Need succinct answer to: Don't like it? Don't fly.
Dec 1, 2010, 11:45 pm
#31
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 733
Sadly, there is an appalling number of people who do, in fact, believe they can take a train to Hawai'i.
My airline career began in one of our call centers where I occasionally would fill in for our Hawai'ian vacations department. When people heard the total price of the air/hotel/whatever package, they would often ask if replacing the air with a train or car option would lower the price. This is no joke.
How can we expect people to understand their Constitutional rights if they don't even grasp basic geography of their native country?
My spouse had a similar reaction when I mentioned that my sexual abuse survivor status put me at diametric, passionate opposition to the new procedures, of which said spouse was in enthusiastic support previously. Sadly it often takes very personal stories such as these to make people actually think about it, which isn't possible in the OP's situation.
May I recommend:
The country is a vast and beautiful place which requires safe, efficient air travel for work, family obligations, and the occasional vacation. Suggesting people not fly and hole up in their huts sounds a lot like suggesting we live like the very terrorists these ineffective measures are meant to deter, but won't. I, too, want safe air travel. There's no need to treat you like a terrorist when you travel.
My airline career began in one of our call centers where I occasionally would fill in for our Hawai'ian vacations department. When people heard the total price of the air/hotel/whatever package, they would often ask if replacing the air with a train or car option would lower the price. This is no joke.
How can we expect people to understand their Constitutional rights if they don't even grasp basic geography of their native country?
^^ Agree!
I had this conversation with my ex ... we both travel a lot for business and for vacation (respectively) with our children. He didn't think much of the NoS or gate-rape (in the sense that he'd never really thought about it) until I put it into perspective of his teenage daughter. Fortunately I used to be married to a smart man.
I had this conversation with my ex ... we both travel a lot for business and for vacation (respectively) with our children. He didn't think much of the NoS or gate-rape (in the sense that he'd never really thought about it) until I put it into perspective of his teenage daughter. Fortunately I used to be married to a smart man.
May I recommend:
The country is a vast and beautiful place which requires safe, efficient air travel for work, family obligations, and the occasional vacation. Suggesting people not fly and hole up in their huts sounds a lot like suggesting we live like the very terrorists these ineffective measures are meant to deter, but won't. I, too, want safe air travel. There's no need to treat you like a terrorist when you travel.
Dec 2, 2010, 3:49 am
#33
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 966
OP, I'd say that you CAN'T give a concise answer - because the answers to simplistic problems such as those caused by TSA are not always simple themselves. As was previously posted, a proper response to such a comment would, almost of necessity, have to delve into philosophy and/or analysis of legal documents and court cases starting decades ago and stretching back for CENTURIES. Pretty complex stuff for most to get into as a response to "Don't like it? Don't fly!"
Shortest answer I can personally think of, other than LAF's above, might be "You're all for these searches for 'security's' sake? Great! When's a good time for TSA to show up at your house for YOUR frisking before you get in your car to go to work? Oh, and don't forget about sending your kids through the Nude-O-Scope or getting their genitals groped before they get on the school bus." That might have a chance of making an impact - but you'll likely have to explain it to them. Make it *PERSONAL*, and they'll have a better chance of understanding why it might be an issue.
Dec 2, 2010, 6:15 am
#35
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 700
While all these potential responses are good, I think the most effective and handy reply is something brief. Indeed, no one wants to engage in a heated constitutional debate with such commentators since they won't understand it and it takes too long and, after all, you do want the person to appreciate quickly the idiocy of their comment. Thus, I've come down to two. The first for use regarding the back scatter machines, the second for the groping:
-- Pls give me a call in ten years time and let me know how that third arm is working out for you.
-- Is there any indignity you won't submit to just so you can hold onto the illusion of safety? Perhaps a cavity search on your next flight?
-- Pls give me a call in ten years time and let me know how that third arm is working out for you.
-- Is there any indignity you won't submit to just so you can hold onto the illusion of safety? Perhaps a cavity search on your next flight?
Dec 2, 2010, 7:48 am
#36
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: DTW
Programs: DL 0.22 MM, AA 0.34 MM, PC Plat Amb, Hertz #1 GC 5*
Posts: 7,511
Hey, look on the bright side. We can expect an Alaska/Russia tunnel/bridge in our lifetime, sooner if they can figure out the soft-bed issue.
Dec 2, 2010, 12:30 pm
#37
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 629
I think something along the lines of this would work. It actually sounds kind of fun.
I think Paul Theroux, in his book, Old Patagonian Express, took a train from Boston via Laredo, Texas most of the way down to Central America and then took trains by skips and jumps down to Tierra Del Fuego. Or something like that. I haven't read the book in a while. It appears that those trains are no longer running however. I checked for Laredo, TX on the Amtrak site but they don't list any such station. And in any case I don't think there are any trains on the Mexican side of Laredo anymore either.
If I could take a train down to Mexico City I should be able to fly anywhere in the world from there. It's only a short bus ride from here to Montreal, but those damn Canadians are only one step behind us as usual with their mmw scanners. I wish they were really as different from us as they like to think they are. Britain is also part of the insanity. Is there something about the English language that makes us pathetic, crazy, scared little pansies?
Dec 2, 2010, 3:39 pm
#38
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Sacramento, California, USA
Posts: 2,976
Draft Letter to the Editor
Thanks for the ideas! I borrowed a little from here and there. This is what I've come up with:
Our nation is a vast and beautiful place which requires safe, efficient air travel for work, family obligations, and the occasional vacation. But these days the TSA demands our identification, makes us remove our shoes, forces us to either be touched in inappropriate places or be viewed completely naked, exposes us to unknown amounts of radiation and generally humiliates us in order to freely move about our country.
As a frequent flyer I spend a lot of time in airports. I expect to be safe and secure when flying but not at the expense of our constitutional protections. Would the Founding Fathers accept as normal to be stripped of their clothes and their dignity in order to travel? Consider what Benjamin Franklin said, They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Some may say, If you dont like it then dont fly. Im sorry, but that is simply not realistic. Flying is an integral part of many peoples jobs including my own. I cannot afford to take a week to cross the country by bus or train, or take a boat to Honolulu. Besides the TSA already sets up random checkpoints in bus, Amtrak and subway stations so there is no avoiding them there.
It is truly a sad state of affairs where as a parent I am forced to choose between letting a government agent feel up my children or look at their naked bodies so they can fly to grandmas house on the other side of the country for Christmas.
Congratulations Osama. You won.
Signed,
El Cochinito
As a frequent flyer I spend a lot of time in airports. I expect to be safe and secure when flying but not at the expense of our constitutional protections. Would the Founding Fathers accept as normal to be stripped of their clothes and their dignity in order to travel? Consider what Benjamin Franklin said, They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Some may say, If you dont like it then dont fly. Im sorry, but that is simply not realistic. Flying is an integral part of many peoples jobs including my own. I cannot afford to take a week to cross the country by bus or train, or take a boat to Honolulu. Besides the TSA already sets up random checkpoints in bus, Amtrak and subway stations so there is no avoiding them there.
It is truly a sad state of affairs where as a parent I am forced to choose between letting a government agent feel up my children or look at their naked bodies so they can fly to grandmas house on the other side of the country for Christmas.
Congratulations Osama. You won.
Signed,
El Cochinito
Dec 2, 2010, 3:57 pm
#39
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: S24
Posts: 106
Besides the TSA already sets up random checkpoints in bus, Amtrak and subway stations so there is no avoiding them there.
signed
Nit Pick
Dec 2, 2010, 8:40 pm
#40
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 629
El Cochinito, I hope that is a first draft. Your languaging is very awkward.
Especially:
That's almost non-native speaker territory. It's not gonna fly. Also lose the fluff at the beginning about the US being beautiful. If it doesn't sell your idea or make your point then drop it. These days people have short attention spans. You want to get right down to the point. In fact you may want to focus exclusively on the "right to fly" issue. You don't have that much space to get into every argument as to why the new TSA policies are wrong. Stay focused on your point and hammer it home. If it doesn't answer the question "Why do we have a right to fly?" then leave it out.
Especially:
Would the Founding Fathers accept as normal to be stripped of their clothes and their dignity in order to travel?
Dec 2, 2010, 8:51 pm
#41
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: ORD
Programs: AA EXP >3 Million miles,HH Lifetime Diamond
Posts: 2,890
I think thats how things started in Germany in 1933. Its a slippery slope. Just make resrictions on freedoms one small step at a time. Interesting this is not a bigger political issue
Dec 3, 2010, 3:37 am
#42
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Nashville, TN - BNA
Programs: Hilton Gold, WN RR
Posts: 1,818
This has already been touched on, but basically the airlines have been subsidized by massive amounts of taxpayer dollars. Wikipedia's article entitled 'Airline' puts it best:
"Historically, air travel has survived largely through state support, whether in the form of equity or subsidies. The airline industry as a whole has made a cumulative loss during its 100-year history, once the costs include subsidies for aircraft development and airport construction...A historically high level of government intervention in the airline industry can be seen as part of a wider political consensus on strategic forms of transport, such as highways and railways, both of which receive public funding in most parts of the world."
How soon we forget 2001, when President Bush pledged $15 billion in taxpayer funds directly to the airlines.
So here's my line: "I helped pay for a substantial portion of the airline industry, so I for damn sure should get some say in how things stack up."
"Historically, air travel has survived largely through state support, whether in the form of equity or subsidies. The airline industry as a whole has made a cumulative loss during its 100-year history, once the costs include subsidies for aircraft development and airport construction...A historically high level of government intervention in the airline industry can be seen as part of a wider political consensus on strategic forms of transport, such as highways and railways, both of which receive public funding in most parts of the world."
How soon we forget 2001, when President Bush pledged $15 billion in taxpayer funds directly to the airlines.
So here's my line: "I helped pay for a substantial portion of the airline industry, so I for damn sure should get some say in how things stack up."
Dec 3, 2010, 8:51 pm
#43
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
This has already been touched on, but basically the airlines have been subsidized by massive amounts of taxpayer dollars. Wikipedia's article entitled 'Airline' puts it best:
"Historically, air travel has survived largely through state support, whether in the form of equity or subsidies. The airline industry as a whole has made a cumulative loss during its 100-year history, once the costs include subsidies for aircraft development and airport construction...A historically high level of government intervention in the airline industry can be seen as part of a wider political consensus on strategic forms of transport, such as highways and railways, both of which receive public funding in most parts of the world."
How soon we forget 2001, when President Bush pledged $15 billion in taxpayer funds directly to the airlines.
So here's my line: "I helped pay for a substantial portion of the airline industry, so I for damn sure should get some say in how things stack up."
"Historically, air travel has survived largely through state support, whether in the form of equity or subsidies. The airline industry as a whole has made a cumulative loss during its 100-year history, once the costs include subsidies for aircraft development and airport construction...A historically high level of government intervention in the airline industry can be seen as part of a wider political consensus on strategic forms of transport, such as highways and railways, both of which receive public funding in most parts of the world."
How soon we forget 2001, when President Bush pledged $15 billion in taxpayer funds directly to the airlines.
So here's my line: "I helped pay for a substantial portion of the airline industry, so I for damn sure should get some say in how things stack up."