TSA mess and the police

[skater]

Is Gambling frowned upon, on The Dis?

After seeing the San Diego man's video's and interviews....I'd like to start a wager.... $5 says the newest "step in airport security" will be to turn your phone or camera OFF, while in the security area.

I'm on your side with this wager!

 

[Jennasis]

I mentioned this earlier in another thread: The time to decide whether or not you are willing to be screened is really before you get to the airport. If you're not willing to be screened according to procedures, then steer clear of the airport.

 

[ChristmasElf]

Does anyone have a recent and accurate list of which airports have the scanners? I am a few months away from having to make reservations for next Christmas (we're using miles) and I am trying to find out which L.A. area airports have them. I know LAX does but what about Orange County or Ontario? Minneapolis would be our destination and I have seen MSP on one list as having them, and not the other. I will seriously choose an airport without them if at all possible. Ordinarily I'd just call the airports and ask. But I am guessing the airports are not going to be happy about a question like that.

I also don't understand the frequency in which they are used. I can't figure out if an airport has them if it means

-everyone goes through?
-random people are selected to go through and the rest go through the metal detector?

Or does it depend on the airport -- or even which terminal?

And if an airport does not have the scanners are they stepping up "enhanced patdowns" for random travelers?

If I know that flying out of LAX means I WILL be going through it, that is one thing. If I might be one out of 20 or 50 or whatever, I might just take my chances. I wish I could get some specifics so I can make an informed decision before I decide what to do. This is putting a serious crimp in my travel plans. I will not go through the scanners and hate the idea of the pat down. Either option for my daughters makes me sick to my stomach.

It seems the scanners are at the small airports. Orlando does not have them nor does Orlando have you take your little 1 quart bag of toiletries out for scanning. Atlanta nor DFW do not use them yet, even though the list on the internet claim they do.

Smaller airports like Tulsa, Nashville,Buffalo, Albuquerque, Boise, Corpus Christi, Jacksonville and Las Vegas all have them.

The thing that is the most aggravating is the "barking out orders" type of TSA agent. "Remove all objects from pockets, including tissue and papers, all jewelry and shoes," Why does this have to be yelled out like we are in the military? After you go through the scanner, you have to wait for a couple minutes while the image gets evaluated. In the meantime, it's a tad tough to keep an eye on your belongings that are just sitting on the other scanners a few feet away where anyone else can grab them while you're otherwise engaged.

 

[LuvOrlando]

Its called a dosimeter. And the new scanners are give off less radiation than you receive in flight.

I work with radiation daily. And I have seen pregnant woman going through these scanners.

Anything that administers radiation to a person must be approved with the FDA, physicists,radiation protection and the list goes on etc. There is no way they could be dosing people with radiation and not telling them!

BTW:
background radiation and cumulative radiation are two totally different radiation spectrums.

quote: "So if a pregnant passenger wishes to take the most cautious approach and keep her fetal exposure below the 1,000 millirem (10 milliSievert) range, she could still undergo thousands of TSA scans per year. Again, the radiation exposure caused merely by flying would far exceed that caused by the scanner. Furthermore, most of the TSA scanner radiation would be stopped at the skin before it could even reach the fetus, as opposed to the various forms of natural gamma and solar radiation received during the flight which would penetrate deeper into the body."

What kind of radiation is it then?

The science is already out there so if you can share the details with me I could go look it up for myself.

Just saying, it's good of you to say something but I really would prefer the tools to figure this out for myself than to have someone do it for me.

BTW, when I used the term cumulative I wasn't using it as a proper name. By cumulative I meant that radiation accumulates it's effects over time. Lets look at sun exposure, which doesn't penetrate all that deeply either. Its true that people don't get exposed and remain radioactive. But, supposedly, it's also true that the damage done to the cells during exposure is permanent, every time it's permanent so exposure after exposure after exposure causes an accumulation of damage which eventually leads to defective cells which lead to skin cancer.

Lately we have also been told that tanning beds are equally likely to cause skin cancer as the sun so I really need a thorough explanation of why the radiation I get while being in the sun and lying in a tanning bed can kill me but somehow the radiation used to x-ray through my cloths is fine.

Again, thank you for stepping up so if you are an expert I'd like more details. Explain to me how the waves are different and why they aren't a threat because I don't get it. When I took Chemistry I was told that all the elements & isotopes which are radioactive are so because they undergo a spontaneous shedding of protons, neutrons or electrons. When these bits are shed they run amok in the body and disrupt the normal function of cells. This disruption is what causes the cellular imbalance that contribute to cancer. Our skin gets the most hits because it is exposed first to all forms of radiation and that some forms disrupt cells deeper in the body than others (Gamma as opposed to alpha or beta). What is news to me is the idea that there are forms of radiation which are not disruptive to our cells. That I've never heard before so I'm definitely interested.

Also, just because the dose is less than I would get in flight does not mean it's ok to give me more. That seems to be the main argument and it doesn't really work for me.

 

[skater]

This whole matter was just the lead in story on NBC new tonight.
Anyone else catch it?

Right now the TSA knows there are people griping but hopes all these small groups will go away and actually knows it will go away.

When gas prices shot up hugely after Hurricane Katrina, people complained, tried to organize gas out days.....but in the end people are still driving going places.

The only way TSA will change the way it does things is if its pressured...not from you or me..but from the airlines. That will only happen when airlines feel they are losing too business because of the TSA guidelines. Right now they arent. I was looking at flights the past couple days planning a trip. They are all basically full.

People will continue to fly. Yes they will gripe about it but they will still put up with it because of the convenience that flying gives you. 24 hours cramped up in a smelly minivan or go through the security screening. I am betting most will reason it down enough to the point that they will see the screening as a minor inconvenience to avoid the 24 hour drive.

You're probably right. I have already voted once with my wallet and actually loved the drive - lots of family togetherness in 16 hours . However, on a short trip, I'll have to fly - although I may start avoiding short trips.

 

[skater]

What kind of radiation is it then?

The science is already out there so if you can share the details with me I could go look it up for myself.

Just saying, it's good of you to say something but I really would prefer the tools to figure this out for myself than to have someone do it for me.

BTW, when I used the term cumulative I wasn't using it as a proper name. By cumulative I meant that radiation accumulates it's effects over time. Lets look at sun exposure, which doesn't penetrate all that deeply either. Its true that people don't get exposed and remain radioactive. But, supposedly, it's also true that the damage done to the cells during exposure is permanent, every time it's permanent so exposure after exposure after exposure causes an accumulation of damage which eventually leads to defective cells which lead to skin cancer.

Lately we have also been told that tanning beds are equally likely to cause skin cancer as the sun so I really need a thorough explanation of why the radiation I get while being in the sun and lying in a tanning bed can kill me but somehow the radiation used to x-ray through my cloths is fine.

Again, thank you for stepping up so if you are an expert I'd like more details. Explain to me how the waves are different and why they aren't a threat because I don't get it. When I took Chemistry I was told that all the elements which are radioactive are so because they underwent a spontaneous shedding of protons and neutrons. When these bits are shed they run amok in the body and disrupt the normal function of cells. This disruption is what causes the cellular imbalance that contribute to cancer. Our skin gets the most hits because it is exposed first to all forms of radiation and that some forms disrupt cells deeper in the body than others (Gamma as opposed to alpha or beta). What is news to me is the idea that there are forms of radiation which are not disruptive to our cells. That I've never heard before so I'm definitely interested.

I'd like to know too, and I was taught all the same things you were. Heck, tanning beds are so bad for us that the government was forced to tax them for our own safety. See a pattern here? Or maybe they taxed them to pay for the coming health problems - guess the'll have to soon add another tax to air travel - somebody will have to pay for the increases in cancer .

 

[Tinkermommy]

It seems the scanners are at the small airports. Orlando does not have them nor does Orlando have you take your little 1 quart bag of toiletries out for scanning. Atlanta nor DFW do not use them yet, even though the list on the internet claim they do.

Smaller airports like Tulsa, Nashville,Buffalo, Albuquerque, Boise, Corpus Christi, Jacksonville and Las Vegas all have them.

The thing that is the most aggravating is the "barking out orders" type of TSA agent. "Remove all objects from pockets, including tissue and papers, all jewelry and shoes," Why does this have to be yelled out like we are in the military? After you go through the scanner, you have to wait for a couple minutes while the image gets evaluated. In the meantime, it's a tad tough to keep an eye on your belongings that are just sitting on the other scanners a few feet away where anyone else can grab them while you're otherwise engaged.

This is not true. Atlanta has them as well as Boston Logan and I went through them in both locations last week. They may not be used 100% of the time, but they are in use.

And you must in all the airports I have traveled to take your ziploc out of your baggage. It's part of the TSA guidelines. I highly doubt Orlando airport is not requiring this.

As for "barking orders" it's loud, busy, people are trying to get through quickly, and not everyone is a native English speaker. Speaking softly and sweetly does not help. They do need to speak loudly and clearly which some may interpret as "barking out orders."

 

[C.Ann]

It really is. They had the security director of the San Diego airport on CNN this morning and he said that for refusing to submit to the patdown this man is facing fines of up to $11000.

Apparently it is illegal to leave once you've begun the security process, to protect against terrorists scouting out security to prepare for an attack. It is just another safety measure that fails the common sense test; terrorism in the modern era is too well funded and flights too cheap to think that anyone bent on doing harm would call attention to themselves by going through security without any intention of boarding a plane.

Yet they told him he could simply choose not to fly - with no mention of a fine..

Skipping the long convoluted dissertation type posts (my eyes tend to glaze over), I think the number of people flying on the busiest day of the year will be interesting.. After someone here mentioned flights being "full", I checked on quite a few popular destinations myself and there are still plenty of flights that are definitely "not" full.. And - as some have mentioned here - they purchased tickets prior to this and have now decided not to use them.. The numbers will be interesting - that's for sure..

 

[eliza61]

I'd like to know too, and I was taught all the same things you were. Heck, tanning beds are so bad for us that the government was forced to tax them for our own safety. See a pattern here? Or maybe they taxed them to pay for the coming health problems - guess the'll have to soon add another tax to air travel - somebody will have to pay for the increases in cancer .

And of course you are qualified to say there will be an increase in cancer caused by the machines, How?

 

[skater]

This is not true. Atlanta has them as well as Boston Logan and I went through them in both locations last week. They may not be used 100% of the time, but they are in use.

And you must in all the airports I have traveled to take your ziploc out of your baggage. It's part of the TSA guidelines. I highly doubt Orlando airport is not requiring this.

As for "barking orders" it's loud, busy, people are trying to get through quickly, and not everyone is a native English speaker. Speaking softly and sweetly does not help. They do need to speak loudly and clearly which some may interpret as "barking out orders."

Most of us know the difference between loud firm requests/commands and barking orders. I've been in many airports and there is a difference. You can be effective without making people feel like they live in communist Russia. I personally don't' understand why anybody thinks its OK to be treated that way in America.

 

[skater]

And of course you are qualified to say there will be an increase in cancer caused by the machines, How?

I'm not qualified. Did you notice that I said I'd like to know too? The rest of my post was all speculative.

 

[CandyMandy]

A little known fact that the advocates for big brother don't want you to know:

Per the 2001 federal law that created the TSA, any U.S. airport can opt out of having the TSA bureaucrats running their security and can instead employ private contractors:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Amid-airport-anger_-GOP-takes-aim-at-screening-1576602-108259869.html

 

[JLTraveling]

An unlimited number of LEOs observing behavior would still not be able to definitely spot an individual with a concealed weapon.

It works pretty well for El Al. Of course, that's in tandem with a mandatory interview and extremely well trained security officers, neither of which we have here. http://articles.cnn.com/2010-01-11/opinion/yeffet.air.security.israel_1_airport-security-isaac-yeffet-el-al?_s=PM:OPINION

Of course, even if the terrorist does not breach the cockpit door, passenger deaths remain unacceptable. Multiple deaths aboard a flight would spread terror just as well as if the cockpit was breached, after all.There are a few ways to answer this. First, I suppose that if it were your life that this technology saved, then you might think that it is money well spent.

And that's the fundamental problem. TSA security has devolved into chasing the illusion of absolute safety. Absolute safety does not exist under any circumstances, and is diametrically opposed to freedom and liberty. In the words of Patrick Henry, "Give me liberty or give me death." He never said, "Give me something resembling liberty but only as it fits into an absolute assurance that I'll never die."

We The People have crafted our society such that this is not only a valid, but in many ways an overriding criterion. If we don't like then, then we need to stop acting out like children when something goes wrong by seeking blood from anyone convenient (as opposed to placing the blame on terrorists, for example, because there isn't enough personal gratification to be derived from doing so; or placing the blame on ourselves, for being too tax-averse to fund adequate systems).

Much as I hate to agree with you, you're absolutely right. The populace as a whole has given up personal responsibility in favor of blaming the government for everything. Some of us believe that it's time to take back that responsibility. Some don't. We'll see who ultimately prevails.

Yes, very true. I don't remember the exact numbers (I've been out of the industry for twelve years, so some details are getting cloudy), but I think it was between 8:1 and 16:1.

Don't know what industry you were in, and those numbers could be right. But I do know that I was taught in the customer service industry that for every one who complains, there are 100 that don't. I was also taught that someone who has a positive experience tells, on average, two people. Someone who has a negative experience tells, on average, seven. So if the TSA is hoping to rely on positive word of mouth to back up its case, it is sorely mistaken.

But couldn't you carry that argument out further - what is a "right" in this country? If its not a right to fly (if you can afford it), is it a right to go the mall? Is it a "right" to go to the grocery store? What happens after a terrorist attack at the local mall? What security measures will be implemented?

I guess nothing we do is a "right" if air travel isn't.

I'm tired, so I'm not sure I'm giving a totally logical argument - but I just don't see how air travel is any less a right than anything else we do in this country.

I still haven't seen an argument that convinces me that the new TSA regs are anything less than unreasonable search.

I agree completely. I don't know where all this "flying is a privilege" stuff comes from, but it certainly doesn't seem to be Constitutional. Nor do the new TSA regs. We allowed it to happen, we've allowed it to go this far, and now we have a mess to clean up. But just because it exists doesn't make it able to stand up to a Constitutional challenge.

It seems the scanners are at the small airports. Orlando does not have them nor does Orlando have you take your little 1 quart bag of toiletries out for scanning. Atlanta nor DFW do not use them yet, even though the list on the internet claim they do.

Smaller airports like Tulsa, Nashville,Buffalo, Albuquerque, Boise, Corpus Christi, Jacksonville and Las Vegas all have them.

Orlando most certainly does have the new scanners. http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/business_tourism_aviation/2010/11/tsa-body-scanning-machines-now-in-use-at-orlando-international.html They've also made us take out our little 1 quart baggies every time.

I'd like to know too, and I was taught all the same things you were. Heck, tanning beds are so bad for us that the government was forced to tax them for our own safety. See a pattern here? Or maybe they taxed them to pay for the coming health problems - guess the'll have to soon add another tax to air travel - somebody will have to pay for the increases in cancer .

I wonder if air travel will eventually make its way to the health screening questionnaire for insurance purchases. "Have you used tobacco in the past 12 months?" "Have you traveled by air in the past 12 months?"

 

[C.Ann]

Some of us believe that it's time to take back that responsibility. Some don't. We'll see who ultimately prevails.

Don't know what industry you were in, and those numbers could be right. But I do know that I was taught in the customer service industry that for every one who complains, there are 100 that don't. I was also taught that someone who has a positive experience tells, on average, two people. Someone who has a negative experience tells, on average, seven. So if the TSA is hoping to rely on positive word of mouth to back up its case, it is sorely mistaken.

And they certainly would not be standing on their heads to talk about it now - holding meetings, talking to the press, and threatening people with large fines - if they were so confident about it not having a negative impact on people flying and/or agreeing to random groping..

 

[mommasita]

I am flying today into FLL, and have been looking and reading at all of this. Anxious to see how it goes. Not nervous, we fly often, but more curious I guess.

I won't be back until the 27th. Flying out of MIA then. That airport is usually a zoo, so We shall see.

Anxious to leave here, as snow is being predicted REALLY soon.

 

[LuvOrlando]

For those of you who think this will not have a lasting effect on travel I think you might want to consider a few things. First, the economy is poor so the number of people who can afford to fly is low and shrinking by the day. Second, the people who are flying right now bought their tickets a while ago so they will be unlikely to throw away their money. It's the people who would normally be BUYING right now who are the problem. I can tell you with 100% truthfulness that I did not buy 4 tickets to Orlando and I did not buy 4 tickets to Aruba because of this particular change. Third, all markets function best in a state of equilibrium. When a system is in harmony Supply and Demand dance together in a predictable rhythm. However, when a totally new variable is introduced which drastically alters something, in this case the product has been totally permanently changed, the entire market is disrupted and needs to reset itself.

What I say product I mean the flight experience. The experience/product pre 9/11 was buy ticket and go. After 9/11 the product was forever changed because now an increased risk was associated with flying. In the weeks immediately following people still traveled who had already paid for it because they didn't want to take the loss. The damage came when people stopped being willing to travel and therefore stopped paying for it right after 9/11. The result to this was an outpouring of protections designed to make us feel safe and keep us humming along. The new product was buy a ticket/ show up 3-2 hours early, be prepared for hold-ups, remove shoes, don't bring bad stuff on plane, go through metal detector, put all liquids in a quart size baggie, keep your mouth shut and go on your trip. The market reset itself. Some customers were lost and would never fly again but others were assuaged by the measures and timidly resumed flying. I was one of this group, most of us were. Well, now we have a new permanent change to the product. The market will again have to reset itself. Some people will be comforted and others will be lost forever. There really isn't much of a difference to what is happening other than the fact that the volume of potential customers opting out appears to be much larger than the last time around and the number of people comforted, by comparison, seems much smaller. As for who sits in which group, I think it's pretty obvious that some people are absolutely comforted by the changes so their behaviors will be unchanged. I haven't head of anyone so overwhelmed by the positive nature of these changes that he/she has re-entered the customer pool after opting out because previous measures were too light but I am sure a few exist. However, I think it is also very true that there exists a large group of people so upset by the new product that they will NOT buy the product in its current form. I can say in all honestly that my family is now a member of that particular pool and I'm not going to get over it and fly anyway because for me flying was a way to improve the quality of my life. The addition of these new measures added to the already negative consequence of cost and has now tipped the scale.

I know only time will tell the true outcome but I think people are making errors in judgment regarding the variables at play here when they dismiss the uproar as being temporary. I don't think it is wise to underestimate mood. The population is generally irritated & frustrated by a number of things right now so every additional grievance is a big deal. This seems to be a lightening bolt of an issue and I don't know about anyone else out there but it was always my understanding that it's best to lay down flat when lightening comes along, usually things won't end well for whoever is standing tallest.

 

[LuvOrlando]

I am flying today into FLL, and have been looking and reading at all of this. Anxious to see how it goes. Not nervous, we fly often, but more curious I guess.

I won't be back until the 27th. Flying out of MIA then. That airport is usually a zoo, so We shall see.

Anxious to leave here, as snow is being predicted REALLY soon.

I hope you have a wonderful flight and a wonderful experience

 

[mommasita]

I hope you have a wonderful flight and a wonderful experience

Thank You. It has been a medically trying year. We are hoping this will be a nice "down" time for our family. We are cruising Friday for 8 days, and I don't think I have ever been this anxious..

Picking up kids at lunch, and away we go.

 

[EMom]

You can toss around your snarky little remarks all you like, but it doesn't make you right. And this may come as a shock, but just because YOU think something is so does not MAKE it so.

If, as you point out, priests and doctors have been convicted of molesting/harming people, why on earth would I trust the TSA to grope me or my child? Surely I would trust them less, as they have less than stellar screening/training and the risk of trauma is real. Indeed, this is the very time to question the actions of our government.

As far as my family being low risk is concerned......Sometimes is IS that easy to rule someone OUT as a terrorist. It truly is. It's not simplistic....It's simple. Yes, it's that easy. Sometimes. We're one of those times. Can you ever do it 100%? Well, there is a teeeeeeeny chance someone may have planted something on someone, but to catch that rare happening, we'd have to search everyone. Silly random searches are useless and are meant to give a false sense of security. I don't feel secure. I feel violated. So if you weigh the incredibly small possibility that someone might someday under the most unbelievable circumstances strap a bomb to my child against what the American public is being asked to endure, I say what we're being asked to submit to is not reasonable. My child is not going to be a terrorist pawn.....Be realistic.

We were attacked and now we've come to treat our own citizens, including little children, like criminals. Disgusting and frightening. At some point, enough is enough. Random searches are a sick joke and the joke's on us. Enjoy your pat down and cavity search, Bicker.

I bought these tickets before the TSA's changes. So none of this "if you don't want to follow screening procedures, steer clear of the airport," thanks. They got pervy on me, not the other way around. With these rules in place, our next trip is by car.

That's a wholly self-serving claim, without any merit. There is no easy way to tell who's safe and who's not without security measures employed. You may feel that characteristics of your life make you somehow "obviously" a good person, but that's not the case. Priests have been convicted of abusing children. Doctors have been convicted of harming people in the most horrific ways. No one gets a free pass just because they feel they deserve one.

Beyond that, any parent who refuses to go along with a terrorist trying to use their child as a mule for explosives, under a threat of "cooperate or the child dies right now", is an idiot.

They cannot believe your claim, because anyone who was a threat would make the same claim.

That's more self-serving nonsense. If it was common sense, then we'd agree about it.

I'm sorry, but that's just funny. So if you agree with me, then it IS common sense, but if you don't, it is NOT common sense? Was that serious or an attempt at humor....or merely nonsense?

What you're advocating is not common sense - it is your own personal preference, and indeed some people share it with you, but don't make the error many people in your position make, by assuming that what you believe and value is somehow generally superior to what everyone else believes and value. Reasonable people disagree, and claiming that your side is "common sense" is ridiculous.

So you claim, but going back to what I was saying earlier to another poster, the citizens of our country impose myriad obligations, objectives and expectations on the government and its agencies. Your simplistic analysis ignores most of them.

If you want things to change, then change the American people, first. Get them to act reasonably and rationally. Get them to stop placing double-standards on those that serve them. We've all collectively made the quagmire that we live in, and now we have to live with the consequences of our collective national attitude.

 

[EMom]

For those of you who think this will not have a lasting effect on travel I think you might want to consider a few things. First, the economy is poor so the number of people who can afford to fly is low and shrinking by the day. Second, the people who are flying right now bought their tickets a while ago so they will be unlikely to throw away their money. It's the people who would normally be BUYING right now who are the problem. I can tell you with 100% truthfulness that I did not buy 4 tickets to Orlando and I did not buy 4 tickets to Aruba because of this particular change. Third, all markets function best in a state of equilibrium. When a system is in harmony Supply and Demand dance together in a predictable rhythm. However, when a totally new variable is introduced which drastically alters something, in this case the product has been totally permanently changed, the entire market is disrupted and needs to reset itself.

What I say product I mean the flight experience. The experience/product pre 9/11 was buy ticket and go. After 9/11 the product was forever changed because now an increased risk was associated with flying. In the weeks immediately following people still traveled who had already paid for it because they didn't want to take the loss. The damage came when people stopped being willing to travel and therefore stopped paying for it right after 9/11. The result to this was an outpouring of protections designed to make us feel safe and keep us humming along. The new product was buy a ticket/ show up 3-2 hours early, be prepared for hold-ups, remove shoes, don't bring bad stuff on plane, go through metal detector, put all liquids in a quart size baggie, keep your mouth shut and go on your trip. The market reset itself. Some customers were lost and would never fly again but others were assuaged by the measures and timidly resumed flying. I was one of this group, most of us were. Well, now we have a new permanent change to the product. The market will again have to reset itself. Some people will be comforted and others will be lost forever. There really isn't much of a difference to what is happening other than the fact that the volume of potential customers opting out appears to be much larger than the last time around and the number of people comforted, by comparison, seems much smaller. As for who sits in which group, I think it's pretty obvious that some people are absolutely comforted by the changes so their behaviors will be unchanged. I haven't head of anyone so overwhelmed by the positive nature of these changes that he/she has re-entered the customer pool after opting out because previous measures were too light but I am sure a few exist. However, I think it is also very true that there exists a large group of people so upset by the new product that they will NOT buy the product in its current form. I can say in all honestly that my family is now a member of that particular pool and I'm not going to get over it and fly anyway because for me flying was a way to improve the quality of my life. The addition of these new measures added to the already negative consequence of cost and has now tipped the scale.

I know only time will tell the true outcome but I think people are making errors in judgment regarding the variables at play here when they dismiss the uproar as being temporary. I don't think it is wise to underestimate the tide.

This is what I was trying to say earlier. My family is one which loves to fly....or used to. I hate driving. Last driving trip was in the 80s. But these new measures have tipped the scale. Finally, the crap I have to put up with to fly is WORSE than the hell of driving and I never thought I'd see that day. The difference between the November and December trips is that flying is not worth it anymore. They got my money for Nov., but not Dec.

Ever since 9/11, groups of people have been turned off to flying. With every new "step" added to the security process, more have been turned off. The fees alone got my goat, but I endured it. But you start requiring parents to allow their children to be seen virtually naked and or/groped and you have just lost a LOT of flyers that you were still hanging on to previously. Add to that the adults who won't allow it for themselves even if they have no children, and the pool shrinks more.

The airlines won't see the effect of this until a few months down the road when word gets out and new tickets must be purchased. Right now, they're dealing with flyers who have already been suckered into buying tickets. I can say I know of a few families who were dedicated flyers who are done flying. I'll use up my miles to go to Europe or Australia and that's it for me. I'll make those 1-2 trips and be done and if I wasn't sitting on gobs of miles, I wouldn't do that. In fact, maybe I'll see if I can trade them in for something else..........