NPR: 23% Would Refuse Scanners
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 516
NPR: 23% Would Refuse Scanners
There's an interesting NPR/Thomson Reuters Health Poll that says Americans consider the security check to be a bigger health concern than flights. In fact
This provides insight to the sluggishness of air travel growth and the recent disconnect between economic growth and air travel growth. Although the vast majority of travelers do use the scanners, the vast majority of those who refuse are simply not traveling. Thus, the TSA's stats showing a miniscule number of opt-outs do not support assertions of acceptance of the scanners.
More than 1 in 5 respondents (23 percent) said they would refuse to be examined in one of the whole-body scanners now in many airports. A third of people under 35 said they would decline the scans.
#2
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,165
There's an interesting NPR/Thomson Reuters Health Poll that says Americans consider the security check to be a bigger health concern than flights. In fact
This provides insight to the sluggishness of air travel growth and the recent disconnect between economic growth and air travel growth. Although the vast majority of travelers do use the scanners, the vast majority of those who refuse are simply not traveling. Thus, the TSA's stats showing a miniscule number of opt-outs do not support assertions of acceptance of the scanners.
This provides insight to the sluggishness of air travel growth and the recent disconnect between economic growth and air travel growth. Although the vast majority of travelers do use the scanners, the vast majority of those who refuse are simply not traveling. Thus, the TSA's stats showing a miniscule number of opt-outs do not support assertions of acceptance of the scanners.
Of course, this number needs to be increased by people who have stopped flying, use surface transportation, or have switched to an airport(s) uncontaminated by Cancer Boxes.
#3
In Memoriam
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Easton, CT, USA
Programs: ua prem exec, Former hilton diamond
Posts: 31,801
What they say in a telephone poll and what they do once they are in line are two totally different things. I've never seen anywhere near that amount of people opting out of a scan. The poll was based on results from 3,000 americians, not 3,000 americians who actually fly.
While it's an interesting number, I think the results would matter more if it was of people who fly or are standing in line.
While it's an interesting number, I think the results would matter more if it was of people who fly or are standing in line.
#4
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,425
What they say in a telephone poll and what they do once they are in line are two totally different things. I've never seen anywhere near that amount of people opting out of a scan. The poll was based on results from 3,000 americians, not 3,000 americians who actually fly.
While it's an interesting number, I think the results would matter more if it was of people who fly or are standing in line.
While it's an interesting number, I think the results would matter more if it was of people who fly or are standing in line.
#5
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 142
What they say in a telephone poll and what they do once they are in line are two totally different things. I've never seen anywhere near that amount of people opting out of a scan. The poll was based on results from 3,000 americians, not 3,000 americians who actually fly.
While it's an interesting number, I think the results would matter more if it was of people who fly or are standing in line.
While it's an interesting number, I think the results would matter more if it was of people who fly or are standing in line.
To only poll those that fly provides a false number as well - in general, they have already decided that it is (somewhat?) acceptable. Or, perhaps, they have resigned themselves to the fact that, unlike for me, alternate forms of transportation were not available for their travel plans.
Eventually, if you only poll those that fly, you'll end up with near 100% acceptability of screening methods as only those who accept it will fly...
#6
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 174
There still appears to be quite a few people (alluded to above) that have opted out of flying altogether due to the TSA's overreach on screening. Count me as one of them. When even closely practical, I will drive instead of fly - and have been successful in a full opt out for quite some time in over 21k miles over the road last year. (Think the airlines would have liked some of that money spent on my travels?)
To only poll those that fly provides a false number as well - in general, they have already decided that it is (somewhat?) acceptable. Or, perhaps, they have resigned themselves to the fact that, unlike for me, alternate forms of transportation were not available for their travel plans.
Eventually, if you only poll those that fly, you'll end up with near 100% acceptability of screening methods as only those who accept it will fly...
To only poll those that fly provides a false number as well - in general, they have already decided that it is (somewhat?) acceptable. Or, perhaps, they have resigned themselves to the fact that, unlike for me, alternate forms of transportation were not available for their travel plans.
Eventually, if you only poll those that fly, you'll end up with near 100% acceptability of screening methods as only those who accept it will fly...
#8
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Northern California, in the redwoods, on the ocean.
Posts: 437
It's an interesting number because it represents a pool of potential flyers, including once-in-a-blue moon flyers. A fair amount of traffic comes from this pool, one-timers, or infrequent flyers. This could represent numbers of people who won't fly now. They are total-opt outs; you'd never see them at the airports. Declining passenger numbers in excess of declining economic stats indicate that this is indeed happening.
#9
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: ORD/MDW
Programs: BA/AA/AS/B6/WN/ UA/HH/MR and more like 'em but most felicitously & importantly MUCCI
Posts: 19,719
Sure, but weigh the unknown number of on-strike flyers against the number of survey respondents who talk a good game on the phone to an NPR pollster, but cave (lose the courage of their convictions) when they're running late for a flight or find themselves in the wrong line, and the study is pretty much meaningless. An awful lot of loud anti-scanner types can't be trusted to walk the walk.
#10
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,425
Sure, but weigh the unknown number of on-strike flyers against the number of survey respondents who talk a good game on the phone to an NPR pollster, but cave (lose the courage of their convictions) when they're running late for a flight or find themselves in the wrong line, and the study is pretty much meaningless. An awful lot of loud anti-scanner types can't be trusted to walk the walk.
since the numbers are unknown, I could regard this as a zero (0) as well as anything significant, correct? I'm not willing to throw away the survey quoted by OP on the basis of your hypothesis backed up by no numbers at all, or ones that you admit are not known in any way, shape or form.
My family goes to extra expense (fare + time) to travel by train on a regular basis, including college kids traveling. We're done with air travel. I myself would be up in Seattle by air in 10 days in a heartbeat for an occasion I'd like to attend. But I will not travel by air now. My airport now has MMW and I just don't want to put up with that nonsense. If I can't go by train (less likely due to time constraints) I'll just not go. I've seen the number of cars on the AmTrak trains increase and the AmTrak fares increase a LOT over this past year, accelerating in the past 7 months. so people are opting out of travelling altogether or are traveling by train or other means.
I believe TSA has scr*wed the pooch, and the numbers (total pax, various satisfaction surveys such as that posted by OP) will continue slide, showing the negative impact of TSA scope and grope routine since October 2010. Just look at the airline industry numbers over the past quarter. Margins are getting hammered.
#11
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: SJC
Programs: AA, AS, Marriott
Posts: 6,066
I imagine the real opt-out rate would increase dramatically if the TSA were required to give each passenger selected a similar talk. I believe this would certainly be the case if lines such as "your body will be covered with a low dose of x-ray radiation during the scan, which..." were included in the disclaimer.
Only once - and this was in passing - have I heard a TSO mention to a passenger that the NoS is optional. This was in Boston in early 2010. This was before the masses had heard about the NoS and before the aggressive patdowns had started, even as pilot programs in BOS and LAS.
#12
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 174
bolding mine.
since the numbers are unknown, I could regard this as a zero (0) as well as anything significant, correct? I'm not willing to throw away the survey quoted by OP on the basis of your hypothesis backed up by no numbers at all, or ones that you admit are not known in any way, shape or form.
My family goes to extra expense (fare + time) to travel by train on a regular basis, including college kids traveling. We're done with air travel. I myself would be up in Seattle by air in 10 days in a heartbeat for an occasion I'd like to attend. But I will not travel by air now. My airport now has MMW and I just don't want to put up with that nonsense. If I can't go by train (less likely due to time constraints) I'll just not go. I've seen the number of cars on the AmTrak trains increase and the AmTrak fares increase a LOT over this past year, accelerating in the past 7 months. so people are opting out of travelling altogether or are traveling by train or other means.
I believe TSA has scr*wed the pooch, and the numbers (total pax, various satisfaction surveys such as that posted by OP) will continue slide, showing the negative impact of TSA scope and grope routine since October 2010. Just look at the airline industry numbers over the past quarter. Margins are getting hammered.
since the numbers are unknown, I could regard this as a zero (0) as well as anything significant, correct? I'm not willing to throw away the survey quoted by OP on the basis of your hypothesis backed up by no numbers at all, or ones that you admit are not known in any way, shape or form.
My family goes to extra expense (fare + time) to travel by train on a regular basis, including college kids traveling. We're done with air travel. I myself would be up in Seattle by air in 10 days in a heartbeat for an occasion I'd like to attend. But I will not travel by air now. My airport now has MMW and I just don't want to put up with that nonsense. If I can't go by train (less likely due to time constraints) I'll just not go. I've seen the number of cars on the AmTrak trains increase and the AmTrak fares increase a LOT over this past year, accelerating in the past 7 months. so people are opting out of travelling altogether or are traveling by train or other means.
I believe TSA has scr*wed the pooch, and the numbers (total pax, various satisfaction surveys such as that posted by OP) will continue slide, showing the negative impact of TSA scope and grope routine since October 2010. Just look at the airline industry numbers over the past quarter. Margins are getting hammered.
#13
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,425
If they were smart, they'd train and arm certain personnel on the trains, and continue with the bomb sniffing dogs occasionally. The main threats are external along the umpteen thousands of miles of track. As opposed to aircraft, there is quite a different set of threat vectors for land targets like trains.
#14
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 174
Not while O'Connor is chief at AmTrak. He is however, getting old. Also, it would be too expensive to force airport-like sterile areas at amtrak station, and there won't be budget allowed for it. There might be marginally more VIPR walk-thrus if congress increases the number of VIPR teams. That would be it.
If they were smart, they'd train and arm certain personnel on the trains, and continue with the bomb sniffing dogs occasionally. The main threats are external along the umpteen thousands of miles of track. As opposed to aircraft, there is quite a different set of threat vectors for land targets like trains.
If they were smart, they'd train and arm certain personnel on the trains, and continue with the bomb sniffing dogs occasionally. The main threats are external along the umpteen thousands of miles of track. As opposed to aircraft, there is quite a different set of threat vectors for land targets like trains.
#15
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,425
yes, I suppose there *is* that aspect of it. Plus the CYA factor. They want to be able to point to all the stuff they are doing in the event of a successful terrorist attack.