Yes and this is the part I find interesting. That our government has decided that the passengers must allow breast and genital rubs by total strangers to make them safe. Which is really strange since from a very young age I was taught that allowing total strangers to rub my breast and genitals was not safe at all. That total strangers who wanted to rub my breast and genitals were committing a crime against me.

Which makes it is interesting that something that we have always been taught is a criminal act suddenly becomes legal if TSA/DHS says we need to do it for your safety.

Makes TSA/DHS seem like the neighborhood pervert telling the kid that they will be rewarded if they play the rub the breast and genitals game with them. Because the passengers do get a reward from TSA/DHS for allowing their breast and genitals to be rubbed by strangers at the airport. They get to go fly on the plane.

Responding to gojirasan

It's sometimes helful to read the entire post from beginning to end first. But, to make the snippet you pulled out clear: 1) the question asked by OP has nothing to do with the mechanics of opt our or screening, it's simply what happens to his air ticket if he can't fly, in this case because he won't complete the screening. He asks whether he can insure that risk to the extent that he has purchased a non-refundable ticket (and his carrier won't refund in its discretion). 2) the answer to that question is simply that no state permits one to insure against non-compliance with any law, rule or regulation. That is because public policy is that if one doesn't like a law, rule or regulation, one doesn't violate the law and argue that it was OK, one works to change the law. 3) If you think it's different, look at the t&c of any insurance policy you can dig up for any risk, wether it's travel, homeowners, health, auto or umbrella.

OP asks a simple question and there is a relatively simple answer. Looking through the thread, he took into account what many said, namely that in all likelihood he will lose the value of his non-refundable air ticket if he won't complete screening, and has determined not to travel.

Whether his decision is a good one or your views of what public policy ought to be are an interesting discussion for OMNI.

Sorry, I don't understand why people have drawn this conclusion.

On American Airlines, at least, if you refuse to complete screening, TSA escorts you to the ticket counter, the airline "refuses" to transport you based on refusal to undergo screening, and give you a full refund per the CoC.

AA has put it in writing, and we have seen it done in practice in several well-publicized "refusal to complete screening" incidents. I would say the OP should check the airline he is flying for both CoC documentation and practical examples, but I don't think it is clear at all that he would lose his money.

I think that no airline would refuse a refund. That would create an actual monetary damage, which would make a civil lawsuit possible. If I am totally off base, I wish someone would show me where I am wrong.

When the sexual abuse tactics of the TSA became known in November 2010, I was holding several plane tickets for December, January, and beyond. I don't pose naked for strange men to ogle me in secret pornobooths, and I don't engage in sexual activities with complete strangers under duress. Therefore, I concluded that I could no longer fly, and I sought refunds for those tickets.

I was refused refunds by both Southwest (three round-trips cancelled) and AirTran (one round-trip cancelled). This action is in direct violation of their contracts of carriage, which state that if I refuse security screening, then they will refuse to transport me and refund my money. I even went to the airport on the day of my flight to refuse security screening in person, but the airlines still denied my refund. I disputed all the charges on my credit card, on the basis of bait-and-switch: I purchased tickets for travel sans sexual assault, but they were now offering travel only to those who would hold still for a sexual assault. My credit card company upheld all the refunds. I then filed a complaint with the Department of Transportation alleging that these two companies failed to comply with their contracts of carriage.

I'm glad to hear that you were successful in getting a refund from your credit card company. I was not. I had purchased a round-trip ticket on JetBlue for my mother-in-law. This was purchased well before the new screening procedures were instituted. Her trip had to be postponed because of health issues. Per the airline's policy, we had one year to rebook the flight (with a rebooking fee). In the meantime, the naked scanning and groping started. My mother-in-law is a breast cancer survivor and is in frail health, so we decided not to have her come at all. I tried to get a refund from JetBlue, but they would not give it. Instead, they offered to allow us to use the ticket for someone else. Not wanting to subject my wife (or myself) to the current indignities, this was not acceptable, so I filed a claim with American Express. At first I was optimistic, but after some time, Amex informed me that, based on their investigation, they ruled in favor of JetBlue because the ticket was non-refundable, and JetBlue claimed (falsely) that the TSA procedures were in-place when the ticket was purchased.

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.

The card company that allowed my chargeback was Chase. Hooray Chase! Ironically, the card I was using was a Southwest Airlines Visa. My new primary card is also a Chase card, the Amtrak Guest Rewards card.

I cancelled the Southwest Airlines Visa in December, and explained to the phone representative that I would no longer fly because of the disgustingly sexual nature of security requirements. The person I talked to was under the impression that scanners produce an image "like an X-ray where it shows your skeleton, right?" This speaks directly to your very sensible comments that sexually invasive procedures need to be explicitly detailed and consented to before the ticket purchase. I also have another good friend, with a Ph.D., who was completely unaware that she would be sexually assaulted for refusing a full-body scan when she first was abused in February 2011. Many people don't know this information. It's just sickening that the TSA won't use the words genitals, labia, penis, testicles, breasts, buttocks, to describe what will be touched, because lying by omission turns what could otherwise be consensual sexual activity into a blindsiding sexual assault. Susie Castillo's story makes this very clear - she accepted a patdown because she didn't think she would be sexually violated. She was sexually violated. The TSA says her patdown was by the book. Therefore, the TSA's book doesn't include telling people they're about to endure sexual contact. Sickening, I tell you.

In any case, I approve of your specified method to travel without fear of sexual exploitation. If I absolutely, positively have to fly, I will plan for the possibility of being ejected from the airport and re-booking my trip the next day. If the TSA threatens to touch me inappropriately or take naked pictures of me, I'm out of there. There's no amount of money that can compensate for the psychological damage that being sexually abused causes. I'll pay an extra $100 or buy a brand-new ticket. Much less painful to pay extra than to live with the sleepless nights, the flashbacks, the tears, the blaming myself, and I've been through all these emotions and more over the TSA's past sexual abuse of my body.

Sexual violation produces a slave mentality when consent is given. That is enough reason for me to prevent it happening to me. I'm really afraid that TSA is creating a nation of malleable people who are used to making concessions to government violation "in the name of the greater good".