xxxxx

xxxxx

Well, not quite perhaps...

http://tinyurl.com/gfqgl

Hmmm...

"No Fly" List?

Mandated harassment?

Laws regarding passenger behavior while on board?

And the government sometimes talks out of both sides of their butt.

For example if Jose Padilla was such a threat why did they let him travel on a US aircraft? Just so they could arrest him at a convenient location? Either he is a threat or he isn't.

We read about the government arresting fugitives at the airport once and a while. How did they know that the guy was going to be there at a certain time? Did the airlines already turn over that information?

What's next? Giving names at a toll booth? Maybe we don't actually have a right to drive if there are alternatives available?

And we know that the 9th Circuit gets it right every time. There's a reason they're one of the most overturned courts in the country.

I'd argue that the contract of carriage applies because the plane itself is private property. As the plane is their property, they can set reasonable rules to the access of their property. They, of course, cannot deny transport to anyone paying a valid fare and in compliance with the law (ie presenting one's self for boarding while obviously intoxicated would violate laws against public drunkenness and the airline could legally deny boarding).

Government regulation is primarily for the safety of the planes and those who fly in them. Without regulation, there would be no orderly system in which people could enjoy their right to transit US airspace. Thus some regulation is needed.

"Remove your shoes or you don't fly today." That doesn't?

Oh yeah, that's just a government lacky (an agent of the government) that tells us that. TSA is not responsible for what its employees say or threaten. :rolleyes:

If you use EZ-Pass, you already do.

And airlines mandate (in the COC) that passengers submit to security screening. Same deal as when it was privatized. Some people just choose to whine because they dislike the government. What do you guys want? Throw out the Contract of Carriage?

Perhaps one of the attorneys who frequently participate in our discussions can explain the term "unconscionable" as applies to contract provisions.

I cannot think of anything more fitting this term than a contractual provision that requires a party to a contract to forfeit a protected right.

And I think the powers that be realize that there is a right involved. After all, TSA chose not to implement the background checks of passengers and scaled back the pat-downs. I think they know that if they push beyond a certain point, they will lose in Court and lose big.

Really?

Can the airline release passengers from screening? NO. The government mandates screening, and quite un-American screening at that. :td:

Same thing we always said before: sensible security that actually addresses security concerns and is not window dressing. Repeated ID checks, shoe carnivals, SSSS, etc are NOT sensible.

Agree or disagree with it. Your call.

I'm not disagreeing that our security is not perfect. I am disagreeing with this so-called "right" to fly on a commercial airliner.

Do you think there's any right to travel or move about the country at all, or is just leaving your house a "privilege"?