EPIC files lawsuit to suspend airport body scanner use

Status
Not open for further replies.
What would be a safe dose per day/week for frequent travellers who would be subject to a few scans daily/weekly? How quickly can the body absorb these doses of radiation? (Is there a cut off point, ie, 4 scans per 24 hours? Could transiting in a short space of time and being subjected to multiple scans cause problems?)

In theory, radiation dose is coughulative so that every bit of exposure adds to the lifetime risk. At these very low levels of dose it is all about the probability of having something bad happening (i.e. getting cancer) over a lifetime. There is no immediate effect of radiation at these low levels. That is all taken into account with the risk factors that have been published. The public dose limit is based on the published risk factors and is considered the acceptable level of risk that can be imposed on the unwary member of the public, in line with other risks that we face everyday. To get the public dose limit amount of radiation you need to have 10000 of these scans in a year. A potential cut off to look into what is going on would be around 3000 scans a year. Basically that will never happen.

The website I linked earlier lists a risk of 6 in 100000 for the 1 mSv dose limit. That is the chance of contracting cancer remembering that cancers can go into remission. (That would be the risk per year of exposure at that dose.) I generally, quote a risk of 1 in 20000 per mSv per year of dying from cancer and 1 in 10000 of contracting cancer for the same dose. One comparison is the risk of dying on the road every year is 1 in 9500. So if you get one scan imagine how concerned you are about driving each year and then be 20000 times less concerned about the risk of the scan.

If you're looking for the point at which you might get an immediate effect, like skin redding or a burn, would be if you have about 1000000 scans in about an hour or 2. Basically that is physically impossible.
 
Thank you medhead. I appreciate you taking to time for a in-depth reply.

I am not scarred of the these machines(...yet). As cove pointed out in a previous post, it's in+out in 2 minutes. I am saying this on the basis of not having had the pleasure of using one, that may change once l have had the opportunity of being "body scanned". Time will tell.

Happy travels
 
Read our AFF credit card guides and start earning more points now.

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

Thank you medhead. I appreciate you taking to time for a in-depth reply.

I am not scarred of the these machines(...yet). As cove pointed out in a previous post, it's in+out in 2 minutes.

Happy travels

No worries it's a pleasure.

Certainly nothing to be scared about. In fact the average Australia gets the equivalent of 2000 scans every year due to radioactive potassium in the body. My objection is about the process, or lack thereof, in which the security card is played and then it becomes ok to irradiate people without justification.
 
I honestly don't care about the full body scanner. Its only invasive in your mind. Personally, I want to know it Ranjit Bin Laden boarding AA777 LAX to wherever has a rocket launcher stuffed up his butt - it just makes me feel safer flying the friendly skies...

I think that anyone opposing these security measures needs to take a job that does not include flying.

I can see children issues, and that needs addressing separately , but for adults, the full body scanner is going to be a part of travel from here on in - like it or lump it, but there's no way to avoid it

munitalP

(BTW, I'm not comfy knowing someone is looking at my bits, but its over very fast, you don't meet and greet the looker, and I'm not seeing my bits pics on a large screen 3D Sony TV above the security check!)

:shock:

Ranjit? I believe you are getting your countries mixed up ;)
 
The folks in my line were very relaxed about it.
Just go with the flow here I think.

I think you would find that there were many people in your line who didn't want to do it but also didn't want to speak up.

I saw a lady just the other day refuse the scan. Just as I had read on the forums, the TSA hassled her about it. She refused once and they asked again and then she yelled "I'm not doing it!" which got everyones attention. I wasn't around to see what happened afterward but it would be my guess that there were others in the line who witnessed the incident and also spoke out and refused.
 
I agree Sam. You can see more down at Bondi on a Saturday.



Regarding "body-scanners" and the like, l found this article.

The 'Israelification' of airports: High security, little bother

The 'Israelification' of airports: High security, little bother - thestar.com

While North America's airports groan under the weight of another sea-change in security protocols, one word keeps popping out of the mouths of experts: Israelification.
That is, how can we make our airports more like Israel's, which deal with far greater terror threat with far less inconvenience.
"It is mindboggling for us Israelis to look at what happens in North America, because we went through this 50 years ago," said Rafi Sela, the president of AR Challenges, a global transportation security consultancy. He's worked with the RCMP, the U.S. Navy Seals and airports around the world.
"Israelis, unlike Canadians and Americans, don't take s--- from anybody. When the security agency in Israel (the ISA) started to tighten security and we had to wait in line for — not for hours — but 30 or 40 minutes, all hell broke loose here. We said, 'We're not going to do this. You're going to find a way that will take care of security without touching the efficiency of the airport."
That, in a nutshell is "Israelification" - a system that protects life and limb without annoying you to death.
Despite facing dozens of potential threats each day, the security set-up at Israel's largest hub, Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion Airport, has not been breached since 2002, when a passenger mistakenly carried a handgun onto a flight. How do they manage that?
"The first thing you do is to look at who is coming into your airport," said Sela.
The first layer of actual security that greets travellers at Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion International Airport is a roadside check. All drivers are stopped and asked two questions: How are you? Where are you coming from?
"Two benign questions. The questions aren't important. The way people act when they answer them is," Sela said.
Officers are looking for nervousness or other signs of "distress" — behavioural profiling. Sela rejects the argument that profiling is discriminatory.
"The word 'profiling' is a political invention by people who don't want to do security," he said. "To us, it doesn't matter if he's black, white, young or old. It's just his behaviour. So what kind of privacy am I really stepping on when I'm doing this?"
Once you've parked your car or gotten off your bus, you pass through the second and third security perimeters.
Armed guards outside the terminal are trained to observe passengers as they move toward the doors, again looking for odd behaviour. At Ben Gurion's half-dozen entrances, another layer of security are watching. At this point, some travellers will be randomly taken aside, and their person and their luggage run through a magnometer.
"This is to see that you don't have heavy metals on you or something that looks suspicious," said Sela.
You are now in the terminal. As you approach your airline check-in desk, a trained interviewer takes your passport and ticket. They ask a series of questions: Who packed your luggage? Has it left your side?
"The whole time, they are looking into your eyes — which is very embarrassing. But this is one of the ways they figure out if you are suspicious or not. It takes 20, 25 seconds," said Sela.
Lines are staggered. People are not allowed to bunch up into inviting targets for a bomber who has gotten this far.
At the check-in desk, your luggage is scanned immediately in a purpose-built area. Sela plays devil's advocate — what if you have escaped the attention of the first four layers of security, and now try to pass a bag with a bomb in it?
"I once put this question to Jacques Duchesneau (the former head of the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority): say there is a bag with play-doh in it and two pens stuck in the play-doh. That is 'Bombs 101' to a screener. I asked Ducheneau, 'What would you do?' And he said, 'Evacuate the terminal.' And I said, 'Oh. My. God.'
"Take Pearson. Do you know how many people are in the terminal at all times? Many thousands. Let's say I'm (doing an evacuation) without panic — which will never happen. But let's say this is the case. How long will it take? Nobody thought about it. I said, 'Two days.'"
A screener at Ben-Gurion has a pair of better options.
First, the screening area is surrounded by contoured, blast-proof glass that can contain the detonation of up to 100 kilos of plastic explosive. Only the few dozen people within the screening area need be removed, and only to a point a few metres away.
Second, all the screening areas contain 'bomb boxes'. If a screener spots a suspect bag, he/she is trained to pick it up and place it in the box, which is blast proof. A bomb squad arrives shortly and wheels the box away for further investigation.
"This is a very small simple example of how we can simply stop a problem that would cripple one of your airports," Sela said.
Five security layers down: you now finally arrive at the only one which Ben-Gurion Airport shares with Pearson — the body and hand-luggage check.
"But here it is done completely, absolutely 180 degrees differently than it is done in North America," Sela said.
"First, it's fast — there's almost no line. That's because they're not looking for liquids, they're not looking at your shoes. They're not looking for everything they look for in North America. They just look at you," said Sela. "Even today with the heightened security in North America, they will check your items to death. But they will never look at you, at how you behave. They will never look into your eyes ... and that's how you figure out the bad guys from the good guys."
That's the process — six layers, four hard, two soft. The goal at Ben-Gurion is to move fliers from the parking lot to the airport lounge in a maximum of 25 minutes.
This doesn't begin to cover the off-site security net that failed so spectacularly in targeting would-be Flight 253 bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab — intelligence. In Israel, Sela said, a coordinated intelligence gathering operation produces a constantly evolving series of threat analyses and vulnerability studies.
"There is absolutely no intelligence and threat analysis done in Canada or the United States," Sela said. "Absolutely none."
But even without the intelligence, Sela maintains, Abdulmutallab would not have gotten past Ben Gurion Airport's behavioural profilers.
So. Eight years after 9/11, why are we still so reactive, so un-Israelified?
Working hard to dampen his outrage, Sela first blames our leaders, and then ourselves.
"We have a saying in Hebrew that it's much easier to look for a lost key under the light, than to look for the key where you actually lost it, because it's dark over there. That's exactly how (North American airport security officials) act," Sela said. "You can easily do what we do. You don't have to replace anything. You have to add just a little bit — technology, training. But you have to completely change the way you go about doing airport security. And that is something that the bureaucrats have a problem with. They are very well enclosed in their own concept."
And rather than fear, he suggests that outrage would be a far more powerful spur to provoking that change.
"Do you know why Israelis are so calm? We have brutal terror attacks on our civilians and still, life in Israel is pretty good. The reason is that people trust their defence forces, their police, their response teams and the security agencies. They know they're doing a good job. You can't say the same thing about Americans and Canadians. They don't trust anybody," Sela said. "But they say, 'So far, so good'. Then if something happens, all hell breaks loose and you've spent eight hours in an airport. Which is ridiculous. Not justifiable
"But, what can you do? Americans and Canadians are nice people and they will do anything because they were told to do so and because they don't know any different."
 
Not being an anti-Semite, but not doing everything Israel does is also a good idea. That being said, they do seem to have a better airport security system. Although…

The whole time, they are looking into your eyes — which is very embarrassing. But this is one of the ways they figure out if you are suspicious or not. It takes 20, 25 seconds," said Sela.

But they will never look at you, at how you behave. They will never look into your eyes ... and that's how you figure out the bad guys from the good guys.

I’m sure I’d be taken away into a dark room for 'questioning' simply because they wouldn’t catch me looking into their eyes very long. But would be interesting to know if they can differentiate disabilities from terrorists ;)
 
Yes, seriously.

Sexual assault == intentional contact without consent to genitals/ breasts.

Consent is not valid unless informed, which it is not in many of these cases (I say that as someone who has a profesional obligation to obtain informed consent on a daily basis).

Consent is not valid if coercion is involved. Requirement (in order to fly) negates voluntariness and creates coercion.

I stand by my description. I still seethe at the thought of watching a minimally trained screener perform a coerced external genital examination of my partner. YMMV.
I must admit i thought you were being a bit dramatic but then i saw this-
YouTube - 3 Year-Old Girl Accosted By TSA
The comments by the TSA official were very disturbing.goes against the whole campaign of stranger danger.
pilots unions in the US are also stepping up their campaigns-
Union president tells US Airways pilots to avoid body scanners | AIRLINE BIZ Blog | dallasnews.com
APA president advises against new body scanners | AIRLINE BIZ Blog | dallasnews.com
And there is a public campaign being organised for November 24-
National Opt-Out Day
 
More debate about the body scanners.

UCSF letter to Holdren concerning health risks of full body scanner TSA screenings 4-6-2010

View attachment 1473

LETTER OF CONCERN
We are writing to call your attention to serious concerns about the potential health risks of the recently adopted whole body backscatter X-ray airport security scanners. This is an urgent situation as these X-ray scanners are rapidly being implemented as a primary screening step for all air travel passengers.
Our overriding concern is the extent to which the safety of this scanning device has
been adequately demonstrated. This can only be determined by a meeting of an
impartial panel of experts that would include medical physicists and radiation biologists
at which all of the available relevant data is reviewed.

An important consideration is that a large fraction of the population will be subject to
the new X-ray scanners and be at potential risk, as discussed below. This raises a
number of ‘red flags’. Can we have an urgent second independent evaluation?

The Red Flags
The physics of these X-rays is very telling: the X-rays are Compton-Scattering off outer
molecule bonding electrons and thus inelastic (likely breaking bonds).
Unlike other scanners, these new devices operate at relatively low beam energies
(28keV). The majority of their energy is delivered to the skin and the underlying
tissue. Thus, while the dose would be safe if it were distributed throughout the volume
of the entire body, the dose to the skin may be dangerously high.

The X-ray dose from these devices has often been compared in the media to the cosmic
ray exposure inherent to airplane travel or that of a chest X-ray. However, this
comparison is very misleading: both the air travel cosmic ray exposure and chest X-
rays have much higher X-ray energies and the health consequences are appropriately
understood in terms of the whole body volume dose. In contrast, these new airport
scanners are largely depositing their energy into the skin and immediately adjacent
tissue, and since this is such a small fraction of body weight/vol, possibly by one to two
orders of magnitude, the real dose to the skin is now high.

In addition, it appears that real independent safety data do not exist. A search,
ultimately finding top FDA radiation physics staff, suggests that the relevant radiation
quantity, the Flux [photons per unit area and time (because this is a scanning device)]
has not been characterized. Instead an indirect test (Air Kerma) was made that
emphasized the whole body exposure value, and thus it appears that the danger is low
when compared to cosmic rays during airplane travel and a chest X-ray dose.

In summary, if the key data (flux-integrated photons per unit values) were available, it would be straightforward to accurately model the dose being deposited in the skin and adjacent tissues using available computer codes, which would resolve the potential concerns over radiation damage.

Our colleagues at UCSF, dermatologists and cancer experts, raise specific important
concerns:

A) The large population of older travelers, >65 years of age, is particularly at risk from the mutagenic effects of the X-rays based on the known biology of melanocyte aging.

B) A fraction of the female population is especially sensitive to mutagenesis-
provoking radiation leading to breast cancer. Notably, because these women,
who have defects in DNA repair mechanisms, are particularly prone to cancer,
X-ray mammograms are not performed on them. The dose to breast tissue
beneath the skin represents a similar risk.

C) Blood (white blood cells) perfusing the skin is also at risk.

D) The population of immunocompromised individuals--HIV and cancer
patients (see above) is likely to be at risk for cancer induction by the high skin
dose.

E) The risk of radiation emission to children and adolescents does not appear to
have been fully evaluated.

F) The policy towards pregnant women needs to be defined once the theoretical
risks to the fetus are determined.

G) Because of the proximity of the testicl_s to skin, this tissue is at risk for
sperm mutagenesis.

H) Have the effects of the radiation on the cornea and thymus been determined?
Moreover, there are a number of ‘red flags’ related to the hardware itself. Because this
device can scan a human in a few seconds, the X-ray beam is very intense. Any glitch
in power at any point in the hardware (or more importantly in software) that stops the
device could cause an intense radiation dose to a single spot on the skin. Who will
oversee problems with overall dose after repair or software problems? The TSA is
already complaining about resolution limitations; who will keep the manufacturers
and/or TSA from just raising the dose, an easy way to improve signal-to-noise and get
higher resolution? Lastly, given the recent incident (on December 25th), how do we
know whether the manufacturer or TSA, seeking higher resolution, will scan the groin
area more slowly leading to a much higher total dose?

After review of the available data we have already obtained, we suggest that additional
critical information be obtained, with the goal to minimize the potential health risks of
total body scanning. One can study the relevant X-ray dose effects with modern
molecular tools. Once a small team of appropriate experts is assembled, an
experimental plan can be designed and implemented with the objective of obtaining
information relevant to our concerns expressed above, with attention paid to completing the information gathering and formulating recommendations in a timely fashion.

We would like to put our current concerns into perspective. As longstanding UCSF
scientists and physicians, we have witnessed critical errors in decisions that have
seriously affected the health of thousands of people in the United States. These
unfortunate errors were made because of the failure to recognize potential adverse
outcomes of decisions made at the federal level. Crises create a sense of urgency that
frequently leads to hasty decisions where unintended consequences are not recognized.
Examples include the failure of the CDC to recognize the risk of blood transfusions in
the early stages of the AIDS epidemic, approval of drugs and devices by the FDA
without sufficient review, and improper standards set by the EPA, to name a few.
Similarly, there has not been sufficient review of the intermediate and long-term effects
of radiation exposure associated with airport scanners. There is good reason to believe
that these scanners will increase the risk of cancer to children and other vulnerable
populations. We are unanimous in believing that the potential health consequences
need to be rigorously studied before these scanners are adopted. Modifications that
reduce radiation exposure need to be explored as soon as possible.

In summary we urge you to empower an impartial panel of experts to reevaluate the
potential health issues we have raised before there are irrevocable long-term
consequences to the health of our country. These negative effects may on balance far
outweigh the potential benefit of increased detection of terrorists.
 
Many of you here know Fredd from Flyer Talk. (Brian & Kathy Warner)

The following is an quote from their Blogspot

and IMHO makes for interesting reading and shows an example of why so many people are agains these new procedures.


TSA Profiling And Affirmative Action

Our loyal readers know that we're no fans of the excessive TSA security procedures that, among other results, make boarding a plane in the USA a less pleasant than in any country we've visited.

We're hoping that a tipping-point has been reached, and that the public-at-large will revolt against the most recently implemented Hobbson's choice, that of submitting one's self to an X-Ray scanner, the safety of which some scientists question, or submitting to a search similar to what a visitor to a prison might undergo.

Without going all political, you can read a recent irony here
in a press release issued by the Council for American-Islamic Relations:

Special recommendations for Muslim women who wear hijab:

* If you are selected for secondary screening after you go through the metal detector and it does not go off, and "sss" is not written on your boarding pass, ask the TSA officer if the reason you are being selected is because of your head scarf.
* In this situation, you may be asked to submit to a pat-down or to go through a full body scanner. If you are selected for the scanner, you may ask to go through a pat-down instead.
* Before you are patted down, you should remind the TSA officer that they are only supposed to pat down the area in question, in this scenario, your head and neck. They SHOULD NOT subject you to a full-body or partial-body pat-down.
* You may ask to be taken to a private room for the pat-down procedure.
* Instead of the pat-down, you can always request to pat down your own scarf, including head and neck area, and have the officers perform a chemical swipe of your hands.
* If you encounter any issues, ask to speak to a supervisor immediately. They are there to assist you.


In other words, if you're "wearing hijab" you're supposedly excused from the groping-type search. Gee, isn't that a kind of profiling?

Ironies abound.
 
Many of you here know Fredd from Flyer Talk. (Brian & Kathy Warner)

The following is an quote from their Blogspot

and IMHO makes for interesting reading and shows an example of why so many people are agains these new procedures.


TSA Profiling And Affirmative Action

Our loyal readers know that we're no fans of the excessive TSA security procedures that, among other results, make boarding a plane in the USA a less pleasant than in any country we've visited.

We're hoping that a tipping-point has been reached, and that the public-at-large will revolt against the most recently implemented Hobbson's choice, that of submitting one's self to an X-Ray scanner, the safety of which some scientists question, or submitting to a search similar to what a visitor to a prison might undergo.

Without going all political, you can read a recent irony here
in a press release issued by the Council for American-Islamic Relations:

Special recommendations for Muslim women who wear hijab:

* If you are selected for secondary screening after you go through the metal detector and it does not go off, and "sss" is not written on your boarding pass, ask the TSA officer if the reason you are being selected is because of your head scarf.
* In this situation, you may be asked to submit to a pat-down or to go through a full body scanner. If you are selected for the scanner, you may ask to go through a pat-down instead.
* Before you are patted down, you should remind the TSA officer that they are only supposed to pat down the area in question, in this scenario, your head and neck. They SHOULD NOT subject you to a full-body or partial-body pat-down.
* You may ask to be taken to a private room for the pat-down procedure.
* Instead of the pat-down, you can always request to pat down your own scarf, including head and neck area, and have the officers perform a chemical swipe of your hands.
* If you encounter any issues, ask to speak to a supervisor immediately. They are there to assist you.


In other words, if you're "wearing hijab" you're supposedly excused from the groping-type search. Gee, isn't that a kind of profiling?

Ironies abound.

Interesting thing ive noticed the las few days traveling thru the USA. In general, the full body scanners are always closed, or, not being used on "premium" queues.

At ORD the other day the TSA guy said "we're using the new full body scanners today folks" and there were only three of us in the queue, an elderly couple, and myself. I was directed through the metal detector whilst the coupled were body scanned. They then closed the body scanner queue again. Im guessing they thought they'd be full of metal and couldn't be bothered doing a manual wand scan and a pat down.

S far, I've not been through one anywhere. The millimeter wave ones were in use at MIA but once again only for non premium queues..

Will see how i go tomorrow back there, and the LAX, LAS and SFO.
 
Interesting thing ive noticed the las few days traveling thru the USA. In general, the full body scanners are always closed, or, not being used on "premium" queues.

At ORD the other day the TSA guy said "we're using the new full body scanners today folks" and there were only three of us in the queue, an elderly couple, and myself. I was directed through the metal detector whilst the coupled were body scanned. They then closed the body scanner queue again. Im guessing they thought they'd be full of metal and couldn't be bothered doing a manual wand scan and a pat down.

S far, I've not been through one anywhere. The millimeter wave ones were in use at MIA but once again only for non premium queues..

Will see how i go tomorrow back there, and the LAX, LAS and SFO.
I am not sure what they do in HNL though I will find out tomorrow morning.
 
Interesting comment on a US blog site-
If you want to understand the need for body scanners, then follow the money. Michael Chertoff, former Homeland Czar and Secretary authorized the use of scanners right after 9/11. The Christmas day/ underwear bomber who appeared drugged and accompanied by a sharp-dressed man with an American accent who tried to get him on without a passport is what set off the mass use of these machines. The VERY NEXT WEEK , the TSA has 150 scanners on order to prevent such a lapse in security in the future. Don’t worry, these scanners were paid for by the Recovery ACT of 2009 (in other words, you). Isn’t that special?
Who makes the scanners? Rapiscan Systems, who used The Chertoff Group as a consultant to push the things. Yes, the head of the Chertoff Group is none other than Michael Chertoff himself, who has a lot to financially gain from the widespread use of these things. Airports are just the beginning, Amtrak, bus stations, subways, etc. are probably in the pipeline. Oh, and Rapiscan is owned by OSI systems, of which George Soros owns a significant share. Just so you know.
 
Should be interesting tomorrow (24/11/10) as it's "National Opt Out Day".

Things are really going off the richter at the moment in the USA. In FT, there are stories of kids getting molested by the TSA, women with prosthetic breasts being humiliated and so on.

Travel Safety/Security - FlyerTalk Forums


Airport Security TSA - Longest line ever!

[video=youtube;3fmw01mAvkw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fmw01mAvkw&feature=player_embedded[/video]


Young Boy strip searched by TSA (Original w/ Full Story Description)

[video=youtube;XSQTz1bccL4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSQTz1bccL4[/video]


Will be interesting when the Nude-O-Scopes arrive here in Australia.
 
Last edited:
Passenger chooses strip-down over pat-down

Passenger chooses strip-down over pat-down - Travel - News - msnbc.com

View attachment 1480



By R. Stickney
NBCSanDiego.com NBCSanDiego.com
updated 11/22/2010 4:15:20 PM ET 2010-11-22T21:15:20

When a San Diego man opted out of security screening using the Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) at Lindbergh Field Friday, he stripped down to his underwear in an attempt to avoid the pat-down procedures.
Samuel Wolanyk took the protest started Nov. 13 by Oceanside's John Tyner to a whole new level.
While Tyner videotaped his refusal to be patted down, telling the agent "If you touch my junk, I'll have you arrested," Wolanyk decided to give TSA a look at his body down to his Calvin Klein's.
Through a statement released by his attorney Sunday night, Wolanyk said "TSA needs to see that I'm not carrying any weapons, explosives, or other prohibited substances, I refuse to have images of my naked body viewed by perfect strangers, and having been felt up for the first time by TSA the week prior (I travel frequently) I was not willing to be molested again."
Wolanyk's attorney said that TSA requested his client put his clothes on so he could be patted down properly but his client refused to put his clothes back on. He never refused a pat down, according to his attorney.
Wolanyk was arrested for refusing to complete the security process. A woman, identified by Harbor police as Danielle Kelli Hayman, 39, of San Diego was detained for recording the incident on a phone.
San Diego has played a central role in the debate over the need for AIT machines in our nation's airports. From Tyner's videotape and U.S. Rep. Bob Filner's call for a congressional hearing, to the parody song penned by Poway musician and Grammy-winner Steve Vaus. This Wednesday, one group is asking Americans to opt out of the AIT machines.




Justified protest or taking this too far? Let us know what you think. Comment below, send us your thoughts via Twitter @nbcsandiego or add your comment to our Facebook page. And of course, if you have pictures of Mr. Wolanyk in his underwear at Lindbergh, send them our way [email protected].
moz-screenshot-1.png
moz-screenshot-2.png
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Become an AFF member!

Join Australian Frequent Flyer (AFF) for free and unlock insider tips, exclusive deals, and global meetups with 65,000+ frequent flyers.

AFF members can also access our Frequent Flyer Training courses, and upgrade to Fast-track your way to expert traveller status and unlock even more exclusive discounts!

AFF forum abbreviations

Wondering about Y, J or any of the other abbreviations used on our forum?

Check out our guide to common AFF acronyms & abbreviations.
Back
Top