Any chance of a refund? Need to cancel SWA due to TSA new body scanners

[rszdtrvl]

They do not scan everyone. We have never had the body scan nor has anyone that I know and we fly in and out of a major airport. My niece (20) was randomly chosen to have her hand swabbed. So since they do not scan everyone (and despite the media rarely anyone under 13) and you believe God is in control, pray and have faith, enjoy your flight. Praying for peace for you (where two or three agree)

I just hopped onto this board to ask if everyone was scanned or searched. Glad I found the info I needed so quickly!

 

[Lewisc]

You can also choose not to fly, which the OP has decided is best for her family. I don't think she needs to be mocked for making what she feels is the right decision for her and her family.

OP, I think you're out of luck as far as a refund goes, since it's your choice not to fly. Though you'll receive SW credits.

Mocking is kind of strong but several of us have an issue with the OPs claims that her "need" to avoid screening entitles her to a refund.

Non-refundable fares won't work if any passenger can get a refund by saying I need to cancel due to my issue with TSA screening.

The only person who needs to cancel due to the TSA screening is a person who was planning on bringing something that might be discovered.

 

[dudspizza]

You can also choose not to fly, which the OP has decided is best for her family. I don't think she needs to be mocked for making what she feels is the right decision for her and her family.

OP, I think you're out of luck as far as a refund goes, since it's your choice not to fly. Though you'll receive SW credits.

Mocked, really?

 

[SaraJayne]

Mocking is kind of strong but several of us have an issue with the OPs claims that her "need" to avoid screening entitles her to a refund.

Non-refundable fares won't work if any passenger can get a refund by saying I need to cancel due to my issue with TSA screening.

The only person who needs to cancel due to the TSA screening is a person who was planning on bringing something that might be discovered.

I agree that she isn't entitled to a refund because of her choice not to fly.

HOWEVER, calling her irrational for making a decision that she feels is right for her family is unnecessary. Her choice is different than yours (general you).

It doesn't make you (general you) superior, more educated, etc etc than the OP.

 

[vim]

Okay...can we all stop for a minute and think about this rationally?? For those of us who travel less frequently than others (pilots, FAs, etc.), do you really think you're going to be adversely affected by these machines if you use them a few times a year?? Yes, radiation is cummulative....I just don't think the amount of radiation in the scanners are going to adversely affect us when we use them so seldomly.

Problem with radiation - nobody really knows how this REALLY affects your body. Generally most people will not feel any effect because these "waves" are not strong enough to penetrate your skin. But, lets say you open your mouth, or you have recent injury on your skin, or your kid just lost his/hers teeth and opened mouth during X-Ray, or many many other "special" situations. In such cases nobody knows what will be X-Ray effect. So it will take years for results to show up and then many more years to prove link. Just look know how long it takes to prove cell phone link to cancer... Remember years when people would travel to Nevada to watch nuclear bomb tests and they were told by government that this was safe? So in my mind this is very similar.

 

[tandbs1]

So I have to ask, would you be ok with no screenings at all at the airport, because God is in control? Do you not use seatbelts in the car? Or see a doctor when you child is sick? If you do any of the other things, than what is the difference?

I do understand that it is totally your choice wether to fly or not. But please do not use God as an excuse for not going thru a screening. As a fellow (I'm assuming) Christian, I find that very lame and a bit offensive. Many of the people who would hurt us say they do it in God's name.

Please don't misunderstand me. When I talk about the fact that God is in control, this gives me comfort in trusting him with the things that are 'beyond my ability to comprehend or control'. This knowledge can help my mind not to worry about what I can't change (unless I give in to fear).

But certainly we can try to change or modify laws that we do not think are good ones, right? Of course I agree that airports need to do screenings.... I just feel that these particular screenings should be modified from the way they are now, as we do not accept option A (full body scanner) or option B (the pat down) for our own children's health and well-being.

Blessings

 

[ourpartyofsix]

You are exposed to more radiation by flying than you are by using a scanner. So if you are okay with the radiation exposure of flying, you should be okay with the radiation levels from a scanner.

And this article says the TSA has eliminated pat downs for children under 12: http: //news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101115/us_nm/us_usa_security_screening_1

Also, not every person will be singled out for a scanner in the first place. And only if you refuse the scanner will you be subjected to a completely tame pat down.

If you are going to make a decision not to fly because of scanners and pat downs, make sure you are making an informed decision.

 

[Lewisc]

Problem with radiation - nobody really knows how this REALLY affects your body. Generally most people will not feel any effect because these "waves" are not strong enough to penetrate your skin. But, lets say you open your mouth, or you have recent injury on your skin, or your kid just lost his/hers teeth and opened mouth during X-Ray, or many many other "special" situations. In such cases nobody knows what will be X-Ray effect. So it will take years for results to show up and then many more years to prove link. Just look know how long it takes to prove cell phone link to cancer... Remember years when people would travel to Nevada to watch nuclear bomb tests and they were told by government that this was safe? So in my mind this is very similar.

Comparing the effects from the scanner to the radiation people who got close to nuclear tests were exposed to?

There is still no definitive evidence that cellphones cause cancer.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones#1

Nothing like stating something as a fact which hasn't been proved.

 

[SaraJayne]

You are exposed to more radiation by flying than you are by using a scanner. So if you are okay with the radiation exposure of flying, you should be okay with the radiation levels from a scanner.

And this article says the TSA has eliminated pat downs for children under 12: http: //news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101115/us_nm/us_usa_security_screening_1

Also, not every person will be singled out for a scanner in the first place. And only if you refuse the scanner will you be subjected to a completely tame pat down.

If you are going to make a decision not to fly because of scanners and pat downs, make sure you are making an informed decision.

For some people, it isn't the radiation they have a problem with.

 

[mdsoccermom]

I'm with you, tandbs1. To say nothing of the fact that it's a violation of our Constitutional right to NO illegal search and seizure.

Oh, please. Spare us the constitutional lecture. If you actually read the Constitution, you would know the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure, not illegal search and seizure. Furthermore, the scan is not a violation of your rights. It is not unreasonable if you consent to fly and stand in that security line knowing the options available to you. Doing so you consent to whatever security techniques are in place.

 

[vim]

Comparing the effects from the scanner to the radiation people who got close to nuclear tests were exposed to?

There is still no definitive evidence that cellphones cause cancer.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones#1

Nothing like stating something as a fact which hasn't been proved.

Lewisc, you are absolutely right I did stated this as a fact and you right it is not proven. But please remember this conversation in 5 years when every cell phone sold in USA will have a warning label "long talk on cell phone might cause cancer". Do you think that it is possible than in 5 years this will happen?

So these things are new and you need large population and long term to test them.

It is good news that they stopped touching kids. I still will not re-book my flight to Florida - I'll wait to see if they stop touching older kids and women. I don't care about myself at all. If they will, I'll be in Fort Lauderdale next month. If they don't, I'll spend few days in Great Woolf Lodge in Niagra Falls.

 

[goofy4tink]

You can also choose not to fly, which the OP has decided is best for her family. I don't think she needs to be mocked for making what she feels is the right decision for her and her family.

OP, I think you're out of luck as far as a refund goes, since it's your choice not to fly. Though you'll receive SW credits.

I don't think anyone mocked anyone here. Everyone is free to make their own choices about how they travel.

Problem with radiation - nobody really knows how this REALLY affects your body. Generally most people will not feel any effect because these "waves" are not strong enough to penetrate your skin. But, lets say you open your mouth, or you have recent injury on your skin, or your kid just lost his/hers teeth and opened mouth during X-Ray, or many many other "special" situations. In such cases nobody knows what will be X-Ray effect. So it will take years for results to show up and then many more years to prove link. Just look know how long it takes to prove cell phone link to cancer... Remember years when people would travel to Nevada to watch nuclear bomb tests and they were told by government that this was safe? So in my mind this is very similar.

You aren't seriously comparing these scanners with nuclear bombs, are you?? While I can see where you are coming from, there is a hugely vast difference between the two. Women get mammograms every year or so, you get dental xrays, many types of tests require radioactive type proceedures. And yes, it is going to be cumulative...but againj, I don't think it's a big deal if you aren't traveling every single day. I think the pilots/FAs have a great argument..they are subjected to it every day, at least once a day. But the casual traveler?? Doubt it.

Now that there has been a huge public outcry about these screenings, we may very well see changes made. It looks like kids are going to be handled (excuse the pun) differently now..at least those under 12. And that's a good thing. Wouldn't it be nice if there were bomb detecting dogs there to sniff you if you declined the screener??? And you could still have the less agressive pat down in addition..or just pass through the older screener and then be 'sniffed'.

 

[tandbs1]

This refund would only affect the limited number of people who bought their airline tickets before the start of these new TSA regulations and who wanted to 'opt out' of flying under these conditions. Anyway, most people probably won't care, so how many refunds would there be?

Blessings,

Brenda

 

[Tiggernut_jadie]

Please don't misunderstand me. When I talk about the fact that God is in control, this gives me comfort in trusting him with the things that are 'beyond my ability to comprehend or control'. This knowledge can help my mind not to worry about what I can't change (unless I give in to fear).

But certainly we can try to change or modify laws that we do not think are good ones, right? Of course I agree that airports need to do screenings.... I just feel that these particular screenings should be modified from the way they are now, as we do not accept option A (full body scanner) or option B (the pat down) for our own children's health and well-being.

Blessings

When we flew back to the UK from Tampa last week my DH 'chosen' for the body scan whilst DD (10) and I were not. So it is not an either/or thing - they identify certain people to go forward (I'd say from that experience only 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 passengers) for the full scan. DD and I just went through the usual metal detector. IF (and it's a big IF) my DD had been chosen she would have gone through the scanner and been none the wiser the other side. However it seemed to me that the vast majority of those chosen were adult males anyway!

If you decide to canel that is your perogative but I would be very surprised - and quite frankly annoyed - if you got a refund!

 

[goofy4tink]

This refund would only affect the limited number of people who bought their airline tickets before the start of these new TSA regulations and who wanted to 'opt out' of flying under these conditions. Anyway, most people probably won't care, so how many refunds would there be?

Blessings,

Brenda

The problem is that anyone who changed their minds about flying, for any reason, could easily just say that they had an issue with the screening process. Let's say that someone is flying in March, and booked their flights back in July. Now, they have found an airline with cheaper flights that suit them better.....based on your argument, they can call SW and tell them that they don't want the new screening and would like a full refund. Then, they go off and buy tickets on another airline.

Would this happen? who knows. But human nature being what it is, people will try to get away with as much as they can.

 

[sam_gordon]

Anybody knows if they do these "pat downs" when you change terminals in Philadelphia? Do you need to go through security again between terminals? I checked, and it would cost us a lot to change that flight, so I am looking now at any other option.

The only time you need to go through security is when you ENTER the secure area. That area includes ALL gates (no matter how many terminals). So, you get to your departure airport, check in at the ticket counter (non-secure area), go through security, and can now proceed to all gates. You get on your plane, go to your layover city, change concourses and get on your next plane. That plane takes you to your destination where you deplane, walk through the concourses and leave the secure area.

Now, if your layover includes an overnight night, or a long enough delay that you decide to take a tour of the city, you would have to leave the secure area, and then be rescanned before your next flight. As long as you stay in the secure area, you don't need to worry about the screenings again (99.9999999999999% of the time to allow for the EXTREMELY remote possibility of the airport being evacuated or something).

 

[Lewisc]

This refund would only affect the limited number of people who bought their airline tickets before the start of these new TSA regulations and who wanted to 'opt out' of flying under these conditions. Anyway, most people probably won't care, so how many refunds would there be?

Blessings,

Brenda

Easy. There will be zero refunds. There isn't any way to limit refunds to the few people who are so paranoid that they think pedophiles are rushing to man the scanners and check points. Refunds would have to be extended to anyone who calls and say they have an issue with the new screening. In other words anyone with a change in plans could get a refund by calling and saying they have an issue with new screening. Booked expensive airfare with an airline but see cheaper airfare available from another carrier? Call and get a refund.

We're already seeing some reports that screening for children under 12 won't be as extensive as originally thought. What happens when a passenger calls the airline and asks for their tickets back?

A number of passengers have an issue with removing shoes. With the liquid rules. People don't get refunds when they don't like changes in TSA procedures.

 

[vim]

The only time you need to go through security is when you ENTER the secure area. That area includes ALL gates (no matter how many terminals). So, you get to your departure airport, check in at the ticket counter (non-secure area), go through security, and can now proceed to all gates. You get on your plane, go to your layover city, change concourses and get on your next plane. That plane takes you to your destination where you deplane, walk through the concourses and leave the secure area.

Now, if your layover includes an overnight night, or a long enough delay that you decide to take a tour of the city, you would have to leave the secure area, and then be rescanned before your next flight. As long as you stay in the secure area, you don't need to worry about the screenings again (99.9999999999999% of the time to allow for the EXTREMELY remote possibility of the airport being evacuated or something).

Sam, thank you very much for your respond! That is very good to know. That means I will still have my vacation in March - great news for my family.

 

[kkmauch]

If you'r enot going to use them, I'll take your tickets! I have three nieces all begging to go to WDW, all under the age of 12, all faithful christians and all more than willing to walk through a full body scanner if necessary or be patted down by the man in the uniform at the airport. NONE of them would hesitate if it meant going on an airplane and going to see the princesses. They don't get to do it often and as parents and family I wish I could see them enjoy that time more.

The kids, and the adults, are incredibly grateful for the chance to take vacation together and whatever small inconvenience this MIGHT cause is completely irrelevant.

You and your husband have made this decision for them. Have you explained the ACTUAL process to them? Have you asked them how they feel? Since you are so worried about their reaction and welfare, I would suggest starting with a simple conversation with them about it.

And if it doesn't pan out and you can't get over the NON-invasion of privacy to keep the rest of us safe on your flights, then let someone else have those seats. Someone who actually believes in safety and security and accepts the minor inconveniences (being pulled over for speeding, tickets for jaywalking, those pesky wet floor signs) that come with living in a democratic nation.

 

[Lewisc]

Lewisc, you are absolutely right I did stated this as a fact and you right it is not proven. But please remember this conversation in 5 years when every cell phone sold in USA will have a warning label "long talk on cell phone might cause cancer". Do you think that it is possible than in 5 years this will happen?

What's proved, or not proved, in the future doesn't change the fact that you intentionally made up facts. Dishonest.