Monday, November 15, 2010

Why am I doing this?

I got the following email and, since it is civilly written, I wanted to answer it. Because others may have similar questions (there are some questions along these lines in the comments section on this blog), I'm including the original email and my response in [brackets].

As a frequent flyer, it is with great interest that I read your recent post and open letter to US Airways regarding the body scanners, your ticket change and your rental car expense. As a fellow blogger, I wanted to share some of my own thoughts with you.

Firstly, I am definitely on your side in that I despise the scanners. I have absolute privacy concerns, but I also have safety concerns, as millimeter waves (as you probably know) have not yet been proven to be completely safe. I avoid them whenever possible. This means that if I am in a situation where I have to choose, I go for the pat-down. It's not fun, and for a child, it's certainly a Hobson's choice.
 [This goes beyond "not fun" for me. It is absolutely wrong. Could be because I'm a woman that this bothers me more than you, although I realize that not all women agree with me.]


I think your anger is misdirected, however. You have every right to be angry, but it's definitely not the airlines' (note the plural) fault that the devices are being installed. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has awarded contracts to install these in virtually every American airport within the next decade. This is a function of the federal government, not the airlines. Your blaming US Airways is the equivalent of blaming a rental car company for the fact that the local police have set up an intrusive DUI checkpoint.
 [Of course I'm angry at the TSA. I just know that fighting the TSA is even more pointless than fighting the airlines. I know that companies value keeping customers happy, helping their bottom lines, and avoiding bad PR or litigation, so I'm putting my efforts here.

I take issue with you analogy, though. The car rental company has no property right in the roads, so they have no responsibility to protect that property. However, the car rental company could decide it is too expensive to hire a security guard for their local office. Instead, they might collude with the other car rental companies to allow the local police to provide security for their offices, treating every customer like a criminal. In this case, you might have a point. But we all know how stupid such a set-up would be.]
Your contention that the airline is somehow complicit in the TSA's actions is absurd. You have acknowledged that the airlines' own employee unions have spoken out against the scanners, and since airports are owned by local governments and air travel is a function of the Federal Aviation Authority, there's little the airlines (private businesses) can do. You've made vague allusions to "standing up" and acquiring a "backbone," but outside of that, what is it exactly that an airline is supposed to do? The government controls who goes into an airport to get on an airline's flights, full stop. You have to know this. Even with a boarding pass, TSA can stop and detain a passenger. Why do you think an airline can overrule the government?
 [Once upon a time (actually not too long ago, but Americans have really short collective memories), airlines were in charge of their own security. Since they owned the expensive airplanes, paid a lot to rent terminals and hangers, and were legally liable for passenger and employee safety, they were the ones who paid for and operated their own security. That kind of makes sense to me. In any event, the TSA is less than 10 years old, so it's not like their existence and practices are set in stone.

The airlines have way more lobbying power than I do, so I'm appealing to them to use it on my behalf. If you think the airlines were not involved in security negotiations until now, you're living in a fantasy world. If the airlines did not explicitly lobby for these security measures (and there is evidence that they did in at least some cases in the last 40 years) then they at least kept their mouths shut while they were enacted. Hence, no backbone and complicity.]
At any rate, as I go along, I notice that you are also upset with the airline's handling of your rerouting and rental car. While I can't see your ticket, I can guess that your ticket was probably, like most, a non-refundable ticket, which comes with a change fee. You elected to change the ticket. The airline was not bound to change anything for you, but did so at their own expense as a courtesy because of your concerns. That seems like a goodwill gesture, especially since they took a loss on that.
 [First off, US Air initially said they would not waive the change fee, so, at first, there was no good will from them. I'm glad they waived the change fee. I just think that their "good will" has not gone far enough.]
At this point, you are now flying out of a different airport, one which is certainly much further for you. But again, you chose to fly out of this airport. I'm confused at your logic here. You are upset that neither the airline nor the travel agency would pay for your driving expenses to fly out of another airport of your choosing. I'm going to try to approach this from two other perspectives:
 [The other airport is "of my choosing" only if you believe that having a choice between having my human rights violated or flying is an actual choice. I happen to think this is not a choice. Also, these scanners are going into airports in an almost stealth manner. Passengers are not notified where the scanners are and, having made the same trip not too long before booking my original tickets sans scanners and therefore having a reasonable expectation that my rights would not be violated come Christmas, I do not feel that the original ticket was sold to me in good faith.]
A) If I am in Houston, but suddenly change my mind and my ticket and decide to fly out of Oklahoma City, should the airline have to pay my expenses in driving to Oklahoma City to catch the flight?
[Did you just change your mind, or did you find out that your human rights are more likely to be violated in the former?]
B) You order supplies for one of your courses. The supplier decides on its own to ship from another warehouse further away. They then send you a bill for the additional shipping charges. Should you be responsible for that? 
 [I don't see how this is relevant, but let me take a stab at it. The short answer is no. But if the supplier is following some stipulation in our contract, or I deceived the supplier when I originally made the order so that they underbid, then it's possible that I am responsible.]
As I said before, I completely understand your frustration with the TSA, but I think not only has the baby gone out with the bathwater here, so has the tub. You are clearly unhappy with the screening procedures, but it doesn't seem right to take it out on an airline who did its best to accommodate you around those procedures at your request. Your request with the airline placed you in such a predicament that you have to create even more transportation just to get to your transportation, and you blame the airline for that. I'm trying awfully hard, because I want to be on your side all the way here, but I just can't see how that makes sense.
 [My husband and I have spent many hours evaluating our options. Driving four hours out of my way is by far the best option in terms of time and money if we are going to get to California for Christmas. (For anyone who is not familiar with American geography, our destination is about 3000 miles away the way as the crow flies.) Why is the airline responsible? See the argument for their complicity above.

Don't get me wrong - the TSA is responsible. But I've got zero chance of making a dent with them. At least I have the status of customer with the airline.]
With that said, I hope that two things come out of this: 1) I hope that you'll drop this silly campaign against US Airways and Orbitz, who are really innocent bystanders in your argument with the TSA, and 2) you join progressive groups like the ACLU and PFAW who are fighting against increasing government intrusion every day.
[I'm not going away until US Air, Orbitz, and the rest of them are utterly humiliated and/or stand up for their customers' rights. Sorry. If those of us who are opposed to the TSA procedures stop flying out of certain airports or stop flying altogether, we should tell the airlines why and give them a chance to respond.

I applaud any group that is fighting for my rights. I firmly believe that more voices are better than fewer, so I'll keep doing this my way for now. If I did join a larger group, it would not be a progressive group since that's not where my political sensibilities lie.]
The DC-area airports are yours to use. You shouldn't have to feel like you have to go elsewhere because of the government. But at the same time, you shoudn't blame others when you do.
 [I actually don't think the DC area airports are mine. I think that they are the airlines' to use (through rental rights). I can then choose to patronize the airlines. If I choose to patronize the airlines, then I will avoid any situations which I think are a violation of my property (eg, my body). If they are trying to invade my property, then I should be able to get a refund or make alternative arrangements at their expense. If I am not told when I buy my tickets that my property will be invaded in such a disgusting manner, then I think I can definitely blame the airline and vendor that sold me the tickets.]
Wishing you the safest of travels,
...

11 comments:

  1. I just wanted to boil this down to a few things.

    First, the crux of the argument is this: the ticket purchase was made with a particular understanding of how the ticket would be executed. If either party were to violate that understanding, the other party would have a right to whatever they put up as consideration in the contract. The customer thought she would not be groped in order to ride the plane. When she discovered that was not the case, she had a right to a refund. If you believe she doesn't have that right, consider the following scenario. What if she had shown up to the flight and decided that she also wanted sexual services from the plane's staff? Would the airline be allowed to refuse to let her fly? After all, the contract was money for a flight. The fact that the TSA later demanded sexual services as part of the contract should give both parties a right to recoup their consideration and quit the contract. If she can't have her money back for refusing sexual services to TSA, the plane can't have it's flight back for refusing to provide sexual services to her.


    Second, the idea of a non-refundable ticket is fairly absurd. You are paying someone for the ability to ride on their plane. If you do not ride on the plane, they have not fulfilled their end of the contract, and you have a right to your money back. Now, one could argue that you are paying for the opportunity to ride the plane, and if you don't take that opportunity, that's your choice. One could also argue that people should be allowed to make any contract they'd like, and pay any amount of money for any absurd thing they'd like. I agree - don't make stupid contracts. But then, let's advertise properly what you're really selling - the chance to maybe get on a plane.

    ReplyDelete
  2. @Eli:

    1) What you call the crux is wrong. If anyone today flies and doesn't know that the TSA exists or that the scanners exists, then they really aren't smart enough to buy a ticket in the first place.

    2) Lots of things you buy are non-refundable. Are you going to get a refund on a ticket to an amusement park? What about the lottery ticket you just bought but haven't scratched off yet? You are buying space on a flight. And if you read the contract of carriage that airlines have, that you agree to when you buy a ticket, then you know what the conditions are.

    ReplyDelete
  3. @Anonymous:

    What you call the crux is wrong. If anyone today flies and doesn't know that the TSA exists or that the scanners exists, then they really aren't smart enough to buy a ticket in the first place.

    Not the point at all, troll. It's not about accepting the TSA's presence; it's about the TSA existing anywhere in the process of air travel at all. Using your "logic," it's akin to saying: "If anyone today opens up a store downtown and doesn't know that the local Hell's Angels exist or that they demand "protection money" from store owners, then they really aren't smart enough to own a retail business in the first place."

    Here's another scenario: Say that my family and I go to the local grocery store to do our family food shopping for the week. Once I reach the entrance to the store, I discover a gang of armed thugs blocking the entrances who are forcing all patrons entering the store to empty their pockets and submit to groping, confiscation of personal belongings, and sexual assault, all in the name of preventing would-be patrons from smuggling weapons or explosives into the store in order to rob it, steal from it, or blow it and its patrons to smithereens if they're dissatisfied with the merchandise and service, even though the likelihood of occurrence of any of these things is so remote as to make the thugs' presence an absurdity. These thugs were not only NOT hired by the store to stand outside its entrance and harass its patrons, but have told the store owners that if they attempt to drive the thugs away, they will be vandalized, their patrons violently assaulted, and the store's owners and staff also assaulted or even killed. Resistance is futile, because these thugs have the full backing of the municipal government to carry out their acts of violent depredation. Unfortunately for me as a shopper, I can't go with my family anywhere else to food shop and be safe because ALL of the grocery stores, EVERYWHERE, are plagued by these same gangs of uninvited criminal thugs who assault and rob the patrons as a condition of being "allowed the privilege" of buying food for their and their families' survival.

    That, troll, is EXACTLY the situation airline passengers find themselves in. They DO NOT consent to the presence of a gang of marauding criminal thugs, sanctioned by the State or otherwise, as part of their travel experience, nor have the airlines explicitly asked for the TSA's "help" in "securing" their airlines by "screening" passengers. The TSA, an arm of the fascist state, has inserted itself by force into the contractual transaction between the passenger and the airline. NO ONE has agreed, implicitly or otherwise, to the harassment, pillaging, groping, and all-around theater of threats and violence that is faux airport security today.

    So try again. I doubt anyone is going to buy your "logic" here.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Keeping foremost in mind -- the beloved, peaceful, honest, caring people of integrity living throughout our country and planet and also our cherished U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, I commend you --
    please keep up the good work, in all your endeavors.

    ----- WHAT IS HAPPENING TO OUR SOCIETY, CULTURE
    and LEGAL FRAMEWORK ??? -----
    Follow the money $$$$$$...... and the U.K., U.S., multinational corps./financial elites profiteering cabal ---
    including be sure to thoroughly research the following:

    --- Warren Buffett and the behind-the-scenes history (clandestine corruption) of his expanding NETJETS, Inc. business (executive flight service/chartered private planes).

    --- Former Homeland Security honcho (Dual-Citizen traitor & "Nosferatu" lookalike)
    Michael Chertoff and his current lobbying business on behalf of OSI - Rapiscan Corp. (major producer of backscatter radiation nude-o-scope machines)

    --- British Corporation SMITHS DETECTION, Inc. (which advertises itself, coincidentally,
    as the world's largest producer of cargo scanning machines & equipment)
    http://www.smithsdetection.com/index.php

    ----- * In sum, there is an apt phrase to describe the security-scam scenario,
    which is: PROBLEM - REACTION - SOLUTION
    (vast, deep, slithering tentacles of corruption) !

    ----- ADDITIONAL QUESTION: Why do we have (b.s.) sham-scam theatrical airport security (along with staged covert ops/ psyops), when our land border with Mexico has been COMPLETELY WIDE OPEN to a deleterious inundation of drugs, thugs, human smuggling, and MS-13 gangsters ???!!!

    ReplyDelete
  5. ---- ADDITIONAL QUESTION: Why do we have (b.s.) sham-scam theatrical airport security (along with staged covert ops/ psyops), when our land border with Mexico has been COMPLETELY WIDE OPEN to a deleterious inundation of drugs, thugs, human smuggling, and MS-13 gangsters ???!!!

    A very easy twofold answer to that one:

    1. The Ruling Elite makes obscene profits from the illegal narcotics trade.

    2. The "drug crime" and civil unrest that are the inevitable result prohibition (no, we certainly did NOT learn our lessons the first time around) justifies more government intervention to "solve" the very problem said government caused in the first place, thus justifying the State to seize more power for itself.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I went through the scanner in Cincinnati last week. I failed and had to be patted down. The TSA said the reason I failed the scan was because I had two four inch decorative zippers on my shirt. I will never subject myself to the health risks again... It's not worth it if the machine is so poorly built that it can't tell the difference between a zipper and a bomb.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This is an interesting post.

    There are a couple of issues here that I want to address.

    First, contrary to the assertion that passengers are somehow duped, every paying passenger and mileage award ticket holder is a paying customer of the TSA.

    You pay a TSA imposed fee on your ticket of 2.50 for every flight you travel on, with a maximum of 10.00 per ticket. If you read the tax breakdowns on tickets, it’s the tax coded with AY.

    And airlines haven’t done their own security for a very, very long time even before 9/11. The airports hired security companies and the costs of having security in the terminals was part of the lease agreements with most of the carriers who flew out of that terminal. Now, the TSA has taken it over, and placed nationwide regulations in place to control security checkpoints… and the flying public is paying for it directly.

    I think we're all in agreement that the TSA is bad news. Where I disagree is using the airlines as leverage against the TSA. By using Liberranter's own analogy, I doubt the shop owners want the Hell's Angels there. When the airline's own unions come out against the body scanners, you know the airlines hate the TSA and its practices as much as we do. So "shaming" the airlines seems futile. The only answer is to overturn the system through legislation.I do admire your passion, however. I just think it's horribly misguided. We can't talk about how heavyhanded and powerful the TSA/government is on one hand, and then talk about how much lobbying power the airlines have to get rid of them on the other. Which is it?

    I also wanted to address a couple of point from the post:

    "The other airport is "of my choosing" only if you believe that having a choice between having my human rights violated or flying is an actual choice. I happen to think this is not a choice. Also, these scanners are going into airports in an almost stealth manner. Passengers are not notified where the scanners are and, having made the same trip not too long before booking my original tickets sans scanners and therefore having a reasonable expectation that my rights would not be violated come Christmas, I do not feel that the original ticket was sold to me in good faith."

    Yes, I do believe that choosing to go through a scanner or not flying is your choice. The converse of that would be not having a choice and being forced to fly. You have other options including a bus or driving. You are choosing speed and convenience. So, it's a choice. Not a happy one to make, mind you, but still a choice.

    And again, the airlines are a scapegoat for the TSA here, and you show your hand by using the ticket bait-and-switch argument. Please re-read the contract of carriage for ticket which you bought. Please find the passage which shows you the type of security with which you will enter. If it mentions that you will not pass through a backscatter imaging device, then you're right: the airline lied to you. But, I seriously doubt that; you say in the next breath that the scanners are being deployed in "stealth." If that's true, then how would airlines be expected to know at all times, and constantly be updating your ticket in the future? You have purchased a seat on a future flight from an airline, period. That flight still exists, so I fail to see how the ticket was not sold in "good faith," unless as previously stated, there is a TSA screening clause.

    I do believe the airports are yours. You pay a tax to use them in the form of "passenger facility fees" (listed on every ticket) and in city sales taxes.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ugh, my head hurts from reading this whole circular logic.

    KM's strategy is simple. Trying to get the Federal Government to dismantle the security state that it has been rapidly expanding since 9/11 with a frontal assault would be equivalent to pissing in the wind.

    It is clear to anybody with an IQ in double digits (and above) that the Government treats us as cattle to be milked.

    What will get the Government's attention is when powerful lobbying groups, such as airlines, start taking a hit on their bottom line and pressuring the critters in DC to have some sanity when it comes to the TSA's security procedures.

    Being the cynic I am (and given the current political climate) the airlines are more likely to receive a bailout than the TSA's security procedures change.

    KM, I support you all the way. At some point I will have to fly (there is no other way for me to get to my required destination) and it would be nice to see this whole debacle resolved. If it isn't, I fear I will not be allowed to fly as I will not comply with the new TSA security procedures.

    In Liberty

    Dan Gillings

    http://libertythinkers.com/

    ReplyDelete
  9. @Anonymous:

    "1) What you call the crux is wrong. If anyone today flies and doesn't know that the TSA exists or that the scanners exists, then they really aren't smart enough to buy a ticket in the first place."

    Nice troll. Provide an argument.

    "2) Lots of things you buy are non-refundable. Are you going to get a refund on a ticket to an amusement park? What about the lottery ticket you just bought but haven't scratched off yet? You are buying space on a flight. And if you read the contract of carriage that airlines have, that you agree to when you buy a ticket, then you know what the conditions are."

    Citing practice is not an argument.

    For the sake of argument, I just read Delta's Domestic Contract of Carriage (http://images.delta.com.edgesuite.net/delta/pdfs/contract_of_carriage_dom.pdf). Interestingly, you'll find:

    Rule 35, Section H:
    "All passengers are prohibited from engaging in any conduct that would authorize Delta to refuse
    transport under this Rule. The sole recourse of any passenger refused carriage or removed en
    route for any reason specified in this Rule shall be recovery of the refund value of the unused
    portion of his or her ticket as provided in Rule 260.
    "

    Rule 260:
    "A) The amount carrier will refund upon surrender of the unused portion of the passenger's tickets
    pursuant to rules 35 (refusal to transport), 50 (acceptance of children), or 240 (flight
    delays/cancellations) will be:
    1) If no portion of the ticket has been used the refund will be an amount equal to the fare paid."

    I'm not going to read the rules of carriage of all flight operators, but I just thought I'd show you that, yes, you should know the terms of your contract. Also, the terms are different from what you might think.

    Of course, I still think people should be allowed to enter stupid contracts - my original argument wasn't that bad contracts should be illegal or something. Just that they are absurd. I think people should be allowed to enter absurd contracts if they are foolish enough to. Freedom means freedom to be really stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dan Gillings said...
    "KM's strategy is simple. Trying to get the Federal Government to dismantle the security state that it has been rapidly expanding since 9/11 with a frontal assault would be equivalent to pissing in the wind.

    What will get the Government's attention is when powerful lobbying groups, such as airlines, start taking a hit on their bottom line and pressuring the critters in DC to have some sanity when it comes to the TSA's security procedures.

    Being the cynic I am (and given the current political climate) the airlines are more likely to receive a bailout than the TSA's security procedures change."

    I know your head hurts after the circular logic, Dan, but it may also hurt because of the dearth of common sense here.

    This entire premise is based on the effort that airlines are this enormous, all-powerful unified entity that has special powers vis-a-vis the government.

    Anyone remember the names Midwest Express, Northwest, TWA, Pan Am, Eastern? Know what they have in common? They all disappeared, either through absorption or bankruptcy. Airlines are not all-powerful; they operate on the thinnest of margins (one airline tried to charge for soft drinks to increase its bottom line) and they still end up barely breaking even, if even getting that far.

    To suggest that they are "likely to receive a bailout," especially in this Tea Party climate, evidently requires more than the double-digit IQ you referenced. The evidence is right there. This country is happy to let airlines consolidate or die. They have no power; they even have to get government permission to merge (c.f. United and Continental), acquire gates at airports or fly certain routes.

    We all agree the TSA is bad and AIT is horrific. But using the airlines to do the dirty work is, as I said before, misguided at its best. At is worst, it's just plain lazy and counterproductive.

    Eventually, you'll have one government-run airline. TSA Airlines... good work, ladies and gentlemen!

    ReplyDelete