Note that at least NW (and I'm sure other airlines, too) have the following provision right up front in Rule 1:

RULES, REGULATIONS AND CONDITIONS OF CARRIAGE ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE

Okay, I'm actually not sure what the condition you pointed out means. What good is a contract of which every single part can be changed after you sign it?

I think the basic principle of the thing is clear to everyone: no one can give a blanket consent that they'll cooperate with any cockamamie, invasive, dangerous procedure the TSA might think up. What if tomorrow it's cavity searches or high-dose radiation? It's absurd to say that by buying a ticket today, I'm saying okay to a bunch of procedures that haven't even been invented yet, no matter what the CoC says.


You can't give your consent unless you know what you're consenting to. Anything less than full disclosure of the terms of an agreement is manipulative and should be criminal. Give us a break, Northwest.

Point being that you are agreeing to comply with whatever procedures are in place at the time you fly. And the CoC absolutely guarantees something to the passenger: that you will be transported to your destination.

First, you agree to the Contract of Carriage as revised at the time of purchase on United (I am not aware of other airlines' policies). So if United drastically changes their policies after ticketing, you are protected under their original policies. (That is why when they make a major change, they say it applies to all tickets issued after a certain date.)

I agree that the CoC does not provide specifics as to what type of searches are permitted; this is probably because the airlines are not in control of screening and it is not their jurisdiction. Thus, in the CoC, you consent to practically any search, but you can revoke that consent at any time, and, if so, receive a full refund.

A side note: what would happen if you called up reservations and told them you would refuse to consent to a search; would they refund you the money then or do you have to go to the airport?

To summarize, I think GradGirl has a good point in that the searches could change drastically between ticketing and travel. I believe that is why one is entitled to a full refund if he or she does not wish to be searched.

Using the NW CofC quoted above, in my lay opinion it is clear you are not entitled to a refund having already agreed to 'be searched' (explicitly or by omission).

The only chance would be if the subsequent changes in the (unspecified) search process were deemed to be either illegal or unconstitutional. As has been discussed in many previous threads, the courts have held that airport searches in their original form are exempt from 4th Amendment provisions. I don't think there has been any challenge that the current pat-down aspect constitutes unreasonable search, and although I wish someone would I expect the court(s) would conclude they are OK too :( .

Wally Bird,
As I stated above,
I agree I am not knowledgable about airlines other than UA. Thanks for informing us about the difference in NW's CoC.

Adam