I can think of numerous airside workers who could inflict just as much damage as a pilot, so should they be exempt as well? Where should we draw the line?
At the point of vetting - not the point of entry.
Engineers can do untold damage to an aircraft - the difference between them and pilots is that they are allowed the tools to do it! We just have to trust that they won't.
Pilots don't think they are special - they just have special circumstances. Do you suffer from dandruff that only a certain shampoo will hold at bay? If you are a pax you can put it in your hold luggage - no problem. If you work on the ground it will be sat in your shower at home - no problem. If you are a pilot of a 5 day trip hopping round europe you have to decant as much as you can within limits. Like to use a certain sensitive skin shave foam - sorry it only comes in 250ml containers - guess you'll just have to get used to that rash! On a diet / don't want to eat airline food for 20 days of every month - unlucky, that sarnie has mayo on it (I have seen bananas removed from crew) - get used to that high blood pressure due to that whopping salt intake.
The main thrust of the disgruntlement comes from the fact that this inconvenience is entirely uneccessary and without much thought - it is just the remenants of a poorly thought out knee-jerk reaction to a security threat of some months ago. The fact that aircrew are the only people who are actually left with any real inconvenience (the pax only have to go without their face cream for 2 hours - not 5 days) is what gets our goat.
The stuff on sale in duty free would be worthy of as much (if not more) scrutiny (I have had empty gym drinking bottles removed because I could 'fill them up when I was airside'. At this time I could buy as much dity free as I wanted). But guess what - that hit the BAA pretty heavily financially, so that got lifted sharpish. And I bet sales of drinks/overpriced water have incresed airside too!
