Deleted

Yeah--a terrorist tactic: A brings through a bottle of ammonia. B brings a bottle of bleach. They go through adjoining lanes so one checker doesn't see both bottles.

It would only be a harassment tactic but it would make Washington go ape.

Yet Diet Coke and Mentos can still be served on planes!

I agree with everything you posted � even what I quoted here from you � except that what I am doing is certainly not passive.

Not flying is an action that speaks volumes � louder than virtually any other method of protest or disagreement pertaining to this issue.

It has been said elsewhere that passengers who fly infrequently and check luggage anyway are not bothered or inconvenienced enough by the latest security measures. Some even support them. It has also been said that us frequent fliers are a minority. However, I would not be surprised if frequent fliers also spend the majority of money in air travel, as well as the accompanying government-imposed taxes and fees.

This is why I am hesitant to believe that initially writing letters to political representatives � only to receive a form letter from an intern or no response at all, in many cases � would be effective pertaining to this issue.

If frequent fliers simply stopped flying for a certain pre-determined period of time, I believe that would be extremely effective in sending a message. Then there will be an audience: political representatives, media organizations and travel companies will listen.

I have been doing my part all along. Anyone else who is willing to join me is more than welcome to do so.

I have already been doing this.

- Alan

Deleted as outdated info!

You are quite right. Thanks for pointing this out. Boycott is not passive, as you say. My apologies.

I wish I could join you in that. 98 out 100 of my flights are for business and across distances I cannot drive. The other two are long distance visits to my mother. Can't give any of this up.

Still a boycott needs publicity. A few letters to the editor etc. may be good boost to your intentions. Letters to representatives may get a form letter in response, but they do keep tally over time to see which way the wind is blowing. So results may be delayed.

they could have been on the island after the latest liquid scare - just saying that it can happen - Good Grief

This leads to the question of who is responsible for knowing what needs to occur when you fly.

Is it the TSA's responsibility to educate people on what exactly they can and cant fly with (ie TV commercials and other forms of advertising)? Or is it the PAX responsibility to know what works and what doesnt prior to traveling?

I was raised that it is only my responsibility to make sure that I understand the rules completely...

If we go by the old saying "teach by example" then we're out of luck as TSA often doesn't understand its own rules. That's evident as there have been many times FT'ers have tried to correct screeners when they were wrong. Some actually got it right after that. Others just got a retaliatory secondary.