John Gaquin wrote:
Emily, you'll note that I responded to your post seperately, above. Now
you're responding irately to the points I made to Bob, as if they were
directed to you.

As for your comment about "siding with the TSA" (whatever the hell that
means), -- well, I can't respond to that as it has no rational basis. I
asked a question about the physical ability to switch to glasses from
contact lenses for longer flights.

And I told you that it was not possible. Did you ever consider that not
being able to see makes an evacuation from an airliner virtually
impossible? Why would I want to risk my life like that? I wear low
heels and no nylons when I fly, why would I want to wear glasses and
risk not being able to evacuate? Or risk getting fired when I can't do
my job when I get where I'm going? Or not being able to drive the
rental car?

Besides, you see taking contacts out on the plane and throwing them away
as a solution. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

The whole thing is simply wrong.


Not whether it would be convenient, or
cheap, or expensive, or fashionable. Merely if it were possible, and if
not, then why not. Now I stand accused of treason against the entire pilot
population.

No, just the population of people who are sick of being treated like
criminals. I should NOT have to justify my use of a medical device to
you, the TSA, or anyone else.

Fortunately, it's a moot point since the TSA allows contact solution to
be carried on again. At least someone has a little bit of common sense.