FAA unveils new uniform for international flights

[Fat Burger]

FAA unveils new passenger flight uniform

By ROBERT PATRICK
Associated Press
Updated: 11:45 a.m. ET Aug 16, 2006

In a bold move today, the Federal Aviation Administration has today announced plans to implement a mandatory uniform for all passengers on international flights originating from inside the United States.

"In light of past and recent terrorist threats against the United States, the FAA has decided that the best way to ensure the safety of passengers is the complete elimination of potential weapons on board aircraft", said an FAA spokesperson Wednesday.

"Although airport security has been tightened and personnel have been trained, there remains factors in place that are extremely difficult to quickly and efficiently identify. Though our research, we have determined that a standardized uniform would provide the greatest aid in this task. Our goal is to eliminate danger on board aircraft, and we believe the new passenger uniform will help us accomplish this."

The FAA has mandated that the new uniform will be worn by all passengers, and will be issued at the airport following standard seurity checks already in place. The uniform will be effective starting on September 1.

Note:
I uploaded the picture so you all can see it.

http://www.midgetforhire.com/upload/q4fxc7.jpg

[shawndavid]

:fly:

[Sarcasmo]

I see what they did there.

[FlamingGlory]

I dont see this on the AP service. Linkage.

[SemperFly]

Honestly it wouldn't surprise me if one day HomeSec tried to implement something like this. All passengers have to report to changing areas and don pocketless jumpsuits before flights all in the name of our safety.

The best part is that some people wouldn't understand why that's a problem. :(

[Fat Burger]

I dont see this on the AP service. Linkage.

Hahaha can't edit now, bitch! :fly:

[FlamingGlory]

Hahaha can't edit now, bitch! :fly:
I dont edit son. Deny, deny, deny.

[SemperFly]

I dont edit son. Deny, deny, deny.
*don't

[wanko80]

I see what they did there.
I don't get it.

[BeerAd]

So this isnt real right??? right over my head i guess, funny though if it is real

[ChikkenNoodul]

ROBERT PATRICK OMG IT'S THE T-1000!!!

[fly]

Honestly it wouldn't surprise me if one day HomeSec tried to implement something like this. All passengers have to report to changing areas and don pocketless jumpsuits before flights all in the name of our safety.

The best part is that some people wouldn't understand why that's a problem. :(
I doubt it will ever come to that, but I honestly don't see the problem with it. Explain.

[FlamingGlory]

I doubt it will ever come to that, but I honestly don't see the problem with it. Explain.
I'm having to side with fly on this one. Privately owned planes, flown by private corporations, you dont have rights on private property and you are free to charter your own plane.

[b_sinning]

midegetforslowimageload.com

[w_a_w]

pic isn't loading
I was thinking everyone would have to fly in their birthday suits when I started reading :fly:

edit: working now

[fly]

I'm having to side with fly on this one.
:eek:

[FlamingGlory]

:eek:
That's the same thing I argue whenever someone bitches about the law of planes. They are essentially bitching about the wrong people (the government), flights arent controlled by the government per se.

[eileenbunny]

I think mandatory valium for all passengers would have a similar effect and be cheaper.

[SemperFly]

I'm having to side with fly on this one. Privately owned planes, flown by private corporations, you dont have rights on private property and you are free to charter your own plane.
It's one thing if the airlines themselves require things like that. Then you can choose to fly other airlines or other forms of travel. On the other hand the government requiring that kind of thing is a very strong step toward fascism.

[FlamingGlory]

It's one thing if the airlines themselves require things like that. Then you can choose to fly other airlines or other forms of travel. On the other hand the government requiring that kind of thing is a very strong step toward fascism.
The government makess afety reccos, their insurance requires them to follow them, as well as their terminal leases. It's all perfectly legal and in no way a violation of your rights, you are free NOT to fly. If you fly charter or private you dont even have to go through security.

[fly]

flying is a convenience not a right! :D

[SemperFly]

The government makess afety reccos, their insurance requires them to follow them, as well as their terminal leases. It's all perfectly legal and in no way a violation of your rights, you are free NOT to fly. If you fly charter or private you dont even have to go through security.
I agree but you of all people should understand the concept of a slippery slope.

What's to keep these kinds of regulations from being applied to private charter airlines? What about private pilots?

flying is a convenience not a right! :D
Once again, agreed. I do, however, believe that if such an innane set of regulations were to be put in place it would be far too much of a hassle for millions of passengers. I'm not saying it's necessarily a violation of rights but I do believe it'd be an abuse of government power.

Also, a right does not have to be enumerated in the Constitution to exist.

[FlamingGlory]

I agree but you of all people should understand the concept of a slippery slope.

What's to keep these kinds of regulations from being applied to private charter airlines? What about private pilots?
They could well be, it's hardly a slippery slope though. There are already rules in place for charter/private planes, administered by the same agency as for commercial public flights. Explained in detail below.

Once again, agreed. I do, however, believe that if such an innane set of regulations were to be put in place it would be far too much of a hassle for millions of passengers. I'm not saying it's necessarily a violation of rights but I do believe it'd be an abuse of government power.

Also, a right does not have to be enumerated in the Constitution to exist.
Flight regulations are not statutory, they are administrative laws (Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations), enforced by the DOT through the FAA by statute. The statutory power of the federal congress to make these laws comes from Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution:

"The Congress shall have power. . . To regulate commerce. . . among the several states. . ."

As for unennumerated rights. Just because a right is not enumerated does NOT mean that it even exists:

"The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights."

Doe v. Bolton (1973)

Thank you and goodnight.