FliesWay2Much

Yes -- absolutely and I agree with both of you. They are marketing to the wrong audience, because most of Marriott's recurring customers have already bought into the PreCheck extortion and would never see the advertising.

Spiff

^ ^

"If you don't want me putting my shoes on here, don't make us take them off. Idiot."

NoMoreFlying

Thank you! I appreciate your civil disobedience and wish my stomach was strong enough to join you. This 59.5 year old maxes out at opting out.

halls120

Back before I stopped opting out of the nudeoscope and before Pre Check, every time I was forced into the cancer box, I gave the operator a very clear signal using a careful positioning of my fingers. On one such occasion, the operator must have said something to the clerk on the radio, because the clerk gave me a very sarcastic "thanks for your signal of support" comment. I looked at him, smiled and said "you reap what you sow."

janetdoe

Agreed 100%. For example, if they said, "We're sorry you are being pointlessly abused by your government, please use this seating to recompose yourself," I would switch all my bookings over to Marriott, even at significant expense.
Because encouraging people to sit down outside the flow of traffic increases the efficiency of the checkpoint and makes it appear to be a less ridiculous and evil process.

A private company subsidizing a solution to make a TSA process appear to be more efficient and convenient makes it even less likely that the TSA will reconsider, revamp, or lift the ridiculous policy.

WillCAD

By this logic, then every vendor who makes any product used by TSA - bins, x-ray machines, rubber floor mats, stainless tables, belts, chairs, benches, blue gloves - is equally culpable for "supporting" any TSA policy you disagree with. Including the airlines who comply, the airport authorities who provide space and facilities and electricity, and the many airport vendors who sell food and sundries to TSOs.

Boycott Starbucks! They sell to TSOs who are on duty and wasting tax money! Boycott the company who makes the partitions and chairs in the penalty box, they're supporting sexual assault! Boycott the airports who provide TSA with private, unsurveilled rooms in which to do resolution sexual assaults!

The "if you're not with us you're against us and I hate you" attitude has been the genesis of many pyric victories.

Marriott has provided a comfortable place to put one's shoes on after TSA abuse. They're HELPING people to put themselves back together after TSA tears us apart, and getting a little advertising in on the side, and you're castigating them for it? Frankly, I think your priorities are a little out of whack.

janetdoe

Nonsense. TSA is bearing the full cost of buying these products. It's when companies subsidize the TSA's misbehavior that I have issues. Marriott doesn't make or sell couches. They are subsidizing/renting/buying couches to make the TSA processes seem less onerous than they are.
If that is really their goal, to provide support to help people recover from TSA abuses, they need to indicate that in their advertising. As it is, the only thing they're doing is helping the TSA unclog the lines, and hoping to profit from it.

All I'm saying is that a little advertising to the effect of, "We don't think you should have to bend over for TSA, have a seat on us," would be completely awesome. As it is, the whole setup feels like they approve / encourage the TSA.

It does occur to me that this would be a great location to do a sit in and exercise our first Amendment rights to film at the checkpoint. Wonder if that type of publicity would disincent Marriott? I'm going to scope it out on my next flight ex-DFW.

halls120

Frankly, I don't give a rat's anal orifice that you think my priorities are out of whack.

TSA is an overbearing, unnecessary, and fascist extension of a police state that some in this country would like to apply everywhere. If was a business and TSA approached me to purchase something, I'd refuse their business. If Marriott had supplied the benches without taking credit for it with cheap sleazy advertising, I'd respect them for that. Instead, they are profiting from their relationship with TSA, and because of that, they deserve our scorn.

An excellent idea!

nachtnebel

^^^^^^^

WillCAD

Nonsense? Those vendors are A) manufacturing the specific "security" products used in TSA's abuses, and B) are directly profiting by selling these products to TSA with full knowledge of how they're used.

Yet a hotel who sponsors a lounge area near the c/ps where people can comfortably sit and put themselves together after TSA strips and humiliates them is somehow worse? Because they don't bother to put anti-TSA propaganda and rhetoric in their advertizing?

So I guess any company that advertizes on the side of a bus must be contributing to air and noise pollution and global warming by "subsidizing" the fossil-fuel burning bus, eh?

Marriott is not trying to "make the TSA processes seem less onerous than they are", they're trying to provide some relief from TSA's abuse. As to why they don't specifically state that in their advertizing, well, I think they kind of do when they say they're attempting to make the experience "more soothing". It wouldn't need to be more soothing if it wasn't already onerous, would it?

Yes, I do believe that TSA is an overbearing, unnecessary, and fascist organization. You forgot bloated, wasteful, ineffective, and thoroughly incompetent.

But how is it cheap or sleazy for a hotel chain to advertize by sponsoring a hotel lounge area where people can put themselves together in peace and comfort after suffering TSA abuse?

They're not "profiting from their relationship with TSA", they're profiting from their relationship with the airport authorities who own the spaces they're profiting. I'm sure TSA is involved in this, since they stick their officious nose into everything that happens in a terminal (particularly anything proximate to a c/p), but beyond signing off on the presence of these lounges near their c/ps and the new decor inside, I seriously doubt that TSA has more than a token involvement. There is no way TSA profits by this, either directly or indirectly, because even though TSA controls the c/p, they don't own the airport.

You guys seem to see Marriott as collaborating with Nazis. I see them as merely trying to keep their businesses operating under the Nazi regime. If you want to get bent out of shape at Marriott, you'll have to get just as bent at the airlines, all of the vendors whose entire business it is to supply TSA with their abuse supplies, and the airport authorities themselves, all of whom collaborate willingly and happily with TSA procedures to provide this fantasy of airport security.

Marriott just saw business opportunity in the idea of providing comfort to those who have been abused. Just like those companies who get great publicity for donating food, water, clothing, and other essentials to victims of natural disasters. Take a look at this from Wikipedia's Hurricane Katrina page:

So, all of those for-profit companies donated millions for relief - and they all got to write the donations off on their taxes, and got tons of great, free publicity for it. They all profited knowingly from the misery, suffering, and death of others. Does that mean they should all have been boycotted or castigated in the media?

halls120

I had a long day yesterday, and I was tired.

They are profiting from becoming an ally of a government agency that is arguably violating our Constitutional rights. It isn't just cheap and sleazy, it's unconscionable.

I'm thinking of a historical comparison, but I better not use it.

You're picking nits/really bending over backwards with this rationalization, IMHO.

I'd love to respond here, but I won't.

joshwex90

Do you buy Tumi or Samsonite luggage even though they do the same thing by making "TSA-compliant computer bags?" It's the exact same idea. Nonsense by the TSA, but companies look to make our lives easier *in spite* of the nonsense we deal with. (Yes, they're looking to profit and not be benevolent. But that's every company. Companies look to earn money. And that's how. I don't expect benevolence from companies - I expect good service. This is helpful, not harmful.)

I agree with everything you said except for this. The TSA is pretty bad. In every aspect (they make our lives miserable, are a bloated bureaucracy, are reactionary, theatrical, don't understand security, etc. etc.). But these types of comparisons make us completely lose perspective. Cr*ppy security they are. Nazis they are not.

janetdoe

Make up your mind, are we talking about nude-o-scope manufacturers (whom I do blame/castigate for enabling TSA policies) or are we talking about manufacturers of stainless steel tables and rubber gloves (they sell a non-security-related product that happens to be purchased by the TSA)?

As far as companies who donate to disaster relief, the pertinent question is whether the donations will tend to encourage or increase future natural disasters; the answer is clearly no.
No, it's not the same idea. TSA set a standard for luggage locks, and manufacturers have the option to offer luggage that complies or doesn't comply with the standard. Tumi or Samsonite deciding not to offer compliant luggage will have no impact on TSA's policies. Aside from that, I don't strongly object to TSA compliant locks or feel that they infringe on my rights/privacy.

Marriott is actually enabling, facilitating, and reducing the impact of a process that is intensely objectionable. They are allowing TSA to escape the full consequenses and costs of their policies. Marriott's facilitation makes it less likely the policy will be eliminated. That is the basis for my objection.

If Marriott wants to help people without condoning the policies, IMO, they need to advertise or mention that they don't support the policies. Otherwise, the advertising implies consent and approval, as well as willingness to profit from the policies.

joshwex90

It's the exact same. The TSA mandates a certain type of computer bag that doesn't need to be opened as opposed to other ones where you must remove the computer. It's all shenanigans. No different than taking off your shoes or not being allowed liquids. Tumi and Samsonite are "complicit in the crime" as they play along by making bags that are specifically good for the TSA, as if they are "endorsing the TSA's policies." Sounds hypocritical if you're not down their throat as well

janetdoe

Every time I make a point, you counteract by bringing up a tangential point. Are we talking about TSA compliant locks, or are we talking about bags that don't need to be opened at the checkpoint?

You seem to be trying to paint everything with broad strokes, falsely equating all vendors that have anything to do with TSA.

I don't know why you're trying to force us to say everything is equal. Why is there no room to say, "Some policies are more evil that others."? Is there no room to say that selling your rubber gloves to the TSA is fundamentally different from lobbying for and designing a system to naked scan all passengers?

I can see some logic and useful purpose in the policy, "If we think there may be something dangerous in your luggage, we WILL open the luggage, even if we have to destroy the locks. If you are worried, here is a type of lock we can open without destroying your luggage." I don't particularly mind luggage manufacturers offering the option to customers who are willing to pay for it.

On the other hand, shoes, liquids, and NOS are security theater that is very invasive, needless, and encourages people to comply mindlessly with a security state while surrendering their rights. These policies are very inefficient and inconvenient for both TSA and passengers, and that inconvenience is the best bet for getting the policies overturned. By taking away some of the inconvenience and inefficiency (without criticizing the underlying policies) Marriott is facilitating the policies to stay in place and profiting from the advertising.

Do you really think that inspecting locked luggage is an evil on par with naked body scanning? I don't.

Do you really think that manufacturers refusing to offer TSA-compliant locks would have an impact on TSA's policy that they must be able to inspect every piece of luggage? I don't.

Do you think stories about how things are getting better at the checkpoint because now there are couches where you can recover after you are violated will tend to decrease pressure on TSA to lift these policies? I do.