Wow. So much for the Amex reputation for siding with the consumer in a chargeback dispute. Paypal is also famous for siding with the buyer in a purchase dispute and I have personally seen this. Maybe it would be worth getting a Paypal credit card to purchase air tickets. Mybodyismyown, if it's a national bank, do you mind saying what bank allowed the chargeback? I may apply for a card with them solely for purchasing air tickets.

As far as chargebacks go I am guessing that it has a lot to do with the philosophical views of the employee doing the investigation. If he/she believes in security-at-any-price they are likely to refuse the chargeback. If they believe in freedom and the US constitution and that we all have the right both to free travel and to the ownership of our own bodies then they will allow the chargeback. If it happens often enough each bank will probably institute their own policy toward it, but until then I would guess it's a roll of the dice depending on who you get for an investigator.

For me the chargeback issue is not so important unless I am already on a TSA list or manage to get on one due to a double opt out where I am forced to give ID. I don't fly anymore unless I absolutely have to like if I am moving to Asia for a while or something. And then I just plan for the fact that I am not going to be able to predict exactly when I can leave. It might take 3 or more attempts and 3 or more $100 change fees before being able to just walk right through the WTMD unmolested and make my flight, but it's still better than taking a ship across the Pacific. The 3 attempts and $300 in change fees is still worth it for the convenience of using the miracle of flight to travel across an ocean at 550 mph. Although I would also consider just taking a bus to Canada and flying from there.

Where is it "in writing"? On their website somewhere? Just because they have allowed refunds in the past does not mean they will continue to do so. IIRC, some of the airlines made explicit statements that they will *not* give refunds in these sorts of cases even if they have done so in the past.

Also keep in mind that most of those early double opt outs were for tickets that were purchased before the change in policy. That might make a big difference in how sympathetic they are to your refund request. If you bought a ticket before this insanity then the unjustness of the whole thing reaches just epic proportions. In fact it could even be argued that the airline is committing fraud. Or at least breach of contract. You can't just change the contract for a deal after it was "signed" whenever you want. The airline may claim, "But it wasn't our idea to add genital touching to the security procedures!". That doesn't change the fact that the deal you made with the airline fundamentally changed to one that includes genital touching as part of the "conditions of carriage".

If they really do give full refunds on "nonrefundable" tickets for double opt outs then American Airlines would be an interesting option, especially for domestic flights. For international flights their change fees tend to be something like $250 which generally makes just changing the flight after a double opt out to be cost prohibitive, especially if you have to do it more than once. Maybe, instead of a refund, they could just waive the change fee for rescheduling the ticket due to a double opt out. That does seem fair to me since I did want to be on the flight. It would only be the lusty TSOs dying to touch my genitals that would prevent me, and that is so not my fault.

If an airline explicitly informs you before you purchase the ticket that you will be subject to security procedures which may involve genital/sexual contact and that no refunds will be given for choosing not to fly solely to avoid having your genitals touched, I don't think their position would be unreasonable. You would obviously know in advance that your air travel would involve unwanted sexual activity.

The problem is that they don't explicitly inform you of this. Historically, and until very recently, airport security screening did not involve any sexual activity with the screener. So I'm not sure "you should have known that security screenings are now sexual in nature" is a reasonable position to take without an explicit warning of such changes before you purchase your ticket.

If you buy your ticket online with a US departure there should at the very least be a pop-up box informing you of the security changes starting from November 2010, which require pax to have their genitals touched in order to complete screening. You should be required to click a checkbox agreeing to this sexual contact before purchasing the ticket. At the very least congress should pass a law requiring the airlines to inform you of the very significant changes to security screening procedures before paying for your ticket. If they don't explicitly inform you of the changes, they should be legally required to refund your money if you claim you weren't aware of the changes.

I mean, c'mon people. Is this not just common sense? In fact this should be enforceable in civil court through contract law. A reasonable person would not expect "security screening" to include any form of sexual activity with the screener. That is something completely new and as such it needs to be explicitly mentioned and agreed to pre-purchase. Note that this will still be true even if the supreme court rules such sexual/genital contact as constitutional. Whether "constitutional" or not the procedures are still sexual and highly invasive and should require explicit consent before you even purchase the ticket no matter what.

If I call AA and ask them whether they would at least waive the change fee if I wanted to reschedule due to being turned away at the checkpoint for not wanting my goolies karate chopped or fondled I suspect that they will state unequivocally that they would not do that. I am betting it is more of a case by case thing where some AA employee makes the decisions and it depends on who makes the decision in your particular case. And it will always be "no" if you ask in advance. But I think I will actually call them and see what they say about it and post the results here.