I don't think she was saying to just get over it. I'm not Jennais so I can't speak 100% for her but what I got from it was that the % of people suffering from PTSD etc and not being able to go through the scanners may be very small. Out of the total flying population those with these type of disabilities may be very very small.
I think the overall point is that with any system, there is going to be a small percentage that may be "exceptions". We are not saying that they are not important but maybe some type of procedure may need to be put in place to handle those exceptions.
Similar to let's say the ADA act, where hotels had to put in systems to help the disabled navigate. You don't change your entire hotel but simply enhance a portion of it to accomodate those with special needs.
There has always been a small % of the population that flying in general is very traumatic so it continues to be a balancing act. It doesn't mean you have to throw the entire security process out the window, maybe more of a "how do we handle the exceptions" situation.
So I don't think she meant we are totally disregarding those with special needs simply that out of the general population they may be a small percentage.
OK, you've raised some very valid comparisons here. I think the ADA is an excellent example. The problem then becomes, what determines who does or does not fall into the "exception" group, and how are the people in that group processed through security? If the supposed "point" of all of this is that either "everyone" or a "random sampling" goes through enhanced screening, then wouldn't exempting those who have these issues defeat that point? What's to stop a terrorist from faking a mental health disorder, going through security with the "exceptions" and then blowing up the plane?
If there is a different type of security that is just as effective but not so intrusive as to trigger these mental health concerns, then why use it only the "exceptions"? Why wasn't that rolled out in the first place?
I'm not trying to pump you for answers. These are rhetorical questions, based on the points that you raised. I'm not sure there are any good answers here.
However, it is unlikely a disability (in this discussion re: flying for work) since it doesn't rule them out of working. Just means they cannot do that job perhaps if the trauma from a minute chance of being selected would be that great.
Example: I am afraid of heights. I cannot work as a window washer in Manhatten. My fear is not a disability. So I just get another job. Same deal with the job requiring flying and a potential search. Keep in mind thus doesn't take into account your ability to get a job elsewhere. Just that yOu physically could work elsewhere.
But I think you have to take the ability to get another job into consideration. If someone who can't fly due to panic attacks on the plane itself takes a new job knowing that he'll have to fly for work, that's kind of his own fault. But if a rape survivor with PTSD triggered by the new security procedures was able to fly for work, but can't now, that's a whole different ball game. The person WAS able to do the job at the time of hiring, but now the rules have changed. To use your example, suppose you were happily working on the ground floor of a Manhattan office building. The next day you went into work and your employer had expanded the job requirements--now you HAVE to be a window washer one day a month. What do you do? In this case it isn't the employer's fault, but it isn't the employee's fault either. I don't know what should happen. But it doesn't seem right for the employee to be out in the cold.
Can you explain your wow to the statement below?
The only thing stopping the disabled from traveling is themselves. And it is simply a falsehood to claim otherwise.
The TSA is not telling the disabled to stay home. The disabled person is making that determination. And they are well within their right to do so. Just like anyone for any reason can decide to stop getting on an airplane.
It is not really wow-worthy. Very sad actually when someone listens to the fringe.
That's so wrong on so many levels. If you CAN'T do something, then you can't do it. If it's a requirement of the TSA that you are not able to meet, then effectively it's the TSA stopping you from flying on the airplane.
Disability isn't paid to someone because they can't do one job. It is paid when they cannot do a portion or none of any job.
My mom had medical discharge from military. She could not do military. She tried other jobs. When it was determined her body could not do any job, that is what got the ball rolling to permanent disability status. Of course it gets more complicated than that.
This was my parents' experience as well. This just sort of falls into a weird gray area. It's not the employer's fault, it's not the employee's fault, but ultimately both are going to lose out if the employee can no longer do the job.
