Very good point.... now, who best to determine what is, and what is not out of place on the airplane.... the crew, or a TSA inspector that doesn't know a TAT probe from a ladder?

These people have no business on airplanes. Meet them at the door, check their ID, ask what type of airplane this is? and how much training they have had on this specific type... when they can't answer, thank them for removing the trouble maker, ask them to stand clear of the door while you close it and take your PAX to their destinations....

Last I checked, we haven't been issued any bomb sniffing dogs, but the TSA and airport police have. While I agree that there are some buffoons working at TSA, how well trained are you to look at a package and tell if it's been "Kacznski'd" or not?

Why, 3 oz liquids, of course! :rolleyes:






.

Is JetBlue re-writing Part 121.

The report said the plane had 4 crewmembers, so that would leave 2 as FA. I assume the plane has more than 101 seats which would imply at least 3 FA.

I do know from past experiences the news media can get the facts very wrong.

Nothing worse than blue brawls.....:eek:

[QUOTE][Is JetBlue re-writing Part 121./QUOTE]

It was prob. A 190 then no rewrite needed

\

JDMJ -

I agree - that is a good point about staging the disturbance and planting something, but then I agree with the above post and wonder who is better qualified to be searching the lav. I would assume that the FAs could do as good a sweep as anyone and notice something out of the ordinary and if not - then maybe some safety/security training is required in that area. I don't know whom from the TSA would have come on board to check the plane out - but if it was one of the agents that are reminding me to take my shoes off then I would question their training too. If it was TSA agents and cops coming on with bomb sniffing dogs and such then that would make more sense but that is not the feeling I got from reading the article or the comment. If so.....more power to them.

USMCFLYR