Boofhead is 100% correct!
surely not,
Please don't take this as a flame, as it is not intended that way.
Unless I am mistaken Aircrew have the same financial and personal pressures as we lesser mortals. These pressures could result in them taking a one-off payment to assist a person out to create trouble.
What about the "trusted" ground pounders (which is nearly ALL of them) that are not required to submit to passenger screening? I guess a person holding an easily obtainable, minimum wage job on the ramp is less likely to be coerced into bad things than a highly paid professional who doesn't need a weapon to fly an aircraft into a building?
I would feel very aggrieved if they were ever exempted from the Security checks.
Then you should be feeling very aggrieved right now, since the ONLY employee groups (in the US) that submit to passenger or any other type of "security" screening are pilots and flight attendants. The rest enter through the back door. Prior to 1987, pilots and flight attendants were also exempt from passenger screening. Due to the actions of a ground ops employee (PSA 1771, do a google search) pilots and flight attendants, but NOT ground ops employees, were thereafter required to submit to passenger screening. It was the first act of "The Greatest Security Show on Earth, and it was way before 9/11.
Aircrew are required to submit to passenger screening for one reason, and one reason only. It makes a great
PR show for the passengers to see easily identifiable, authority figures submitting to the same screening that they receive. They are not aware that while the front door is locked tight, the back door is wide open.
How much sense does it make to screen every bag for explosives, then, immediately after said bag exits the machine, the unlocked bag is picked up and handled by an entry level, ground ops worker, that entered the "secure" area, unchecked, through the back door? Meanwhile, the Captain of the same plane that that bag is loaded on to is standing at the passenger screening checkpoint in his socks, holding up his pants trying to explain to the TSA the FAA requirement to carry an operating flashlight or comm. headset (it has happened to me. They let me carry my plastic, 2 "d" cell flashlight....."this time"
).
To the postee who pleaded that they would never stoop so low, great news, but unfortunately there might be others who would, so go through the checks and make life more difficult for the bad sheep.
The only "sheep" whose lives have been made more difficult are ironically those that don't need a weapon to "take Over" the aircraft, IE pilots. The bad guys, while they may be crazy, are not stupid. They will take the path of least resistance, and that is not in a pilot's uniform. It would be much more difficult for a bad guy to impersonate a pilot in any case, and if he did, and got away with it, all of the fondling in the world would not stop him from flying the aircraft into a building, since he would already be IN the cockpit. The same goes for pilots in general. Either we are trusted or we are not trusted. If we are not trusted, then we should not be given complete control over a potential weapon of mass destruction. If we are trusted, then we shouldn't be standing in our socks every day, explaining to the HS dropouts why we need certain items to operate the aforementioned, potential WMD.
These points may seem redundant, but I feel they illustrate the complete farce that passes for "security", at least in the US. If it weren't such a serious issue, it would make a great comedy show!