rousers.

We are fascinated with stories of the ‘anti-hero:’ Bonnie and Clyde, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Thelma and Louise. I don’t know why that is, but it’s a fact of our culture today. Unfortunately, while we tend to glorify these folks in our minds, we forget the problems they either have caused, or had the potential to cause and that is what frustrates me the most.

Last summer, a flight attendant was at the end of their proverbial rope. He was unhappy with everything and everybody. No one around him knew how very fragile his breaking point was. During the course of his final flight, Steven Slater had allegedly been aggravated by a female passenger’s attitude and remarks made to him during the boarding process in Pittsburg regarding her carry-on bag. As the flight pulled away from the gate and the crew began their safety briefing, Slater allegedly threw down his demo oxygen mask and demo life vest, conveying an air of irritation to the passengers around him. Then during the beverage service, he simply stopped his service midway through the cabin and retired to the aft section of the plane. Passengers had later reported that Slater looked unkempt and unprofessional in his appearance and attitude.

Shortly after landing, but still taxiing to the gate, this same female passenger apparently got up from her seat to retrieve her bag, while the plane was still in motion. Mr. Slater got up to notify her that she had to return to her seat until the plane came to a stop. According to eye witnesses however, he had already had previous issues with this passenger at boarding and they commenced into a verbal altercation. He claims she smacked his head with the overhead bin door and that was what finally set him off. The rest is history.[1]

For days and weeks following that incident, there was a lot of talk (mostly adoration) for a guy who was so fed up with people, the system and the rules he was bound by, they he just snapped and let loose. The infamous resignation of dropping F-bombs over the PA system, grabbing some beer and deploying the emergency slide to exit the plane originally got him three felony charges, including reckless endangerment.

Courtesy Anthony Lanzilote - NY Daily News

Earlier this week, Slater stood before a NY Supreme Court Judge and received one year probation and, according to one reported, got a ‘standing ovation’ from the Judge and the gallery of the courtroom. The story goes on to quote him as saying, “I’ve been a divisive character in the airline industry but 95% of the crews are behind me.”[2]

Well Mr. Slater that is where we vehemently disagree.

I have discussed at length with my co-workers the incident that took place that day, and while most everyone agrees that they might secretly like to do the same thing were they as fed up and under as much duress as he, very few people admire or support his actions. From our perspective, not only was what he did irresponsible and “over-the-top” it was also quite potentially dangerous – not necessarily for him, but for the ramp and ground workers servicing the aircraft underneath it!

As an aside, emergency slides/rafts that are attached to an aircraft door are required by FAA regulations to be fullyoperational and usable within 6 seconds of the door actuating the deployment.[3] Unfortunately that is not nearly enough time for someone underneath on to react in time to move fully out of its way.

I am reminded of a customer service friend of mine who actually had a slide inadvertently deploy right on top of him while he was in the jetway of a recently arrived aircraft. When the door opened with the slide still engaged on the door, the force of that slide deployment was so great that it threw him up against the jetway ramp access door and injured him quite severely. He lost many months of work because of this incident. Would we in society be as gleeful and supportive of Slater had he injured or worse yet killed someone because he decided to give his passengers, his employers and the world the middle finger?

As I said, my colleagues and I did not support his choice to vacate the plane in that fashion in the least. And many of us feel that the reaction by the judge and courtroom the other day, as well as the adoration and apparent support he has gotten then and now from the media completely sends the wrong message. We may feel bad for him, perhaps empathetic to his frustrations at the time. And we are certainly glad that he successfully completed his required mental health and substance abuse programs.

But a “working class hero” he isn’t.

_____________________________

[1] ABC News: U.S. Section, “Angry JetBlue Flight Attendant Flees Plane at JFK Airport via Emergency Slide,” Scott Mayerowitz, August 9, 2010: http://abcn.ws/nws6i6

[2] NY Daily News, National Section, “Steven Slater, ex-JetBlue flight attendant, gets one year of probation after finishing treatment,” Thomas Zambito, October 19, 2011: http://nydn.us/qB1dY1

[3] Air & Space Smithsonian Magazine, Flight Today, “How Things Work: Evacuation Slides,” Mark Huber, November 1, 2007: http://bit.ly/nwIpZ6

I’m really scratching my head on this one.  I know that we can all be a little forgetful when we travel.  I have a mental checklist when I get ready to leave home for a trip that will put me in several airport terminals in the space of three or four days.  I usually travel with two bags: my roller-board suitcase and a compact duffel-tote bag.  With these two bags, I can pack up to six days’ worth of clothing and sundries to meet just about any situation.

I pack my own bags.  I don’t have hired help, or even my mother to help me out the door with all that I need.  So I am well aware of every item that I carry with me when I head for the airport.

Image courtesy of The Orange County Register

The public demand for airline travel has grown exponentially over the last 30 years.  This fact alone indicates that there will be a much larger swath of the public who will travel because it is cheaper than bus, car or rail.  It also most assuredly guarantees that among that plethora of people and personalities, there will be those who have no idea what they are doing, or those who will try anything to bend or break the rules when it comes to air travel.

Still, I find it disturbing that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) continually discovers an interesting assortment of “contraband” in travelers’ luggage as they try to get through airport security lines across the country.  Their latest blog continues to reveal the items that are found around the system on a daily basis![1]  You’d be stunned to hear what exactly people are trying to bring aboard airplanes these days.  Here are a few recent highlights:

• In August of this year, a female passenger in Rochester, NY was detained at a TSA checkpoint when the screening agents thought they saw a knife concealed inside the woman’s cane.  It turned out to be a 19” double-sided sword![2] After questioning, she was allowed to continue on — minus the cane/sword, of course!
• An Egyptian man from Baltimore was arrested after a TSA screener found 13 knives concealed within the liner of his luggage.  The man, who has lived in the USA for seven years, claimed he was a knife collector, had just purchased the knives, and was booked on a flight to Minneapolis that day.  He faces a number of charges, including carrying a concealed dangerous weapon and interfering with airport security procedures.[3]
• A 22-year old man from Tennessee, on his way to Las Vegas, was slapped with federal misdemeanor charges for trying to bring knives, tactical and police batons, brass knuckles and four inert grenades in his tote bag.[4]

Image courtesy of TSA.gov

What puzzles me is that the two most common replies that TSA, ATF and the FBI get when questioning these folks is either “I didn’t know they were in my bags,” or “I forgot they were there.”  Seriously???

The truth of the matter is that in this day and age, after just recognizing the tenth anniversary of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, why are these folks being given what appears to be a “pass” on these issues?  Misdemeanor charges?  Being questioned and then released with the banned items confiscated?  Am I sounding too alarmist here?

I work on an airplane.  It’s my job, and not only do I enjoy my work, but I have a reasonable expectation that I will get from one airport to the next without the need to call in the SWAT team simply because someone who left their wits back at the security checkpoint was lucky enough to slip one past the guardians!  And in one instance, they had help from an airline employee!!![5]

Personally, the logical part of my brain asks, “Where have these people been hiding?  Under what rock were they living?”  Unfortunately, as it IS the public we are dealing with here, I learned long ago that when it comes to the General Public, you’ll have to throw out logic just to get your mind wrapped around what these people were (or perhaps not) thinking when they got up that morning, knowing that they were going to the airport, needed to pack a bag or two for the journey, and would be subjected to an intensive search of their belongings at the security checkpoint!

The cynical side of me says that these people knew exactly what they were doing and were trying to circumvent the system to accommodate their own idea of civil freedoms.  I just can’t fathom how law enforcement can accept the “I didn’t know” excuse or the “I forgot it was there” defense.  Plato said “Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.”

As long as bad people continue trying, we’ll continue to need the security countermeasures that the TSA is continually trying to improve.

[1] The TSA Blog, “Sometimes The Airport Is Similar To A Gun And Knife Show,” Blogger Bob, September 28, 2011, http://bit.ly/oQYtUf

[2] Transportation Security Administration, TSA.gov, Media Room, “ROC Good Catch – Sword in Cane 8-23-11,” http://1.usa.gov/q3itSn

[3] The Baltimore Sun, Travel, “Man from Egypt held on BWI weapons charge,” Michael Dresser, July 14, 2011, http://bit.ly/qk098W

[4] TimesNews.net, Associated Press, “Screening finds grenades, knives, other weapons in luggage at Nashville airport; Tennessee man arrested,” January 8, 2011, http://bit.ly/q9ZjiY

[5] Thaindian.com, Newsportal-World, “Two people arrested on board U.S. Airways flight at Philadelphia International Airport,” BNO News, June 4, 2009, http://bit.ly/oIGyF5

One of the things that’s so great about my job is that, no matter where I am or what I am doing, I always seem to learn something new about our industry.

With so many rules and regulations already, and constant changes, it’s tough to keep track of it all…all one need do is look at the Operations Manual that I am required to carry with me when working and you can see for yourself how daunting that task can be.

Yesterday, I was privy to one of those “Ah, I didn’t know that” moments, albeit it might have been a disaster for the passenger had some of the circumstances been different.

There was a couple who approached the boarding area for their flight with twin newborns…we are talking 6-DAY OLD newborns. They were tiny and pink and one of them was quite vocal in that clear high-pitched cry that only a newborn can produce.  The Customer Service Agent who was assisting them fawned over them, like a proud grandmother.  During her conversation with them, she inquired about their age.  After learning they were less than a week old, she kindly handed the boarding cards to the parents and sent them on their way.  You could see they were excited to be getting the infants to their new home.  It was a precious sight.

The moment was soon diminished when a Customer Service Supervisor approached the parents in the gate area a few minutes later and declared, “I’ve been advised that your babies are less than seven days old.  I’m very sorry but I cannot allow you to travel with these infants today!”  The couple looked shocked and then angry, while the passengers around them produced in unison a hushed gasp. The supervisor proceeded to explain that since the babies were less than 7 days old, airline policy required a physician’s release and declaration of the babies’ health in order for them to travel unhindered.

As luck would have it, one of the parents was a licensed physician, and after producing his medical card and producing a statement of health for each child, the supervisor approved their travel. But what would have happened had neither parent been a doctor? The supervisor did try to find a way to get the matter resolved, offering to accept a fax from the children’s doctor if one could be sent in to the airport prior to departure. Being that it was Sunday, that may have proved next to impossible, had they not worked it out as they had.

Traveling with newborns is a challenge for a number of reasons. One of the most obvious is the exposure an infant this young has to the harsh environment of an airplane interior. A newborn’s immune system isn’t fully developed just after birth and it takes time for their body to adjust to the exposure of bacteria and viruses in the open air, especially in public places. Add to that the recycled air inside the airplane during flight, and then top it off with the pressurization of the fuselage that simulates conditions of altitude of between 5,000 and 7,000 feet at a gradual rate of pressurization. While we adults and most children can handle this pressure without complications, newborns are most vulnerable because their bodies haven’t learned how to equalize the pressure in their ears and sinus cavities. Also, newborns may still have large quantities of liquid in their sinus cavities after the transition from fetus to independence after birth.

Many physicians recommend that newborns don’t travel by air until they are 4 to 6 weeks old, especially if the baby has breathing complications, which can be exacerbated in a low-oxygen environment like a pressurized airplane cabin. Supplemental oxygen for the baby may be necessary (and must be ordered in advance by the physician through the airline prior to travel)[1].

Most every major airline has limited restrictions for flying with newborns less than 10 days old. Every airline has their own policy; even though the majority doesn’t charge additional fees to fly with your baby (he/she must be held, unless you purchase a ticket in order to accommodate the baby’s carrier) each carrier has specific rule regarding newborns flying under 10 days old, and almost every carrier requires a physician’s release and a certificate of health in order to allow them access to the plane. Check with your specific airline for details[2].

The most important thing to remember about handling this new person’s venture into the world of air travel is to make them as comfortable and safe as possible in this strange, new environment. Be mindful of their exposure to other passengers and monitor their comfort levels on takeoff and landing to ensure they aren’t being caused discomfort from the change in cabin pressure.

Make sure you talk to your doctor if you have additional questions on topics that weren’t discussed here[3] [4]. Before you know it, he or she will become a seasoned world traveler in no time!

[1] MayoClinic.com, Health Information, Toddlers and Infants, “Air Travel with Infant: Is it Safe?” Jay L. Hoecker, M.D., http://bit.ly/rloB6v

[2] Babycenter.com, For You, “Flying with small children: Checklist of questions to ask your airline,” http://bit.ly/pvvcnt

[3]  iVillage.com, Pregnancy and Parenting, “Babies: Is it safe to travel by plane with a newborn?” Robert W. Steele, MD, January 1, 2010 http://bit.ly/mXYjZr

[4] BabiesToday.com, Pregnancy Today, Newborn Health, “Keeping Newborns Healthy When Traveling: On An Airplane with a Newborn,” Alex Powell, http://bit.ly/o381du

Ok, what **IS** in the water these days!?  In the air?  In people’s daydreams?

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about two high profile cases involving celebrities misbehaving on airplanes.  Now it seems that the general public is trying to get into the act…

This morning, it was reported that a passenger on a Delta Air Lines flight from SLC to LAS threatened to slit another passenger’s throat with a knife over an argument regarding the armrest.  When other passengers noticed that the culprit reached into his bag several times, and removed something as it was cupped in his hands, the flight attendants were notified and the SLC Police moved in, removed him from the flight, and after a search of the contents of his bag, discovered a 3 1/2 inch folding knife.  He then proceeded to threaten the FBI agent who had joined the investigation![1]

Last week, on a flight from Majorca to Newcastle, UK, a 26-year old passenger suddenly felt the urge to attempt at opening one of the emergency exits at 36,000 feet, causing the emergency lights to come on, flight attendants to begin shouting their emergency commands and creating a panic among the passengers aboard.  He had to be restrained with eight seat belt extensions before they diverted the flight to London’s Gatwick Airport.[2]

And, of course, there were several tense situations on September 11, 2011, with suspicious incidents being reported at several airports, including the removal of three passengers in handcuffs from a Frontier Airlines flight from San Diego to Detroit (a flight that was met by fighter jets and escorted until they landed safely) and the remaining 116 passengers being detained and questioned by the FBI.[3]

These are just the incidents that actually made the news.  I have heard from several colleagues that they were involved in other cases where passenger misbehavior or suspicious activity was reported, and authorities called to the airplane for further investigation.

As with my earlier entry about other crazy stunts being pulled on flights, it should come as no surprise that in-flight crews, pilots and customer service agents are still on “high-alert” as it were, from the recent 9/11 anniversary.  Still, whether or not that is relevant, the fact still remains that some people still don’t understand that a “higher standard” of behavior is still expected when traveling by air.  Most crews can discern between rudeness and suspicious, but for the most part, they cannot afford to take chances in allowing any incident to develop into something bigger or more serious, especially when hurling through the atmosphere at nearly the speed of sound.

At times, the general public forgets that dissatisfaction is better communicated through letters or phone calls to the airline, rather than escalating it in the air.  There are unintended consequences that might have to be faced should a tirade from a fed up traveler evolve into a higher level of emotion.  Believe me; it doesn’t take much to move from “frustrated” to “taking justice into one’s own hands.”

In a somewhat ‘tongue-in-cheek’ blog entry, world-renowned travel critic, Peter Greenberg conveyed five sure-fire ways to get kicked off a flight, including dropping ‘F-bombs’ towards your flight attendant, to trying to assault a Presidential candidate![4]  While some of it may seem humorous, this doesn’t even scratch the surface of other surefire methods of instant removal.

Several years ago, while working as a Purser from Los Angeles to New York City, I had the misfortune of dealing with a truly strange situation.

A female passenger approached me in the forward galley to inform me that a seemingly inebriated male passenger was making unwanted advances towards her.  While she conveyed the story to me, she was very quiet, barely whispering the details to me when she told me that when she finally told him to ‘get lost,’ her retorted by bragging to her that she needn’t worry since he had a ‘bomb’ in his bag!  Definite red flag!  For certain, a ‘yellow card’ penalty of the first degree!

We immediately contact airport security.  Our General Security Manager (GSM) arrived planeside and informed us that all passengers and their belongings, including all checked bags and cargo in the belly of the plane were going to be removed and rescreened.  Two FBI agents appeared at the airplane door, and we directed them to the culprit.

As he was being questioned by the agents onboard, while being handcuffed right there in front of the remaining passengers on board, he exclaimed that he had told the woman that he had a “BONG” in his bag.  The agents weren’t buying it.  He was escorted off, along with his traveling companion, who just happened to be his boss and the CEO of the company the suspect worked for.  I wonder if he was eligible for unemployment insurance under those circumstances???

The bottom-line is that there really IS an unwritten rule regarding behavior on board airplanes.  While the general quality of the public’s set of manners continues to deteriorate, at some point the limits have to be established.  Although Congress recently enacted the Airline Passengers’ Bill-of-Rights, that is certainly not a free pass for bad behavior on a plane.

It really boils down to patience, both from the passengers and the airline personnel that deals with the public.  But should you find yourself in a showdown on words and personalities with an airline employee, be very careful.  The majority of the time, you will end up with the ‘short straw’ in that contest, and the ramifications of removal from a flight may be too high a price for you to pay.

[1] KSL-TV News, KSL.com, Utah-Local News: “Airline passenger carried knife, threatened others, police say,” Dennis Romboy, September 21, 2011,  http://bit.ly/ohOOLY

[2] FoxNews.com, Europe-World: “Passenger Tries to Open Plane Door at 36,000 feet,” NewsCore, September 15, 2011, http://fxn.ws/ndy3fU

[3] The Detroit News, DetNews.com, Metro and State: “3 Passengers hauled off Frontier flight at Metro Airport,” Calvin Men & Mark Hicks, September 12, 2011, http://bit.ly/mRAXSz

[4] PeterGreenberg.com, “5 Ways To Get Kicked Off Flights,” June 17, 2011, http://bit.ly/njLe1o

A recent report about a passenger being removed from a flight and arrested for not turning off their cell phone[1] got me to thinking this week.  Often times, I get this question from passengers wanting to know the “WHY” about phone and electronic device usage restrictions during a flight.  I dare say that many flight attendants know the basic knowledge of why, but I’ll wager that a good majority have probably not investigated this regulation much past the reply “it’s Federal law.”  It seems to me that this subject is rather vaguely reported in the media and the details of the reasons behind the regulations are often misquoted or completely misunderstood.

As a frequent traveler once tried to point out to me on this very issue, it is the Federal Communications Commission that dictates the ban of cellular device usage on-board an aircraft, not the FAA.  After referring the matter to my own airline, I was advised that the customer was right and to move on.  In my research, however, I discovered that this is only HALF TRUE!  I will address the FCC matter in a moment.

I suppose that the mystery of all of this is really centered around some of the broader language that is found in Title 14 of the Transportation Code of the United States, better known as the Federal Air Regulations or FARs.  I will try to sort these out for you in plain English here, however you can find the complete wording of all these FARs on the FAA’s website, http://www.faa.gov.

There are actually four separate FARs that address the issue of the use of “portable electronic devices” (PEDs) or “transmitting portable electronic devices” (T-PEDs): § 91.21 [Portable electronic devices], § 121.306 [Portable electronic devices], § 125.204 [Portable electronic devices], and § 135.144 [Portable electronic devices].  In all four cases, the language of these FARs is identical, with one exception in Part 91.  All four FARs state that “no person may operate or pilot in command (PIC) of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable electronic device on any of the following U.S.-registered civil aircraft: (1) Aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate; or (2) Any other aircraft while it it operated under IFR (Instrument Flight Rules).”

Since Part 91 concerns “General Operating and Flight Rules,” the exception mentioned earlier pertains to IFR operated flights; all the other Parts are specific to type or class of specific operations (i.e. Commercial Domestically Flagged aircraft, Regional Carriers or Aircraft rated at 20 or more passengers, but a maximum payload of 6,000 pounds).  Otherwise, the language is identical.

All four parts are also specific in its exceptions to this regulation.  There are FIVE exceptions to the prohibition of PEDs and T-PEDs, and quite frankly, this is where the broader language is located, thus making it a rule that is specific to the carriers themselves.  The first four exceptions in ALL Parts are (1) Portable voice recorders, (2) Hearing aids, (3) Heart pacemakers, and (4) Electric shavers (I personally found this exception somewhat humorous, since I have never actually witnessed a passenger using one on a flight!).

The fifth exception is what seems to cause the headaches.  It states, “Any other portable electronic device that the part 119 certificate holder has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.“  Really?  And how does the average passenger determine this?

According to another FAA publication, known as Advisory Circular 91.21-1B[2], it is the responsibility of each individual air carrier to test their aircraft for interference using highly specialized instrumentation to determine which devices pose a safety threat to communications and navigation aboard each type of aircraft the carrier operates.  So the reality of it all is that, in order for each airline to allow or ban particular devices, they must have them tested to the aircraft configurations they operate.  And as is ALWAYS the case, the PIC has the final say on ANY device, if he/she determines that it is a safety hazard to the aircraft or the crew.  No exceptions there…

Where the confusion seems to lie with passengers (and it’s something few of us really think about) is that it is entirely possible that Airline “A” would allow the use of a particular device that Airline “B” will not.  This is tied directly to the testing that each individual airline is required to perform on their fleet.  Of course, this begs the question: “Well, if Airline “A” operates the Boeing 737-500 and they approve my Bluetooth device, why wouldn’t Airline “B” allow me to use it on their B-737-500′s.”  This boils down to logistics and consistency throughout a particular airline’s operation.

What AC 91.21-1B does state is that the individual carriers are responsible for educating its passengers on what devices may or may not be used at every stage of the flight (boarding, taxiing, at cruise, decent, etc.).  As far as I am aware, every airline has some sort of list they provide their passengers and this can usually be found on the Safety Information Card (most of the time these are vague, at best), the in-flight magazine (usually you can find the complete list of allowable devices here) or both.  And almost every airline I have flown on has this announcement in the safety briefing that flight attendants are required to perform at the beginning of every flight they work.

I also did some digging, and every major airline, along with most of the regionals and the low-cost carriers (LCCs) have a place on their corporate websites that spell these out for passengers (I will admit, however, that many of these policies online were not easily found and I had to call one airline to get “directions” to find that list.

The bottom-line on all of this is that the onus of determining what devices can be used on what planes rests with the carrier itself.  It would be safe to point out that as a passenger, if you have any reservations about whether or not it IS okay to use your device, the flight attendant is your best, fastest resource.  When in doubt: Ask!

So that’s the FAA’s reasoning for regulating PEDs and T-PEDs…so why is the FCC involved in this debate???  The answer was completely unknown to me until I researched this article, and the answer may astound you.

Turns out that most airlines quote the FCC Consumer Advisory “Using Wireless Devices on Airplanes”[3] which states, “Federal Communication Commission (FCC) rules prohibit the use of cellular phones using the 800 MHz frequency and other wireless devices on airborne aircraft.  This ban was put in place because of potential interference to wireless networks on the ground.”  Notice a subtle but important difference?

It turns out that although the FCC’s jurisdiction usually doesn’t include airline regulation, when it comes to communication on Terra Firma, the FCC is the ruler of the roost.  The FCC is the department of the US Goverment which oversees all things to do with electronic devices that transmit, receive or have the potential to interfere with communications within our boarders.  As such, you will note that on most every electronic device you own, you will usually find a seal of approval from the FCC somewhere on it, which tells anyone who wants to know that the device is safe to use and causes no threat to the communication system in the USA.

According to the FCC, there have been instances where trying to use a cell signal from the air has caused damage and service interruptions on the ground, and THAT is the main reason for its strict stance on the issue.  According to its own Advisory, “In March 2007, the FCC terminated a proceeding that it began in late 2004 to consider lifting this ban.  The FCC determined that the technical information provided by interested parties in response to the proposal was insufficient to determine whether in-flight use of wireless devices on aircraft could cause harmful interference to wireless networks on the ground.  Therefore, it decided at this time to make no changes in the rules prohibiting in-flight use of such devices.”

As flight attendants, it is our duty on every flight to inform and enforce the FARs as written in our Flight Attendant Operation Manual (FAOM).  Anything in that manual is considered by the FAA to be the rule of law when applied to the specific airline for which it was written.  Keep in mind that “sleep mode” or “airplane mode” on ANY device is not enough to satisfy the requirement to power the device off during taxi, take-off and landing.  And, as was the case of the passenger who refused to comply with those FARs, failure to do so in most cases is considered by most every airline as “interference of a flight crew” and that is punishable by arrest, fines and sometimes even jail time.  So please, just turn it off!

So there it is in black and white (with a few color photos intermingled) about the WHY regarding cellphone usage (and any other electronic device) during various stages of airline travel.  This information certainly won’t stop those on-board airplanes from ignoring the flight attendant briefing or the safety card or the in-flight magazine.  But there are indeed U.S. Federal laws and regulations from two separate agencies that are quite specific about it, and the reasons behind the rules.  I am also feign to point out that when the flight attendant requests that a device be turned off, this is not a power trip for us crew mates.  We are simply doing what we were hired to do…it’s not a difficult request, but it IS the law!

“Deltalina” photo courtesy of Delta Air Lines, Inc.

——————————————–
[1]The Hill: Transportation Blog,“Airline passenger arrested for not turning off cellphone in flight”, Keith Laing, September 6, 2011

[2]FAA.gov: Document Library: Advisory Circulars, “AC #91.21-1B”, Dated 08-25-2006.

[3]FCC.gov: Guides: FCC Consumer Facts, “Using Wireless Devices on Airplanes.”

As the world prepares for the tenth anniversary of what most American’s consider history’s most horrific act of terrorism ever, it’s no wonder that the media circus is ramping-up with pretty much every angle and facet of analysis on what went wrong, what has happened since then and what continues happen in and around the airline industry. Speculation will run rampant and so-called expert ‘talking heads’ and pundits will raise the spectre of renewed rumblings of terrorist activity against the United States and the free enterprise world of commerce, one of the founding pillars of the freedoms that we now enjoy.

Since September 11, 2011, the world of airline travel has remained a focal point of safety and security. Last year, IATA (the International Air Transport Association) reported that over TWO and a HALF BILLION people were transported via airline travel alone. [1] In that time, there have been scattered breeches of security throughout the world, mostly due to ignorance on the part of the traveling public, or the lapse of judgement among a handful of those who are charged with maintaining that barrier of defense at airports worldwide. The human element of the equation in regards to personal safety and protections against acts of terror makes it impossible for 100% accuracy.

Anti-terror tactics that have been employed over the past ten years continue to evolve and many hard-working people spend countless hours and billions of dollars in resources to keep that high-level of security at our airports and on our aircraft daily. Yet for all the ingenuity and strategies that have and continue to be engaged and developed, the traveling public seems to take these efforts in stride. The security checkpoints and airport facilities of the United States have been on a high state of alert since the weeks following 9/11, and there has been no adjustment of that alert status, up or down, from their current levels to date. As is typical of all things “human,” when something becomes routine and tolerated to the point that little changes, we tend to ignore the signs and tell ourselves that nothing is wrong. We marginalize the discomfort and sometimes even cast disdain towards those whose job it is to keep those alert levels high and enforce the rules at the slightest infraction.

As one of those safety professionals aboard our aircraft, it is my duty to maintain order and remain vigilant, even though it may seem that my primary duties are more inline with serving beverages or seeing to the comfort of my passengers. On every flight, I witness how the majority of today’s airline travelers pay little or no attention to the safety demo at the beginning of the flight. They rarely take out the Safety Information Card and perform, what we in the business like to refer to as “the silent review” — simply taking a moment to orient oneself to their relative position in the plane, determine how far from the nearest exit they are, or how the emergency exit is opened and/or operated. Yet there are those among the media who continue to denigrate and marginalize our effectiveness or our methods to stay focused on protecting the public aboard our aircraft daily.

Earlier today, The Atlantic published an article, written by a Journalism student at Northwestern University, that was highly critical of those methods and those who are charged with enforcement of protecting the cockpit door in-flight. Entitled “How to Hijack an Airplane in 3 Seconds” by Abraham Tekippe [2], the piece comes off as an alarmist rant about the in-flight crew’s inability to protect the cockpit, were the door to be opened during a flight. Citing that would-be terrorists would seat themselves in the first few rows of the aircraft in order to over-power and over-take an open cockpit door in-flight due to the pilots’ need to use lavatory facilities or be served meals from the galley, Tekippe uses two reports of passenger complaints filed with the TSA (one in 2007 and one in 2010) to make his case (he fails to reference his source material or where he gained access to these complaints). He also blames the FAA’s lack of secondary barrier requirements by the airlines to defend the cockpit door, stating that the FAA’s reluctance to mandate these barriers is due to their restrictive cost factors (he alleges that each barrier costs between $5,000-$10,000 per aircraft, yet again citing no references).

He also blames the industry for minimizing the need for such access deterrents, and states that IATA believes that secondary barriers provide no enhancement to securing the cockpit door in-flight. In my own research on this topic, however, IATA seems to be concentrating their security efforts on keeping those who would bring down aircraft in the air off the planes completely, by enhancing and improving the secure checkpoints throughout the industry. Ken Dunlap, Global Director of Security and Travel Facilitation for IATA, contends that “passengers should be screened to a degree commensurate with what is known about them. The threat has become more dynamic. It’s not just bad objects that need detecting now.” [3]

While Federal Air Marshals (FAMs) are still in play around the system (the exact number of FAMs is classified), it would be nearly impossible to employ them on every single flight that launches daily in the US alone, let alone the world. For many travelers, just knowing that the possibility that Air Marshals could be on board their flight is enough to give them just the slightest peace-of-mind. The Federal Government and the Airline Industry have a complicated task on their hands, trying to balance the appropriate level of security with over-restrictive in-flight rules and regulations that make questionable their violation of personal civil rights . Somewhere in the middle of it all, the crew must maintain vigilance on every flight they work to ensure that everyone aboard arrives at their destination with the minimum amount of physical discomfort and emotional distress as can be achieved.

There are going to be those out there that are hyper-critical of the airlines’ role in this topic. I can assure readers of this column that most airlines consider in-flight safety and security to be their most important and crucial component. My co-workers strive to maintain that goal and take their roles as safety directors on-board quite seriously. Most of us realize that the constant barrage ‘Do’s and Don’ts’ aboard a flight is exhaustive to the average traveler. And for us, we are witness to the traveling public’s ever growing apathy toward these rules and regulations. It’s pointless to argue with the crew when it comes to these FARs (Federal Air Regulations) because it’s our responsibility to inform and enforce them.

In a few weeks, the world will remember what happened in the skies above Manhattan ten years ago. The question of security in airline travel will be discussed ‘ad nauseum.’ While discussing the topic of the possibility of a future terrorist attack is inevitable on almost any news source who chooses to cover it, one wonders if it will give travelers pause enough to understand the need for compliance with FARs when traveling? Who knows…but we will all be subject to the coverage of the event, and it will be up to us to take heed of those messages…or to ignore them.

_____________________________________________
[1]Air Transport Association, Data & Analysis, “Annual Report: World Airlines,” June 29, 2011: http://tinyurl.com/3r8bvkh

[2]The Atlantic, “How to Hijack an Airplane in 3 Seconds,” Abraham Tekippe, Aug. 16, 2011: http://tinyurl.com/3bb7cd4

[3]IATA: “Security – Tunnel of Technology,” ‘Airlines International: Dec. 2010,’ http://tinyurl.com/3j9jlmx

6G53GFE3AHAM

For Pete’s sake!  How many times do we airline folk have to tell the public about carry-on bags?  Apparently once more…

Earlier today, the Huffington Post published a blog entry from Alexandra Swafford Das[1], a 75-year old “retired artist, gilder and muralist” about a nightmare experience she encountered earlier this year while traveling on U.S. Airways.  In an over-dramatized rant, Ms. Das declares that due to the negligence of the airline, she states that this “simple trip home from visiting my children literally could have ended my life…” and that by publishing her exploits about this experience she hopes “that this will cause them [the U.S. Airline companies] to change the way they do business so no one else suffers the same indignities.”

In a nutshell, Ms. Das arrived at the airport with a piece of luggage that she intended to take aboard her flight that was obviously too heavy for her to manage.  Her fracas with the counter agent as they forced her to lift her bag onto the luggage scale caused her to collapse at the counter and be hauled off to the hospital for four days to recover, before she reattempted her voyage.

After much hassle with reservations to re-book the flight without a penalty, she returned to the airport (with the same bag, mind you) and was dismayed that the “stewardess” was unwilling to lift the bag in the overhead bin for her, exclaiming that she “was 75-years-old with a pacemaker, kidney cancer, and other medical problems.”  While the flight attendant reluctantly did finally stow the bag for her, she was informed that in the future she should bring a travel companion or ask an able-bodied passenger for assistance.  She explains that her seatmates, a couple from Australia, were appalled at “such a rude stewardess, whose job was to assist passengers, as well as other duties.”

Later on, she declares that she wrote to the airline and got nothing more than a measly apology and pretty much nothing else.

So, what went wrong here?

To begin with, let’s be very clear about the actual handling of passenger luggage: while there are a few airlines whose policy it is for both agents and flight attendants to lift and maneuver passenger luggage, the vast majority are NOT authorized to do so.  This is a very cloudy subject among the various airlines, but for the most part this subject falls outside the scope of the attendants and agents job parameters.  As such, should the employee become injured or disabled while doing so would subject them to disqualification of disability benefits.  This may sound outrageous, and to many of us airline personnel, it is.  But so long as the laws of this country remain in place as written, this is the major reason passengers find push back from agents and attendants about lifting and stowing their bags.

Again, not every airline has these policies in place (apparently those airlines choose to pay the additional costs associated with injuries related to baggage handling by agents and attendants) but again, the majority do not.  Where does that put those who may have physical limitations, as did Ms. Das?  Well, in truth, the attendant on her flight had it right: either travel with an able companion, or find an able-bodied passenger to assist.  I have never, in all my years of flying, been unable to find someone, male or female, who wasn’t willing to assist.

As a matter of record, I have assisted passengers with bags, especially my more frail and elderly guests.  I have been warned, however, that doing so would be at my own risk.  I am usually very adept at determining whether a bag is too heavy or not, and most times, they are fine.  But can you imagine if we were required to lift bags all day long, for 10-14 hours each day, how worn out we could get?

It’s like a thorn in my side when the reality of my job duties conflicts with the passengers’ expectations of what they think they should be.  It’s not my intention to be disagreeable to anyone on my flights, but there are rules, regulations and restrictions that we, as your in-flight crew, just can’t violate—to do so could jeopardize our health or our careers or both!

The simple, sure-fire measurement is if you can’t lift your bag over your head, it’s too heavy to stow in an overhead bin on the plane, so plan on checking it.  Most airlines do NOT charge to check your bag at the jetway of the plane!  So if you know it’s too heavy, ask the gate agent to check it at the door to your final destination—that way, you won’t have to hassle with it throughout the airport and can spend more time enjoying your flight, rather than jockeying for position with all the others onboard.

If you need tips on how best to pack when traveling, the folks at RealSimple have devised a simplified method to try—check it out at http://tinyurl.com/343c8uz.

I sympathize with Ms. Das–I really do.  Airline travel has become anything but exciting and glamorous these days and people in general are all in a hurry to get where they need to be…no matter how they manage to get there or who they move out of the way to do it.  All I can tell Ms. Das is that her experience is most assuredly the exception, and not the rule.  There are too many people in the airline industry that appreciate the jobs they have and they strive to make each new day better for themselves and for people like yourself.  No one is blatantly trying to cause injury or harm.  And believe me, kindness and understanding are both two-way streets, in this day and age.

The airlines carried over 2.5 billion passengers last year[2]—for all the annoyances, irritations, limitations and frustrations that people have towards the airline industry, there is still a lot they do right.  Safety and security are paramount with all my airline brothers and sisters and they continue to excel in those two things every day.

I can count on two hands the number of truly unsatisfied passengers I have had to deal with in my entire career…like I always say; people are either slightly annoyed or mildly satisfied with their travel experiences.  But that doesn’t stop the majority of us who take pride in our work every single time we step on board that airplane to do everything within our power to make each person feel that the experience was truly worth it.

We love to fly…and most of the time…it shows!

___________________________________________

[1]The Huffington Post (Online Edition), Life & Style-’HuffPost Travel,’ Aug. 8, 2011, “An Airline Travel Nightmare,” Alexandra Swafford Das: http://tinyurl.com/43pfyjz

[2]Air Transport Association, Data & Analysis, “Annual Report: World Airlines,” June 29, 2011: http://tinyurl.com/3r8bvkh

As I was going through my TiVo programs, trying to get caught up on Idol, Vampire Diaries and Project Runway, I caught a little snippet of a news report from a few days ago. And it sent a chill down my spine…but…

This country has been on high alert for terrorists infiltrating this country since 9/11/01. That’s eight and a half years of keeping our “ear to the ground” (so to speak) and trying to remain vigilant. The saddest part of all of this is that the American people, as diverse and proud as we are about our country, have a really bad case of ADHD when it comes to this stuff. It’s very easy for them to become complacent and get themselves into the mode of “my government will protect me” and just move on with their lives.

The problem with that is that those whose sole mission it is to destroy our way of life, those who hate our culture and our government, our excesses and gluttony, our success and our dominance on the world stage, do NOT have a short memory and they have, over time, begun to use the very tools and technology that our own country has developed and cultivated against us.

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and U.S. intelligence expert Leon Panetta

According to the experts, it’s just a matter of time — and that was the gist of the news report that I saw — before the terrorists are causing havoc and mass destruction within our borders again, and in light of these recent events, they are saying that just such an attack is imminent within the next THREE to SIX MONTHS!

The TOP intelligence agencies have all reported to Congress in the past several days that Al-Qaeda and it’s operatives have begun recruiting rogue Americans to carry out their desires for the destruction of the United States, our economy and our freedom — to bring us to our knees, because in their eyes, we deserve it and we — the Infidels — must be punished.

Now, I don’t want to sound like Chicken Little here (“The Sky is Falling!”), but as an airline safety professional, my “guard” has been up since the 9/11 attacks. I have no choice and I have no tolerance for those who wish to believe that it can’t happen again. It almost did on Christmas Day, for goodness sakes! And I have no idea why our Intelligence leaders would mislead the American public on so serious an issue as this.

Attempted terrorist aprehended on Christmas Day Delta flight

The fact of the matter (in my own mind) is that these terrorists are testing the system EVERY DAY. I’m not a suspicious person, but I also can’t afford not to keep alert whenever I step on that aircraft. I get that the average traveler isn’t thinking about that at all. But if the bad guys are successful in bringing down another passenger jet in the name of their god, I know that once again, the flying public’s guard will be heightened and aroused.

I might sleep a little better knowing that we can prevent it every time it’s attempted rather than live through another 9/11 morning. I’m not giving up on America and the freedom and way-of-life that I am privileged to have. But I still believe it is a gift to be cherished. If we don’t protect it, someone is always out there to take it from us.

Let’s hope it never comes to that…