[Never on my watch]

Not true. We are against the process, period. One step at a time...

You and other conscientious pilots may feel that way, but it is not what the Union spokesman said on Laura Ingram. She pressed him on it and he gave the phony 'we are for reasonable security' answer. He refused to say it the entire practice needs to stop. This 'one step at a time' approach to stop this nonsense is unacceptable and self serving.

[Tzfat]

You and other conscientious pilots may feel that way, but it is not what the Union spokesman said on Laura Ingram

First of all, my Union does not have any official role. What they are doing is starting a process to get official attention on the issue. How much attention would they get from the TSA if they came out and publicly shot down back-scatter scanners? None. Step at a time from we pilots is only one avenue. If you don't want our help, so be it - but adding our EXPERT voices to the mix will help EVERYONE.

[qwertypie]

You and other conscientious pilots may feel that way, but it is not what the Union spokesman said on Laura Ingram. She pressed him on it and he gave the phony 'we are for reasonable security' answer. He refused to say it the entire practice needs to stop.

The union spokesman could have pandered to Laura, and given her the answer that her audience wanted to hear. But he didn't. Was he being irrational or unthinking/uncaring? Was he ignoring or miscalculating the thoughts of his membership?

Please explain why you think that he stood his ground. I think that it is germane and central.