The ultimate form of protest
 

You have to check your bags due to carrying toothpaste, hair gel and lubricated condoms. Flights have 100% bag check, which means it can't take off with the bags of someone who hasn't gotten on the plane. It can take quite a while - like 20 minutes or more - to root through the baggage in the hold of a plane to find yours and get it off.

So, as a form of protest, how about having a leisurely water break in the terminal and just show up a bit late for your plane?

Since I fly both UA and AA too, please send me your travel schedule.

As much as I agree with the stupidity of what's going on, I don't think this is the way to go.

With my luck, the airline would decide to remove my checked bag(s) from the airliner and take off without me. However, because I do not check bags when traveling for business, OP's method of protest would not work for me.

I'm not advocating this, just food for thought. I think it's silly to wait - if TSA inspected it and sent it through the bomb detectors, there shouldn't be anything dangerous in your luggage, right?

Plus the fact that luggage gets lost all the time, if it goes on a different flight from yours there certainly is no 100% of anything.

For me, it's very rare that I would have that kind of flexibility. Invariably I am on the last flight of the day, or the next flight is hours later, or I have been upgraded, or I would miss the connecting flight and have to play standby the rest of the day, etc.

More to the point, you wouldn't be sending much of a message other than that you can't keep track of time and don't hear PA announcements.

Yes, but if you didn't have to check your bag in the first place due to the liquids ban, they wouldn't have had to wait for you.

Is this true? I thought positive bag match was ended once they implemented 100% screening of bags. I think they'll just take off with your bag in the hold and you in the terminal.

I suspect that's true too. Why? i suspect it because you can't see positive bag match. When you spend money on theater, it's pointless to throw it away on things you can't see.

The positive bag match was only for when they did not specifically screen bags. Recall that not too long ago checked baggage for domestic flights wasn't even x-rayed. It was just stuffed into the hold. If you try the trick above on a domestic flight, I'm fairly certain that the flight will leave without you.

Then why have I been delayed on two recent flights (one last week) because someone didn't show up for the flight after checking in and checking a bag? The first delay was about a half hour, the second about 40 minutes. The excuse given was baggage.

I would say that since the invention of TSA, or at least just the last three years, I've been on at least 9-10 flights that were late departing supposedely because they needed to offload the bag of a person who checked in but never showed at the gate.

Better safe than sorry!

If your loved one were on a plane that was blown to bits because someone didn't board the plane and had checked a suitcase chock full of bombs, you'd be singing a different tune, now wouldn't you?

Cower down! They're after us!

But the bag cleared TSA inspection. There can't be any bombs on board, right?

And, if you're a suicide bomber, one of the key parts is that you die too, so checking in a bunch of bombs and then getting on the plane are codependent actions.

Maybe the solution is to ban checked luggage as well as carry-ons. All the luggage can be trucked or shipped (by an actual ship) depending on the geography between your origin and destination.

Whatever it takes!

If only Gandhi or Mandela had thought of that!

Is the OP willing to risk going to jail for his/her beliefs?

If so, there are tons of things he/she could do to protest. If not, I suspect the showing up late trick will not work too well.

My protests stop short of being obstructive or "testing" the screeners.

I've simply quit being prepared at the gate.

I used to stop short of the screening area and place my belt, keys, cell phone, etc. in my carryon, pre-open my laptop case so I can whip it out & place in a bin in record time, etc.

No more. I take everthing out/off in the screening line again just like a newbie.

Post screening, I used to tuck my laptop & shoes under my arms and wander off to the first convenient place in concourse to reassemble/redress myself.

No more. I do it at the end of the conveyor belt.

My protest is just shuffling through process like a tired old sheep.

I do find the idea of plastic booties attractive.

Ppbm
 

From what I understand, PPBM is still being used, but it is limited to International and overwater flights (i.e. LAX-HNL).

I've been in the airport terminal when flights to places like NRT have been delayed and held at the gate while the GA's are franticly looking for a missing passenger.

Also been on Intl flights where we have had to wait for the unloading of bags from no-shows. For most domestic flights, I don't think they bother -- besides, there have been times my luggage has arrived on another flight before I have.

SDF_Traveler

Think of the CHILDREN!

There is an inconsistancy here. If bags cannot travel without their owner, how is it they often end up on the wrong airplane at the wrong destination and how in the hell would they ever be reunited with their rightful owner if they could not be sent to the proper destination without the owner aboard???

alternative protest
 

The op of this thread's protest would (could) inconvenience other pax.
Another idea i'd like to throw out:
if lots of people bought fully refundable fc tickets (expensive seats :cool: ) and then later cancelled, making it clear to the airline that it was because of the inconveniences caused by the current regulations that they are cancelling, this might prod the airlines (a more powerful voice than individual pax) to get some of the current idiocy stopped.

I think this would harm the airlines and other passengers more than it would the TSA.

"if lots of people bought fully refundable fc tickets (expensive seats ) and then later cancelled, making it clear to the airline that it was because of the inconveniences caused by the current regulations that they are cancelling, this might prod the airlines (a more powerful voice than individual pax) to get some of the current idiocy stopped."

Or it would force the airline to do away with 1st class because it is not profitable, or the airlines do away with refundable tickets. I think they would react pretty swiftly and the results would not benefit the travelling public.

Uhm...I know that this may come as a surprise to you but making an ... of yourself and delaying your fellow passengers does not make you a freedom fighter.

There are effective protest methods out there. For one you can write your congressman or the airlines. This method has changed TSA policy in the past. The pat down procedure was modified because of public pressure primarily from female passengers. Despite recent changes, the TSA as an organization has responded to the shoe screening concerns.

Believe it or not we do have an established practice for addressing government policies you disagree with. It's called an election. If this matters enough to you, find a candidate who opposes TSA policies and support him. If you truly believe in your ideas, you should let them stand the test of an election.

You could refuse to fly. And you could send a letter to the airlines telling them that you won't fly.

Or better yet, you could buy a ticket and refuse to cooperate with TSA at the checkpoint. Make a statement saying that you won't comply and attempt to bypass the screening process. When you are arrested, challenge the constitutionality of the law in court. You may not win. But you have a moral obligation to fight unjust laws. Think of it. You would be like Ghandi or Martin Luther King spending time in jail opposing an unjust law. Please do this!

I believe in the TSA. I don't believe in everything the TSA has done. But I believe in the TSA enough to make a career out of it. If you oppose the TSA's policies you should stand behind your beliefs enough to do something besides make an ... of yourself. Truly stand up for your beliefs.

The other day, someone compared me to a NAZI stormtrooper for not allowing him to carry his Old Spice through the checkpoint. I had so many thoughts. First of all, if I was really comparable to a NAZI guard then I don't think he would be able to insult me with impunity. I smiled and offered him a complaint form. I don't think the NAZIs had a complaint forms.

Secondly, don't you think that if you really believe that the TSA was comparable to an organization that committed genocide that you have some obligation to do something besides delaying flights. I am forced to conclude that you don't really believe what you say, or that you aren't really willing to stand up for your beliefs. Either way we end with the way this post started. You are just making an ... of yourself.

I agree. I suggested it in another thread a week or two ago. There wasn't much enthusiasm for the idea, unfortunately.

The airlines have been way too quiet on this issue. Lobbying groups get laws, regs and legislation changed every day. But right now they have very little motivation to do so. The only way to get them to step up is to hit them where it hurts, the bottom line.

But the election process is slow--we need more immediate action.

If you don't think Nazi fits, what about brigand, STASI, troll at a bridge, bureaucratic henchman? Perhaps you should read the other rules your brethren at TSA have come up for other industries and you'd see why TSOs are not so popular.

Please don't expect people to be polite/reasonable with you when your own organization is neither with the public. You are lucky that people are barely civil with you.

Does anyone know if every passenger checked the maximum allowable number of bags--at the maximum allowable weight--would most aircraft have the capacity to handle all these extra bags?

AngryDan,

Most of us travel because it is part of our jobs. If we don't travel, we can't do our jobs as well as we do. Therefor, the people who disagree with you are probably not tourists who get on a plane once a year and wouldn't know the differences in security because they have no point of reference. Being delayed for a half hour or so once a year is no big deal.

For the business traveler, being delayed a half hour or so several times a week, and with the possability that your luggage won't make it, is just not acceptable. If the airlines were 100% accurate with luggage and fast to unload, you would still have a problem with standbys, flight cancelations, etc.

One thing I've noticed - most TSA agents don't actually do much flying. When it's your job or business thats on the line, and you have to cancel meetings because your bag didn't make it to your final destination and the only reason you checked it was because of toiletries, that's a big hit. People get fired for stuff like that, even though it's out of their control.

So, the next time someone gets a bit upset about having to give up water or something, imagine if it was you, stuck on a plane for 3 hours at the gate with nothing to drink. Or if it's a rainy day and you're walking barefoot on a scuzzy airport floor getting mud or sand or salt or dogcrap or whatever on your feet just so someone can Xray your shoes. Little things like that.

Best quote of the day. Thanks AngryDan.

When the police break down your door in the middle of the night and drag you off to jail without letting you know what the charges are and you just "disappear", your civil liberties are being violated. When the police can chop off your fingers and rape your daughters in front of you, your civil liberties are being violated. When the government censors newspapers and doesn't allow free speech, your civil liberties are being violated.

When you're required to walk 20 feet without your shoes and aren't allowed to bring on your water bottles, it's an inconvenience. A hassle. But it's not a trip to a deathcamp.

And when you're trying to smuggle contraband onto an airplane, no matter how little sense the law makes to you, you're a criminal. And a jerk.

I approach TSA officers as professionals, and they treat me well. They've always been polite and even somewhat apologetic that they have to search me.

If you're getting different treatment from them, then perhaps you're nervous because you're trying to smuggle on water, you're anxious about the upcoming confrontation, and you're angry that you have to take off your shoes. Guess what? Nervous, anxious, and angry is the profile of people they're supposed to take a close look at. If you're getting hassled, perhaps you should take a look at yourself instead of blaming the guy that doesn't make the rules and is just trying to do his job.

When I think of the sacrifices the WWII generation had to make I realize just how wimpy this generation is. You're not being asked to storm the beaches at Normandy, just walk 20 feet without your shoes.

Another best quote of the day.

My mother remembers having butter once a week during the war. My grandmother often talked sadly about giving up her aluminum pots and pans (very high tech back then) to make airplane wings. My family lost three men and one woman during the war. My wife's aunt spent four years in a Japanese POW camp in Asia.

I think I can make the sock walk and wait for water on board.

And, AngryDan, remember that their mothers didn't bring them up very well. That they never learned to be polite to people doing a hard and low paying job. That they never learned that it is not all about them. That sometimes they're not the smartest person in the room. That is is not important to always be right. That quiet is often better than loud. That stripes do NOT go with plaid.

And, finally, if you'll allow me (I also travel a LOT) let me say thank you for doing your job as best you can, especially in the face of so many b*ttheads.

I'd gladly give up my aluminum pots and pans for a just war, which WWII most certainly was. However, I'll not gladly give up even more of my freedom for the "war on terror" than I've already given up for the "war on drugs."

Is it toothpaste, or TERROR PASTE?!! OH NO!!!!

I read yesterday that a flight was diverted because someone left a BlackBerry on board. BE FRIGHTENED, BE SCARED! COWER IN FEAR!!!

For my part, this is no way to live. I'll take the .00001% chance that I'll be unlucky enough to be blown up by Osama Bin Laden and his henchmen (why, with all of the resources of the United States military, haven't we found a 7 foot tall guy who needs a dialysis machine yet?) any day versus the 100% chance I'll be subjected to ritual harassment by the TSA and the >10% chance the airline will lose my bags.

Fire the TSA and turn the function over to private contractors. Either that or put the Coast Guard in charge. Those guys are disciplined, professional, and courteous to the public. The TSA is none of the above.

My post was in reference to the original poster saying that he liked to gum up the system as a protest against the TSA. I didn't defend TSA policies. If you want to debate that stuff, I'm not really interested. I just follow, I don't make policy. My job is to do the best job with what they give me. I don't get too personally invested in whether the prohibition against liquids is good or not. No one is going to listen to my opinion anyway.

I do think my original point stands...all the original poster is doing is making it harder on other travelers. It won't ruin my day if his plane is late, or other people have to wait longer.

But if people actually care enough about this, then they should try to do something about it. If I actually thought my government was doing something immoral/unconstitutional/etc that I worked myself into a frenzy about it, then I would feel a moral obligation to fight it.

If just a few hundred travelers refused to comply with the TSA around the country, it would make headline news everywhere. If enough wrote their congressmen, the issue would show up on the national radar. If tons of profitable business travelers stopped flying, the airlines would take notice.

A small group of people can change national policy. It wouldn't take much to generate enough of a momentum against the TSA. But the idiot loud mouths are simply too lazy to actually do anything to support their beliefs. They will post here, or throw a tantrum at the airport but won't do the hard work that true protest is all about.

For every one of you who acts like a big baby in the checkpoint, there are three to four other adult passengers shaking their heads about your conduct. When you act like a two year old, you cause people to judge your beliefs by your behavior. I don't need to justify my job, people who throw fits cause sympathy for the TSA without us doing a thing.

I will never have to worry about about my job as long as the frequent flyer population acts like they are being sent to the gas chamber every time they have to take off their shoes. Sensible adults won't join you. Congresspeople don't want to listen to you because you act like a nut. Parents point people like you out to their children when they pass through the airport as an example of how not to behave in public.

There is a great debate to be had about TSA policies. But we will never hear that debate because the frequent flyer types have marginalized themselves and are too lazy to actually take a stand that might inconvenience themselves.

So spout, rage, insult me, compare me to NAZIs, or anything you want. All I ask is you continue to keep paying those security fees.

Angry Dan

Well, yes, but that would require one to get out of one's Aeron chair and, well, do something besides b*tch, moan, and type.

Dude, that would be a great t-shirt to sell at the next TSA conference!

Sorta reminds me of the netroots/KOS/Kuchinich wing of the Democrat party, now that you mention it. Though I bet a lot of these folks are actually big-L libertarians.

You the man!

Please to name one freedom you've given up for anything in the last 20 years? Freedom to wear your shoes through the metal detector? Freedom to not have a federally funded helicoptor fly through your neighborhood looking for hotspots? What?

Elian Gonzales had his freedoms taken away, you and me are fine. Well, me anyway.

The freedom to be believed innocent until proven guilty. It has become a way of life now for the average citizen of the United States to have to prove they are not out to do dirty deeds before they can take certain actions.

As one poster stated yesterday, he had to provide an ID and have his personal information entered into some database in order to buy medicine for his baby; school children must prove that they do not take drugs before the can participate in extra curricular activities; we must take off our shoes and divest ourselves of clothing before we can get on a plane.

All of the above presume guilt until we prove otherwise.

Baloney. Please to give a specific non-trivial non-mostly-incorrect (see below) example.

So did my mother to get my Syrup of Ipacac - in the early 60's (yes, I am an old fart).
Well, good point on the Clinton-era instituted random drug testing, but it's not like kids in high school sports were dropping dead of steroid use 20+ years ago, were they? By the same measure you must be horrified by metal detectors, limited drivers licenses, and dog licenses. I'm going to give you 1/4 point for that example.
I think I can speak for the travelling public - keep your clothes on. You have to put on a bathing suit before you get into a public pool - does that offend you too?
Really? Does showing a police officer your drivers license at license checkpoint presume guilt and violate your civil liberties?

You are too funny
 

Go ahead and do this as many times as you like. The airlines will inform you with a smile that your bags didn't make it because you waited until the last moment to check in. ^ So I will challenge all of you to protest using this method. ;)

Hold on there Dan, most frequent flyer types are just mildly perturbed about these restrictions. The vast majority understand the need and are appreciative of the job the TSA does. It's just a few vocal whackos on the internet that are making the noise. The nature of the internet makes the voices of the people on the fringe seem louder than the vast majority because they're the only ones riled up enough to shout so much.

If the situation truly were the nazification of our travel infrastructure I'm sure the mainstream media would be all over it. Liberal democrats would be pummeling Bush for his draconian policies. They're not, because walking 20 feet without your shoes and going for an entire hour without water just isn't that big of a deal. An annoyance, but hardly a trip to Treblinka.

And you're absolutely right. Acting like a baby in public, endless posting about how the TSA screeners are jackbooted thugs, and callling Chertoff a communist at every opportunity just makes the vast majority of people dimiss them as nuts.

If you've got to be angry and make a big public fuss about something, how about venting at the terrorists who started all this?

I think I see the correlation here. People that think the war on terror is fake are against the TSA restrictions?

How about removing the Taliban? Was that a just war? When did the terrorists start attacking us, anyway?

Do you think 9/11 was faked? That it was just a big PR operation designed to take away more freedoms?

I think I see the one you're bringing to light. You're either with us or against us. Either you believe in the water ban or you might as well be knitting Osama woolly hats for the winter.

"If you don't think Nazi fits, what about brigand, STASI, troll at a bridge, bureaucratic henchman?"

Completely ludicrous garbage and an insult to genuine victims of the Stasi (and victims of trolls).