If you can avoid flying, do so!
 

One thing congressfolk and others will listen to is the travel industry complaining about loss of revenue and pending layoffs because of TSA. I just canceled an upcoming trip (UA gets credit for how they handled it) and hotel said I was the third person who'd canceled a stay because of TSA. Many can't afford not to fly and I won't be able to avoid 100% of my trips, but the more pain they feel, the more likely things are to get corrected.

Think about this - the TSA will not stop here. They will go further if they get away with this. And if the TSA gets away it, we'll see similar things happening at government buildings, schools, stadiums, and elsewhere.

Interesting - I was given an unasked for and unexpected waiver of change fees on UA when I intentionally changed a routing.

So you want to hurt private companies to get your point across?

The transportation industry (airlines, hotels) does not have a powerful lobby... and nothing compared to the manufacturers of the machines in question. The airline lobby works primarily with the DoT and respective committees on things like route authorities. They have VERY LITTLE pull when it comes to things like this. Don't hurt a private company, just do things the right way... put pressure on your LOCAL leaders (state legislators, city councils in cities where the airport is physically located, local Chambers, etc.). A phone call from the Phoenix Chamber of Commerce President to John McCain will be returned and it will go a lot further than "Joe Smith Average American" or Will Ris from American Airlines calling.

Yes, yes I do!

Start to impact the bottom lines of those involved in the travel industry and then we might get some pressure in government to reign in the TSA.

Do you not understand? They have very little say or power. If you want to get your point across then do it right. Get off the computer and write some letters right now to members of your airport board.

Do you know the state of the airline industry in this country? If you want to do this you may solve your problem... there will be no TSA left because there will be no airlines left.

Bad idea.

yes!!!

bull!!!

I you are very upset about this, but this is not the right way of getting what you want accomplished. Period.

No "bull". Do you work in the transportation industry? Are you a lobbyist? Do you really know or are you just assuming?

Lobbyist, on many issues I'd agree with you, but not on this. I've worked in politics too long and covered it too long. Money & Votes are the two holy words of Washington. Given the seriousness of this issue I have no problem whatsoever putting financial pressure on the airlines, hotels, and rental car companies to utilize their power to force TSA to back down. Sometimes you have to grab whatever stick's available.

That said, most of my (and I assume many others) cutback and cancellation of travel is purely a natural reaction to TSA's moves anyway - A trip is no longer worth going through TSA.

How many times have you said "Period." in your short posting career? No newbie w/ 9 posts under his belt is going to show up & have the last word on our discussions.

Voting with your pocketbook is a time-honored strategy for effecting change in our system.

Period.

Money is what matters. Votes come with money. I have been a full-time, professional lobbyist for one of the largest K Street firms for 15+ years. I know how DC works.

Your local Chamber of Commerce or business association has more pull than Delta when it comes to this. Look up how much money your Chamber members have given the politicians you want to talk to and then how much came from the transportation industry. Then make your decision.

I am here to try and help -- and I am sorry but you are going about this the wrong way.

OK -- then don't take my advice. What do I know? I came here to try and help you guys, but I can see that I am not welcome. You will not get what you want with your attitude and ideas like this... but what do I know? This is only my career.

Actions speak louder than words. Writing letters is fine, but in America, we vote with our Wallets.

Been there. Done that. Airport authorities at BWI are predictably unresponsive. Airlines (and hotels and rent-a-car companies) are collateral damage. I'm not going to subject myself to TSA tyranny just because the travel industry doesn't have effective lobbyists.

~~ Irish

Most frequent flyers stay in chain hotels owned by big corporations. Airlines are big corporations. Big corporations give money to politicians and lobbyists. Depriving big corporations of money might make them give more money to lobbyists to get back their customers.

In any case, I don't want to dealt with TSA enough to travel if I don't need to, independent of any boycott. I'm just letting the people that would have gotten my money know.

Lobbyist, please don't be discouraged from continuing to post. Not everyone will agree with your advice, but some will find the exchange of viewpoints informative.

I'm very interested in finding the most effective way to oppose TSA's new procedures and would like to hear the pros and cons of various approaches. Even if I ultimately decide that I don't agree with some of them, there is value in hearing about and considering them.

Really? 'Cause you're pretty new here and you're lacking the only credentials that matter here. I mean, I don't want to be offensive - you might really know what you're talking about. But you could be just as much a shill as most of the TSO accounts that post here.

i have chosen to drive for a long time but, i am willing perhaps to fly if a tsa harassment mob is organized just so i can opt out, wear my old regt kilt and smear nutella up my thighs and discreetly inform the groper i have hansen's disease. so the tsa just might start me flying again

If I weren't willing to make some sacrifices myself through boycott-like actions, why should airport boards, chambers of commerce, etc. listen to me at all?

For example, which scenario would be more powerful?

Scenario 1: I write to Airport X's board and the local Chamber of Commerce complaining about treatment of travelers there, but I continue to fly through Airport X.

Scenario 2: I write to the board and Chamber, and I point out that I have gone to the trouble of changing itineraries and even busing to a different city so I won't go through Airport X for my next trip, and I plan to continue this until travelers at Airport X are treated with dignity.

Obviously, putting actions behind my words gives my message more weight. I realize that the Starbucks at Airport X will suffer the loss of about $2.45, but that's collateral damage to make a much larger point.

Lobbyist, don't be discouraged from posting in this forum. We appreciate the discourse even if our responses to you are in disagreement.

I would say we shouldn't kid ourselves, writing to your congresscritter, airport board, tsa comment line or Senator does nothing. A staffer in the office just picks from the hundreds of form letters they have pre-written based on issues and then bounces it back to you.

Since big sis arrogantly tells us we should just not fly if we don't like her program, it kind of shows you the futility in calling or writing your reps. Like Jessie Ventura refusing to fly commercial, I'm going to call big sis on her bluff this winter vacation and plan to make a nice scenic roadtrip across the country. I used to be a Platinum elite traveller for leisure and family purposes with both Continental and American always wanting to renew each year. Ever since I stopped flying in August, I could care less about flying or renewing status. I have come to love cruising as well and will go out of my way to drive to ports. Cruise security are generally polite, professional and respectful. There is no liquid restrictions, shoe carnival, theater, nude scans or groping, just put your things on the belt, walk through the detector and they wish you a fun time.

People who object to nude scans and molestation by not flying are not trying to hurt the airlines, it is the government that are driving them out. You can't blame people for making a choice when there are other options they consider to be less harrassing, especially when the government smugly encourages one to do so if you won't go along with their scheme.

I'm sorry but if enough people choose alternate options which is their right, the airlines will take a hit. I don't think this would mean the end of all airlines as lobbyist suggests, but it will be a statement. I would also suggest this would lessen TSA security fee revenue and necessistate staff reductions due to decreased passengers (if enough reduced or eliminated their business with commerical airlines). I don't care if it ends up happening or not, all I know is I know the choice I will be making.

Hi Lobbyist,

I've been reading your posts with great interest. I've already attempted to contact my local airport, but haven't recieved a response yet. I also plan to contact some of my local politicans tomorrow to see if that will get me some traction as I've had none elsewhere.

However, that being said. I too would like to see the airlines reap some of the consequences. They might not have much power but they could still speak out instead of rolling over and letting this happen to their paying customers. Personally Delta has probably lost my business for life after how they have responded to some of the complaints I've made. In my opinion they deserve nothing.

Why can't we do both? Boycott the airlines and contact the local government officials.

JBC78

Mister, I like the cut of your jib.

Really? What credentials would that be? I thought the only thing that matters is a reasoned opinion* and the facts to back it up. Not how long someone has been a member, how many posts they have, or what program affiliations are listed in their profile.

Welcome to FlyerTalk, Lobbyist. I think you've made some good points in this thread & other threads and hope you stick around.


*Of course, others are welcome to dispute how "reasonable" that opinion may be. ;)

ROFL! Things are serious here most of the time, but I do enjoy the occasional jest like this.

Frankly, I don't think this is a very fair comment. Obviously, others MMV.

In all seriousness, I don't wish to be assaulted, irradiated or virtually strip searched in order to fly. Thus, I've cancelled three out of four of my scheduled flights. It hurts private companies. But it will cause greater harm to me, and I don't know why I should hurt myself in order to not hurt private companies.

How exactly am I supposed to go about this that would cause the least amount of harm to all? Can you tell me that, please? I've sent letters to my reps, I've written the TSA. I've written my local airport's head honchos. What else can I do besides minimize my risk of triggering an anxiety attack and having my beliefs and my personal space violated by cancelling my flights and not booking further travel? And what are these businesses doing to back their customers? It's a two-way street, in my world view.

So, could you please advise how you'd handle it? I may not agree, but at least I'd have a different view to consider.

Lobbyist's comment is likely valid. The underlying issue is that the airlines have not built the extensive and expensive lobbying network that is required to get things done in Washington. Microsoft made the same mistake and had to ramp up efforts quickly to catch up with the game.

The airlines have helped their course mainly though accepting the regulatory process, as in saying "how high" when the regulators said "jump."

But, now that they may need to force an issue from the other direction they find that their strategy of compliance leaves them without power to influence or move opinions.

If lobbyist is correct, just assume for a moment that he is, then our best course of action may be to push the organizations we are part of to activate their lobbying activities to help us. They will need valid reasons that support their core purpose and principles.

The Chamber of Commerce is a good start, I might just join if I thought they would support this. They will if it can be shown that the multitude of small businesses that support the airport infrastructure will be shown to be hurt by any loss of air traffic commerce. Unions sometimes have strong lobby arms that may help. Organizations such as ACLU, ABA, AMA, AAA and AARP all have influence. Large religious organizations often have a significant lobbying presence and there are ample arguments in this debate that can be connected to religious practice and beliefs.

The airlines will suffer from this whether we try to make them suffer or not. They operate at the margins of acceptable cash flow anyway, and even very small changes in that can affect the ability of the airline to manage their financial obligations. If they are cashed strapped, they can not ramp up effective lobbying. They can only whine. Sort of like us.

Maybe they can be ready the next time. This type of influence buying at this level can not be built overnight at the grass roots.

We're hearing more and more reports that airlines are routinely refunding non-refundable tickets and/or waiving change fees for people who are concerned about screening issues. That says they are seeing losses due to this. I disagree that airlines don't have effective lobbyists: they've pushed back successfully on TSA issues from the very beginning (remember the two hour rule for DCA when it first opened and how long that lasted?). But I also agree that hotels don't have that same sort of power. So it's indeed a shame that they (which are often small businesses) are being hurt. But, as was said, that's "collateral damages".

When CEO's of DL, UA, AA, and other airlines along with those of Hertz, Avis, Starwood, Disney, and a long list of industries whose very being depends on air travel or tourism, call elected and unelected folk in Washington to complain about the TSA's negative impact on their industries and unions, they will be listened to.

If leaders of corporations and small businesses begin complaining that their employees are refusing to fly due to not wanting to become the victims of porn or groping or simply not wanting to be humiliated, and that it's impacting their businesses, people in Washington will listen.

If people in Washington realize that TSA's actions will harm our still fragile economy, they'll do something about it.

If people in Washington realize that standing up against TSA will win them votes, they'll do something about it very quickly.

A comment another poster made on another thread made me think. The comment was about privatizing TSA, turning it over to Blackwater (Xe) or Halliburton.

I'm reluctant to sound like a conspiracy nut, but still...the scanners are ramping up. Mysteriously the underpants bomber makes it on the plane to the US - even though his father had alerted authorities multiple times and it has never been properly explained what went on in Amsterdam that enabled him to board the plane. However, the timing is great for ramping up public fear before the scanners get deployed.

Now here we are...at risk for almost a year for another underpants bomber attack. Suddenly we unveil not only the scanners but also an intrusive new frisk. That frisk could have been introduced almost a year ago, in conjunction with any WTMD alarm, but it wasn't. Presumably we were at a higher level of risk for almost a year, but TSA did nothing to ramp up security - until now, coincidentally the busiest travel period of the year. There's an outcry. Congress jumps on board (they can pontificate all they want, but how many of them are actually introducing legislation? And of the relatively few doing more than talk, how many will actually follow through?)

Pistole is not only taking a hard line, he's taking an antagonistically hard line - almost guaranteed to push people to consider the privatization of security. De-federalize the program and I would expect to see cost shifting - specifically, line workers getting lower pay and benefits while the private corporation that provides the service rakes in the money.

It also primes the public to start pushing for profiling, under the assumption, of course, that profiling is fine as long as you aren't a member of the group that gets profiled. Sort of like assuming that scanning is fine and opt-outs deserve what they get (even if many of those opt-outs are temporary or permanent involuntary medical opt-outs). I think Nappy's comments about possible accommodation for Muslim women did not mean she seriously considered such accommodation - I think her comments were designed to inflame sentiment and get people even more on board with the idea of profiling, as long as it's 'them' and not 'me' being profiled. (Really, we should include white guys of a certain profile, think of Tim McVeigh and Ted Kaczynski).

None of this has anything to do with genuine airline safety or preservation of rights. If we head in the direction I think we are being led, I think we see further erosion of rights. There is absolutely no reason to think that a private corporation (Blackwater/Xe or Halliburton) will be any more willing to address the issue of rogue or problem employees. There's no reason to think privatizing will result in more transparency or consistency, in fact, quite the opposite. It will give the government a level of plausible deniability, just like it did in Iraq when Blackwater ran amok.

The "point" I am trying to make is that I refuse to be irradiated or groped. So I won't fly to or in the US. I care if that hurts me and my family. I couldn't care less about some company one way or the other.


I think people would be happy to see statistics backing up that assertion.

If the US airlines and travel industry want my business, they need to provide a service that meets my requirements as a customer. If they can't, it's unfortunate for them.

Halliburton, Blackwater Xe are just private arms of the Federal Government.

White women too, based on Baader Meinhof.